Non-indigenous or alien species need to be appreciated for their potential benefits and not just the negative impacts they can have on the environment, according to new research.
In recent decades, there have been numerous examples of non-indigenous species (NIS) establishing a foothold and then causing harm in new environments. Meanwhile, others have had benefits for fisheries or replaced lost ecological functions.
Stopping the spread of such species is virtually impossible, so a new study – led by the University of Plymouth and the Marine and Environmental Research (MER) Lab in Cyprus – is calling for a complete rethink of how they are considered in the future.
Focused on the Mediterranean, the most ‘invaded’ sea on Earth, the research highlights species – including lionfish, clams, barracuda, rabbitfish and jellyfish – that have become resident in the region as a result of factors such as the changing climate or human introduction.
To try and address such issues, the study proposes a cost-benefit analysis which will guide whether NIS should be managed in a sustainable or unsustainable way.
Where non-indigenous species are known to have positive effects on the environment and marine economies, a series of policy reforms are proposed.
However, where there are no perceived benefits, it proposes legislation to actively promote commercial over-fishing and the creation of radical NIS-specific licences for recreational fishers. One example of such a species is the lionfish (Pterois miles), first seen in the Mediterranean Sea in 2012 but now thriving and well-established across southern Europe and having a marked impact on other native species and the wider environment.
