Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Harmonia + and Pandora +: risk screening tools for potentially invasive plants, animals and their pathogens

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biological Invasions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Given the large number of alien species that may potentially develop into invasives, there is a clear need for robust schemes that allow to screen species for such risks. The Harmonia + framework presented here brings together 30 questions that refer to distinct components of invasion. Together, they cover the stages of introduction, establishment, spread, and multiple kinds of impacts, viz. referring to the health of the environment (including wild species), cultivated plants, domesticated animals and man. In a complete assessment, input is provided by choosing among predefined ordinal answers and by supplementing these with textual clarification. Uncertainty is covered by indicating levels of confidence. By converting answers into scores, which are then condensed into summary statistics, Harmonia + allows for quantitative output on stage-specific and general risks. Test assessments on five species emerging in Belgium showed the perceived environmental risks of Procambarus clarkii to be highest (0.72), and that of Threskiornis aethiopicus to be lowest (0.13). Given the considerable parallels that exist between invasive alien species and emerging infectious diseases, we additionally created Pandora, which is a risk analysis scheme for pathogens and parasites. It consists of 13 key questions and has the same structure as Harmonia +. Since diseases play a paramount role in biological invasions, results of Pandora assessments may feed into Harmonia + through a slightly adapted, host-specific version named Pandora +. Harmonia +, Pandora and Pandora + may be used both for prioritization purposes and for underpinning detailed risk analyses, and can be consulted online through http://ias.biodiversity.be.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adriaens T, Devisscher S, Louette G (2013) Risk analysis of American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus—risk analysis report of non-native organisms in Belgium. Rapporten van het Instituut voor Natuur-en Bosonderzoek (INBO) 2013, INBO.R.2013.41. INBO, Brussels

  • Baiwy E, Schockert V, Branquart E (2013) Risk analysis of the raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides—risk analysis report of non-native organisms in Belgium. Cellule interdépartementale sur les Espèces invasives (CiEi), DGO3, SPW/Editions, Gembloux

  • Baker R, Black R, Copp GH et al (2008) The UK risk assessment scheme for all non-native species. In: Rabitsch W, Essl F, Klingenstein F (eds) Biological Invasions—from Ecology to Conservation Neobiota 7. Technische Universität, Berlin, pp 46–57

  • Belgian Biodiversity Platform (2014a) Harmonia, an information system on alien species threatening native biodiversity in Belgium and in neighbour areas. http://ias.biodiversity.be. Accessed November 2014

  • Belgian Biodiversity Platform (2014b) Harmonia +, Pandora and Pandora +, online risk screening tools for potentially invasive plants, animals and their pathogens. http://ias.biodiversity.be. Accessed November 2014

  • Blackburn TM, Pysek P, Bacher S et al (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 26:333–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn TM, Essl F, Evans T et al (2014) A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS Biol 12:e1001850

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Branquart E (2007) Guidelines for environmental impact assessment and list classification of non-native organisms in Belgium. Version 2.1. Belgian Biodiversity Platform, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Caffrey JM, Baars J-R, Barbour JH et al (2014) Tackling invasive alien species in Europe: the top 20 issues. Manag Biol Invasions 5:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoen S, Van Huffel X, Berkvens D et al (2009) Evidence-based semiquantitative methodology for prioritization of foodborne zoonoses. Foodborne Pathog Dis 6:1083–1096

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Commission European (2014) Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. Off J Eur Union 57(L317):35–55

    Google Scholar 

  • COP (2002) Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species. Decision VI/23 of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. Document reference: UNEP/CBD/COP/6/23

  • Copp GH, Russell IC, Peeler EJ et al (in press) European non-native species in aquaculture risk analysis scheme—a summary of assessment protocols and decision support tools for use of alien species in aquaculture. Fisheries Manag Ecol. doi:10.1111/fme.12074

  • Daehler CC, Virtue JG (2010) Likelihood and consequences: reframing the Australian weed risk assessment to reflect a standard model of risk. Plant Prot Q 25:52–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Delsinne T, Lafontaine R-M, Beudels RC et al (2013) Risk analysis of the Louisiana crayfish Procambarus clarkii (Girard, 1852)—risk analysis report of non-native organisms in Belgium. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels

  • Dufour B, Plée L, Moutou F et al (2011) A qualitative risk assessment methodology for scientific expert panels. Rev Sci Tech OiE 30:673–681

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn A, Perkins S (2012) Invasions and infections. Funct Ecol 26:1234–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Essl F, Nehring S, Klingenstein F, Milasowszky N, Nowack C, Rabitsch W (2011) Review of risk assessment systems of IAS in Europe and introducing the German–Austrian Black List Information System (GABLIS). J Nat Conserv 19:339–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (2012) The impacts of invasive alien species in Europe—European environment agency technical report no 16/2012. EEA, Copenhagen

  • FAO (2006) International standards for phytosanitary measures. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Gederaas L, Salvesen I, Viken A (2007) Norsk svarteliste 2007: økologiske risikovurderinger av fremmede arter. Artsdatabanken

  • Gordon DR, Mitterdorfer B, Pheloun PC et al (2010) Guidance for addressing the Australian weed risk assessment questions. Plant Prot Q 25:56–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyimesi A, Lensink R (2010) Risk analysis of the Egyptian goose in the Netherlands. Bureau Waardenburg bv, Nijmegen and Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Havelaar AH, van Rosse F, Bucura C et al (2010) Prioritizing emerging zoonoses in The Netherlands. PLos One 5(11):e13965

  • Heikkilä J (2011) A review of risk prioritisation schemes of pathogens, pests and weeds: principles and practices. Agric Food Sci 20:15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt J, Black R, Abdallah R (2006) A rigorous yet simple quantitative risk assessment method for quarantine pests and non-native organisms. Ann Appl Biol 149:167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes G (2008) Notes on the mathematical basis of the UK non-native organism risk assessment scheme. arXiv:0808.3873

  • Hulme PE, Pysek P, Nentwig W et al (2009) Will threat of biological invasions unite the European Union? Science 324:40–41

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keller RP, Lodge DM, Finnoff DC (2007) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:203–207

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kettunen M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S et al (2008) Technical support to EU strategy on invasive species (IAS)—assessment of the impacts of IAS in Europe and the EU (final module report for the European Commission). Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinney GF, Wiruth AD (1976) Practical risk analysis for safety management. Naval Weapons Center, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause G (2008) How can infectious diseases be prioritized in public health? EMBO Rep 9:S22–S27

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kumschick S, Richardson D (2013) Species-based risk assessments for biological invasions: advances and challenges. Divers Distrib 19:1095–1105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung B, Roura-Pascual N, Bacher S et al (2012) TEASIng apart alien species risk assessments: a framework for best practices. Ecol Lett 15:1475–1493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner GK et al (2011) The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Clim Change 108:675–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nentwig W, Kühnel E, Bacher S (2010) A generic impact-scoring system applied to alien mammals in Europe. Cons Biol 24:302–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OIE (2013) Terrestrial animal health code. World Organisation for Animal Health, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M, Boudry M (2014) Prove it! The burden of proof game in science vs. pseudoscience disputes. Philosophia 42:487–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D, McNair S, Janecka J et al (2001) Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 84:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall JM, Morse LE, Benton N et al (2008) The invasive species assessment protocol: a tool for creating regional and national lists of invasive nonnative plants that negatively impact biodiversity. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:36–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries C, Krippel Y, Pfeiffenschneider M et al (2013) Environmental impact assessment and black, watch and alert list classification after the ISEIA protocol of non-native vascular plant species in Luxembourg. Bull Soc Nat Luxemb 114:15–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert H, Lafontaine R-M, Delsinne T et al (2013) Risk analysis of the sacred ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus (Latham 1790)—risk analysis report of non-native organisms in Belgium. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences for the Federal Public Service Health, Food chain safety and Environment, Brussels

  • Roy HE, Baverstock J, Ware RL et al (2008) Intraguild predation of the aphid pathogenic fungus Pandora neoaphidis by the invasive coccinellid Harmonia axyridis. Ecol Entomol 33:175–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy HE, Peyton J, Aldridge DC et al (2014a) Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to threaten biodiversity in Great Britain. Glob Change Biol 20:3859-3871

  • Roy HE, Schonrogge K, Dean H et al (2014b) Invasive alien species: a framework for the identification of invasive alien species of EU concern. Report to the European commission ENV.B.2/ETU/2013/0026, p 298

  • Sandvik H, Saether B-E, Holmern T et al (2013) Generic ecological impact assessments of alien species in Norway: a semi-quantitative set of criteria. Biodivers Conserv 22:37–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GB Non-Native Species Secretariat (2014) GB non-native organism risk assessments. http://www.nonnativespecies.org. Accessed November 2014

  • Simberloff D, Martin J-L, Genovesi P et al (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strubbe D, Shwartz A, Chiron F (2011) Concerns regarding the scientific evidence informing impact risk assessment and management recommendations for invasive birds. Biol Conserv 144:2112–2118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor L, Latham S, Woolhouse M (2001) Risk factors for human disease emergence. Philos Trans R Soc B 356:983–989

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van de Koppel S, van Kessel N, Crombaghs BHJM et al (2012) Risk analysis of the asp viper (Vipera aspis) in The Netherlands. ReptielenZoo SERPO, Radboud University, Nijmegen and Delft, Natuurbalans-Limes Divergens BV

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Weijden W, Leewis R, Bol P (2007) Biological globalisation: bio-invasions and their impacts on nature, the economy and public health. KNNV Publishing, Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhoeven S (2013) Risk analysis of Ludwigia grandiflora—risk analysis report of non-native organisms in Belgium. Cellule interdépartementale sur les Espèces invasives (CiEi), DGO3, SPW/Editions, Gembloux doi:10.13140/2.1.1849.4407

  • Verbrugge LNH, Leuven RSEW, van der Velde G (2010) Evaluation of international risk assessment protocols for exotic species. Radboud University, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Young JC, Waylen KA, Sarkki S et al (2014) Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers Conserv 23:387–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to sincerely thank all members of the risk analysis panel, scientific panel and end-user committee for their help in realizing Harmonia +/Pandora (+). This work was funded by the Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO contract SD/CL/011).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Belgian Biodiversity Platform, Belgian Science Policy Office, Avenue Louise 231, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Bram D’hondt, Sonia Vanderhoeven, Julien Cigar & André Heughebaert

  2. Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Kliniekstraat 25, 1070, Brussels, Belgium

    Bram D’hondt & Tim Adriaens

  3. Département d’Étude du Milieu Naturel et Agricole, Service Public de Wallonie, Avenue Maréchal Juin 23, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium

    Sonia Vanderhoeven & Etienne Branquart

  4. Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Centre, Groeselenberg 99, 1180, Brussels, Belgium

    Sophie Roelandt

  5. Biological Control and Spatial Ecology, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue F. Roosevelt 50, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    François Mayer & Jean-Claude Grégoire

  6. Avia-GIS, Precision Pest Management Unit, Risschotlei 33, 2980, Zoersel, Belgium

    Veerle Versteirt & Els Ducheyne

  7. Walloon Agricultural Research Centre, Rue de Liroux 9, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium

    Gilles San Martin

  8. Plant Biology and Nature Management, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Iris Stiers

  9. Belgian Scientific Institute for Public Health, Rue J. Wytsman 14, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Sophie Quoilin

Authors
  1. Bram D’hondt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sonia Vanderhoeven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sophie Roelandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. François Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Veerle Versteirt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tim Adriaens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Els Ducheyne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gilles San Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jean-Claude Grégoire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Iris Stiers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sophie Quoilin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Julien Cigar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. André Heughebaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Etienne Branquart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Etienne Branquart.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 5062 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’hondt, B., Vanderhoeven, S., Roelandt, S. et al. Harmonia + and Pandora +: risk screening tools for potentially invasive plants, animals and their pathogens. Biol Invasions 17, 1869–1883 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0843-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0843-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation