Standardising the Terminology Used in Marine Invasion Biology and Updating South African Alien Species Lists
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
African Journal of Marine Science ISSN: 1814-232X (Print) 1814-2338 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tams20 Lost in translation? Standardising the terminology used in marine invasion biology and updating South African alien species lists TB Robinson, ME Alexander, CA Simon, CL Griffiths, K Peters, S Sibanda, S Miza, B Groenewald, P Majiedt & KJ Sink To cite this article: TB Robinson, ME Alexander, CA Simon, CL Griffiths, K Peters, S Sibanda, S Miza, B Groenewald, P Majiedt & KJ Sink (2016) Lost in translation? Standardising the terminology used in marine invasion biology and updating South African alien species lists, African Journal of Marine Science, 38:1, 129-140, DOI: 10.2989/1814232X.2016.1163292 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2016.1163292 View supplementary material Published online: 12 Apr 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 34 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tams20 Download by: [University of Stellenbosch] Date: 27 May 2016, At: 04:03 African Journal of Marine Science 2016, 38(1): 129–140 Copyright © NISC (Pty) Ltd Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved AFRICAN JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE ISSN 1814-232X EISSN 1814-2338 http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2016.1163292 Lost in translation? Standardising the terminology used in marine invasion biology and updating South African alien species lists TB Robinson1*, ME Alexander1,2, CA Simon3, CL Griffiths4, K Peters1, S Sibanda5, S Miza5, B Groenewald5, P Majiedt5 and KJ Sink5 1 Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa 2 Current affiliation: Institute of Biomedical and Environmental Health Research (IBEHR), School of Science and Sport, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, Scotland 3 Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa 4 Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa 5 Marine Programme, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, Cape Town, South Africa * Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Confusion between terms and ambiguities among definitions have long plagued the field of invasion biology. One result is disruption in flow of information from researchers to policy-makers and managers who rely on science to inform regulatory frameworks and management actions. We reviewed the South African marine biology literature to quantify the current usage of terminology describing marine invasions and found a variety of terms in use, few of which are defined when used. In response, we propose standard terminology that aligns with international practice. We then interpreted the Blackburn unified framework for biological invasions within the marine context and used this as a transparent way to apply the standardised terms to an updated list of marine alien species for the country. This resulted in the recognition of 36 alien and 53 invasive species within South Africa. Most notably, follow-up research is required to confirm the status of at least 11 listed species, the majority of which have been recorded only once, or not in the past 25 years. It is hoped that by standardising terminology, marine science in South Africa will better support authorities charged with managing the threat posed by marine alien species. Keywords: definitions, invasive species, state of knowledge Online supplementary material: Supplementary Appendix S1, listing the invasion biology references reviewed in this paper, can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2016.1163292. Introduction The field of invasion biology has grown exponentially 2000). This is primarily because the unclear use of termi- since the publication of Charles Elton’s seminal book ‘The nol ogy hampers comparisons of invasion patterns and Downloaded by [University of Stellenbosch] at 04:03 27 May 2016 ecology of invasions by plants and animals’ (Elton 1958). processes across different regions and taxa (Blackburn et This reflects both increasing rates of biological invasions al. 2011). Importantly, such confusion can also impede the across multiple regions and ecosystems (Simberloff et al. flow of information from researchers to policy-makers and 2013) and the recognition that these invasions pose grave managers, who rely on clearly and consistently expressed threats to natural systems (Vilà et al. 2010) and can have data from the scientific literature to inform regulatory serious social and economic implications (Colautti et al. frameworks and management actions (Bullock et al. 1997; 2006; Reaser et al. 2007). As such, the systematic study of Occhipinti-Ambrogi and Galil 2004). invasion ecology has become an important multidisciplinary Invasion biology in South Africa is not immune to such subfield of ecology in its own right (Heger et al. 2013). problems. An increased focus on biological invasions in As a result of the proliferation of invasion literature, the past 30 years has seen a proliferation of publications combined with the emotive and often subjective interpret- on the topic, and, in recognition of the threat posed by ation of the associated terminology, a variety of terms invasive species, South African environmental legislation have been applied to common invasion biology concepts has developed alongside the science. Through the National (Colautti and MacIsaac 2004; Falk-Petersen et al. 2006). Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA), Inconsistent application of these terms and concepts has Act No. 10 of 2004 (RSA 2004), our legislative framework led to confusion in defining the nature of biological invasions seeks to prevent future invasions, and to manage current (Shrader-Frechette 2001; Blackburn et al. 2011), and has invasions to minimise their negative impacts. Nonetheless, retarded progress in invasion biology (Davis and Thompson the inconsistent use of terminology among different African Journal of Marine Science is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Taylor & Francis 130 Robinson, Alexander, Simon, Griffiths, Peters, Sibanda, Miza, Groenewald, Majiedt and Sink research papers, as well as between the scientific literature online). In total, 12 terms were used to define the status of at large and legal instruments, can be challenging for those these alien and invasive species. The most commonly used charged with implementing legislative requirements. terms were invasive and alien, appearing in 75% and 48% Blackburn et al. (2011) proposed a theoretical framework of papers, respectively. These were followed by the term aimed at providing a single conceptual model that could introduced, which was used in 44% of papers. Although 47 be used across different taxa and environments to consoli- papers provided a definition for at least one such term used, date the range of concepts, terms and definitions found 91% of these papers did not define all terms they used. in invasion biology literature. Among other things the Notably, no papers made any reference to the legal defini- framework provides terminology and enables classification tions of alien and invasive species as per South African of populations at various stages in the invasion process, i.e. legislation. These are as follows: alien – ‘species that are during transport, introduction, establishment and spread. not indigenous or indigenous species that are translocated While often applied to individual species (e.g. Jones et al. or are intended to be translocated outside their natural distri- 2013; Weyl and Coetzee 2014) this framework has also bution range in nature’; invasive – ‘species whose establish- been interpreted for taxonomic groups (e.g. freshwater fish ment and spread outside of their natural distribution range, [Ellender and Weyl 2014] and trees [Wilson et al. 2014]). threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species or have a To streamline the dissemination of information about the demonstrable potential to threaten ecosystems, habitats or arrival, spread and impacts of marine alien species along other species, or may result in economic or environmental the South African coast, our aims here are to: (1) quantify harm or harm to human health’ (RSA 2004: 12). Of the the current usage of terminology describing marine seven papers that proposed management action, only one invasions in South Africa; (2) propose standard terminology contained any reference to defining the terms used. for use in the field that aligns with international practice; (3) interpret within the marine context the unified framework Development of standard terms and a marine interpre proposed by Blackburn et al. (2011) for biological invasions; tation of the Blackburn et al. (2011) framework and (4) use this as a transparent way to apply the standard- A review of the international literature considering invasion ised terms to an updated list of marine alien and invasive terminology revealed considerable consistency in the defini- species present in the country. tion of alien species. However, the defining characteristics applied to invasive species have changed through time. Material and methods Notably, since 2008 there has been a movement away from defining invasive species in terms of impact. Rather, Use of terminology to date it has been suggested that spread within the non-native To examine the terminology