Abstract

Emerging microparasite (e.g. viruses, bacteria, protozoa and fungi) epidemics and the introduction of non-native pests and weeds are major biosecurity threats worldwide. The likelihood of these threats is often estimated from probabilities of their entry, establishment, spread and ease of prevention. If ecosystems are considered equivalent to hosts, then compartment disease models should provide a useful framework for understanding the processes that underpin non-native species invasions. To enable greater cross-fertilisation between these two disciplines, the Epidemiological Framework for Biological Invasions (EFBI) is developed that classifies ecosystems in relation to their invasion status: Susceptible, Exposed, Infectious and Resistant. These states are linked by transitions relating to transmission, latency and recovery. This viewpoint differs markedly from the species-centric approaches often applied to non-native species. It allows generalisations from epidemiology, such as the force of infection, the basic reproductive ratio R0, super-spreaders, herd immunity, cordon sanitaire and ring vaccination, to be discussed in the novel context of non-native species and helps identify important gaps in the study of biological invasions. The EFBI approach highlights several limitations inherent in current approaches to the study of biological invasions including: (i) the variance in non-native abundance across ecosystems is rarely reported; (ii) field data rarely (if ever) distinguish source from sink ecosystems; (iii) estimates of the susceptibility of ecosystems to invasion seldom account for differences in exposure to non-native species; and (iv) assessments of ecosystem susceptibility often confuse the processes that underpin patterns of spread within -and between- ecosystems. Using the invasion of lakes as a model, the EFBI approach is shown to present a new biosecurity perspective that takes account of ecosystem status and complements demographic models to deliver clearer insights into the dynamics of biological invasions at the landscape scale. It will help to identify whether management of the susceptibility of ecosystems, of the number of vectors, or of the diversity of pathways (for movement between ecosystems) is the best way of limiting or reversing the population growth of a non-native species. The framework can be adapted to incorporate increasing levels of complexity and realism and to provide insights into how to monitor, map and manage biological invasions more effectively.

Highlights

  • Emerging microparasitic diseases and biological invasions by non-native species represent two of the most significant biological threats to the survival of endangered species, the ecological integrity of ecosystems, the economic productivity of agriculture and the quality of human health (Early et al 2016; Halliday et al 2017; Ogden et al 2019; Paini et al 2016)

  • When non-native species act as hosts, their spatial dynamics often play an important role in the introduction, establishment and spread of microparasites (Bufford et al 2016; Hulme 2014)

  • Given the important contribution of receptor-centred approaches in disease epidemiology, extending this perspective to biological invasions may deliver considerable insights if ecosystems can be classified in terms of their susceptibility and exposure to non-native species, their contribution to the spread of invasions and the likelihood and duration of any recovery

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Emerging microparasitic diseases and biological invasions by non-native species represent two of the most significant biological threats to the survival of endangered species, the ecological integrity of ecosystems, the economic productivity of agriculture and the quality of human health (Early et al 2016; Halliday et al 2017; Ogden et al 2019; Paini et al 2016). Given the important contribution of receptor-centred approaches in disease epidemiology, extending this perspective to biological invasions may deliver considerable insights if ecosystems can be classified in terms of their susceptibility and exposure to non-native species, their contribution to the spread of invasions (i.e. their infectivity) and the likelihood and duration of any recovery.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (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