Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70274260

Global framework for communication of biological invasion risks

Lorenzo Vilizzi·Vettath R. Suresh·Daniela Giannetto·Jeffrey E. Hill·Wesley M. Daniel·João G. Monteiro·Lennart Edsman·Hassan Sh Elmi·Ahmed Ibrahim Awale·Elnaz Najafi-Majd·Ramazan Mammadov·Sapto Andriyono·Djumanto·Mohammad Noor Azmai·Abdulwakil Saba·Belma K. Stroil·Avdul Adrović·Anna Vila-Gispert·Dani Boix·Oldřich Kopecký·Vilém Pavlu·Dragana Milošević·Danka Caković·Henrik Holbech·Kim Lundgreen·Juliane Lukas·Harald Ahnelt·Merike Linnamägi·Mehis Rohtla·David Almeida·Roberto Mendoza·Allan S. Gilles·Richard Thomas D. Pavia·Elisabeth Knudsen·Leivur J. Hansen·Philippe Goulletquer·Amelia Curd·Ivan Špelić·Jón E. Jónsson·Höskuldur Thráinsson·Angela Boggero·Mihails Pupins·Artūrs Škute·Lukas Petrulaitis·Ilona Jukonienė·Gábor Herczeg·Árpád Ferincz·Hugo Verreycken·Rob S.E.W. Leuven·Martin Malmstrøm·Gaute Velle·Trobjon Makhkamov·Akramjon Yuldashev·Dariusz Pietraszewski·Lidia Marszał·João Canning-Clode·Mariele Pasuch de Camargo·Cristina Preda·Daniyar Memedemin·Rigers Bakiu·Silvia Bakiu·Kristína S. Švolíková·Barbora Števove·Luka Duniš·Petra Kristan·Predrag Simonović·Radoslav Dekić·Riikka Puntila-Dodd·Miia Jauni·Karin H. Olsson·Kieu Anh Ta·Thuyet D. Bui·Baran Yoğurtçuoğlu·Sevan Ağdamar·Bahadir Yuldashov·Peyzulla Khydyrov·Leonidas Vardakas·Nicholas Koutsikos·Costas Perdikaris·Dzmitry Lukashanets·Oleg Borodin·Eliza Uzunova·Dimitriy Dashinov·Georgii Lazkov·Myskalai Ganybaeva·Daniya Ualiyeva·Raushan Zharmukhametova·Milica Ristovska·Aleksandra Cvetkovska Gjorgjievska·Burenbaatar Ganbaatar·Solongo Khadbaatar·Vadim E. Panov·Oleh Marenkov·Nurali Saidov·Mekhrovar Okhonniyozov·Yuriy Kvach·Volodymyr Yuryshynets·Marine Arakelyan·Hasmik Khachatryan·Levan Mumladze
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Biological invasions, driven by the spread of non-native species, have become a critical global issue because of their far-reaching ecological and socioeconomic impacts. Effective communication of the risks of biological invasions is essential for implementing robust policy and legislation and gaining public support for conservation efforts. However, current policies often suffer from fragmentation and ineffectiveness, largely due to inadequate risk communication and complex multilevel governance. To address this challenge, we develop a global framework designed to enhance clearer communication about biological invasion risks. The framework contextualizes key terms across three domains in invasion science: species invasiveness, risk analysis, and decision support tools. Using both diffusion-of-English and ecology-of-language paradigms, and following a three-step process involving preliminary consensus, AI querying, and ground-truthing with final consensus, we validate the framework in 70 non-English languages which, together with English, have official status in at least one country and collectively cover all 195 countries worldwide. Our findings reveal that while terminology for risk analysis is well established, terminology for species invasiveness and, especially, for decision support tools remains underdeveloped in many languages, hindering effective communication and policy implementation. Our framework underscores the importance of cultural and political neutrality. By promoting clearer risk communication among scientists, policymakers, and the public globally, we aim to reduce policy fragmentation and foster enhanced collaboration in risk mitigation. We recommend expanding multilingual decision support tools to include the full risk analysis process: risk identification, risk assessment, and risk management. This will support intergovernmental mitigation efforts and promote a unified global response to biological invasions.

Explore related subjects

Management of Biological InvasionsArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lorenzo Vilizzi, Vettath R. Suresh, Daniela Giannetto, Jeffrey E. Hill, Wesley M. Daniel, João G. Monteiro, Lennart Edsman, Hassan Sh Elmi, Ahmed Ibrahim Awale, Elnaz Najafi-Majd, Ramazan Mammadov, Sapto Andriyono, Djumanto, Mohammad Noor Azmai, Abdulwakil Saba, Belma K. Stroil, Avdul Adrović, Anna Vila-Gispert, Dani Boix, Oldřich Kopecký, Vilém Pavlu, Dragana Milošević, Danka Caković, Henrik Holbech, Kim Lundgreen, Juliane Lukas, Harald Ahnelt, Merike Linnamägi, Mehis Rohtla, David Almeida, Roberto Mendoza, Allan S. Gilles, Richard Thomas D. Pavia, Elisabeth Knudsen, Leivur J. Hansen, Philippe Goulletquer, Amelia Curd, Ivan Špelić, Jón E. Jónsson, Höskuldur Thráinsson, Angela Boggero, Mihails Pupins, Artūrs Škute, Lukas Petrulaitis, Ilona Jukonienė, Gábor Herczeg, Árpád Ferincz, Hugo Verreycken, Rob S.E.W. Leuven, Martin Malmstrøm, Gaute Velle, Trobjon Makhkamov, Akramjon Yuldashev, Dariusz Pietraszewski, Lidia Marszał, João Canning-Clode, Mariele Pasuch de Camargo, Cristina Preda, Daniyar Memedemin, Rigers Bakiu, Silvia Bakiu, Kristína S. Švolíková, Barbora Števove, Luka Duniš, Petra Kristan, Predrag Simonović, Radoslav Dekić, Riikka Puntila-Dodd, Miia Jauni, Karin H. Olsson, Kieu Anh Ta, Thuyet D. Bui, Baran Yoğurtçuoğlu, Sevan Ağdamar, Bahadir Yuldashov, Peyzulla Khydyrov, Leonidas Vardakas, Nicholas Koutsikos, Costas Perdikaris, Dzmitry Lukashanets, Oleg Borodin, Eliza Uzunova, Dimitriy Dashinov, Georgii Lazkov, Myskalai Ganybaeva, Daniya Ualiyeva, Raushan Zharmukhametova, Milica Ristovska, Aleksandra Cvetkovska Gjorgjievska, Burenbaatar Ganbaatar, Solongo Khadbaatar, Vadim E. Panov, Oleh Marenkov, Nurali Saidov, Mekhrovar Okhonniyozov, Yuriy Kvach, Volodymyr Yuryshynets, Marine Arakelyan, Hasmik Khachatryan, Levan Mumladze. 2026-01-26. Global framework for communication of biological invasion risks. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2026.17.1.01

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Evaluating ichthyoplankton sampling as an effective method for early detection of novel aquatic invasive species in large bays of western Lake Erie

Early detection and monitoring are critically important for effective management of invasive species in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Specifically, Lake Erie is at high-risk for aquatic invasive species introductions due to many factors such as shoreline development, warm water temperatures, and transoceanic shipping traffic. Rare species captured are often used as a surrogate to assess sampling effectiveness for new or rare invasive species in vulnerable areas, such as Maumee and Sandusky bays of western Lake Erie. We compared species catches from multiple larval fish collection methods to those from adult and juvenile fish sampling. The specific objectives of this study were to: 1) evaluate the effectiveness of larval fish sampling for aquatic invasive species early detection in two bays of western Lake Erie: Maumee Bay and Sandusky Bay; 2) evaluate the effectiveness of passive and active sampling techniques at capturing different larval fish taxa; and 3) compare effectiveness of larval sampling techniques to juvenile and adult fish sampling methods for detecting new and rare species. While no new non-native species were captured during the study, we found that larval fish sampling techniques were not effective for detecting new or rare species but could be used with other life-stage sampling. Active sampling with bongo nets was more effective than light trap sampling, capturing a higher number of individuals and taxa. Juvenile and adult fish sampling methods provided higher precision in fish identification without the use of genetic tools. Because of the finer taxonomic resolution possible when identifying juvenile and adult fishes, sampling for adult and juveniles was found to be more robust and reliable for early detection of new and rare species compared to larval fish sampling. However, larval fish sampling can still be appropriate depending on study goals and objectives or as emerging technologies allow for greater taxonomic resolution of sampled fish.

Michigan, Ohio↗
USGS2026

Evaluating treatment methods to control the egg masses of the crop pest Pomacea maculata

Pomacea maculata is an invasive aquatic apple snail species that poses serious ecological, agricultural, and public health threats across the southeastern United States. Its spread, particularly in Louisiana, has heavily impacted rice and crayfish farming, an industry producing over 90% of U.S. crayfish and valued at more than $250 million annually. The snail damages seedling rice, clogs crayfish traps, reduces yields, and increases labor for farmers. Moreover, it is a known host of rat lungworm ( Angiostrongylus cantonensis ), a parasite harmful to humans, making its presence in food production environments a public health concern. Controlling P. maculata is challenging due to its life cycle and reproductive strategies. The species lays large clutches of eggs above the waterline, where traditional aquatic molluscicides are ineffective. This study aimed to assess low-cost, practical methods for reducing egg hatch rates, specifically water submersion and vegetable oil application, on newly laid (day 1) and older (day 7) egg clutches. Laboratory trials on 125 egg clutches revealed that water submersion significantly reduced hatch rates and the development of dormant hatchlings, regardless of clutch age. Oil treatment only reduced hatch rates for day 1 clutches and had no effect on dormant hatchlings. These results suggest that water treatment is more broadly effective and feasible for farmers to apply without needing to determine egg age when applied on a routine, weekly basis. While oil showed limited use, its time-sensitive application limits practicality in the field. Water-based approaches offer a scalable solution for reducing P. maculata populations, but do not completely eliminate the potential for hatching and spreading. Without comprehensive control strategies targeting all life stages, the apple snail’s spread and associated impacts are expected to worsen, underscoring the urgency of continued management innovation.

Florida↗
USGS2025

Comparative olfactory and behavioral response of grass carp ( Ctenopharyngodon idella ), bighead carp ( Hypophthalmichthys nobilis ), silver carp ( H. molitrix ) and black carp ( Mylopharyngodon piceus ) to chemical stimuli

Grass carp ( Ctenopharyngodon idella ), bighead carp ( Hypophthalmichthys nobilis ), silver carp (H. molitrix), and black carp ( Mylopharyngodon piceus ), collectively “invasive carp,” represent an ongoing management problem in the Mississippi and Missouri River basins of North America. Development of strategies to control their populations are also ongoing. As a follow-up to previous research, we tested two amino acids and an amino acid-based commercial feeding stimulant as olfactory stimulants that may attract or repel these species. We employed a two-pronged approach to test how invasive carp respond to the olfactory stimulants, using an electro-olfactogram (EOG) to measure olfactory response and a tank with a stimulant in one half to test behavioral response. Consistent with previous research, we found grass carp had a higher magnitude of EOG response to stimulants compared to bighead and, marginally, silver carp. Bighead, silver, and black carp did not differ from each other in EOG response. Grass carp produced significantly greater lysine and a marginally greater alanine EOG response than bighead and silver carp and significantly greater commercial feeding stimulant response than bighead carp. Black carp had marginally greater lysine response than bighead carp. In the behavioral tests, grass carp generally avoided the stimuli tested, while bighead carp were generally attracted to stimuli. Neither black nor silver carp showed a clear attraction or avoidance toward the stimuli tested. To further evaluate these solutions for management applications additional testing in ponds or open water may be necessary.

Management of Biological Invasions↗