Knowledge brokers, usually conceptualized as passive intermediaries between scientists and policymakers in evidence-based policymaking, are understudied in philosophy of science. Here, we challenge that usual conceptualization. As agents in their own right, knowledge brokers have their own goals and incentives, which complicate the effects of their presence at the science-policy interface. We illustrate this in an agent-based model and suggest several avenues for further exploration of the role of knowledge brokers in evidence-based policy.

Shipping traffic is the main vector for the introduction of marine species worldwide. The trends in the number and impacts of marine bioinvasions urge us to design effective management strategies to prevent the introduction and establishment of non-native species. In this study, we developed a model to estimate the risk of biological invasions through commercial shipping traffic to marine ports of Argentina, in order to identify the routes that represent a higher invasion risk, the ports with a greater risk of invasion, and the ecoregions where novel invasions could originate. We found that the routes that represented the highest risk of invasions are those connecting ports in the northern Atlantic Patagonia with ports in central and northern Chile (Southeastern Pacific). Also, we detected striking differences in the overall risk to a port, which although largely determined by the number of arrivals, also depends on certain structural and operational characteristics, underscoring the need for specific management actions. Overall, we found great risk of species invasions from most temperate regions throughout the world, especially Eastern Asia, Southern Africa, Europe and, especially, the Southeastern Pacific. Our findings provide crucial information to enhance the early detection and rapid response strategies in marine ports, complementing existing efforts to manage marine bioinvasions.

The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East are causing substantial humanitarian, economic, and geopolitical impacts and disrupting global trade. While the human and economic effects remain the focus of most immediate concern, a pending ecological crisis is also unfolding. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz on February 28, 2026, stranded an estimated 1500 ships in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, with hundreds more anchored in the Gulf of Oman. Prolonged stationary periods lead to substantial biofouling penalties for ships, as marine microbes, algae, and invertebrates rapidly colonize and grow on submerged surfaces. This accumulation not only impairs vessel operations but also creates significant environmental risks. A major concern is the high likelihood that these idle ships will facilitate the extensive spread of economically and ecologically damaging invasive species as they re-enter the global shipping network. Given the unprecedented scale and duration of this mass lay-up of ships, conditions are primed for a large-scale, marine bioinvasion “super-spreader” event as regular maritime trade in the region resumes. The combination of extensive biofouling growth and species accumulation, and the sheer number, size, and global reach of affected vessels, has created an immense international biosecurity threat. Here, we highlight the biosecurity risks arising from the closure of the Strait and provide recommendations to mitigate them. We urge relevant stakeholders worldwide, including ship operators, port authorities, and environmental managers, to prepare now for the backlog of ship biofouling management requirements and to implement appropriate actions to abate this extraordinary biosecurity threat.

Whether or not any particular policy is adequate by EBP's own standard-being evidence-based-cannot be decided without appeal to value-based considerations. We support this claim in two steps. First, we argue that which evidence gets used in policy-making depends on our value commitments, which are rarely made explicit, let alone being the subject of critical and transparent reflection. In other words, value commitments are not just important at the point of spelling out specific policy details and choosing between policy options but they are absolutely essential right from the very beginning of the policy-making process: all the way from deciding which problem should be addressed by policy or regulation to determining which evidence to use and where to look for it. Second, in order to determine when we have enough evidence, we need to take into account relevant value-based considerations. La idoneidad de una pol & iacute;tica en particular seg & uacute;n el propio est & aacute;ndar de la EBP (basada en la evidencia) no puede determinarse sin recurrir a consideraciones basadas en valores. Respaldamos esta afirmaci & oacute;n en dos pasos. En primer lugar, argumentamos que la evidencia que se utiliza en la formulaci & oacute;n de pol & iacute;ticas depende de nuestros compromisos de valor, que rara vez se explicitan, y mucho menos son objeto de una reflexi & oacute;n cr & iacute;tica y transparente. En otras palabras, los compromisos de valor no solo son importantes al detallar las pol & iacute;ticas espec & iacute;ficas y elegir entre las opciones, sino que son absolutamente esenciales desde el inicio del proceso de formulaci & oacute;n de pol & iacute;ticas: desde la decisi & oacute;n sobre qu & eacute; problema debe abordarse mediante una pol & iacute;tica o regulaci & oacute;n hasta la determinaci & oacute;n de qu & eacute; evidencia utilizar y d & oacute;nde buscarla. En segundo lugar, para determinar cu & aacute;ndo disponemos de suficiente evidencia, debemos tener en cuenta las consideraciones basadas en valores pertinentes.

Determining appropriate mechanisms for transferring and translating research into policy has become a major concern for researchers (knowledge producers) and policymakers (knowledge users) worldwide. This has led to the emergence of a new function of brokering between researchers and policymakers, and a new type of agent called Knowledge Broker. Understanding these complex multi-agent interactions is critical for an efficient knowledge brokering practice during any given policymaking process. Here, we present (1) the current diversity of knowledge broker groups working in the field of biosecurity and environmental management; (2) the incentives linking the different agents involved in the process (knowledge producers, knowledge brokers and knowledge users); and (3) the gaps, needs and challenges to better understand this social ecosystem. We also propose alternatives aimed at improving transparency and efficiency, including future scenarios where the role of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies may become predominant in knowledge-brokering activities.

Biological invasions are one of the major drivers of biodiversity decline and have been shown to have far-reaching consequences for society and the economy. Preventing the introduction and spread of alien species represents the most effective solution to reducing their impacts on nature and human well-being. However, implementing effective solutions requires a good understanding of where the species are established and how biological invasions develop over time. Knowledge of the status and trends of biological invasions is thus key for guiding research efforts, informing stakeholders and policymakers, for targeted management efforts, and preparing for the future. However, information about the status and trends of alien species is scattered, patchy, and highly incomplete, making it difficult to assess. Published reports for individual regions and taxonomic groups are available, but large-scale overviews are scarce. A global assessment therefore requires a review of available knowledge with careful consideration of sampling and reporting biases. This paper provides a comprehensive global assessment of the status and trends of alien species for major taxonomic groups [Bacteria, Protozoa, Stramenopila, Alveolata, and Rhizaria (SAR), fungi, plants, and animals] for Intergovernmental Panel of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) regions. The review provides irrefutable evidence that alien species have been introduced to all regions worldwide including Antarctica and have spread to even the most remote islands. The numbers of alien species are increasing within all taxa and across all regions, and are often even accelerating. Large knowledge gaps exist, particularly for taxonomic groups other than vascular plants and vertebrates, for regions in Africa and Central Asia, and for aquatic realms. In fact, for inconspicuous species, such as Bacteria, Protozoa, and to some degree SAR and fungi, we found records for very few species and regions. Observed status and trends are thus highly influenced by research effort. More generally, it is likely that all lists for alien species of any taxonomic group and region are incomplete. The reported species numbers therefore represent minima, and we can expect additions to all lists in the near future. We identified six key challenges which need to be addressed to reduce knowledge gaps and to improve our ability to assess trends and status of biological invasions.

Evidence-based policy (EBP) has become widely embraced for its commitment to greater uptake of scientific knowledge in policymaking. But what legitimizes EBP and in what respect are evidence-based policymaking practices better than other policymaking practices? In this article, we distinguish and refine three potential legitimizers of EBP. We suggest that evidence-based policymaking practices are better because they “follow the science,” because they focus on “what works,” or because they “follow the rules.” We discuss some consequences, for advocates of EBP, of consciously adopting one or other of these legitimizers. Finally, we examine whether it is appropriate to switch from advocating for EBP to advocating for evidence-informed policy.

The Eleventh International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions (ICMB-XI), held May 15–19, 2023, in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, convened 213 attendees from 24 countries to discuss the challenges and advancements in managing marine non-indigenous species (NIS). The conference emphasized the urgent need for international collaboration to address the increasing threats posed by marine bioinvasions, which transcend geopolitical boundaries. Participants explored six key themes through 119 oral presentations, 37 posters, and six keynote speakers, providing a platform for researchers, policymakers, and industry professionals to exchange knowledge and strategies. Notably, ICMB-XI implemented the first Code of Conduct for the Society for the Study of Marine Bioinvasions, promoting inclusivity and ethical scientific discourse. Here, we review articles published in Aquatic Invasions and Management of Biological Invasions based on research presented at ICMB-XI. Studies highlighted novel findings on species settlement dynamics, NIS ecological impacts, and advancements in detection methods such as environmental DNA monitoring. Research also examined the role of climate change in facilitating NIS, the influence of biofouling on NIS establishment, and the expansion of NIS into new ecological niches. Beyond scientific discussions, ICMB-XI celebrated the intersection of art and science through a collaboration with artist April Flanders, whose work communicated the impacts of marine invasions to broader audiences. The conference also provided travel awards and student achievement prizes to support early-career scientists. As ICMB-XI concluded, participants reinforced the need for sustained, large-scale efforts to mitigate marine bioinvasions through enhanced research, policy integration, and cross-sector collaboration. The next ICMB, scheduled for 2025 in Madeira, Portugal, aims to continue advancing the field and fostering international partnerships in marine bioinvasion management.

Biological invasions and human migrations have increased globally due to socio-economic drivers and environmental factors that have enhanced cultural, economic, and geographic connectivity. Both processes involve the movement, establishment, and spread of species, yet unfold within fundamentally different philosophical, social and biological contexts. Hence, studying biological invasions (invasion science) and human migration (migration studies) presents complex parallels that are potentially fruitful to explore. Here, we examined nuanced parallels and differences between these two phenomena, integrating historical, socio-political, and ethical perspectives. Our review underscores the need for context-specific approaches in policymaking and governance to address effectively the challenges and opportunities of human migration and harm from biological invasions. We suggest that approaches to studying the drivers of biological invasions and human migration provide an excellent opportunity for transdisciplinary research; one that acknowledges the complexities and potential insights from both fields of study. Ultimately, integrating natural and social sciences offers a promising avenue for enriching the understanding of invasion biology and migration dynamics while pursuing just, equitable, and sustainable solutions. However, while human migration is a clear driver of biological invasions, drawing on principles from biological invasions to understand past and current human migration risks oversimplification and the potential for harmful generalisations that disregard the intrinsic rights and cultural dynamics of human migrations. By doing so, we provide insights and frameworks to support the development of context-specific policies that respect human dignity, foster cultural diversity, and address migration challenges in ways that promote global cooperation and justice. This interdisciplinary approach highlights the potential for transdisciplinary research that acknowledges complexities in both fields, ultimately enriching our understanding of invasion biology and migration dynamics while pursuing equitable and sustainable solutions.

Background Evidence-based policymaking is a paradigm aimed at increasing the use of evidence by actors involved in policymaking processes. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a heavy reliance on emerging evidence for policymaking during emergencies.Objective This study describes the focus and types of evidence in journal articles self-described as relevant to policymaking using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, identifying gaps in evidence and highlighting author stated perceived biases specifically in evidence-based policy making.Design Evidence mapping.Data sources We systematically searched SCOPUS, PubMed and LexisNexis for literature identifying policy-relevant evidence available on the COVID-19 pandemic.Eligibility criteria The study included only peer-reviewed literature identified as ‘article’, ‘book chapter’, ‘review’ covering the period from January 2020 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria required that articles have an abstract, authorship attribution and are written in English.Data extraction and synthesis A minimum of two authors independently extracted and coded for every level and final outputs were compared for consistency.Results A total of 213 articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in this study. Lead authorship affiliations were from 50 countries with 70% of the outputs from developed economies including USA (20.2%), UK (18.3%) and Australia (7.5%). The most common purpose of the articles was the presentation of research findings the authors considered of relevance to policy (60.1%), followed by work that examined the impact of policy (28.6%) or highlighted or supported a policy need (22.5%), while some papers had multiple stated purposes. The most common challenges in policymaking identified by the authors of the reviewed papers were process failures and poor evidence utilisation during policymaking.Conclusions The evidence map identified the need for an interdisciplinary policy approach involving relevant stakeholders and driven by quality research as a progressive step towards prevention of future public health crises/pandemics.

When evidence-based policymaking is so often mired in disagreement and controversy, how can we know if the process is meeting its stated goals? We develop a novel mathematical model to study disagreements about adequate knowledge utilization, like those regarding wild horse culling, shark drumlines and facemask policies during pandemics. We find that, when stakeholders disagree, it is frequently impossible to tell whether any party is at fault. We demonstrate the need for a distinctive kind of transparency in evidence-based policymaking, which we call transparency of reasoning. Such transparency is critical to the success of the evidence-based policy movement, as without it, we will be unable to tell whether in any instance a policy was in fact based on evidence.

In a hyperconnected world, framing and managing biological invasions poses complex and contentious challenges, affecting socioeconomic and environmental sectors. This complexity distinguishes the field and fuels polarized debates. In the present article, we synthesize four contentious issues in invasion science that are rarely addressed together: vocabulary usage, the potential benefits of nonnative species, perceptions shifting because of global change, and rewilding practices and biological invasions. Researchers have predominantly focused on single issues; few have addressed multiple components of the debate within or across disciplinary boundaries. Ignoring the interconnected nature of these issues risks overlooking crucial cross-links. We advocate for interdisciplinary approaches that better integrate social and natural sciences. Although they are challenging, interdisciplinary collaborations offer hope to overcome polarization issues in invasion science. These may bridge disagreements, facilitate knowledge exchange, and reshape invasion science narratives. Finally, we present a contemporary agenda to advance future research, management, and constructive dialogue.

Journal Article Systematic and persistent bias against invasion science: Framing conservation scientists Get access Daniel Simberloff, Daniel Simberloff Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States Email: tebo@utk.edu; dsimberloff@utk.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1424-9291 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Alejandro Bortolus, Alejandro Bortolus Grupo de Ecología en Ambientes Costeros, Instituto Patagónico para el Estudio de los Ecosistemas Continentales, Puerto Madryn, Chubut, Argentina Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar James T Carlton, James T Carlton Coastal and Ocean Studies Program, Williams College-Mystic Seaport, Mystic, Connecticut, United States Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Franck Courchamp, Franck Courchamp Department of Ecologie, Systématique, Evolution, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-Sur-Yvette, France Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Ross N Cuthbert, Ross N Cuthbert Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2770-254X Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Philip E Hulme, Philip E Hulme Department of Pest-Management and Conservation, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5712-0474 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Julie L Lockwood, Julie L Lockwood Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0177-449X Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Laura A Meyerson, Laura A Meyerson Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, United States Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Martín A Nuñez, Martín A Nuñez Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Anthony Ricciardi, Anthony Ricciardi Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1492-0054 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar ... Show more David M Richardson, David M Richardson Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Evangelina Schwindt Evangelina Schwindt Biología de Organismos Marinos, Puerto Madryn, Chubut, Argentina Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar BioScience, biae029, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae029 Published: 17 April 2024 Article history Received: 09 February 2024 Accepted: 14 March 2024 Published: 17 April 2024

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science - a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline - the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalised', 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' - populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species.

Aim Human activities have introduced numerous non-native species (NNS) worldwide. Understanding and predicting large-scale NNS establishment patterns remain fundamental scientific challenges. Here, we evaluate if NNS composition represents a proportional subset of the total species pool available to invade (i.e. total global biodiversity), or, conversely, certain taxa are disproportionately pre-disposed to establish in non-native areas.Location Global.Time period Present day.Major taxa studied Global diversity.Methods We compiled one of the most comprehensive global databases of NNS (36,822 established species) to determine if NNS diversity is a representative proportional subset of global biodiversity.Results Our study revealed that, while NNS diversity mirrors global biodiversity to a certain extent, due to significant deviance from the null model it is not always a representative proportional subset of global biodiversity. The strength of global biodiversity as a predictor depended on the taxonomic scale, with successive lower taxonomic levels less predictive than the one above it. Consequently, on average, 58%, 42% and 28% of variability in NNS numbers were explained by global biodiversity for phylum, class and family respectively. Moreover, global biodiversity was a similarly strong explanatory variable for NNS diversity among regions, but not habitats (i.e. terrestrial, freshwater and marine), where it better predicted NNS diversity for terrestrial than for freshwater and marine habitats. Freshwater and marine habitats were also greatly understudied relative to invasions in the terrestrial habitats. Over-represented NNS relative to global biodiversity tended to be those intentionally introduced and/or 'hitchhikers' associated with deliberate introductions. Finally, randomness is likely an important factor in the establishment success of NNS.Main conclusions Besides global biodiversity, other important explanatory variables for large-scale patterns of NNS diversity likely include propagule and colonization pressures, environmental similarity between native and non-native regions, biased selection of intentionally introduced species and disparate research efforts of habitats and taxa.

Coastal salt marshes are recognized worldwide as diverse and productive environments, providers of many ecosystem services, and as places where a wide variety of taxa live, nest, nurse, and/or feed. Along the Atlantic coast of South America, the austral cordgrass Spartina densiflora displays great phenotypic variations that may favor it to thrive on a wide range of substrates, inhabiting not only the typical soft bottom marshes, but also on cobble beaches and rocky shores. These Patagonian rocky salt marshes, unlike other salt marshes, develop predominantly on top of wave-cut platforms made of sedimentary rock, highly exposed to wave action, and with a dwarf Patagonian phenotype of S. densiflora commonly dominating the vegetation. In this work we evaluate experimentally the hypothesis that this phenotype is a plastic response that maximizes the survival of S. densiflora on rocky bottom environments exposed to wave action. Our results strongly suggest that the austral cordgrass S. densiflora is able to adjust its morphological characteristics in relation to contrasting environmental changes, allowing it to survive in a broad spectrum of coastal environments, including rocky shores with little accumu-lation of mud and high wave exposure. The typical plants transplanted from the muddy marsh to the rocky marsh exhibited lower height (80%) than the typical control in muddy marsh and than the Patagonian plants in rocky marsh (38%), additionally the typical transplants in the rocky marsh showed no visible damage to their leaves or stems. Our research provides new evidence to understand the success of this species across non-native regions worldwide where it is considered an aggressive invasive bioengineer.

Salt marshes ecosystems have been studied extensively based on the interaction between geo-morphological and geo-ecological processes, but a soil-geochemistry approach is currently unknown in Patagonia. This work was conducted in Riacho salt marsh, Patagonia, Argentina, and, its aim was to establish the soil-geomorphology relationship with a focus on geochemical analysis and vegetation changes (C3 vs. C4 photosynthesis pathway plants). The geochemical analysis was focused on sulfidic material occurrence and their potential acid generation, while the vegetation-geomorphology relationship was determined through the ?13C composition from soil organic matter. To achieve this, soil descriptions and laboratory analyses of soil samples were performed. Riacho salt marsh soils correspond to the Entisol Order and the Suborder Aquents. Soils corresponding to Sarcocornia perennis and Limonium brasiliense vegetation units were classified as Sodic Hydraquents, which were associated with tidal flats between Holocene beaches-ridges systems. On the other hand, the soil corresponding to the Spartina alterniflora vegetation unit was classified as Haplic Sulfaquents related to salt marsh lower levels, where waterlogging soil conditions favor the sulfidic materials formation. These soils are considered potential acid sulfate soils (PASS) due to the generation of sulfuric acid by oxidation processes. Consequently, extreme oxidation of these soils could release metals. The ?13C isotope composition of soil organic matter, in combination with the C/N ratio, indicates that the sandy C horizons from soils corresponding to high salt marsh levels would constitute pioneer salt marshes, which is consistent with the Holocene salt marshes development. The plant zonation model responds to ecological succession according to geomorphology evolution. However, future isotopic studies will be necessary to determine the contributions of different sources, both surface runoff of organic matter from continental ecosystems and organic matter from marine origin.

Mentor relationships are crucial to retention, success, and wellbeing of women and underrepresented minority scientists in academia. A network of diverse mentors may support achieving long-term career goals, advancement, and retention of both mentors and mentees, thus enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.