Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions

Summary Government departments, environmental managers and conservationists are all facing escalating pressure to address and resolve a diversity of invasive alien species (IAS) problems. Yet much research to date is primarily concerned with quantifying the scale of the problem rather than delivering robust solutions and has not adequately addressed all stages of the invasion process, and only a few studies embrace the ecosystem approach. Three successive steps, prevention, eradication and control, form the cornerstones of recommended best practices aimed at managing IAS. The goal of such actions is the restoration of ecosystems to preserve or re‐establish native biodiversity and functions. Prevention is widely promoted as being a more environmentally desirable strategy than actions undertaken after IAS establishment, yet is hindered by the difficulty in separating invasive from non‐invasive alien species. Furthermore, the high number of candidate IAS, the investment required in taxonomic support and inspection capacity, and the expense of individual risk assessments may act against the net benefits of prevention. More rewarding avenues may be found by pursuing neural networks to predict the potential composition of pest assemblages in different regions and/or model introduction pathways to identify likely invasion hubs. Rapid response should be consequent on early detection but, when IAS are rare, detection rates are compromised by low occurrence and limited power to discern significant changes in abundance. Power could be increased by developing composite indicators that track trends in a suite of IAS with similar life histories, shared pathways and/or habitat preferences. The assessment of management options will benefit from an ecosystem perspective that considers the manipulation of native competitors, consumers and mutualists, and reviews existing management practices as well as mitigates other environmental pressures. The ease with which an IAS can be targeted should not only address the direct management effects on population dynamics but also indirect effects on community diversity and structure. Where the goal is to safeguard native biodiversity, such activities should take into account the need to re‐establish native species and/or restore ecosystem function in the previously affected area. Synthesis and applications . A comprehensive approach to IAS management should include consideration of the: (i) expected impacts; (ii) technical options available; (iii) ease with which the species can be targeted; (iv) risks associated with management; (v) likelihood of success; and (vi) extent of public concern and stakeholder interest. For each of these issues, in addition to targeting an individual species, the management of biological invasions must also incorporate an appreciation of other environmental pressures, the importance of landscape structure, and the role of existing management activities and restoration efforts.