Standardized tools are needed to identify and prioritize the most harmful non-native species (NNS). A plethora of assessment protocols have been developed to evaluate the current and potential impacts of non-native species, but consistency among them has received limited attention. To estimate the consistency across impact assessment protocols, 89 specialists in biological invasions used 11 protocols to screen 57 NNS (2614 assessments). We tested if the consistency in the impact scoring across assessors, quantified as the coefficient of variation (CV), was dependent on the characteristics of the protocol, the taxonomic group and the expertise of the assessor. Mean CV across assessors was 40%, with a maximum of 223%. CV was lower for protocols with a low number of score levels, which demanded high levels of expertise, and when the assessors had greater expertise on the assessed species. The similarity among protocols with respect to the final scores was higher when the protocols considered the same impact types. We conclude that all protocols led to considerable inconsistency among assessors. In order to improve consistency, we highlight the importance of selecting assessors with high expertise, providing clear guidelines and adequate training but also deriving final decisions collaboratively by consensus.

Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species / González-Moreno, P; Lazzaro, L; Vilà, M; Preda, C; Adriaens, T; Bacher, S; Brundu, G; Copp, Gh; Essl, F; García-Berthou, E; Katsanevakis, S; Moen, Tl; Lucy, Fe; Nentwig, W; Roy, He; Srėbalienė, G; Talgø, V; Vanderhoeven, S; Andjelković, A; Arbačiauskas, K; Auger-Rozenberg, M-A; Bae, M-J; Bariche, M; Boets, P; Boieiro, M; Borges, Pa; Canning-Clode, J; Cardigos, F; Chartosia, N; Cottier-Cook, Ej; Crocetta, F; D’Hondt, B; Foggi, B; Follak, S; Gallardo, B; Gammelmo, Ø; Giakoumi, S; Giuliani, C; Fried, G; Jelaska, Ls; Jeschke, Jm; Jover, M; Juárez-Escario, A; Kalogirou, S; Kočić, A; Kytinou, E; Laverty, C; Lozano Masellis, V; Maceda-Veiga, A; Marchante, E; Marchante, H; Martinou, Af; Meyer, S; Michin, D; Montero-Castaño, A; Morais, Mc; Morales-Rodriguez, C; Muhthassim, N; Nagy, Za; Ogris, N; Onen, H; Pergl, J; Puntila, R; Rabitsch, W; Ramburn, Tt; Rego, C; Reichenbach, F; Romeralo, C; Saul, W-C; Schrader, G; Sheehan, R; Simonović, P; Skolka, M; Soares, Ao; Sundheim, L; Tarkan, As; Tomov, R; Tricarico, E; Tsiamis, K; Uludağ, A; van Valkenburg, J; Verreycken, H; Vettraino, Am; Vilar, L; Wiig, Ø; Witzell, J; Zanetta, A; Kenis, M. - In: NEOBIOTA. - ISSN 1619-0033. - 44:(2019), pp. 1-25. [10.3897/neobiota.44.31650]

Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species

Brundu G
Supervision
;
Lozano Masellis V
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
2019-01-01

Abstract

Standardized tools are needed to identify and prioritize the most harmful non-native species (NNS). A plethora of assessment protocols have been developed to evaluate the current and potential impacts of non-native species, but consistency among them has received limited attention. To estimate the consistency across impact assessment protocols, 89 specialists in biological invasions used 11 protocols to screen 57 NNS (2614 assessments). We tested if the consistency in the impact scoring across assessors, quantified as the coefficient of variation (CV), was dependent on the characteristics of the protocol, the taxonomic group and the expertise of the assessor. Mean CV across assessors was 40%, with a maximum of 223%. CV was lower for protocols with a low number of score levels, which demanded high levels of expertise, and when the assessors had greater expertise on the assessed species. The similarity among protocols with respect to the final scores was higher when the protocols considered the same impact types. We conclude that all protocols led to considerable inconsistency among assessors. In order to improve consistency, we highlight the importance of selecting assessors with high expertise, providing clear guidelines and adequate training but also deriving final decisions collaboratively by consensus.
2019
Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species / González-Moreno, P; Lazzaro, L; Vilà, M; Preda, C; Adriaens, T; Bacher, S; Brundu, G; Copp, Gh; Essl, F; García-Berthou, E; Katsanevakis, S; Moen, Tl; Lucy, Fe; Nentwig, W; Roy, He; Srėbalienė, G; Talgø, V; Vanderhoeven, S; Andjelković, A; Arbačiauskas, K; Auger-Rozenberg, M-A; Bae, M-J; Bariche, M; Boets, P; Boieiro, M; Borges, Pa; Canning-Clode, J; Cardigos, F; Chartosia, N; Cottier-Cook, Ej; Crocetta, F; D’Hondt, B; Foggi, B; Follak, S; Gallardo, B; Gammelmo, Ø; Giakoumi, S; Giuliani, C; Fried, G; Jelaska, Ls; Jeschke, Jm; Jover, M; Juárez-Escario, A; Kalogirou, S; Kočić, A; Kytinou, E; Laverty, C; Lozano Masellis, V; Maceda-Veiga, A; Marchante, E; Marchante, H; Martinou, Af; Meyer, S; Michin, D; Montero-Castaño, A; Morais, Mc; Morales-Rodriguez, C; Muhthassim, N; Nagy, Za; Ogris, N; Onen, H; Pergl, J; Puntila, R; Rabitsch, W; Ramburn, Tt; Rego, C; Reichenbach, F; Romeralo, C; Saul, W-C; Schrader, G; Sheehan, R; Simonović, P; Skolka, M; Soares, Ao; Sundheim, L; Tarkan, As; Tomov, R; Tricarico, E; Tsiamis, K; Uludağ, A; van Valkenburg, J; Verreycken, H; Vettraino, Am; Vilar, L; Wiig, Ø; Witzell, J; Zanetta, A; Kenis, M. - In: NEOBIOTA. - ISSN 1619-0033. - 44:(2019), pp. 1-25. [10.3897/neobiota.44.31650]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11388/220072
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 47
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 47
social impact