IAS_6.6.1.3_800

There is no clear dividing line between so-called, “pure” research conducted solely for increasing information and applied research that has clear practical applications. Nevertheless, the distinction is made below to help us evaluate the balance of funding and resources devoted to different aspects of science.
In response to the problem, the number of peer-reviewed publications on biological invasions has increased steadily (Vaz et al., 2017). These research publications can be broadly divided into basic research focusing on the process, patterns and impacts of invasive alien species, and applied research, focusing on their management and mitigation. While basic research allows us to understand temporal and spatial patterns of invasive alien species and their underlying mechanisms, applied research builds on the information generated from basic research to develop contextualized management strategies at varying spatial and governance scales.
Basic research dominates peer-reviewed publications on biological invasions (Esler et al., 2010). This disparity may be accounted for by the publication of much applied research in grey literature, such as governmental reports (Lowry et al., 2013). There is also large variation in the use of research methods in basic research. For example, nearly half (46 per cent) of the studies that attempted to understand the fundamental process of biological invasions are field observational studies, while less than one-fifth (18 per cent) were field experimental studies (Lowry et al., 2013).
Similarly, a meta-analysis of biological invasions research from Latin American and Caribbean countries, between 2006 and 2008 found that only 5 per cent of publications focussed on invasive alien species management (Pauchard et al., 2011). Of 185 articles, 57 per cent focused on analysing only one species and 43 per cent on more than one species. Invasion patterns were analysed in 39 per cent of them, invasion mechanisms in 25 per cent, bibliographic invasive alien species reviews comprised 12 per cent, impacts were the focus of 19 per cent, and new invasive alien species were reported in 17 per cent (Pauchard et al., 2011). Basic research focussed on invasive alien species listing, population dynamics, biotic factors that promote invasion and ecological relationships (facilitation, competition and mutualism). The applied research focused on restoration, eradication or control measures (Pauchard et al., 2011 and references therein). Publications on aquatic and marine invasive alien species in South American countries cover six major basic research themes: biology/ecology (58 per cent); invasive alien species new records (20.5 per cent); aquaculture (3 per cent); range expansions; genetics; and general reviews of aquatic species with a remarkably low number (all below 3 per cent), although the proportion of applied research papers is not reported (Schwindt & Bortolus, 2017). Uruguay is an example of a country that has developed both basic and applied research on terrestrial and aquatic non-indigenous and invasive alien species in the last 15 years (Brazeiro et al., 2021; Brugnoli & Laufer, 2018).
Despite the apparent greater investment in basic compared to applied research, knowledge of some basic science questions is still inadequate globally. For example, in an evaluation of country-level checklists of invasive alien species, these were found to suffer from one or more of 10 different error categories, mostly related to poor information or measurement errors (epistemic uncertainties; McGeoch et al., 2012). Important errors include: species misidentified as alien due to taxonomic uncertainty; failure to recognize invasive alien species as a result of insufficient surveying; overestimation due to the coarse spatial resolution of alien species distribution maps or species listing; delays in the publication of data; poor data management that leads to data being unfindable; incorrect decisions to list a species as “alien” (Glossary) due to inadequate and ambiguous information on species’ native range; incorrect decision of listing species as “invasive” due to limited information on their population dynamics and impacts, and lack of evidence-based standardized and universal criteria for designating a species as invasive (Chapter 5, section 5.6.2.5, Table 5.12).
While acknowledging that the errors could not be eliminated completely, (McGeoch et al., 2012) suggested some measures to minimize errors associated with country-level checklists, including expanding investment in invasive alien species research and monitoring, improving findability and accessibility of invasive alien species data, improving the speed at which a correction can be applied to a list, and improving transparency and repeatability of invasive alien species listing methods, along with standardized uses of terms and concepts.
Information generated from basic research is translated to management and policy responses through applied research. Poor representation of applied research in peer-reviewed publications (Esler et al., 2010), might have contributed to the continuous increase in the number of alien species across taxonomic groups and biogeographic regions (Seebens et al., 2018). Additional investment of resources for applied research would generate information suitable for managers and policymakers to make decisions.