Abstract
Information on the number of alien species present in a country, their status (establishment, distribution, impacts), and how they entered and move around the country is crucial for effective management. Such information underpins regulations, the allocation of management resources, and evaluations of current and future threats. South African regulations first promulgated in 2014 mandated a triennial process of national reports on the status and management of biological invasions. This required a consolidated national list of alien species. This paper outlines the process followed to create this list, describes how the list evolved over time, and highlights lessons learnt, and challenges encountered. Over the production of three status reports, there have been major improvements in how data are presented, how changes are tracked, and the degree to which the information presented is consistent with international best practice. The development of documented and repeatable workflows has ensured that it is now clear why species are included on the list and facilitates reviews and updates. The focus for the next phase is to ensure that all historical data sources are incorporated into the list and to put systems in place to incorporate new information as it becomes available. We conclude with a reflection on what has worked over the last decade, and identify eight recommendations for those developing national lists of alien species: 1. structure data and make them available; 2. use data standards and metadata; 3. list the data sources used and the level of confidence in the data; 4. take a modular approach; 5. document workflows; 6. integrate with reporting requirements; 7. commit dedicated resources; and 8. learn by doing.
Full text
2,189 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
Preprint
ARPHA Preprints
https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e163028 (01 Jul 2025)
https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e163028 (01 Jul 2025)
Published in: NeoBiota https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.101.162932
Other versions:
- Preprint InfoPreprint Info
- CiteCite
- MetricsMetrics
- CommentComment
- RelatedRelated
- CitedCited
ARPHA Preprints
doi:
10.3897/arphapreprints.e163028
First posted
01 Jul 2025
Authors
Tsungai Zengeya
- Corresponding author
South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa
Centre for Invasion Biology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
University of Pretoria, Hatfield, South Africa
South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa
Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
Conflict of interest
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Disclaimer: This article is (co-)authored by any of the Editors-in-Chief, Managing Editors or their deputies in this journal.
Supporting agencies
We thank the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) for funding, noting that this publication does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of DFFE or its employees. We also received support from the B-cubed project (Biodiversity Building Blocks for policy) which is funded by the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme (ID No 101059592). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the EU nor the EC can be held responsible for them.
This is an open access preprint distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.