TY - JOUR

T1 - Biodiversity assessments

T2 - Origin matters

AU - Pauchard, Aníbal

AU - Meyerson, Laura A.

AU - Bacher, Sven

AU - Blackburn, Tim M.

AU - Brundu, Giuseppe

AU - Cadotte, Marc W.

AU - Courchamp, Franck

AU - Essl, Franz

AU - Genovesi, Piero

AU - Haider, Sylvia

AU - Holmes, Nick D.

AU - Hulme, Philip E.

AU - Jeschke, Jonathan M.

AU - Lockwood, Julie L.

AU - Novoa, Ana

AU - Nuñez, Martin A.

AU - Peltzer, Duane A.

AU - Pyšek, Petr

AU - Richardson, David M.

AU - Simberloff, Daniel

AU - Smith, Kevin

AU - van Wilgen, Brian W.

AU - Vilà, Montserrat

AU - Wilson, John R.U.

AU - Winter, Marten

AU - Zenni, Rafael D.

PY - 2018/11/13

Y1 - 2018/11/13

N2 - Recent global efforts in biodiversity accounting, such as those undertaken through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), are vital if we are to track conservation progress, ensure that we can address the challenges of global change, and develop powerful and scientifically sound indicators. Schlaepfer [1] proposes that we should work toward inventories of biodiversity that account for native and non-native species regardless of species origin and ecological context. We strongly disagree with the approach of combining counts of native and non-native species because this will reduce our capacity to detect the effects of non-native spe-cies on native biodiversity with potentially devastating consequences. Compelling and abundant evidence demonstrates that some non-native species can become invasive and produce major ecosystem disruptions and even native species extinction. Unfortunately, we still cannot be certain which non-native species will be the most detrimental (e.g., [2]). Combining native and non-native species together into a single biodiversity index would not only inflate biodiversity estimates and risk promoting the spread of invasive non-native species but would also ignore the fundamental ecological differences between the two groups. The critical differencesthat should be considered when assessing biodiversity include the following.

AB - Recent global efforts in biodiversity accounting, such as those undertaken through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), are vital if we are to track conservation progress, ensure that we can address the challenges of global change, and develop powerful and scientifically sound indicators. Schlaepfer [1] proposes that we should work toward inventories of biodiversity that account for native and non-native species regardless of species origin and ecological context. We strongly disagree with the approach of combining counts of native and non-native species because this will reduce our capacity to detect the effects of non-native spe-cies on native biodiversity with potentially devastating consequences. Compelling and abundant evidence demonstrates that some non-native species can become invasive and produce major ecosystem disruptions and even native species extinction. Unfortunately, we still cannot be certain which non-native species will be the most detrimental (e.g., [2]). Combining native and non-native species together into a single biodiversity index would not only inflate biodiversity estimates and risk promoting the spread of invasive non-native species but would also ignore the fundamental ecological differences between the two groups. The critical differencesthat should be considered when assessing biodiversity include the following.

KW - Biology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056529015&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/0069d84c-462d-389f-a34a-5e5bfde68911/

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006686

DO - 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006686

M3 - Comments / Debate / Reports

C2 - 30422976

AN - SCOPUS:85056529015

VL - 16

JO - PLoS Biology

JF - PLoS Biology

SN - 1544-9173

IS - 11

M1 - e2006686

ER -