The rainbow trout is an example of a fish species that is often found outside its native range. | Photo: Katharina N. on Pixabay
Invasive species can pose a serious threat to biodiversity and ecosystems, but they can also bring advantages or benefits. Previous assessment systems, such as the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), focus on the negative ecological impacts of invasive species. The EICAT+ protocol, on the other hand, assesses positive ecological effects, while InvaCost records the monetary costs. However, none of these systems takes into account the complex social and ecological interactions.
One man's joy is another man's sorrow
"When considering non-native species, there is rarely a black-and-white answer. Deciding which of the numerous existing management options to apply requires weighing up the social and environmental costs and benefits in a specific context,“ explains Fiona Rickowski, PhD student at the IGB and lead author of the study. ”Invasive species and their impacts can be perceived negatively by some stakeholders but positively by others, and these perceptions can change over time and also spatially."
One example of this is the introduction of fish species such as rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) or brown trout (Salmo trutta) into various ecosystems. These measures were intended to increase recreational value for anglers and promote aquaculture, but they have had negative impacts on native species that are important for other fisheries. Similarly, invasive plant species can be aesthetically pleasing, but at the same time displace habitats for native insects.
Social-ecological networks shed light on the “gray area” of invasive species in detail
“Social-ecological networks, which incorporate social and ecological actors and entities as well as their interactions, offer a suitable approach to these issues,” says IGB researcher Prof. Jonathan Jeschke, who led the study. This principle has already been applied to a range of complex issues, including the sustainable use of resources, the management of ecosystem services and impacts, and collective action. However, social-ecological networks have so far been used only to a limited extent in invasion research, even though they offer clear potential for investigating the human contribution to the introduction of non-native species, the success of invasions, direct and indirect impacts, and their management. In their article, the authors provide an overview of previous applications of social-ecological networks to biological invasions. Using a clear example, they provide guidance on how to construct and analyze such networks and outline future possibilities for socio-ecological networks in invasion research.
