Aligning EU policies to address biological invasions: assessing invasion impacts across sectors

295 Aligning EU policies to address biological invasions: assessing invasion impacts across sectors Chiara Magliozzi1, Ana Cristina Cardoso1, Eugenio Gervasini1, Beatrice Melone2, Elisa Chiara Bizzotto3, Giuseppe Brundu4,5 , Francesca Cagnacci5,6 , Emma Cebrian7, Tim Adriaens8, Maria Helena Alves9, Cátia Bartilotti10,11 , Lucilla Carnevali12 , Sofia Duarte13,14 , Quentin Groom15 , Raquel Martins Queiroga16, Sofie Meeus15 , Ana Luisa Nunes17 , Cristina Preda18 , Eduardo Rendón-Hernández19 , Samuel Vanden Abeele15,20 , Riccardo Scalera21 , Maarten P. M. Vanhove22 , Nuno Vaz Álvaro23 1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy 2 FINCONS SPA – Via Torri Bianche 10 – Pal. Betulla, 20871 Vimercate (MB), Italy 3 Fondazione Università Ca’ Foscari, Santa Croce 507, 30135 Venezia, 30123, Italy 4 Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy 5 Animal Ecology Unit, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Trento, Italy 6 National Biodiversity Future Centre, Palermo, Italy 7 Centre d’Estudis Avançats de Blanes, CSIC, Accés Cala Sant Francesc 14, 17300, Blanes, Girona, Spain 8 Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium 9 Tagus and West River Basin District Administration, Lisbon, Portugal 10 IPMA – Portuguese Institute for Sea and Atmosphere, I.P., Av. Alfredo Magalhães Ramalho 6, 1495-165 Algés, Portugal 11 MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, ARNET – Aquatic Research Network Associate Laboratory, NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal 12 ISPRA, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale, Roma, Italy 13 Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology (CBMA) and ARNET-Aquatic Research Network, Department of Biology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal 14 Institute of Science and Innovation for Bio-Sustainability (IB-S), University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal 15 Meise Botanic Garden, Nieuwelaan 38, 1860 Meise, Belgium 16 Portuguese Institute for Sea and Atmosphere, I.P., Av. Alfredo Magalhães Ramalho 6,1495-165 Algés, Portugal 17 IUCN, Biodiversity Assessment and Knowledge Team, Cambridge, UK 18 Department of Natural Sciences, Ovidius University of Constanta, Constanta, Romania 19 Applied Ecology Laboratory, Metropolitan Autonomous University – Xochimilco, Mexico City, Mexico 20 Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium 21 Roma Tre University – Department of Science, Viale Guglielmo Marconi, 446, Rome, Italy 22 Research Group Zoology: Biodiversity & Toxicology, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium 23 Universidade dos Açores, Instituto de Investigação e Tecnologias Agrárias e do Ambiente, Angra do Heroísmo, Portugal Corresponding author: Chiara Magliozzi (chiara.maglio[email protected]) Copyright: © Chiara Magliozzi et al. This is an open access article distributed under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Attribution 4.0 International – CC BY 4.0). Short Communication Abstract Invasive alien species (IAS) affect various policy sectors, including environment, trade, and agriculture. In Europe, each of these sectors is usually regulated under different European Union legislation, but IAS is not prioritised in most sectors, and this may hinder effective tackling of biological invasions. Greater policy coherence is needed to align relevant sectors for better management of biological invasions. Engaging policymakers by sharing information on IAS impacts can help them understand the multisectoral nature of the problem and develop effective strategies. We reviewed 602 IAS in Europe, impacting nine policy sectors and 25 domains (i.e. specific policies within a broader policy sector, each addressing particular issues and activities related to that sector portfolio). Findings were presented at the NeoBiota workshop in Lisbon on the 3rd of September NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025) DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Advancing research on alien species and biological invasions A peer-reviewed open-access journal NeoBiota Academic editor: Filipe Ribeiro Received: 4 March 2025 Accepted: 23 June 2025 Published: 7 October 2025 296 NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Chiara Magliozzi et al.: Assessing invasion impacts across sectors 2024, attended by 54 participants, including policymakers and researchers. The workshop featured presentations and interactive sessions where participants tested the review methodology on 49 species, identifying areas for improvement, such as assessing impact scale and refining sector domains. Confusion matrices showed moderate to substantial agreement between organisers and participants in evaluating affected domains, types of impact, and confidence levels. This study shows the crucial need for interaction and synergy between research and policy, which are essential for tackling effectively IAS in Europe. Key words: Biodiversity, impact, invasive alien species, policy domains, workshop Introduction Invasive alien species (IAS) impact multiple policy sectors and the related activities, requiring effective and coordinated management. These impacts can be perceived as negative or positive and span across environment, economy and human health (Havel et al. 2015; Mollot et al. 2017; Katsanevakis et al. 2018; Fleming et al. 2023; IPBES 2023). These sectors are regulated under European Union legislation (i.e. addressing all Member States) that may however not fully address biological invasions (COM (2021) 628 final). In this study, we refer to “policy sectors” as areas of European public policy that are clearly defined by the issues and activities they address (e.g. agriculture, fisheries) and to “domains” as the specific policies related to that sector issues and activities portfolio (e.g. forestry, soil, aquaculture) (Table 1). These policy sectors may encompass broader governance and regulatory aspects that go beyond the economic activities of a sector. Therefore, while these policy sectors can include economic sectors by addressing the broader context in which these economic activities occur, the focus of this study does not include monetary assessment. Access to sector-wide scientific assessments of IAS impacts is limited and hindered by lack of comprehensive linkages to affected domains (Table 1). This is likely due to the limited attention given to the prioritization of IAS in sectors other than biodiversity, resulting in lack of unifying metrics for assessing their impact. As a result, clear and usable sector-wide information on IAS impacts would help to explicitly consider policy trade-offs, improving coherence and policies coordination for IAS prevention and control (Bray et al. 2024). Negative impacts of IAS extend across terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments. Research has increasingly highlighted the effects of IAS on biodiversity (Pyšek et al. 2020), i.e., on native species, community diversity (Çinar et al. 2014), and on ecosystem services (Gallardo et al. 2024). In recent years, several studies have also shown that IAS can cause substantial economic losses (Cannarozzi et al. 2023) and management costs (€116.61 billion in Europe, Haubrock et al. 2021), which can be linked to sector-specific impacts. Costs and benefits can span across multiple sectors and may not necessarily balance each other out (Carneiro et al. 2024). These encompass, for example, animal and human health (Shackleton et al. 2019a; Chinchio et al. 2020; Roy et al. 2022; EFSA 2023), water resources (Watts and Moore 2011; Lamb et al. 2021), energy systems (Booy et al. 2017), transportation systems (Nyumba et al. 2021; Vanderbush et al. 2021), forest and grassland (Rojas-Sandoval et al. 2022), and indigenous people (Pfeiffer and Voeks 2008; Pretty Paint-Small 2013; Shackleton et al. 2019b). Furthermore, research has also demonstrated that IAS can provide benefits to human well-beCitation: Magliozzi C, Cardoso AC, Gervasini E, Melone B, Bizzotto EC, Brundu G, Cagnacci F, Cebrian E, Adriaens T, Alves MH, Bartilotti C, Carnevali L, Duarte S, Groom Q, Queiroga RM, Meeus S, Nunes AL, Preda C, Rendón-Hernández E, Vanden Abeele S, Scalera R, Vanhove MPM, Álvaro NV (2025) Aligning EU policies to address biological invasions: assessing invasion impacts across sectors. In: Anastácio P, Ribeiro F, Chainho P (Eds) Invasions in Aquatic Systems. NeoBiota 102: 295–312. https://doi.org/10.3897/ neobiota.102.152015 297 NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Chiara Magliozzi et al.: Assessing invasion impacts across sectors Table 1. Policy sectors and sector domains considered in this study. Columns represent categories of policy interest regulated by European legislation considered as thematic areas to which the impact of IAS can be attributed, considering physical, chemical, biological and functional characteristics (e.g., soil) or policy initiatives (e.g., nature protection and restoration). ‘*’ indicates domains identified during the workshop. For biodiversity specifically, impacts on biodiversity components are not further refined, and all impacts on biodiversity are grouped into the “nature protection and restoration” domain. Main policy sectors Sector domains Description of areas covered by the domain Agriculture and Rural development (AGRI) Agriculture Crop production, livestock, agricultural ecosystems Soil Soil quality, structure, nutrient cycling Forestry Forest health, tree species’ diversity, timber production Mobility and Transport (TRANSPORT) Security and safety Risks to transport and infrastructures safety through physical obstructions and hazards Infrastructures (road, rails, canals) Integrity and maintenance of transport infrastructures Inland waters (related to transport) Navigability and ecosystems’ health Maritime (Port)* Port operation, ships hulls and marine logistics Energy, Climate change, Environment (ENERGY) Security (in terms of production and supply)* Disruption to energy supply chains and production facilities Efficiency (relates to energy consumption, therefore IAS impact which causes increased use of energy, etc.) * Energy consumption including increased demand for control measures Renewable energy (IAS invading/damaging canals/plants, etc.) Renewable energy infrastructure such as hydroelectric plants and solar fields Health and Food Safety (SANTE) Animal health Livestock health and veterinary biosecurity Plant health Crops’ health, plants biosecurity, agricultural biodiversity Food and feed safety (contamination, allergens, pathogens, seeds, toxins, etc.) Contamination of food and feed supply Human health Allergens, diseases, physical injuries Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW) Industry (affecting business competitiveness, growth and resilience, e.g. Coronavirus, etc.) Competitiveness and resilience Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Operations and market access Internal market/trade Trade regulations, market stability, cross-border commerce Directorate-General Climate Action (CLIMA) Greenhouse Gas emissions (IAS which may increase gas emissions) Greenhouse gas emissions through ecosystem changes Energy, Climate change, Environment (Environment) Clean water (water quality) Water quality and availability in freshwater ecosystems Marine environmental status Marine biodiversity and ecosystem health Nature protection and restoration (all biodiversity related impacts) (NPR) Natural habitats, biodiversity, conservation efforts Maritime affairs and fisheries (MARE) Fisheries (including freshwaters) Fish populations, habitats, fishing industries Aquaculture Aquaculture practices and production New bio industries* Opportunities and challenges in emerging biological industries Energy (energy consumption) Energy use within marine and fisheries sectors Tourism Tourism activities, attractions, natural landscapes Regional and Urban Policy (REGIO) Urban areas/regions Urban environments, infrastructures, and community well-being ing, thus suggesting a multifaceted dimension of their impacts. Positive impacts may encompass provisioning services (food, medicines, bioenergy, and construction materials), regulating services (bio-agent control, bioremediation and shade provision), cultural services (aesthetic and ornamental values), and supporting services (soil and land reclamation through eco-restoration) (Katsanevakis et al. 2014; Cerveira et al. 2022; Barcellos et al. 2023; Marchessaux et al. 2023; Boadie-Ampong et al. 2024). While researchers investigated the impacts of IAS, im- 298 NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Chiara Magliozzi et al.: Assessing invasion impacts across sectors portant gaps remain in linking the comprehensive assessment of IAS impacts to policy sectors and domains. Protocols used in the framework of the EU Regulation 1143/2014 on IAS do consider current and future impacts on provisioning, regulating and cultural services as well as impacts on human health, safety and the economy (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/968 of 30 April 2018, Art 5(1)(f)). Yet, these impacts are described rather qualitatively, considered as aggravating factors and do not match the need to mobilise available information linking impacts across different policy sectors. The pioneering efforts of the InvaCost database provide an initial quantification of the economic impacts of biological invasions (Diagne et al. 2020), offering a foundational assessment of the financial burdens imposed by IAS across various sectors (Turbelin et al. 2024). To address the inherent challenges in evaluating these impacts, there is a pressing need for a standardised framework that includes consistent sectoral definitions and metrics. This would enhance the interoperability of impact assessments across different sectors, facilitating more coherent and comprehensive analyses. The European Union’s regulatory framework plays a crucial role in addressing the complex and cross-sectoral issue of biological invasions. While specific regulations, such as the EU IAS Regulation (1143/2014/EU), the Plant Health (2016/2031/ EU) and the Animal Health legislation (2016/429/EU), set out the obligations for preventing and managing IAS, the effects of biological invasions are far-reaching and impact various other sectors that are governed by EU legislation, but which do not explicitly address IAS. In this complex landscape, several policies often guide decisions on different aspects of the same topic, while each individual policy may tackle more than one challenge (e.g. biodiversity loss, water quality, protection of livelihood), highlighting the need for a coordinated and coherent approach. One example of such complexity is the case of Robinia pseudoacacia. In the phytosanitary sector, efforts are made to eradicate this species due to its invasive nature. However, contrasting policies exist where subsidies are provided to encourage its planting to support bees and honey production. This contradiction underscores the necessity for coherence and alignment across policy areas to effectively manage biological invasions. By recognising and addressing these overlaps and mismatches, the EU can develop more integrated and effective strategies to manage IAS and their impacts across different sectors. Therefore, effective policy making to address the complex topic of biological invasions requires a comprehensive understanding of the entangled relationships between various policy sectors, and the issues and activities managed, grounded in a strong scientific base (IPBES 2023). To this end, the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN) of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission has collected qualitative information on the positive and negative impacts of 602 IAS on 9 policy sectors and 27 sector domains in Europe (Suppl. material 1). This first compilation of impacts across sectorial domains (herein after primary assessment) aims at facilitating the exchange of information among policymakers and scientists, and between those active in different policy sectors and sector domains, and to identify gaps and challenges e.g. which sectors would benefit from more explicit inclusion of IAS to mitigate their impacts, or defining tailored biosecurity plans that address specific sectors, promoting a more effective and sustainable management of IAS. The preliminary results of this review were presented and discussed with international experts at the NeoBiota workshop in Lisbon on the 3rd of September 2024, 299 NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Chiara Magliozzi et al.: Assessing invasion impacts across sectors to agree on methodology, and identify areas for improvement. The main aim of the workshop was to provide the scientific community and authorities’ representatives, with an overview of the data compiled, to test the methodology on a subset of information to gain an understanding of the suitability of the approach, and any potential application difficulties. In the following sections, we provide a summary of the primary assessment and highlight the main outcomes of the workshop. Primary assessment A sample of 602 IAS was extracted from the EASIN Catalogue. The selection of the IAS considered plant and animal species across freshwater, terrestrial, and marine environments, and was based on their impact as identified from several data sources. For these species, data on impacts were extracted from both scientific and grey literature, using the Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google, which were accessed in June 2024. The following keywords were entered into the search engines: “impact* of [species name] on [domain], OR “effect* of [species name] on [domain]”, OR “influence* of [species name] on [domain]” OR “species [name] and [domain] impact*”, “how [species name] affect* [domain]”, OR “effect* of [species name] on [domain]”, OR “influence* of [species name] on [domain]”, OR “[species name] and [domain] interaction*”. Based on this review positive and/or negative impacts of species across 27 sector domains (Table 1) were assessed by a team of eight experts with taxonomic and ecological expertise (i.e. primary assessment). This assessment focused solely on impacts in invaded ranges within Europe. However, in case of a lack of literature to support impact in Europe, references from other areas were also considered. For species partly native in Europe, impacts from the native range area were not considered. A two-step process was adopted. Initially, several hundred IAS were assessed by four experts. Subsequently, these IAS were reviewed by other four experts to identify discrepancies and ensure a consistent understanding of the domains and assessment protocol. The assessment then proceeded to complete the evaluation of all 602 IAS. A confidence level (Suppl. material 1: Table S1) was assigned to each species’ impact using a framework that considers the nature, coverage, quality and consistency of evidence (Suppl. material 1: Table S1) of the highest (negative or positive) reported impact. Positive and negative impacts can be documented for the same species within the same domain or across different domains (Table 2). Table 2. Definitions of impact types, i.e. negative and positive, modified from Vimercati et al. (2022). DD refers to data deficient information. Impact type Definition negative A decrease in a policy sector attribute, value-free (i.e. not influenced by human ethical values) driven by IAS. Negative impacts are reported considering the availability of relevant studies in a policy sector. E.g. Halyomorpha halys in agriculture: damaging a wide variety of crops, including fruits, vegetables, and ornamentals. The stink bug feeds on plant tissues, leading to blemishes on fruits and vegetables, which can render them unmarketable. This feeding can also cause deformation and premature fruit drop. positive An increase in a policy sector attribute, value-free (i.e. not influenced by human ethical values) driven by IAS. Positive impacts are reported considering the availability of relevant studies in a policy sector. E.g. Bonnemaisonia hamifera as a feed supplement for dairy cows. The algae contains bioactive compounds that have the potential to reduce methane emissions during enteric fermentation, a natural digestive process in ruminants that produces methane as a byproduct. DD No information to classify the species with respect to its impact, or insufficient time has elapsed since its introduction for impacts to have become apparent. 300 NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Chiara Magliozzi et al.: Assessing invasion impacts across sectors The selected IAS are reported as having an impact from several data sources, i.e. DAISIE, CABI, GISD, NOBANIS (EASIN protocol). Specifically for species of Union concern under the EU Regulation 1143/2014, the impact is supported by in-depth assessments of experts considering species’ negative effects on: i) biodiversity, ii) ecosystem services, iii) economic, and iv) social and human health, following a procedure laid down by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/968, outlining minimum standards for risk assessment (Roy et al. 2018). Impact results “Nature Protection and Restoration” was the domain most impacted by IAS across policy sectors, with over 300 impacting IAS (Fig. 1). This domain encompasses all types of impacts on biodiversity (e.g. predation, competition for resources, parasitism, etc.). It is followed by Agriculture, Plant Health, Animal Health and Human Health (>100 IAS, Fig. 1). The intersection of these domains and impacting IAS (Fig. 2), shows that Plant Health and Agriculture share the highest number of IAS (>70 IAS), and that approximately thirty IAS are common to all five domains (Fig. 2). Nature Protection and Restoration has a distinct set of 51 IAS that impact on biodiversity (Fig. 2). Fewer than twenty species are unique to each of the Plant, Animal and Human domains respectively (Fig. 2). The highest number of IAS plants and animals assessed was terrestrial; marine species were the least considered (Suppl. material 1: Fig. S1a). Thirty-one species showed overlap between environments (Suppl. material 1: Fig. S1b). These domains are characterised by a high confidence in their assessment, thus suggesting robust scientific evidence to support the findings (Fig. 3). Fig. 3 shows IAS with positive and negative impacts on the same sector. For example, Ambrosia trifida is one of the most difficult weeds to manage in many Figure 1. Number of IAS impacting across sectorial domains. Green bars indicate domains with the highest number of impacting IAS (both negative and positive). ‘NPR’ and ‘SMEs’ refer to Nature Protection and Restoration and Small and Medium Enterprises respectively (see Table 1 for details). 301 NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Chiara Magliozzi et al.: Assessing invasion impacts across sectors Figure 2. Intersections between the most impacted domains (>100 IAS) i.e., Nature Protection and Restoration (“NPR”), Agriculture, Plant, Animal and Human Health. Number of IAS that are common or unique to domains (‘intersection size’) as indicated by bottom matrix, which links the domains sharing the same species. ‘NPR’ and ‘SMEs’ refer to Nature Protection and Restoration and Small and Medium Enterprises respectively. Upset plot generated using “UpsetR” package (Conway et al. 2017). countries, resistant to herbicides, and a competitor with crops for light, moisture, and nutrients (Liebman et al. 2020; Kato-Noguchi and Kato 2024). However, it yields considerable amounts of forage of high nutritive value (Bassett et al. 1982; Chauvel et al. 2021) and could be used for phytoremediation and phytostabilisation (Kang et al. 1998). Negative impacts were by far more prevalent than positive impacts, the latter constituting about 10% to 16% respectively for plants and animals (Fig. 4a, b). However, differences across environments were apparent. For example, animals had a similar percentage of negative impacts on freshwater and terrestrial environments (47.03% vs. 40.17%), whilst plants especially impacted terrestrial environments (76.3%) (Fig. 4a, b). This difference is primarily related to the inherent characteristics of animal and plant taxa. Many animals, such as Myocastor coypus, have life cycles that allow them to occupy multiple habitats, leading to a more balanced impact across freshwater and terrestrial environments. In contrast, plants tend to have more localised impacts, predominantly affecting the specific environments they inhabit (e.g. Acacia dealbata). This is further influenced by the selection of plant species in our analysis, where we included 215 terrestrial species (including 3 species adapted to muddy floodplains and wet areas, e.g. Gymnocoronis spilanthoides) and 38 species exclusive to freshwater environments, and 16 marine IAS. This selection contributes to the observed skew towards terrestrial impacts for plants. 302 NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Chiara Magliozzi et al.: Assessing invasion impacts across sectors Figure 3. a. Number of IAS that were assessed as impacting negatively and/or positively each sector domain. No impacts were identified for the ‘Security’ and ‘Efficiency’ sector domains; b. Bubble plot of the distribution of confidence levels for negative and positive impacts across sector domains. The size of each bubble represents the number of IAS that display the corresponding confidence level and impact. DD = data deficient. Figure 4. Distribution of impact types across environments: a) Pie-donut chart for Animals (N = 319 IAS) combining positive and negative impacts on freshwater, marine and terrestrial environments. b) Pie-donut chart for Plants (N = 269 IAS) combining positive and negative impacts on freshwater, marine and terrestrial environments. 303 NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Chiara Magliozzi et al.: Assessing invasion impacts across sectors Workshop Focus groups The workshop hosted 54 participants, including representatives from Member State Competent Authorities, experts and researchers. The results of the primary assessment done by EASIN based on the literature review were presented to the participants outlining the aims of the workshop and levelling the understanding of IAS impacts. Following this, nine six-member focus groups applied the review methodology to a subset of 49 IAS (about 5 IAS per group) across environments (Suppl. material 1). These species had already been evaluated in the primary assessment. The groups’ work aimed at defining assigned species’ primary assessment and to discuss and report on difficulties they encountered in assessing the impacts on the specific policy sector domains, based on the scientific evidence provided. The facilitators presented the participants with an online Google form for compiling the assessment and a guidance per IAS (Suppl. material 1). This guidance contained definitions of types of impact and confidence levels, including excerpts of published texts for each species, which were used in the primary assessment, to help participants in their evaluation. Participants were bound for their evaluation to the information that was provided for each species. The participants within a group collaborated to assess the species. Each of them reviewed the sources, using printed copies of the assessment guidance provided, and reached a consensus for the final evaluation. Consequently, each group completed the Google form once. The assessments from the focus groups were immediately processed for analysis and the results were reported back to the plenary to validate the results and ask for additional inputs. Outcomes The EASIN primary assessment identified 23 domains on the subset of 49 IAS, compared to the 27 domains identified by workshop participants (Suppl. material 1: Fig. S2). Four new domains impacted either negatively or positively by these IAS were identified: Maritime (Port) including inland (e.g., for Asparagopsis armata, Myriophyllum aquaticum, Styela clava), New Bio Industries (e.g., for Asparagopsis armata, Arundo donax, Corbicula fluminea, Metapenaeus stebbingi, Grateloupia turuturu), Energy and security (e.g., Castor canadensis, Arundo donax, Myriophyllum aquaticum, Neltuma juliflora, Eucalyptus camaldulensis), and Energy efficiency (e.g., Corbicula fluminea, Myriophyllum aquaticum, Ctenopharyngodon idella, Styela clava). These new domains either replaced proposed ones or were added. For example, the marine red alga Asparagopsis armata, initially assessed as impacting the “Marine Environmental Status” domain, was instead indicated as impacting “Maritime (Port)”. For other species, such as the Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea, participants also identified additional impacted domains. Unlike the EASIN primary assessment, which identified 27/49 species with both positive and negative impacts, workshop participants identified 24 species, with a greater disparity between negative and positive impacts (Suppl. material 1: Fig. S3). One possible explanation for this discrepancy could be the limited time and training available to participants during the workshop, which might have influenced their ability to fully consider and evaluate both types of impacts. Additionally, experience bias may have played a role, as participants might have been more influenced by their personal experiences or prevailing narratives, leading to a skewed perception of the impacts. 310 NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Chiara Magliozzi et al.: Assessing invasion impacts across sectors Hawkins CL, Bacher S, Essl F, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Kühn I, Kumschick S, Nentwig W, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Rabitsch W, Richardson DM, Vilà M, Wilson JRU, Genovesi P, Blackburn TM (2015) Framework and guidelines for implementing the proposed IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT). Diversity & Distributions 21: 1360–1363. https://doi. org/10.1111/ddi.12379 IPBES (2023) Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and their Control of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Roy HE, Pauchard A, Stoett P, Renard Truong T, Bacher S, Galil BS, Hulme PE, Ikeda T, Sankaran KV, McGeoch, MA, Meyerson LA, Nuñez MA, Ordonez A, Rahlao SJ, Schwindt E, Seebens H, Sheppard AW, Vandvik V (Eds) IPBES secretariat. Bonn. https:// doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7430692 Kang B-H, Shim S-I, Lee S-G, Kim K-H, Chung I-M (1998) Evaluation of Ambrosia artemisiifolia var. elatior, Ambrosia trifida, Rumex crispus for phytoremediation of Cu and Cd contaminated soil. Korean Journal of Weed Science 18: 262–267. Kato-Noguchi H, Kato M (2024) Invasive Characteristics and Impacts of Ambrosia trifida. Agronomy 14: e2868. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14122868 Katsanevakis S, Wallentinus I, Zenetos A, Leppäkoski E, Çinar M, Oztürk B, Grabowski M, Golani D, Cardoso A (2014) Impacts of marine invasive alien species on ecosystem services and biodiversity: A pan-European review. Aquatic Invasions 9: 391–423. https://doi.org/10.3391/ ai.2014.9.4.01 Katsanevakis S, Rilov G, Edelist D (2018) Impacts of marine invasive alien species on European fisheries and aquaculture-plague or boon. CIESM Monograph 50: 125–132. Kumschick S, Nentwig W (2010) Some alien birds have as severe an impact as the most effectual alien mammals in Europe. Biological Conservation 143: 2757–2762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2010.07.023 Lamb BT, McCrea AA, Stoodley SH, Dzialowski AR (2021) Monitoring and water quality impacts of an herbicide treatment on an aquatic invasive plant in a drinking water reservoir. Journal of Environmental Management 288: e112444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112444 Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 Liebman M, Nichols VA (2020) Cropping system redesign for improved weed management: A modeling approach illustrated with giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Agronomy 10: e262. https://doi. org/10.3390/agronomy10020262 Marchessaux G, Mangano MC, Bizzarri S, M’Rabet C, Principato E, Lago N, Veyssiere D, Garrido M, Scyphers SB, Sarà G (2023) Invasive blue crabs and small-scale fisheries in the Mediterranean sea: Local ecological knowledge, impacts and future management. Marine Policy 148: e105461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105461 Mollot G, Pantel J, Romanuk T (2017) The Effects of Invasive Species on the Decline in Species Richness: A Global Meta-Analysis. Advances in Ecological Research. Elsevier, 61–83. https://doi. org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2016.10.002 Nentwig W, Kühnel E, Bacher S (2010) A generic impact-scoring system applied to alien mammals in Europe. Conservation Biology 24: 302–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01289.x Nentwig W, Bacher S, Pyšek P, Vilà M, Kumschick S (2016) The generic impact scoring system (GISS): A standardized tool to quantify the impacts of alien species. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 188: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5321-4 NNSS (2015) Rapid Risk Assessment. https://www.nonnativespecies.org/assets/Uploads/RSS_RA_ Corbicula_fluminea.pdf Nyumba TO, Sang CC, Olago DO, Marchant R, Waruingi L, Githiora Y, Kago F, Mwangi M, Owira G, Barasa R et al. (2021) Assessing the ecological impacts of transportation infrastructure 311 NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Chiara Magliozzi et al.: Assessing invasion impacts across sectors development: A reconnaissance study of the Standard Gauge Railway in Kenya. PLoS ONE 16: e0246248. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246248 Paint-Small VP (2013) Linking culture, ecology and policy: The invasion of Russian-olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.) on the Crow Indian reservation, south-central Montana, USA. PHD Thesis. Colorado State University. Pfeiffer JM, Voeks RA (2008) Biological invasions and biocultural diversity: Linking ecological and cultural systems. Environmental Conservation 35: 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0376892908005146 Pyšek P, Hulme PE, Simberloff D, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Carlton JT, Dawson W, Essl F, Foxcroft LC, Genovesi P et al. (2020) Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 95: 1511–1534. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12627 Rojas-Sandoval J, Ackerman JD, Marcano-Vega H, Willig MR (2022) Alien species affect the abundance and richness of native species in tropical forests: The role of adaptive strategies. Ecosphere 13: e4291. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4291 Roy HE, Rabitsch W, Scalera R, Stewart A, Gallardo B, Genovesi P, Essl F, Adriaens T, Bacher S, Booy O, Branquart E, Brunel S, Copp GH, Dean H, D'hondt B, Josefsson M, Kenis M, Kettunen M, Linnamagi M, Lucy F, Martinou A, Moore N, Nentwig W, Nieto A, Pergl J, Peyton J, Roques A, Schindler S, Schönrogge K, Solarz W, Stebbing PD, Trichkova T, Vanderhoeven S, van Valkenburg J, Zenetos A (2018) Developing a framework of minimum standards for the risk assessment of alien species. Journal of Applied Ecology 55: 526–538. https://doi. org/10.1111/1365-2664.13025 Roy HE, Tricarico E, Hassall R, Johns CA, Roy KA, Scalera R, Smith KG, Purse BV (2022) The role of invasive alien species in the emergence and spread of zoonoses. Biological Invasions 25: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02978-1 Shackleton RT, Richardson DM, Shackleton CM, Bennett B, Crowley SL, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Estévez RA, Fischer A, Kueffer C, Kull CA et al. (2019a) Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework. Journal of Environmental Management 229: 10–26. Shackleton RT, Shackleton CM, Kull CA (2019b) The role of invasive alien species in shaping loc https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.045 al livelihoods and human well-being: A review. Journal of Environmental Management 229: 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.007 Turbelin AJ, Hudgins EJ, Catford JA, Cuthbert RN, Diagne C, Kourantidou M, Roiz D, Courchamp F (2024) Biological invasions as burdens to primary economic sectors. Global Environmental Change 87: e102858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102858 Vanderbush B, Longhenry C, Lucchesi DO, Barnes ME (2021) A review of zebra mussel biology, distribution, aquatic ecosystem impacts, and control with specific emphasis on South Dakota, USA. Open Journal of Ecology 11: 163–182. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2021.112014 Vimercati G, Probert AF, Volery L, Bernardo-Madrid R, Bertolino S, Céspedes V, Essl F, Evans T, Gallardo B, Gallien L, González-Moreno P (2022) The EICAT+ framework enables classification of positive impacts of alien taxa on native biodiversity. PLoS Biology 20: e3001729. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001729 Watts DA, Moore GW (2011) Water-use dynamics of an invasive reed, Arundo donax, from leaf to stand. Wetlands 31: 725–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-011-0188-1 Yan J, Li Y, Liang X, Zhang Y, Dawood MA, Matuli’c D, Gao J (2017) Effects of dietary protein and lipid levels on growth performance, fatty acid composition and antioxidant‐related gene expressions in juvenile loach Misgurnus anguillicaudatus. Aquaculture Research 48: 5385–5393. https:// doi.org/10.1111/are.13352 312 NeoBiota 102: 295–312 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.102.152015 Chiara Magliozzi et al.: Assessing invasion impacts across sectors Supplementary material 1 Supplementary information Authors: Chiara Magliozzi, Ana Cristina Cardoso, Eugenio Gervasini, Beatrice Melone, Elisa Chiara Bizzotto, Giuseppe Brundu, Francesca Cagnacci, Emma Cebrian, Tim Adriaens, Maria Helena Alves, Cátia Bartilotti, Lucilla Carnevali, Sofia Duarte, Quentin Groom, Raquel Martins Queiroga, Sofie Meeus, Ana Luisa Nunes, Cristina Preda, Eduardo Rendón-Hernández, Samuel Vanden Abeele, Riccardo Scalera, Maarten P.M. Vanhove, Nuno Vaz Álvaro Data type: docx Explanation note: table S1. Confidence levels based on the strength of evidence. Adapted from Katsanevakis et al. (2014). table S2. List of IAS assessed by workshop participants. fig. S1. OOverview of the number of IAS assessed across environments and taxonomic groups. fig. S2. Domains (see definitions in the manuscript) identified during the workshop for the 49 IAS. fig. S3. IAS with reported positive and negative impacts across sector domains during the workshop. Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.102.152015.suppl1