Identifying knowledge gaps in the research and management of invasive species in India
India, a megadiverse tropical country is grappling with the issue of biological invasions. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, India is committed for managing its major biological invasions by 2020. Lack of prioritization of invasive species for control and management is the biggest hurdle for achieving this commitment. We reviewed 21 High Concern Invasive Species (HiCIS) across four major ecosystems (terrestrial mainland, island, freshwater, and marine) in India, utilizing the prioritization framework for understanding the existing knowledge and gaps. We reviewed the existing peer-reviewed and grey literature on HiCIS for information on their ecology, impacts, and management. Prioritization framework provided “priority scores” and “confidence scores” to each HiCIS, where priority score comprised of the species’ ecology and its management lacunae. Confidence score represented the reliability of the priority score. We found that invasions on terrestrial mainland ecosystem in India are the most studied invasions followed by freshwater, island, and marine ecosystem. Priority score of a given HiCIS was positively correlated with its impacts on biodiversity (R = 0.63), physical environment (R = 0.70), and ecosystem services (R = 0.60). This correlation supports scientific focus on deleterious species. The study also indicates policies and guidelines in place for management of invasions as a part of a larger scheme or Legal Act, resulting in their obscurity to the managers, and hindering management of HiCIS. This quantitative synthesis provides a model framework for countries struggling with channelizing management efforts to an overwhelmingly large number of invasive species.
KeywordsConservation policy India Invasive species Prioritization
Present study is based on the workshop on ‘Management of Human – Wildlife negative interactions and Invasive species’, funded by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and organized by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII). We thank Dr. V.B. Mathur (WII), Dr. G.S. Rawat (WII), Dr. B.C. Sinha (WII), Dr. Y.V. Jhala (WII), Dr. S. Sathyakumar (WII), Dr. K. Sankar, and Shri. S.S. Bist for facilitating the study and participants of the workshop for giving field inputs. We thank Dr. Hukum Singh (Forest Research Institute) and the anonymous reviewers for improving the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Ali R, Pelkey N (2013) Satellite images indicate vegetation degradation due to invasive herbivores in the Andaman Islands. Curr Sci 105:209–214Google Scholar
- Clavero M, Garcia-Berthou E (2006) Homogenization dynamics and introduction routes of invasive freshwater fish in the Iberian Peninsula. Ecol Appl 16:2313–2324. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2313:HDAIRO]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
- Forsyth GG, Le Maitre DC, O’farrell PJ, Van Wilgen BW (2012) The prioritisation of invasive alien plant control projects using a multi-criteria decision model informed by stakeholder input and spatial data. J Environ Manag 103:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.01.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kannan R, Shackleton CM, Uma Shaanker R (2013) Playing with the forest: invasive alien plants, policy and protected areas in India. Curr Sci 104:1159–1165Google Scholar
- Kaushik M, Mungi NA (2015) Human–wildlife interactions and management of invasive alien species. Curr Sci 108:1039Google Scholar
- Lach D, List P, Steel B, Shindler B (2003) Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decisionmaking: a regional study. BioScience 53:170–178. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0170:AACOES]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
- Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2000) 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species A selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), New Zealand, 12ppGoogle Scholar
- Mathur VB, Kaushik M, Bist SS, et al (2015) Management of human-wildlife interaction and invasive alien species in India. Report no. TR 2015/004, Wildlife Institute of India, DehradunGoogle Scholar
- Morse LE, Randall JM, Benton N et al (2004) An invasive species assessment protocol: evaluating non-native plants for their impact on biodiversity, version. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, p 1Google Scholar
- Nel JL, Richardson DM, Rouget M et al (2004) A proposed classification of invasive alien plant species in South Africa: towards prioritizing species and areas for management action: working for water. South Afr J Sci 100:53–64Google Scholar
- Pande HK, Arora S (2015) India fifth national report to convention on biological diversity. Ministry of Environment and Forests and climate change. Government of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
- Robertson MP, Villet MH, Fairbanks DHK et al (2003) A proposed prioritization system for the management of invasive alien plants in South Africa: research in action. South Afr J Sci 99:37–43Google Scholar