Cargando…

A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review

For many taxa, new records of non-native introductions globally occur at a near exponential rate. We undertook a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications on non-native herpetofauna, to assess the information base available for assessing risks of future invasions, resulting in 836 relevant pap...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Wilgen, Nicola J., Gillespie, Micaela S., Richardson, David M., Measey, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6230440/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30425887
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5850
_version_ 1783370083928637440
author van Wilgen, Nicola J.
Gillespie, Micaela S.
Richardson, David M.
Measey, John
author_facet van Wilgen, Nicola J.
Gillespie, Micaela S.
Richardson, David M.
Measey, John
author_sort van Wilgen, Nicola J.
collection PubMed
description For many taxa, new records of non-native introductions globally occur at a near exponential rate. We undertook a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications on non-native herpetofauna, to assess the information base available for assessing risks of future invasions, resulting in 836 relevant papers. The taxonomic and geographic scope of the literature was also compared to a published database of all known invasions globally. We found 1,116 species of herpetofauna, 95% of which were present in fewer than 12 studies. Nearly all literature on the invasion ecology of herpetofauna has appeared since 2000, with a strong focus on frogs (58%), particularly cane toads (Rhinella marina) and their impacts in Australia. While fewer papers have been published on turtles and snakes, proportionately more species from both these groups have been studied than for frogs. Within each herpetofaunal group, there are a handful of well-studied species: R. marina, Lithobates catesbeianus, Xenopus laevis, Trachemys scripta, Boiga irregularis and Anolis sagrei. Most research (416 papers; 50%) has addressed impacts, with far fewer studies on aspects like trade (2%). Besides Australia (213 studies), most countries have little location-specific peer-reviewed literature on non-native herpetofauna (on average 1.1 papers per established species). Other exceptions were Guam, the UK, China, California and France, but even their publication coverage across established species was not even. New methods for assessing and prioritizing invasive species such as the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa provide useful frameworks for risk assessment, but require robust species-level studies. Global initiatives, similar to the Global Amphibian Assessment, using the species and taxonomic groups identified here, are needed to derive the level of information across broad geographic ranges required to apply these frameworks. Expansive studies on model species can be used to indicate productive research foci for understudied taxa.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6230440
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62304402018-11-13 A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review van Wilgen, Nicola J. Gillespie, Micaela S. Richardson, David M. Measey, John PeerJ Ecology For many taxa, new records of non-native introductions globally occur at a near exponential rate. We undertook a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications on non-native herpetofauna, to assess the information base available for assessing risks of future invasions, resulting in 836 relevant papers. The taxonomic and geographic scope of the literature was also compared to a published database of all known invasions globally. We found 1,116 species of herpetofauna, 95% of which were present in fewer than 12 studies. Nearly all literature on the invasion ecology of herpetofauna has appeared since 2000, with a strong focus on frogs (58%), particularly cane toads (Rhinella marina) and their impacts in Australia. While fewer papers have been published on turtles and snakes, proportionately more species from both these groups have been studied than for frogs. Within each herpetofaunal group, there are a handful of well-studied species: R. marina, Lithobates catesbeianus, Xenopus laevis, Trachemys scripta, Boiga irregularis and Anolis sagrei. Most research (416 papers; 50%) has addressed impacts, with far fewer studies on aspects like trade (2%). Besides Australia (213 studies), most countries have little location-specific peer-reviewed literature on non-native herpetofauna (on average 1.1 papers per established species). Other exceptions were Guam, the UK, China, California and France, but even their publication coverage across established species was not even. New methods for assessing and prioritizing invasive species such as the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa provide useful frameworks for risk assessment, but require robust species-level studies. Global initiatives, similar to the Global Amphibian Assessment, using the species and taxonomic groups identified here, are needed to derive the level of information across broad geographic ranges required to apply these frameworks. Expansive studies on model species can be used to indicate productive research foci for understudied taxa. PeerJ Inc. 2018-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6230440/ /pubmed/30425887 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5850 Text en © 2018 van Wilgen et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Ecology
van Wilgen, Nicola J.
Gillespie, Micaela S.
Richardson, David M.
Measey, John
A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review
title A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review
title_full A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review
title_fullStr A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review
title_short A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review
title_sort taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review
topic Ecology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6230440/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30425887
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5850
work_keys_str_mv AT vanwilgennicolaj ataxonomicallyandgeographicallyconstrainedinformationbaselimitsnonnativereptileandamphibianriskassessmentasystematicreview
AT gillespiemicaelas ataxonomicallyandgeographicallyconstrainedinformationbaselimitsnonnativereptileandamphibianriskassessmentasystematicreview
AT richardsondavidm ataxonomicallyandgeographicallyconstrainedinformationbaselimitsnonnativereptileandamphibianriskassessmentasystematicreview
AT measeyjohn ataxonomicallyandgeographicallyconstrainedinformationbaselimitsnonnativereptileandamphibianriskassessmentasystematicreview
AT vanwilgennicolaj taxonomicallyandgeographicallyconstrainedinformationbaselimitsnonnativereptileandamphibianriskassessmentasystematicreview
AT gillespiemicaelas taxonomicallyandgeographicallyconstrainedinformationbaselimitsnonnativereptileandamphibianriskassessmentasystematicreview
AT richardsondavidm taxonomicallyandgeographicallyconstrainedinformationbaselimitsnonnativereptileandamphibianriskassessmentasystematicreview
AT measeyjohn taxonomicallyandgeographicallyconstrainedinformationbaselimitsnonnativereptileandamphibianriskassessmentasystematicreview