How complete is our knowledge of the ecosystem services impacts of Europeʹs top 10 invasive species?

Invasive non-native species have complex multilevel impacts on their introduced ecosystems, leading to far-ranging effects on fundamental ecosystem services, from the provision of food from that system, to human health and wellbeing. For this reason, there is an emerging interest in basing risk assessments not only on the speciesʹ ecological and economic impacts, but also on the effects related to ecosystem services. We investigated the quality and extent of baseline data detailing the effects that the top 10 of the ‘worst’ invasive species in Europe are having on their adopted ecosystems. The results were striking, as the 10 species showed a wide range of impacts on ecosystem services, a number of which were actually positive for ecosystems and human well-being. For instance, the bivalve Dreissena polymorpha is a prolific biofouler of pipes and boats, but it can improve water quality through its filtration of nuisance algae, a valuable effect that is often overlooked. We found that negative effects, particularly economic ones, were often assumed rather than quantitatively evidenced; for example, the cost of crop damage by species such as Myocastor coypus and Branta canadensis. In general, the evidence for impacts of these ‘worst’ invaders was severely lacking. We conclude that invasive species management requires prioritization, which should be based on informed and quantified assessment of the potential ecological and economic costs of species (both positive and negative), considered in the proper context of the invader and ecosystem. The Millennium Ecosystem Approach provides a useful framework to undertake such prioritization from a new perspective combining ecological and societal aspects. However, standard guidelines of evaluation are urgently needed in order to unify definitions, methods and evaluation scores.