In a hyperconnected world, framing and managing biological invasions poses complex and contentious challenges, affecting socioeconomic and environmental sectors. This complexity distinguishes the field and fuels polarized debates. In the present article, we synthesize four contentious issues in invasion science that are rarely addressed together: vocabulary usage, the potential benefits of nonnative species, perceptions shifting because of global change, and rewilding practices and biological invasions. Researchers have predominantly focused on single issues; few have addressed multiple components of the debate within or across disciplinary boundaries. Ignoring the interconnected nature of these issues risks overlooking crucial cross-links. We advocate for interdisciplinary approaches that better integrate social and natural sciences. Although they are challenging, interdisciplinary collaborations offer hope to overcome polarization issues in invasion science. These may bridge disagreements, facilitate knowledge exchange, and reshape invasion science narratives. Finally, we present a contemporary agenda to advance future research, management, and constructive dialogue.

• Klíčová slova
• conservation biology, human–wildlife interactions, invasion science, invasive species, natural resource management,
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• přehledy MeSH

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.

• Klíčová slova
• conflict, conflicto, debate y desarrollo científico, environmental ethics, environmental policy and management, especies exóticas invasoras, invasive alien species, política y gestión ambiental, scientific debate and progression, ética ambiental,
• MeSH
• biodiverzita MeSH
• konsensus MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• rostliny MeSH
• savci MeSH
• zachování přírodních zdrojů * MeSH
• zavlečené druhy * MeSH
• zvířata MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• zvířata MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH

Species introduced through human-related activities beyond their native range, termed alien species, have various impacts worldwide. The IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) is a global standard to assess negative impacts of alien species on native biodiversity. Alien species can also positively affect biodiversity (for instance, through food and habitat provisioning or dispersal facilitation) but there is currently no standardized and evidence-based system to classify positive impacts. We fill this gap by proposing EICAT+, which uses 5 semiquantitative scenarios to categorize the magnitude of positive impacts, and describes underlying mechanisms. EICAT+ can be applied to all alien taxa at different spatial and organizational scales. The application of EICAT+ expands our understanding of the consequences of biological invasions and can inform conservation decisions.

• MeSH
• biodiverzita * MeSH
• ekosystém MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• lidské činnosti MeSH
• zavlečené druhy * MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH

Biological invasions are a global consequence of an increasingly connected world and the rise in human population size. The numbers of invasive alien species - the subset of alien species that spread widely in areas where they are not native, affecting the environment or human livelihoods - are increasing. Synergies with other global changes are exacerbating current invasions and facilitating new ones, thereby escalating the extent and impacts of invaders. Invasions have complex and often immense long-term direct and indirect impacts. In many cases, such impacts become apparent or problematic only when invaders are well established and have large ranges. Invasive alien species break down biogeographic realms, affect native species richness and abundance, increase the risk of native species extinction, affect the genetic composition of native populations, change native animal behaviour, alter phylogenetic diversity across communities, and modify trophic networks. Many invasive alien species also change ecosystem functioning and the delivery of ecosystem services by altering nutrient and contaminant cycling, hydrology, habitat structure, and disturbance regimes. These biodiversity and ecosystem impacts are accelerating and will increase further in the future. Scientific evidence has identified policy strategies to reduce future invasions, but these strategies are often insufficiently implemented. For some nations, notably Australia and New Zealand, biosecurity has become a national priority. There have been long-term successes, such as eradication of rats and cats on increasingly large islands and biological control of weeds across continental areas. However, in many countries, invasions receive little attention. Improved international cooperation is crucial to reduce the impacts of invasive alien species on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human livelihoods. Countries can strengthen their biosecurity regulations to implement and enforce more effective management strategies that should also address other global changes that interact with invasions.

• Klíčová slova
• biological invasions, biosecurity, environmental impacts, global change, invasion dynamics, invasion hotspots, naturalization, policy, protected areas, socioeconomic impacts,
• MeSH
• biodiverzita MeSH
• ekosystém * MeSH
• fylogeneze MeSH
• hustota populace MeSH
• krysa rodu Rattus MeSH
• zavlečené druhy * MeSH
• zvířata MeSH
• Check Tag
• krysa rodu Rattus MeSH
• zvířata MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. MeSH