Approaches, values, and perceptions in invasion science are highly dynamic, and like in other disciplines, views among different people can diverge. This has led to debate in the field specifically surrounding the core themes of values, management, impacts, and terminology. Considering these debates, we surveyed 698 scientists and practitioners globally to assess levels of polarization (opposing views) on core and contentious topics. The survey was distributed online (via Google Forms) and promoted through listservs and social media. Although there were generally high levels of consensus among respondents, there was some polarization (scores of ≥0.39 [top quartile]). Relating to values, there was high polarization regarding claims of invasive species denialism, whether invasive species contribute to biodiversity, and how biodiversity reporting should be conducted. With regard to management, there were polarized views on banning the commercial use of beneficial invasive species, the extent to which stakeholders' perceptions should influence management, whether invasive species use alone is an appropriate control strategy, and whether eradication of invasive plants is possible. For impacts, there was high polarization concerning whether invasive species drive or are a side effect of degradation and whether invasive species benefits are understated. For terminology, polarized views related to defining invasive species based only on spread, whether species can be labeled as invasive in their native ranges, and whether language used is too xenophobic. Factor and regression analysis revealed that views were particularly divergent between people working on different invasive taxa (plants and mammals) and in different disciplines (between biologists and social scientists), between academics and practitioners, and between world regions (between Africa and the Global North). Unlike in other studies, age and gender had a limited influence on response patterns. Better integration globally and between disciplines, taxa, and sectors (e.g., academic vs. practitioners) could help build broader understanding and consensus.

Los enfoques, valores y percepciones en el campo de las invasiones biológicas son muy dinámicos, y como en otras disciplinas científicas, los expertos pueden tener distintas opiniones. Esto ha creado debates, especialmente sobre temas relacionados con valores, gestión, impactos y terminología. Considerando estos debates, encuestamos a 698 científicos y gestores de todo el mundo para evaluar sus niveles de polarización (opiniones opuestas) sobre una serie de temas fundamentales y polémicos. La encuesta fue distribuida a través de internet (a través de Google Forms) y promovida por medio de listas de correo electrónico y redes sociales. Aunque, en general, hubo consenso entre los encuestados, hubo cierta polarización (puntuaciones de ≥ 0.39 [cuartil más alto]). En relación con valores, hubo una gran polarización sobre aquellas declaraciones relacionadas con el negacionismo de especies invasoras, si las especies invasoras contribuyen a aumentar la biodiversidad y cómo se deberían llevar a cabo los informes sobre biodiversidad. En relación con la gestión, hubo opiniones polarizadas sobre la prohibición del uso comercial de especies invasoras beneficiosas, si la opinión de las partes interesadas debería influir en la gestión, si el uso de especies invasoras por sí solo es una estrategia de control adecuada y si la erradicación de plantas invasoras es factible. En cuanto a impactos, hubo gran polarización en cuanto a sí las especies invasoras conducen a o son un efecto lateral de la degradación de ecosistemas y ssi los beneficios de las especies invasoras están subestimados. En cuanto a terminología, encontramos opiniones polarizadas relacionadas con definir especies invasoras exclusivamente en base a su expansión, si las especies se pueden considerar invasoras en sus rangos de distribución nativos y si el lenguaje utilizado en el campo de las invasiones biológicas es xenofóbico. Los análisis factoriales y de regresión revelaron que las opiniones de los expertos encuestados fueron particularmente divergentes entre personas que trabajan con diferentes taxones (plantas y mamíferos) en diferentes disciplinas (entre biólogos y sociólogos), entre científicos y gestores y entre regiones del mundo (entre países de África y del hemisferio Norte). A diferencia de otros estudios, la edad y el género tuvieron una influencia limitada sobre lass respuestas obtenidas. Una mejor integración global y entre disciplinas, taxones y sectores (o. e., investigadores vs. gestores) podría contribuir a alcanzar un mayor entendimiento y consenso.

Centre for Invasion Biology Department of Botany and Zoology Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch South Africa

Department of Biology Unit Ecology and Evolution University of Fribourg Fribourg Switzerland

Department of Invasion Ecology Institute of Botany Czech Academy of Sciences Průhonice Czech Republic

Institute of Geography and Sustainability University of Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland

Swiss Federal Institute for Forest Snow and Landscape Research WSL Birmensdorf Switzerland

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Abrahams, B. , Sitas, N. , & Esler, K. J. (2019). Exploring the dynamics of research collaborations by mapping social networks in invasion science. Journal of Environmental Management, 229, 27–37. PubMed

Aldridge, A. (2001). Surveying the social world: Principles and practice in survey research. McGraw‐Hill Education.

Alyokhin, A. (2011). Non‐natives: Put biodiversity at risk. Nature, 475, 36. PubMed

Amano, T. , González‐Varo, J. P. , & Sutherland, W. J. (2016). Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLoS Biology, 14, e2000933. PubMed PMC

Baldauf, C. , & de Oliveira Lunardi, V. (2020). Multiple perspectives on biodiversity conservation: From concept to heated debate. In Baldauf C. (Ed.), Participatory biodiversity conservation (pp. 15–32). Springer.

Bernos, T. A. , Jeffries, K. M. , & Mandrak, N. E. (2022). Aquatic invasive species specialists’ perceptions on the importance of genetic tools and concepts to inform management. Biological Invasions, 24, 1863–1879.

Blackburn, T. M. , Pyšek, P. , Bacher, S. , Carlton, J. T. , Duncan, R. P. , Jarošík, V. , Wilson, J. R. , & Richardson, D. M. (2011). A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26, 333–339. PubMed

Blondel, J. , Hoffmann, B. , & Courchamp, F. (2014). The end of invasion biology: Intellectual debate does not equate to nonsensical science. Biological Invasions, 16, 977–979.

Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14, 19–47.

Bronowski, J. (2011). Science and human values. Faber & Faber.

Brown, J. H. , & Sax, D. F. (2004). An essay on some topics concerning invasive species. Austral Ecology, 25, 530–536.

Brown, J. H. , & Sax, D. F. (2005). Biological invasions and scientific objectivity: Reply to Cassey et al. (2005). Austral Ecology, 30, 481–483.

Cairns, R. , Sallu, S. M. , & Goodman, S. (2014). Questioning calls to consensus in conservation: A Q study of conservation discourses on Galápagos. Environmental Conservation, 41, 13–26.

Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical social theory: Culture, history, and the challenge of difference. Wiley‐Blackwell.

Carlton, J. S. , Perry‐Hill, R. , Huber, M. , & Prokopy, L. S. (2015). The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. Environmental Research Letters, 10, 094025.

Cassey, P. , Blackburn, T. M. , Duncan, R. P. , & Chown, S. L. (2005). Concerning invasive species: Reply to Brown and Sax. Austral Ecology, 30, 475–480.

Clavero, M. , & García‐Berthou, E. (2005). Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 110. PubMed

Connick, S. , & Innes, J. E. (2003). Outcomes of collaborative water policy making: Applying complexity thinking to evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46, 177–197.

Courchamp, F. , Fournier, A. , Bellard, C. , Bertelsmeier, C. , Bonnaud, E. , Jeschke, J. M. , & Russell, J. C. (2017). Invasion biology: Specific problems and possible solutions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32, 13–22. PubMed

Crowley, S. L. , Hinchliffe, S. , Redpath, S. M. , & McDonald, R. A. (2017). Disagreement about invasive species does not equate to denialism: A response to Russell and Blackburn. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32, 228–229. PubMed

Cuthbert, R. N. , Bacher, S. , Blackburn, T. M. , Briski, E. , Diagne, C. , Dick, J. T. , Essl, F. , Genovesi, P. , Haubrock, P. J. , Latombe, G. , & Lenzner, B. (2020). Invasion costs, impacts, and human agency: Response to Sagoff 2020. Conservation Biology, 34, 1579–1582. PubMed

Davis, M. A. , Chew, M. K. , Hobbs, R. J. , Davis, M. A. , Chew, M. K. , Hobbs, R. J. , Lugo, A. E. , Ewel, J. J. , Vermeij, G. J. , Brown, J. H. , Rosenzweig, M. L. , Gardener, M. R. , Carroll, S. P. , Thompson, K. , Pickett, S. T. A. , Stromberg, J. C. , Del Tredici, P. , Suding, K. N. , Ehrenfeld, J. G. , … Briggs, J. C. (2011). Don't judge species on their origins. Nature, 474, 153–154. PubMed

Davis, M. A. , & Chew, M. K. (2017). The denialists are coming! 'Well, not exactly: A response to Russell and Blackburn. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32, 229–230. PubMed

Dickie, I. A. , Bennett, B. M. , Burrows, L. E. , Nunez, M. A. , Peltzer, D. A. , Porté, A. , Richardson, D. M. , Rejmánek, M. , Rundel, P. W. , & van Wilgen, B. W. (2014). Conflicting values: Ecosystem services and invasive tree management. Biological Invasions, 16, 705–719.

Doran, P. T. , & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90, 22–23.

Engelhardt, H. T. , Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. , Caplan, A. L. , & William, F. (1987). Scientific controversies: Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. Cambridge University Press.

Essl, F. , Dullinger, S. , Genovesi, P. , Hulme, P. E. , Jeschke, J. M. , Katsanevakis, S. , Kühn, I. , Lenzner, B. , Pauchard, A. , Pyšek, P. , & Rabitsch, W. (2019). A conceptual framework for range‐expanding species that track human‐induced environmental change. Bioscience, 69, 908–919.

Fall, J. J. (2021). What is an invasive alien species? Discord, dissent and denialism. In Barker K. & Francis A. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of biosecurity and invasive species (pp. 40–54). Routledge.

Fraley, C. , & Raftery, A. (2007). Model‐based methods of classification: Using the mclust software in chemometrics. Journal of Statistical Software, 18, 1–13.

Frank, D. M. (2021). Disagreement or denialism? “Invasive species denialism” and ethical disagreement in science. Synthese, 198, 6085–6113.

Frank, D. M. , Simberloff, D. , Bush, J. , Chuang, A. , & Leppanen, C. (2019). Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: A response to Guiaşu and Tindale. Biology & Philosophy, 34, 1–11.

Fritzsche, D. , & Oz, E. (2007). Personal values’ influence on the ethical dimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 335–343.

Furr, M. (2011). Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Gbedomon, R. C. , Salako, V. K. , & Schlaepfer, M. A. (2020). Diverse views among scientists on non‐native species. NeoBiota, 54, 49–69.

Gilroy, J. J. , Avery, J. D. , & Lockwood, J. L. (2016). Seeking international agreement on what it means to be ‘native’. Conservation Letters, 10, 238–247.

Guiaşu, R. C. , & Tindale, C. W. (2018). Logical fallacies and invasion biology. Biology & Philosophy, 33, 1–24. PubMed PMC

Gurevitch, J. , & Padilla, D. K. (2004). Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 470–474. PubMed

Hodges, K. E. (2008). Defining the problem: Terminology and progress in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6, 35–42.

Hulme, P. E. , Pauchard, A. , Pyšek, P. , Vilà, M. , Alba, C. , Blackburn, T. M. , Bullock, J. M. , Chytrý, M. , Dawson, W. , Dunn, A. M. , & Essl, F. (2015). Challenging the view that invasive non‐native plants are not a significant threat to the floristic diversity of Great Britain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, E2988–E2989. PubMed PMC

Hulme, P. E. , Bacher, S. , Kenis, M. , Kuhn, I. , Pergl, J. , Pyšek, P. , Roques, A. , & Vilà, M. (2017). Blurring alien introduction pathways risks losing the focus on invasive species policy. Conservation Letters, 10, 265–266.

Humair, F. , Edwards, P. J. , Siegrist, M. , & Kueffer, C. (2014). Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: Why experts don't agree on common concepts and risk assessments. NeoBiota, 20, 1–30.

Knight, A. T. , Cowling, R. M. , Rouget, M. , Balmford, A. , Lombard, A. T. , & Campbell, B. M. (2008). Knowing but not doing: Selecting priority conservation areas and the research–implementation gap. Conservation Biology, 22, 610–617. PubMed

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

Kull, C. A. , & Tassin, J. (2012). Australian acacias: Useful and (sometimes) weedy. Biological Invasions, 14, 2229–2233.

Larson, B. M. (2005). The war of the roses: Demilitarising invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3, 495–500.

Larson, K. L. , White, D. D. , Gober, P. , Harlan, S. , & Wutich, A. (2009). Divergent perspectives on water resource sustainability in a public–policy–science context. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 1012–1023.

Latombe, G. , Canavan, S. , Hirsch, H. , Hui, C. , Kumschick, S. , Nsikani, M. M. , Potgieter, L. J. , Robinson, T. B. , Saul, W. C. , Turner, S. C. , & Wilson, J. R. U. (2019). A four‐component classification of uncertainties in biological invasions: Implications for management. Ecosphere, 10, 02669.

Lerdau, M. , & Wickham, J. D. (2011). Non‐natives: Four risk factors. Nature, 475, 36–37. PubMed

Low, T. (2012a). Australian acacias: Weeds or useful trees? Biological Invasions, 14, 2217–2227.

Low, T. (2012b). In denial about dangerous aid. Biological Invasions, 14, 2235–2236.

Lute, M. L. , Carter, N. H. , López‐Bao, J. V. , & Linnell, J. D. (2018). Conservation professionals agree on challenges to coexisting with large carnivores but not on solutions. Biological Conservation, 218, 223–232.

Mace, G. M. (2014). Whose conservation? Science, 345, 1558–1560. PubMed

Matzek, V. , Pujalet, M. , & Cresci, S. (2015). What managers want from invasive species research versus what they get. Conservation Letters, 8, 33–40.

Messing, R. H. , & Wright, M. G. (2006). Biological control of invasive species: Solution or pollution? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, 132–140.

Moore, S. A. , Wallington, T. J. , Hobbs, R. J. , Ehrlich, P. R. , Holling, C. S. , Levin, S. , Lindenmayer, D. , Pahl‐Wostl, C. , Possingham, H. , Turner, M. G. , & Westoby, M. (2009). Diversity in current ecological thinking: Implications for environmental management. Environmental Management, 43, 17–27. PubMed

Nemoto, T. , & Beglar, D. (2014). Likert‐scale questionnaires. In Sonda N. & Krause A. (Eds.), JALT 2013 conference proceedings (pp. 1–8). Jalt.

Norberg, J. , Blenckner, T. , Cornell, S. , Petchey, O. , & Hillebrand, H. (2022). Failures to disagree are essential for environmental science to effectively influence policy development. Ecology Letters, 25, 1075–1093. PubMed PMC

Novoa, A. , Kaplan, H. , Wilson, J. R. , & Richardson, D. M. (2016). Resolving a prickly situation: Involving stakeholders in invasive cactus management in South Africa. Environmental Management, 57, 998–1008. PubMed

Novoa, A. , Shackleton, R. , Canavan, S. , Cybele, C. , Davies, S. J. , Dehnen‐Schmutz, K. , Fried, J. , Gaertner, M. , Geerts, S. , Griffiths, C. L. , Kaplan, H. , Kumschick, S. , Le Maitre, D. C. , Measey, G. J. , Nunes, A. L. , Richardson, D. M. , Robinson, T. B. , Touza, J. , & Wilson, J. R. U. (2018). A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species. Journal of Environmental Management, 205, 286–297. PubMed

Nuñez, M. A. , Davis, K. T. , Dimarco, R. D. , Peltzer, D. A. , Paritsis, J. , Maxwell, B. D. , & Pauchard, A. (2021). Should tree invasions be used in treeless ecosystems to mitigate climate change? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 19, 334–341.

Packer, J. G. , Meyerson, L. A. , Richardson, D. M. , Brundu, G. , Allen, W. J. , Bhattarai, G. P. , Brix, H. , Canavan, S. , Castiglione, S. , Cicatelli, A. , Čuda, J. , Cronin, J. T. , Eller, F. , Guarino, F. , Guo, W. , Guo, W. , Gui, X. , Hierro, J. , Lambertini, C. , … Pyšek, P. (2017). Global networks for invasion science: Benefits, challenges and guidelines. Biological Invasions, 19, 1081–1096.

Pauchard, A. , Meyerson, L. A. , Bacher, S. , Brundu, G. , Cadotte, M. W. , Courchamp, F. , Essl, F. , Genovesi, P. , Haider, S. , Holmes, N. D. , Hulme, P. E. , Jeschek, J. M. , Lockwood, J. L. , Nova, A. , Nuñez, M. A. , Peltzer, D. A. , Pyšek, P. , Richardson, D. M. , … Zenni, R. D. (2018). Biodiversity assessments: Origin matters. PLoS Biology, 16, p.e2006686. PubMed PMC

Probert, A. F. , Volery, L. , Kumschick, S. , Vimercati, G. , & Bacher, S. (2020). Understanding uncertainty in the Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (ICAT) assessments. NeoBiota, 62, 387–405.

Pyšek, P. , Richardson, D. M. , Rejmánek, M. , Webster, G. L. , Williamson, M. , & Kirschner, J. (2004). Alien plants in checklists and floras: Towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon, 53, 131–143.

Pyšek, P. , Richardson, D. M. , Pergl, J. , Jarošík, V. , Sixtova, Z. , & Weber, E. (2008). Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 237–244. PubMed

Raiche, G. , & Magis, D. (2020). nFactors: Parallel analysis and other non graphical solutions to the Cattell Scree Test . R package version 2.1.

Revelle, W. (2019). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=psychVersion=1.9.12

Richardson, D. M. , Pyšek, P. , Rejmánek, M. , Barbour, M. G. , Panetta, F. D. , & West, C. J. (2000). Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: Concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions, 6, 93–107.

Richardson, D. M. , & Pyšek, P. (2008). Fifty years of invasion ecology—The legacy of Charles Elton. Diversity and Distributions, 14, 161–168.

Richardson, D. M. , Pyšek, P. , Simberloff, D. , Rejmánek, M. , & Mader, A. D. (2008). Biological invasions—The widening debate: A response to Charles Warren. Progress in Human Geography, 32, 295–298.

Richardson, D. M. , Pyšek, P. , & Carlton, J. T. (2011). A compendium of essential concepts and terminology in invasion ecology. In Richardson D. M. (Ed.), Fifty years of invasion ecology: The legacy of Charles Elton (pp. 409–420). Wiley‐Blackwell.

Richardson, D. M. , & Ricciardi, A. (2013). Misleading criticisms of invasion science: A field guide. Diversity and Distributions, 19, 1461–1467.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.

Ruedin, D. (2020). agrmt: Calculate concentration and dispersion in ordered rating scales . R package version 1.42.4. https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=agrmt

Russell, J. C. , & Blackburn, T. M. (2017a). The rise of invasive species denialism. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32, 3–6. PubMed

Russell, J. C. , & Blackburn, T. M. (2017b). Invasive alien species: Denialism, disagreement, definitions, and dialogue. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32, 312–314. PubMed

Russell, J. C. , Meyer, J. Y. , Holmes, N. D. , & Pagad, S. (2017). Invasive alien species on islands: Impacts, distribution, interactions and management. Environmental Conservation, 44, 359–370.

Sagoff, M. (2005). Do non‐native species threaten the natural environment? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 215–236.

Sagoff, M. (2020). Fact and value in invasion biology. Conservation Biology, 34, 581–588. PubMed

Sandbrook, C. , Fisher, J. A. , Holmes, G. , Luque‐Lora, R. , & Keane, A. (2019). The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nature Sustainability, 2, 316–323.

Schlaepfer, M. A. , Sax, D. F. , & Olden, J. D. (2011). The potential conservation value of non‐native species. Conservation Biology, 25, 428–437. PubMed

Schlaepfer, M. A. , Sax, D. F. , & Olden, J. D. (2012). Toward a more balanced view of non‐native species. Conservation Biology, 26, 1156–1158. PubMed

Schlaepfer, M. A. (2018a). Do non‐native species contribute to biodiversity? PLoS Biology, 16, e2005568. PubMed PMC

Schlaepfer, M. A. (2018b). On the importance of monitoring and valuing all forms of biodiversity. PLoS Biology, 16, e3000039. PubMed PMC

Scrucca, L. , Fop, M. , Murphy, T. B. , & Raftery, A. E. (2016). mclust 5: Clustering, classification and density estimation using Gaussian finite mixture models. The R Journal, 8, 289–317. PubMed PMC

Shackleton, R. T. , Shackleton, C. M. , & Kull, C. A. (2019). The role of invasive alien species in shaping local livelihoods and human well‐being: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 229, 145–157. PubMed

Shackleton, R. T. , Foxcroft, L. C. , Pyšek, P. , Wood, L. E. , & Richardson, D. M. (2020). Assessing biological invasions in protected areas after 30 years: Revisiting nature reserves targeted by the 1980s SCOPE programme. Biological Conservation, 243, 108424.

Simberloff, D. , & Stiling, P. (1996). How risky is biological control? Ecology, 77, 1965–1974.

Simberloff, D. (2003). Confronting introduced species: A form of xenophobia? Biological Invasions, 5, 179–192.

Simberloff, D. , Alexander, J. , Allendorf, F. , Aronson, J. , Antunes, P. M. , Bacher, S. , Bardgett, R. , Bertolino, S. , Bishop, M. , Blackburn, T. M. , Blakeslee, A. , Blumenthal, D. , Bortolus, A. , Buckley, R. , Byers, Y. , Callaway, R. M. , Campbell, F. , Campbell, K. , Campbell, M. , … Zabin, C. (2011). Non‐natives: 141 scientists object. Nature, 475, 36. PubMed

Simberloff, D. , & Vitule, J. R. (2014). A call for an end to calls for the end of invasion biology. Oikos, 123, 408–413.

Subramaniam, B. (2001). The aliens have landed! Reflections on the rhetoric of biological invasions. Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism, 2, 26–40.

Tassin, J. , & Kull, C. A. (2015). Facing the broader dimensions of biological invasions. Land Use Policy, 42, 165–169.

Tassin, J. , Thompson, K. , Carroll, S. P. , & Thomas, C. D. (2017). Determining whether the impacts of introduced species are negative cannot be based solely on science: A response to Russell and Blackburn. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32, 230–231. PubMed

Thomas, C. D. , & Palmer, G. (2015). Non‐native plants add to the British flora without negative consequences for native diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 4387–4392. PubMed PMC

Valéry, L. , Fritz, H. , & Lefeuvre, J. C. (2013). Another call for the end of invasion biology. Oikos, 122, 1143–1146.

Vaz, A. S. , Kueffer, C. , Kull, C. A. , Richardson, D. M. , Schindler, S. , Muñoz‐Pajares, A. J. , Vicente, J. R. , Martins, J. , Hui, C. , Kühn, I. , & Honrado, J. P. (2017). The progress of interdisciplinarity in invasion science. Ambio, 46, 428–442. PubMed PMC

Vimercati, G. , Kumschick, S. , Probert, A. F. , Volery, L. , & Bacher, S. (2020). The importance of assessing positive and beneficial impacts of alien species. NeoBiota, 62, 525–545.

Vitule, J. R. S. , Freire, C. A. , Vazquez, D. P. , Nuñez, M. A. , & Simberloff, D. (2012). Revisiting the potential conservation value of non‐native species. Conservation Biology, 26, 1153–1155. PubMed

Warren, C. R. (2007). Perspectives on the alien 'versus native' species debate: A critique of concepts, language and practice. Progress in Human Geography, 31, 427–446.

Webber, B. L. , Raghu, S. , & Edwards, O. R. (2015). Opinion: Is CRISPR‐based gene drive a biocontrol silver bullet or global conservation threat? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 10565–10567. PubMed PMC

Wilson, J. R. (2020). Definitions can confuse: Why the “negative” neologism is bad for conservation. Bioscience, 70, 110–111.

Wilson, J. R. , Bacher, S. , Daehler, C. C. , Groom, Q. J. , Kumschick, S. , Lockwood, J. L. , Robinson, T. B. , Zengeya, T. A. , & Richardon, D. M. (2020). Frameworks used in invasion science: Progress and prospects. NeoBiota, 62, 1–30.

Winkler, J. D. , Kanouse, D. E. , & Ware, J. E. (1982). Controlling for acquiescence response set in scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 555–561.

Wood, L. E. , Vimercati, G. , Ferrini, S. , & Shackleton, R. T. (2022). Perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices associated with open water swimming. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 37, 100491.

Young, A. M. , & Larson, B. M. (2011). Clarifying debates in invasion biology: A survey of invasion biologists. Environmental Research, 111, 893–898. PubMed

Management Measures and Trends of Biological Invasions in Europe: A Survey-Based Assessment of Local Managers

Framing challenges and polarized issues in invasion science: toward an interdisciplinary agenda

The EICAT+ framework enables classification of positive impacts of alien taxa on native biodiversity