expand article infoDaniela Giannetto, Marina Piria§, Ali Serhan Tarkan, Grzegorz Zięba|
‡ Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Turkey
§ University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
| University of Łódź, Łódź, Poland
Open Access

Species introductions are a major concern for ecosystem functioning, socio-economy and human well-being (Vilà et al. 2010; Lockwood et al. 2013; Diagne et al. 2021; Zenni et al. 2021). However, despite measures for prevention and control, a large number of non-native species have been identified in the last decades worldwide in both aquatic and terrestrial environments (IPBES 2019; Lowe et al. 2000; Guo et al. 2021). Although preventing introductions has proved to be the most effective management strategy (Wittenberg and Cock 2001; Pergl et al. 2016), extant non-native species are still expanding their distributional range and new non-native species are being recorded (Seebens et al. 2017). Non-native species introduced into new environments may represent a serious ecological and economical threat, especially if they spread rapidly in a new region and thus become invasive (Ricciardi et al. 2021; Cuthbert et al. 2021). Further, geographical areas that act as biodiversity hotspots with a high level of endemism are especially threatened by invasive species (Ribeiro and Leunda 2012). Hence, the identification of those non-native species that are likely to become invasive may be of crucial importance for the development of prevention measures, which can be achieved by risk screening studies (Adams and Lee 2012).

In the risk analysis process applied to non-native species (as defined in Copp et al. 2005), the first step is risk identification (a.k.a. risk screening), the second step is risk assessment, and the third step is risk management and communication (Canter 1993; UK Defra 2003). The risk screening of non-native species aims to identify which non-native species are likely to be invasive in a given risk assessment area, and the follow-up risk assessment for the highest risk species involves detailed examination of the likelihood and magnitude of risks of: (i) introduction (entry); (ii) establishment (of one or more self-sustaining populations); (iii) dispersal (more widely within the risk assessment area, i.e. so-called secondary spread or introductions); and (iv) impacts (to native biodiversity, ecosystem function and services, and the introduction and transmission of diseases) (see Vilizzi et al. 2022). Identification of potentially invasive species facilitates the development of policy and management procedures with regard to a specified risk assessment area to prevent and/or mitigate the impacts of biological invasions (Copp et al. 2016a).

Electronic decision-support tools for non-native species risk screening are becoming an essential component of government strategies to tackle non-native species invasions. The recent availability of user-friendly and widely deployable multilingual electronic tools (e.g. Copp et al. 2016b, 2021; Vilizzi et al. 2021) can facilitate early detection of potential threats, hence provide useful information to assist environmental managers and policy-makers in making decisions for the appropriate management and conservation of ecosystems. To this end, the Weed Risk Assessment (WRA: Pheloung et al. 1999) developed for terrestrial plants and later adapted to screening aquatic plants (Gordon et al. 2008) is a widely used decision-support tool. The WRA template inspired the ‘-ISK’ (Invasiveness Screening Kit) family of decision-support tools developed for aquatic organisms (Copp et al. 2005; Copp 2013; Vilizzi et al. 2019), which were recently combined into the taxon-generic Aquatic Species Invasiveness Screening Kit (AS-ISK) to screen freshwater, brackish and marine aquatic organisms under current and future climatic conditions (Copp et al. 2016b, 2021; Vilizzi et al. 2021).

Despite the existence of the above-mentioned decision-support tools and a large number of published applications worldwide (e.g. Gordon et al. 2008; Vilizzi et al. 2019, 2021), there remain several knowledge gaps in the risk screening of non-native species with relevance to the following topics: (i) the relative dearth of information on the invasiveness of non-native aquatic species in taxonomic groups other than fishes and aquatic invertebrates; (ii) the paucity of risk screening studies focusing on biodiversity hotspots and/or tropical areas; (iii) the requirement for updated information on species invasiveness within a dynamic risk screening and comparative perspective; and (iv) the need for a taxon-generic decision-support toolkit for screening terrestrial animals and related applications.

All papers in this Special Issue were designed to address at least one of the research topics mentioned above so as to fill current knowledge gaps and provide novel information in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species.

Invasiveness of non-native aquatic plants and pathogens

The use of inconsistent and ambiguous terminology about invasive non-native species, together with the lack of focus on their potential impacts, limit understanding of their biology and role in the invaded ecosystems (Verbrugge et al. 2021). Insufficient understanding also causes a lack of public awareness and a consequent shortage of dedicated studies. Fachinello et al. (2022) emphasised this point by applying a scientometric approach to analyse academic documents on non-native plant species in Brazil published between 2002 and 2021. The authors found that only 13% of the 398 examined publications provided a clear definition of ‘invasive species’. Of these publications, only 23.8% reported some type of damage caused by the invasive species and only 5% addressed economic or social damage. The authors also showed that only 17% of the publications proposed a method for control and/or mitigation of biological invasions and encouraged the use of further scientometric studies to guide future efforts to support more objective measures for management and decision-making.

There is still a lack of literature and relevant research on the distribution of non-native aquatic plants in some areas, despite their posing a serious threat to native macrophyte community composition by disrupting natural flow dynamics, depleting oxygen and altering food web structure and soil properties. To fill this knowledge gap and with the aim to help prioritisation measures for the proper management of non-native aquatic plants under projected climate conditions, Piria et al. (2022) identified and screened 10 extant and 14 aquatic plant species from a horizon scanning for their risk to become invasive in the Pannonian and Mediterranean regions of Croatia. The authors classified 90% and 60% of the extant aquatic plant species as carrying a high risk for the Pannonian and Mediterranean regions, respectively, under current and future climate conditions. Further, 42% of the species from a horizon scanning were classified as high-risk under current climatic conditions, but increased to 78% under a scenario of global warming.

Although most risk analyses in invasion biology have focused on the invasiveness of non-native species, some (dominant) native species can also pose a high risk of becoming invasive, especially under current global change. Yazlık and Ambarlı (2022) used an adaptation to Turkey’s geographical and climatic conditions of the WRA decision-support tool to evaluate the risk of invasiveness of ten plant species (five non-native and five native) all known to be invasive in several parts of the world. Based on the resulting risk scores, all non-native species were classified as invasive and all native species as ‘expanding’ for Turkey. The outcomes of the study suggested that species can carry several risk-related traits resulting in high-risk scores irrespective of their origin. The authors also emphasised the importance of including dominant species with high environmental and socio-economic impacts in their habitats as part of priority lists for the implementation of management measures, hence irrespective of the species’ origin (i.e. native or non-native).

Introductions of non-native species can drive disease emergence by extending the geographical range of associated parasites and pathogens (Foster et al. 2021), although limited research on this topic is available to date. The aquatic ornamental industry is one of the main introduction pathways for freshwater fish invasions, which can also act as a driver of disease emergence from associated parasites and pathogens by extending their geographical range (Chan et al. 2019). The increase in temperatures projected under future climate change scenarios is likely to increase the probability of survival and establishment of some commonly traded tropical and subtropical non-native ornamental fish species, even in geographical areas such as Northern Europe, which is currently not (yet) climatically suitable for their survival. Guilder et al. (2022) screened 24 of the 233 ornamental aquatic species (fishes and invertebrates) identified as traded in the UK for potential parasites and pathogens and reported a total of 155 of them of which the majority were platyhelminths, viruses and bacteria. Some potential parasites and pathogens currently absent from UK waters and with zoonotic potential were also identified, and their presence was highlighted in the context of understanding potential impacts in addition to the provision of evidence to inform risk assessment and mitigation approaches.

Biodiversity hotspots

Biological invasions are considered to be one of the most important threats to global biodiversity (Jeschke et al. 2022), particularly in biodiversity hotspots where non-native species may cause extensive damage to native species and ecosystems (Magalhães and Jacobi 2013). Preserving biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem function is of utmost importance not only in geographically large ecosystems but also in vulnerable biodiversity hotspots, which often host a large number of rare and/or endemic species. The South Caucasus represents one such biodiversity hotspot that includes the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Mumladze et al. (2022) screened 32 non-native extant and fish species from a horizon scanning for their risk of invasiveness under current and projected climate conditions in this risk assessment area. The number of very high-risk species increased from four (12.5%) under our current climate to 12 (37.5%) under projected climate conditions.

The Balkan Peninsula is also considered an important area for freshwater biodiversity due to the high number of endemic species (Hewitt 2011; Ćaleta et al. 2019). This region is particularly important for the high diversity of salmonid species that are being threatened by the introduction of non-native salmonids (Škraba Jurlina et al. 2020) and for which little is known about their potential risk of invasiveness, especially under predicted climate change conditions. Marić et al. (2022) screened 13 extant and four non-native salmonid species from a horizon scanning for their risk of becoming invasive in the Danube and Adriatic basins of four Balkan countries. Six (35%) of the screened species were ranked as high-risk under current climate conditions, although they decreased to three (17%) under projected conditions of global warming. Species ranked as medium-risk under current conditions were also medium-risk under future climate projections, although the relative risk score decreased. The authors concluded that global warming would influence salmonids and that only species with a wider temperature tolerance such as rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss will likely prevail.

Comparative perspectives

One of the most important challenges in research (including risk screening studies) conducted simultaneously or repeated by several researchers to obtain reliable and reproducible results is to achieve the maximum possible compliance. A major challenge in risk assessment studies is to collect information on the overall severity and extent of consistency in responses, and empirical information on the factors influencing consistency across assessors is still not fully available. Bernardo-Madrid et al. (2022) quantified and compared the consistency in the scores of questions for impact assessment protocols with inter-rater reliability metrics. The authors provided an overview of impact assessment consistency and the factors altering it by evaluating 1,742 impact assessments of 60 terrestrials, freshwater and marine vertebrates, invertebrates and plants conducted using seven protocols applied in Europe. The authors reported that the great majority of assessments (67%) showed high consistency and only a small minority (13%) low consistency. Consistency of responses did not depend on species’ identity or the amount of information on their impacts, but partly on the impact type evaluated and the protocol used.

Stable isotope analysis is commonly used to reconstruct species’ feeding ecology and their trophic interactions within communities. Therefore, stable isotope analysis has been considered a sensitive and powerful tool to reveal competition and predation processes in food webs and used to quantify the ecological effects of non-native species (Sagouis et al. 2015). Balzani and Haubrock (2022) proposed the implementation of stable isotope analysis as an approach for assessment schemes to increase the accuracy in predicting invader impacts as well as the success of reintroductions and assisted migrations. The authors reviewed and discussed possibilities and limitations of using this method and suggested promising and useful applications for scientists and managers.

Development of a screening toolkit for terrestrial animals

Despite the availability of decision support tools for terrestrial animals, they are often in spreadsheet format which can make their usage time-consuming, if not counter-intuitive, to the end user. However, still there is no user-friendly, dialog-driven electronic decision-support tool, such as AS-ISK screening toolkit, available for terrestrial animals. Kopecký et al. (2019) remedied the lack of a dedicated screening tool using the AS-ISK as a ‘surrogate’ to screen terrestrial reptiles which highlighted need for its development. In this special issue, Vilizzi et al. (2022) described the development of a multilingual decision-support tool for screening terrestrial animals, namely the Terrestrial Animal Species Invasiveness Screening Kit (TAS-ISK). Based on the programming architecture of the AS-ISK and the questionnaire template common to the WRA-type toolkits, the TAS-ISK consists of 55 questions of which 49 deal with the species’ biogeographical/historical traits and biological/ecological interactions and six are aimed to predicting the potential influence of climate change on the risks of introduction, establishment, dispersal and impact of the screened species. The authors also reported the results of nine trial screenings for each representative species in the main taxonomic groups of terrestrial animals supported by the toolkit: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, annelids, insects, molluscs, nematodes, and platyhelminths.


Although the current research findings may not solve all identified shortcomings related to research in the risk screening of non-native species, all papers in this Special Issue have contributed to fill at least partially the existing gaps. The content of the Special Issue has helped to emphasise the importance not only of using appropriate nomenclature but also of a comprehensive approach to understanding the threat posed by non-native species and to multi-author risk screening studies. Alarming data have arisen on how many non-native species of aquatic plants could pose a threat to local communities, especially under projected conditions of global warming. These data are even more worrying considering the high potential invasiveness emerged also for some native plant species. At the same time, projected conditions of global warming may mitigate the invasiveness risk of some non-native species such as some salmonids that are not tolerant to high temperature fluctuations. The accidental spread of aquatic potential parasites and pathogens is also of concern and especially with regard to the fate of biodiversity hotspots. Finally, the proposal of novel approaches for assessment schemes based on different techniques such as stable isotope analysis together with the availability of the newly developed TAS-ISK decision-support tool for the risk screening of terrestrial animals, is expected to assist researchers and stakeholders and increase accuracy in predicting the impacts of biological invasions.


Work by MP for this Special Issue was supported by the EIFAAC/FAO Project “Management/Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species in Europe”. We would like to thank the many reviewers who evaluated the manuscripts contributed to this Special Issue for their invaluable suggestions. Special thanks to Lorenzo Vilizzi for valuable comments and suggestions on the other manuscripts.


  • Adams DC, Lee DJ (2012) Technology adoption and mitigation of invasive species damage and risk: Application to zebra mussels. Journal of Bioeconomics 14(1): 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-011-9117-x
  • Balzani P, Haubrock PJ (2022) Expanding the invasion toolbox: including stable isotope analysis in risk assessment. In: Giannetto D, Piria M, Tarkan AS, Zięba G (Eds) Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species. NeoBiota 76: 191–210. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.76.77944
  • Bernardo-Madrid R, González-Moreno P, Gallardo B, Bacher S, Vilà M (2022) Consistency in impact assessments of invasive species is generally high and depends on protocols and impact types. In: Giannetto D, Piria M, Tarkan AS, Zięba G (Eds) Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species. NeoBiota 76: 163–190. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.76.83028
  • Ćaleta M, Marčić Z, Buj I, Zanella D, Mustafić P, Duplić A, Horvatić S (2019) A Review of Extant Croatian Freshwater Fish and Lampreys. Croatian Journal of Fisheries: Ribarstvo 77(3): 137–234. https://doi.org/10.2478/cjf-2019-0016
  • Canter LW (1993) Pragmatic suggestions for incorporating risk assessment principles in EIA studies. Environment and Progress 15: 125–138.
  • Chan FT, Beatty SJ, Gilles Jr AS, Hill JE, Kozic S, Luo D, Morgan DL, Pavia Jr RTB, Therriault TW, Verreycken H, Vilizzi L, Wei H, Yeo DCJ, Zeng Y, Zięba G, Copp GH (2019) Leaving the fish bowl: The ornamental trade as a global vector for freshwater fish invasions. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 22(4): 417–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2019.1685849
  • Copp GH (2013) The Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK) for non-native freshwater fishes – a summary of current applications. Risk Analysis 33(8): 1394–1396. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12095
  • Copp GH, Garthwaite R, Gozlan RE (2005) Risk identification and assessment of non-native freshwater fishes: concepts and perspectives on protocols for the UK, Cefas Science Technical Report No. 129, Cefas, Lowestoft, 2005. www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/publications/techrep/tech129.pdf
  • Copp GH, Russell IC, Peeler EJ, Gherardi F, Tricarico E, MacLeod A, Cowx IG, Nunn AD, Occhipinti Ambrogi A, Savini D, Mumford JD, Britton JR (2016a) European Non-native Species in Aquaculture Risk Analysis Scheme – a summary of assessment protocols and decision making tools for use of alien species in aquaculture. Fisheries Management and Ecology 23(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12074
  • Copp GH, Vilizzi L, Tidbury H, Stebbing PD, Tarkan AS, Miossec L, Goulletquer P (2016b) Development of a generic decision-support tool for identifying potentially invasive aquatic taxa: AS-ISK. Management of Biological Invasions 7(4): 343–350. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2016.7.4.04
  • Copp GH, Vilizzi L, Wei H, Li S, Piria M, Al-Faisal AJ, Almeida D, Atique U, Al-Wazzan Z, Bakiu R, Bašić T, Bui TD, Canning-Clode J, Castro N, Chaichana R, Çoker T, Dashinov D, Ekmekçi FG, Erős T, Ferincz A, Ferreira T, Giannetto D, Gilles Jr AS, Głowacki Ł, Goulletquer P, Interesova E, Iqbal S, Jakubčinová K, Kanongdate K, Kim JE, Kopecký O, Kostov O, Koutsikos N, Kozic S, Kristan P, Kurita Y, Lee HG, Leuven RSEW, Lipinskaya T, Lukas J, Marchini A, González Martínez AI, Masson L, Memedemin D, Moghaddas SD, Monteiro J, Mumladze L, Naddafi R, Năvodaru I, Olsson KH, Onikura N, Paganelli D, Pavia Jr RT, Perdikaris C, Pickholtz R, Pietraszewski D, Povž M, Preda C, Ristovska M, Rosíková K, Santos JM, Semenchenko V, Senanan W, Simonović P, Smeti E, Števove B, Švolíková K, Ta KAT, Tarkan AS, Top N, Tricarico E, Uzunova E, Vardakas L, Verreycken H, Zięba G, Mendoza R (2021) Speaking their language – Development of a multilingual decision-support tool for communicating invasive species risks to decision makers and stakeholders. Environmental Modelling & Software 135: 104900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104900
  • Cuthbert RN, Pattison Z, Taylor NG, Verbrugge L, Diagne C, Ahmed DA, Leroy B, Angulo E, Briski E, Capinha C, Catford JA, Dalu T, Essl F, Gozlan RE, Haubrock PJ, Kourantidou M, Kramer AM, Renault D, Wasserman RJ, Courchamp F (2021) Global economic costs of aquatic invasive alien species. Science of the Total Environment 775: 145238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145238
  • Diagne C, Leroy B, Vaissiere AC, Gozlan RE, Roiz D, Jaric I, Salles JM, Bradshaw CJA, Courchamp F (2021) High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 592(7855): 571–576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03405-6
  • Fachinello MC, Romero JHC, Chiba de Castro WA (2022) Defining invasive species and demonstrating impacts of biological invasions: a scientometric analysis of studies on invasive alien plants in Brazil over the past 20 years. In: Giannetto D, Piria M, Tarkan AS, Zięba G (Eds) Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species. NeoBiota 76: 13–24. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.76.85881
  • Foster R, Peeler E, Bojko J, Clark PF, Morritt D, Roy HE, Stebbing P, Tidbury HJ, Wood LE, Bass D (2021) Pathogens co-transported with invasive non-native aquatic species: Implications for risk analysis and legislation. NeoBiota 69: 79–102. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.69.71358
  • Guilder J, Copp GH, Thrush MA, Stinton N, Murphy D, Murray J, Tidbury HJ (2022) Threats to UK freshwaters under climate change: Commonly traded aquatic ornamental species and their potential pathogens and parasites. In: Giannetto D, Piria M, Tarkan AS, Zięba G (Eds) Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species. NeoBiota 76: 73–108. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.76.80215
  • Guo Q, Cen X, Song R, McKinney ML, Wang D (2021) Worldwide effects of non-native species on species–area relationships. Conservation Biology 35(2): 711–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13573
  • IPBES (2019) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Brondizio ES, Settele J, Díaz S, Ngo HT (Eds) IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1148 pp. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673
  • Jeschke JM, Liu C, Saul WC, Seebens H (2022) Biological Invasions: Introduction, Establishment and Spread. In: Mehner T, Tockner K (Eds) Encyclopedia of Inland Waters (2nd Edin. ), Elsevier, 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819166-8.00033-5
  • Kopecký O, Bílková A, Hamatová V, Kňazovická D, Konrádová L, Kunzová B, Slaměníková J, Slanina O, Šmídová T, Zemancová T (2019) Potential invasion risk of pet traded lizards, snakes, crocodiles, and tuatara in the EU on the basis of a Risk Assessment Model (RAM) and Aquatic Species Invasiveness Screening Kit (AS-ISK). Diversity (Basel) 11(9): 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/d11090164
  • Lockwood JL, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP (2013) Invasion ecology. 2nd Edn. Wiley, Chichester, 466 pp.
  • Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2000) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database. The IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), Auckland, New Zealand, 1–12.
  • Magalhães ALB, Jacobi CM (2013) Asian aquarium fishes in a Neotropical biodiversity hotspot: Impeding establishment, spread and impacts. Biological Invasions 15(10): 2157–2163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0443-x
  • Marić A, Špelić I, Radočaj T, Vidović Z, Kanjuh T, Vilizzi L, Piria M, Nikolić V, Škraba Jurlina D, Mrdak D, Simonović P (2022) Changing climate may mitigate the invasiveness risk of non-native salmonids in the Danube and Adriatic basins of the Balkan Peninsula (south-eastern Europe). In: Giannetto D, Piria M, Tarkan AS, Zięba G (Eds) Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species. NeoBiota 76: 135–161. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.76.82964
  • Mumladze L, Kuljanishvili T, Japoshvili B, Epitashvili G, Kalous L, Vilizzi L, Piria M (2022) Risk of invasiveness of non-native fishes in the South Caucasus biodiversity and geopolitical hotspot. In: Giannetto D, Piria M, Tarkan AS, Zięba G (Eds) Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species. NeoBiota 76: 109–133. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.76.82776
  • Pergl J, Sádlo J, Petrusek A, Laštůvka Z, Musil J, Perglová I, Šanda R, Šefrová H, Šíma J, Vohralík V, Pyšek P (2016) Black, Grey and Watch Lists of alien species in the Czech Republic based on environmental impacts and management strategy. NeoBiota 28: 1–37. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.28.4824
  • Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. Journal of Environmental Management 57(4): 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0297
  • Piria M, Radočaj T, Vilizzi L, Britvec M (2022) Climate change may exacerbate the risk of invasiveness of non-native aquatic plants: the case of the Pannonian and Mediterranean regions of Croatia. In: Giannetto D, Piria M, Tarkan AS, Zięba G (Eds) Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species. NeoBiota 76: 25–52. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.76.83320
  • Ricciardi A, Iacarella JC, Aldridge DC, Blackburn TM, Carlton JT, Catford JA, Dick JTA, Hulme PE, Jeschke JE, Liebhold AM, Lockwood JL, MacIsaac HJ, Meyerson LA, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Ruiz GM, Simberloff D, Vilà M, Wardle DA (2021) Four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid environmental change. Environmental Reviews 29(2): 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2020-0088
  • Sagouis A, Cucherousset J, Villéger S, Santoul F, Boulêtreau S (2015) Non-native species modify the isotopic structure of freshwater fish communities across the globe. Ecography 38: 001–007. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01348
  • Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Pagad S, Pysek P, Winter M, Arianoutsou M, Bacher S, Blasius B, Brundu G, Capinha C, Celesti-Grapow L, Dawson W, Dullinger S, Fuentes N, Jager H, Kartesz J, Kenis M, Kreft H, Kuhn I, Lenzner B, Liebhold A, Mosena A, Moser D, Nishino M, Pearman D, Pergl J, Rabitsch W, Rojas-Sandoval J, Roques A, Rorke S, Rossinelli S, Roy HE, Scalera R, Schindler S, Stajerova K, Tokarska-Guzik B, van Kleunen M, Walker K, Weigelt P, Yamanaka T, Essl F (2017) No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nature Communications 8(1): e14435. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14435
  • Škraba Jurlina D, Marić A, Mrdak D, Kanjuh T, Špelić I, Nikolić V, Piria M, Simonović P (2020) Alternative life-history in native trout (Salmo spp.) suppresses the invasive effect of alien trout strains introduced into streams in the western part of the Balkans. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8: 188. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00188
  • Verbrugge LNH, Dawson MI, Gettys LA, Leuven RSEW, Marchante H, Marchante E, Nummi P, Rutenfrans AHM, Schneider K, Vanderhoeven S (2021) Novel tools and best practices for education about invasive alien species. Management of Biological Invasions 12(1): 8–24. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2021.12.1.02
  • Vilà M, Basnou C, Pyšek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme PE (2010) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8(3): 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1890/080083
  • Vilizzi L, Copp GH, Adamovich B, David A, Chan J, Davison PI, Dembski S, Ekmekçi FG, Ferincz Á, Forneck SC, Hill JE, Kim JE, Koutsikos N, Leuven RSEW, Luna SA, Magalhães F, Marr SM, Mendoza R, Mourão CF, Neal JW, Onikura N, Perdikaris C, Piria M, Poulet N, Puntila R, Range IL, Simonović P, Ribeiro F, Tarkan AS, Troca DFA, Vardakas L, Verreycken H, Vintsek L, Weyl OLF, Yeo DCJ, Zeng Y (2019) A global review and meta-analysis of applications of the freshwater Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 29(3): 529–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-019-09562-2
  • Vilizzi L, Copp GH, Hill JE, Adamovich B, Aislabie L, Akin D, Al-Faisal AJ, Almeida D, Azmai MNA, Bakiu R, Bellati A, Bernier R, Bies JM, Bilge G, Branco P, Bui TD, Canning-Clode J, Cardoso Ramos HA, Castellanos-Galindo GA, Castro N, Chaichana R, Chainho P, Chan J, Cunico AM, Curd A, Dangchana P, Dashinov D, Davison PI, de Camargo MP, Dodd JA, Durland Donahou AL, Edsman L, Ekmekçi FG, Elphinstone-Davis J, Erős T, Evangelista C, Fenwick G, Ferincz Á, Ferreira T, Feunteun E, Filiz H, Forneck SC, Gajduchenko HS, Gama Monteiro J, Gestoso I, Giannetto D, Gilles Jr AS, Gizzi F, Glamuzina B, Glamuzina L, Goldsmit J, Gollasch S, Goulletquer P, Grabowska J, Harmer R, Haubrock PJ, He D, Hean JW, Herczeg G, Howland KL, İlhan A, Interesova E, Jakubčinová K, Jelmert A, Johnsen SI, Kakareko T, Kanongdate K, Killi N, Kim JE, Kırankaya ŞG, Kňazovická D, Kopecký O, Kostov V, Koutsikos N, Kozic S, Kuljanishvili T, Kumar B, Kumar L, Kurita Y, Kurtul I, Lazzaro L, Lee L, Lehtiniemi M, Leonardi G, Leuven RSEW, Li S, Lipinskaya T, Liu F, Lloyd L, Lorenzoni M, Luna SA, Lyons TJ, Magellan K, Malmstrøm M, Marchini A, Marr SM, Masson G, Masson L, McKenzie CH, Memedemin D, Mendoza R, Minchin D, Miossec L, Moghaddas SD, Moshobane MC, Mumladze L, Naddafi R, Najafi-Majd E, Năstase A, Năvodaru I, Neal JW, Nienhuis S, Nimtim M, Nolan ET, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Ojaveer H, Olenin S, Olsson K, Onikura N, O’Shaughnessy K, Paganelli D, Parretti P, Patoka J, Pavia Jr RTB, Pellitteri-Rosa D, Pelletier-Rousseau M, Peralta EM, Perdikaris C, Pietraszewski D, Piria M, Pitois S, Pompei L, Poulet N, Preda C, Puntila-Dodd R, Qashqaei AT, Radočaj T, Rahmani H, Raj S, Reeves D, Ristovska M, Rizevsky V, Robertson DR, Robertson P, Ruykys L, Saba AO, Santos JM, Sarı HM, Segurado P, Semenchenko V, Senanan W, Simard N, Simonović P, Skóra ME, Slovák Švolíková K, Smeti E, Šmídová T, Špelić I, Srėbalienė G, Stasolla G, Stebbing P, Števove B, Suresh VR, Szajbert B, Ta KAT, Tarkan AS, Tempesti J, Therriault TW, Tidbury HJ, Top-Karakuş N, Tricarico E, Troca DFA, Tsiamis K, Tuckett QM, Tutman P, Uyan U, Uzunova E, Vardakas L, Velle G, Verreycken H, Vintsek L, Wei H, Weiperth A, Weyl OLF, Winter ER, Włodarczyk R, Wood LE, Yang R, Yapıcı S, Yeo SSB, Yoğurtçuoğlu B, Yunnie ALE, Zhu Y, Zięba G, Žitňanová K, Clarke S (2021) A global-scale screening of non-native aquatic organisms to identify potentially invasive species under current and future climate conditions. Science of the Total Environment 788: 147868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147868
  • Vilizzi L, Piria M, Pietraszewski D, Kopecký O, Špelić I, Radočaj T, Šprem N, Ta KAT, Tarkan AS, Weiperth A, Yoğurtçuoğlu B, Candan O, Herczeg G, Killi N, Lemić D, Szajbert B, Almeida D, Al-Wazzan Z, Atique U, Bakiu R, Chaichana R, Dashinov D, Ferincz Á, Flieller G, Gilles Jr AS, Goulletquer P, Interesova E, Iqbal S, Koyama A, Kristan P, Li S, Lukas J, Moghaddas SD, Monteiro JG, Mumladze L, Olsson KH, Paganelli D, Perdikaris C, Pickholtz R, Preda C, Ristovska M, Švolíková KS, Števove B, Uzunova E, Vardakas L, Verreycken H, Wei H, Zięba G (2022) Development and application of a multilingual electronic decision-support tool for risk screening non-native terrestrial animals under current and future climate conditions. In: Giannetto D, Piria M, Tarkan AS, Zięba G (Eds) Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species. NeoBiota 76: 211–236. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.76.84268
  • Yazlık A, Ambarlı D (2022) Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey. In: Giannetto D, Piria M, Tarkan AS, Zięba G (Eds) Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species. NeoBiota 76: 53–72. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.76.85973