van Wilgen NJ et al. (2018), A taxonomically and geographically constrained ...

XB-ART-55459

PeerJ 2018 Mar 15;6:e5850. doi: 10.7717/peerj.5850.

Show Gene links Show Anatomy links

A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review.

van Wilgen NJ , Gillespie MS , Richardson DM , Measey J .

???displayArticle.abstract???
For many taxa, new records of non-native introductions globally occur at a near exponential rate. We undertook a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications on non-native herpetofauna, to assess the information base available for assessing risks of future invasions, resulting in 836 relevant papers. The taxonomic and geographic scope of the literature was also compared to a published database of all known invasions globally. We found 1,116 species of herpetofauna, 95% of which were present in fewer than 12 studies. Nearly all literature on the invasion ecology of herpetofauna has appeared since 2000, with a strong focus on frogs (58%), particularly cane toads (Rhinella marina) and their impacts in Australia. While fewer papers have been published on turtles and snakes, proportionately more species from both these groups have been studied than for frogs. Within each herpetofaunal group, there are a handful of well-studied species: R. marina, Lithobates catesbeianus, Xenopus laevis, Trachemys scripta, Boiga irregularis and Anolis sagrei. Most research (416 papers; 50%) has addressed impacts, with far fewer studies on aspects like trade (2%). Besides Australia (213 studies), most countries have little location-specific peer-reviewed literature on non-native herpetofauna (on average 1.1 papers per established species). Other exceptions were Guam, the UK, China, California and France, but even their publication coverage across established species was not even. New methods for assessing and prioritizing invasive species such as the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa provide useful frameworks for risk assessment, but require robust species-level studies. Global initiatives, similar to the Global Amphibian Assessment, using the species and taxonomic groups identified here, are needed to derive the level of information across broad geographic ranges required to apply these frameworks. Expansive studies on model species can be used to indicate productive research foci for understudied taxa.

???displayArticle.pubmedLink??? 30425887
???displayArticle.pmcLink??? PMC6230440
???displayArticle.link??? PeerJ

???attribute.lit??? ???displayArticles.show???

	Figure 1. Prisma flowchart.Prisma flow diagram (Moher et al., 2009) for systematic review of articles on invasive amphibians and reptiles from the Web of Science (formerly Science Citation Index) on 3 March 2016. Search criteria used: Topic = alien OR invasive OR non-native OR exotic OR non-indigenous OR feral AND Topic= reptil* OR amphibia* OR turtle* OR tortoise* OR lizard* OR herpetofauna OR crocod* OR anura OR caudata OR testudin* OR ophidia OR sauria OR squamata OR snake* OR frog* OR toad* OR salamand* OR newt*.
	Figure 2. Patterns in taxonomic representation of (A) herpetofaunal groups and (B) reptile and (C) amphibian families present in the invasion ecology literature.The median (middle green line) and 95% confidence intervals (brown lines), adjusted for multiple comparisons, were estimated from the hypergeometric distribution. The points represent herpetofaunal groups or families; those that fall between the brown lines are not significantly over or under-represented (relative to amphibians or reptiles as a whole). Where multiple points overlap, lines indicate the number of points at each location.
	Figure 3. Kernel density of papers per species.Density plots of the number of Web of Science papers per species in each herpetofaunal group (A. Crocodiles, B. Frogs, C. Lizards, D. Salamanders, E. Snakes and F. Turtles) show that the majority of species feature in only one paper, while there are generally a few species that appear in a high number of papers. Taxa featuring in the highest number of papers have been highlighted for each group.
	Figure 4. Composition of subject literature on non-native amphibians and reptiles for each herpetofaunal group (A–F) and across all species (G).In each group, papers on the most frequently studied species (A. Crocodiles Caiman crocodilus; B. Salamanders Ambystoma tigrinum; C. Frogs Rhinella marina; D. Lizards Norops sagrei; E. Snakes Boiga irregularis; and F. Turtles Trachemys scripta) are shown in black, showing that the knowledge for most non-native groups comes from a single taxon. For example, almost all papers on non-native turtles include or focus on Trachemys scripta. Each of the listed papers may have been included in more than one subject category. Y-axes for each row are different.
	Figure 5. The geographic distribution of studies on non-native reptile and amphibian species.(A) The geographic distribution of 789 studies on non-native reptile and amphibian species (20 global studies have been scored for each country and state). (B) The difference between the number of species that have been included in studies pertaining to a particular country and the number of species known to be established in that country (Kraus, 2009), normalised to the largest difference. (C) The difference between the number of studies conducted in a particular country and the number of species known to be established in that country (Kraus, 2009), normalised to the largest difference.

References [+] :

Adam, The counting house. 2002, Pubmed