| Literature DB >> 30926662 |
Alice Fournier1, Caterina Penone2, Maria Grazia Pennino3, Franck Courchamp4.
Abstract
Invasive alien species are a great threat to biodiversity and human livelihoods worldwide. The most effective way to limit their impacts and costs is to prevent their introduction into new areas. Identifying invaders and invasions before their occurrence would arguably be the most efficient strategy. Here, we provide a profiling method to predict which species-with which particular ecological characteristics-will invade, and where they could invade. We illustrate our approach with ants, which are among the most detrimental invasive species, as they are responsible for declines of numerous taxa, are involved in local extinctions, disturb ecosystem functioning, and impact multiple human activities. Based on statistical profiling of 1,002 ant species from an extensive trait database, we identify 13 native ant species with an ecological profile that matches that of known invasive ants. Even though they are not currently described as such, these species are likely to become the next global invaders. We couple these predictions with species distribution models to identify the regions most at risk from the invasion of these species: Florida and Central America, Brazil, Central Africa and Madagascar, Southeast Asia, Papua New Guinea Northeast Australia, and many islands worldwide. This framework, applicable to any other taxa, represents a remarkable opportunity to implement timely and specifically shaped proactive management strategies against biological invasions.Entities:
Keywords: Formicidae; alien invasive species; ants; biological invasion; data imputation
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30926662 PMCID: PMC6475384 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1803456116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.Predicted invasiveness probability distributions for (1) ant species recognized as invasive by IUCN and (2) ant species for which no information on invasive status exists. Dark gray bars on the right of the red lines correspond to superinvasive profiles, medium gray bars to invasive, and light gray bars to noninvasive. The asterisk (*) points to A. octospinosus, which the model shows to be wrongly classified as invasive by the IUCN. For the sake of clarity, the Right graph has two y axes: the light-gray axis corresponds to the light-gray bar of noninvasive species only.
Predicted invasiveness probabilities, or “invasion profiles,” of 19 invasive species from the IUCN red list (in boldface) and 18 potential future invaders identified with our model
| Species | P | ± | % |
| Superinvasive profiles | |||
| | 0.87 | 0.02 | 100 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| | 0.83 | 0.01 | 100 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Invasive profiles | |||
| |
|
|
|
| | 0.38 | 0.04 | 98 |
| | 0.23 | 0.01 | 100 |
| | 0.17 | 0.01 | 100 |
| | 0.17 | 0.01 | 100 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| | 0.17 | 0.16 | 100 |
| | 0.14 | 0.02 | 100 |
| | 0.13 | 0.01 | 100 |
| | 0.13 | 0.01 | 100 |
| | 0.13 | 0.01 | 100 |
| | 0.13 | 0.01 | 100 |
| | 0.13 | 0.01 | 100 |
| | 0.13 | 0.01 | 100 |
| | 0.13 | 0.01 | 100 |
| | 0.13 | 0.01 | 100 |
| | 0.13 | 0.01 | 100 |
| | 0.13 | 0.01 | 100 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
“P”: invasiveness probability (mean: 100 models); “±”: invasiveness variability (SD: 100 models); “%”: percentage of models. Note that the values of A. octospinosus are P = 0.0001 ± 9.07E-05.
Fig. 2.Global distribution of predicted invasive species for (A) the predicted superinvasive L. canescens, (B) the predicted superinvasive T. difficilis, and (C) the cumulation of the individual climatic suitability of the 11 species with sufficient data (see main text). Since the exact native range is often unknown, the projected climatic suitability includes the native range of species.
Fig. 3.Diagram summarizing our approach with (A) the initial trait dataset (invasive status is only known for species on IUCN list); (B) trait selection according to different criteria; (C) imputation calibration to maintain the error below a given threshold; (D) multiple imputation (using the best parameters identified in B) and modeling of the imputed datasets; (E) use of the model to predict any species invasiveness probability based on its trait data; and (F) mapping of potential areas at risk using species distribution models.