Biological invasions are a leading contributor to the global biodiversity crisis, yet existing regulatory frameworks are challenged by definitions of “non‐native” species that are based on administrative rather than ecological boundaries. This perspective highlights the critical disconnect between administrative jurisdictions and biogeographic units, focusing on China's biosecurity laws and examining China's current biosecurity framework by contrasting it with ecosystem‐based legal definitions used elsewhere. These laws, centered on national borders, render the country vulnerable to “domestic” invasions, some of which may have pronounced ecological or economic consequences. Drawing on examples of intra‐country species introductions and infrastructure‐mediated spread, we encourage China to recalibrate its legal definition of a species and transition from a “territory‐based” to an “ecosystem‐based” model, under which human‐mediated intra‐country translocations of species across ecosystems or other biogeographical units are considered non‐native introductions rather than treated as intra‐country movement of native species. We further derive specific recommendations for legal revision, risk assessment, inter‐ecosystem infrastructure management, and stricter regulation of intra‐country species translocations to better safeguard ecosystem integrity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: