How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians
Kumschick, Sabrina; Measey, G. John; Vimercati, Giovanni; Villiers, F. Andre; Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M.; Davies, Sarah J.; Thorp, Corey J.; Rebelo, Alexander D.; Blackburn, Tim M.; Kraus, Fred
2017-04
Citation
Kumschick, Sabrina; Measey, G. John; Vimercati, Giovanni; Villiers, F. Andre; Mokhatla, Mohlamatsane M.; Davies, Sarah J.; Thorp, Corey J.; Rebelo, Alexander D.; Blackburn, Tim M.; Kraus, Fred (2017). "How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians." Ecology and Evolution 7(8): 2661-2670.
Abstract
The magnitude of impacts some alien species cause to native environments makes them targets for regulation and management. However, which species to target is not always clear, and comparisons of a wide variety of impacts are necessary. Impact scoring systems can aid management prioritization of alien species. For such tools to be objective, they need to be robust to assessor bias. Here, we assess the newly proposed Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) used for amphibians and test how outcomes differ between assessors. Two independent assessments were made by Kraus (Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 46, 2015, 75‐97) and Kumschick et al. (Neobiota, 33, 2017, 53‐66), including independent literature searches for impact records. Most of the differences between these two classifications can be attributed to different literature search strategies used with only one‐third of the combined number of references shared between both studies. For the commonly assessed species, the classification of maximum impacts for most species is similar between assessors, but there are differences in the more detailed assessments. We clarify one specific issue resulting from different interpretations of EICAT, namely the practical interpretation and assigning of disease impacts in the absence of direct evidence of transmission from alien to native species. The differences between assessments outlined here cannot be attributed to features of the scheme. Reporting bias should be avoided by assessing all alien species rather than only the seemingly high‐impacting ones, which also improves the utility of the data for management and prioritization for future research. Furthermore, assessments of the same taxon by various assessors and a structured review process for assessments, as proposed by Hawkins et al. (Diversity and Distributions, 21, 2015, 1360), can ensure that biases can be avoided and all important literature is included.We show that the newly proposed Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa is fairly robust if used by different assessors for amphibians. Bias can be avoided through clear statement of the goals of the respective study using the scheme. We further suggest a thorough review process to be developed and implemented.Publisher
Springer Science & Business Media Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
ISSN
2045-7758 2045-7758
Other DOIs
Types
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.