Abstract
Since 2016, the European Union (EU) has required Member States to prevent, control and eradicate selected invasive alien species (IAS) designated as Species of Union Concern. To improve these conservation efforts, online information systems are used to convey IAS information to the wider public, often as a means to bolster community-based environmental monitoring. Despite this, both the conformity and quality of information presented amongst online databases remain poorly understood. Here, we assess the harmonisation and educational potential of four major IAS databases (i.e., conformity of information and information quality, respectively): CABI, EASIN, GISD and NOBANIS. All databases were interrogated for information concerning 49 IAS of Union Concern. For each species, information presented within the evaluated databases was scored in relation to several key topics: morphological identification; EU distribution; detrimental impacts; control options; and the use of source material citations. Overall, scores differed significantly among databases and thus lacked harmonisation, whereby CABI ranked significantly highest based on the combined scores for all topics. In addition, CABI ranked highest for the individual topics of species identification, impacts, control options, and for the use of citations. EASIN ranked highest for species distribution data. NOBANIS consistently ranked as the lowest scoring database across all topics. For each topic, the highest scoring databases achieved scores indicative of detailed or highly detailed information, which suggests a high educational potential for the information portrayed. Nevertheless, the extent of harmonisation and quality of information presented amongst online databases should be improved. This is especially pertinent if online databases are to contribute to public participatory monitoring initiatives for IAS detection.
Highlights
Biological invasions are major drivers of biodiversity loss and the detrimental alteration of normal ecosystem functioning worldwide, which has resulted in wide-ranging negative consequences for the sustainability of ecosystem services, human health, and food security (Ricciardi and MacIsaac 2011; Cardinale et al, 2012)
Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI) scores were significantly greater than all other sources, and European Alien Invasive Species Information Network (EASIN) was significantly higher compared to EASIN, Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) and NOBANIS
All species of interest are included in CABI and both EASIN databases, only 27 and 12 invasive alien species (IAS) of Union Concern are listed in GISD and NOBANIS, respectively
Summary
Biological invasions are major drivers of biodiversity loss and the detrimental alteration of normal ecosystem functioning worldwide, which has resulted in wide-ranging negative consequences for the sustainability of ecosystem services, human health, and food security (Ricciardi and MacIsaac 2011; Cardinale et al, 2012). The ecological impacts of invaders are not correlated with their invasiveness, i.e. establishment and spread (Ricciardi and Cohen 2007), once established in a new region, many invasive alien species (IAS) can quickly proliferate and be extremely difficult to eradicate or control (Booy et al, 2017; Coughlan et al, 2018). Biological invasions by IAS are considered to be fundamentally analogous to natural disasters, and require similar management strategies and resource commitments to mitigate impacts (Ricciardi et al, 2011). Since August 2019, this list has grown to encompass 66 IAS In effect, for these ‘black-listed’ species, trade, transport, cultivation/breeding, release and ownership is prohibited within EU territories
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
