Supplementary material 1 from: Magliozzi C, Cardoso AC, Gervasini E, Melone B, Bizzotto EC, Brundu G, Cagnacci F, Cebrian E, Adriaens T, Alves MH, Bartilotti C, Carnevali L, Duarte S, Groom Q, Queiroga RM, Meeus S, Nunes AL, Preda C, Rendón-Hernández E, Vanden Abeele S, Scalera R, Vanhove MPM, Álvaro NV (2025) Aligning EU policies to address biological invasions: assessing invasion impacts across sectors. In: Anastácio P, Ribeiro F, Chainho P (Eds) Invasions in Aquatic Systems. NeoBiota 102: 295-312. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.102.152015

Supplementary Material Aligning EU policies to address biological invasions: assessing invasion impacts across sectors Definitions Table S1. Confidence levels based on the strength of evidence. Adapted from Katsanevakis et al. (2014). EVIDENCE CONFIDENCE DEFINITION Robust High direct relevant evidence to support the statement, the available evidence is not controversial. E.g.: impact is documented based on field or laboratory experiments. Medium Medium direct relevant evidence to support the statement, but it is controversial, and/or there is indirect relevant evidence to support the statement (from other species of the same genus or higher taxonomic group), and/or there is no evidence, but statement is supported by expert judgment of good confidence level. E.g.: impact is documented based on modelling, direct observations, nonexperimental correlations. Limited Low no direct or indirect relevant evidence to support the statement, and/or statement is supported by expert judgment of poor confidence level. Data deficient - no information to classify the taxon with respect to its impact, or insufficient time has elapsed since introduction for impacts to have become apparent. Table S2. List of IAS assessed by workshop participants. Species in the list of Union concern are marked with an asterisk. Taxonomy of Plantae according to the World Flora Online, and for Animalia CoL, ITIS, and WorMS. Scientific binomial Accepted name Authority Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Acer negundo L. Plantae Angiosperms Sapindales Sapindaceae Ailanthus altissima * (Mill.) Swingle Plantae Angiosperms Sapindales Simaroubaceae Alternanthera philoxeroides * (Mart.) Griseb. Plantae Angiosperms Caryophyllales Amaranthaceae Ambrosia trifida L. Plantae Angiosperms Asterales Compositae Anser indicus (Latham, 1790) Animalia Chordata Aves Anseriformes Anatidae Araujia sericifera Brot. Plantae Angiosperms Gentianales Apocynaceae Arundo donax L. Plantae Angiosperms Poales Poaceae Asparagopsis armata Harvey, 1855 Plantae Rhodophyta Florideophyceae Bonnemaisoniales Bonnemaisoniaceae Berberis thunbergii DC. Plantae Angiosperms Ranunculales Berberidaceae Bonnemaisonia hamifera Hariot, 1891 Plantae Rhodophyta Florideophyceae Bonnemaisoniales Bonnemaisoniaceae Buddleja davidii Franch. Plantae Angiosperms Lamiales Scrophulariaceae Bursatella leachii Blainville, 1817 Animalia Mollusca Gastropoda Aplysiida Aplysiidae Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896 Animalia Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Portunidae Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758) Animalia Chordata Teleostei Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Castor canadensis Kuhl, 1820 Animalia Chordata Mammalia Rodentia Castoridae Cherax destructor Clark, 1936 Animalia Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Parastacidae Corbicula fluminea (O. F. Müller, 1774) Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Venerida Cyrenidae Crassula helmsii (Kirk) Plantae Angiosperms Saxifragales Crassulaceae Cockayne Crepidula fornicata (Linnaeus, 1758) Animalia Mollusca Gastropoda Littorinimorpha Calyptraeidae Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes ,1844) Animalia Chordata Teleostei Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. Plantae Angiosperms Myrtales Myrtaceae Grateloupia turuturu Yamada, 1941 Plantae Rhodophyta Florideophyceae Halymeniales Grateloupiaceae Hedychium gardnerianum Sheppard ex Ker Gawl. Plantae Angiosperms Zingiberales Zingiberaceae Hemigrapsus sanguineus (De Haan, 1835) Animalia Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Varunidae Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes ,1844) Animalia Chordata Teleostei Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Ipomoea indica Merr. Plantae Angiosperms Solanales Convolvulaceae Marisa cornuarietis (Linnaeus, 1758) Animalia Mollusca Gastropoda Architaenioglossa Ampullariidae Melanoides tuberculata (O. F. Müller, 1774) Animalia Mollusca Gastropoda Thiaridae Metapenaeus stebbingi Nobili, 1904 Animalia Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Penaeidae Misgurnus anguillicaudatus (Cantor, 1842) Animalia Chordata Teleostei Cypriniformes Cobitidae Myocastor coypus * (Molina, 1782) Animalia Chordata Mammalia Rodentia Myocastoridae Myriophyllum aquaticum * (Vell.) Verdc. Plantae Angiosperms Saxifragales Haloragaceae Neltuma juliflora (Sw.) Raf. Plantae Angiosperms Fabales Fabaceae Pomacea maculata G. Perry, 1810 Animalia Mollusca Gastropoda Architaenioglossa Ampullariidae Pontederia crassipes Martius Plantae Angiosperms Commelinales Pontederiinae Potamopyrgus antipodarum (J. E. Gray, 1843) Animalia Mollusca Gastropoda Littorinimorpha Tateidae Procambarus clarkii * (Girard, 1852) Animalia Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Cambaridae Reynoutria japonica Houtt. Plantae Angiosperms Caryophyllales Polygonaceae Ricinus communis L. Plantae Angiosperms Malpighiales Euphorbiaceae Robinia pseudoacacia L. Plantae Angiosperms Fabales Fabaceae Rosa rugosa Thunb. Plantae Angiosperms Rosales Rosaceae Rugulopteryx okamurae (E.Y.Dawson) I.K.Hwang, W.J.Lee & H.S.Kim, 2009 Chromista Ochrophyta Phaeophyceae Dictyotales Dictyotaceae Rumex hypogaeus Rumex × hybridus Kindb. Kindb. Plantae Angiosperms Caryophyllales Polygonaceae Sinanodonta woodiana (I. Lea, 1834) Animalia Mollusca Bivalvia Unionida Unionidae Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav. Plantae Angiosperms Solanales Solanaceae Solidago canadensis L. Plantae Angiosperms Asterales Compositae Spartium junceum L. Plantae Angiosperms Fabales Fabaceae Styela clava Herdman, 1881 Animalia Chordata Ascidiacea Stolidobranchia Styelidae Tradescantia fluminensis Vell. Plantae Angiosperms Commelinales Commelinaceae Figure S1. Overview of the number of IAS assessed across environments and taxonomic groups. a) Bar plot of number of IAS by environment, i.e., freshwater, marine, terrestrial, and major groups, i.e., Animals and Plants. b) Venn diagram showing the overlap between the number of IAS assessed across environments. Figure S2. Domains (see definitions in the manuscript) identified during the workshop for the 49 IAS. 23 domains identified in the primary assessment and 27 domains identified by workshop participants. Figure S3. IAS with reported positive and negative impacts across sector domains during the workshop. 27 IAS identified in the primary assessment and 24 IAS identified by workshop participants. Example: working group 1 guidance document for participants assessing the assigned IAS. Breakout exerciseGroup 1 Please analyse the excerpt of text from published literature and assign a negative and/or positive impact, and its confidence level (i.e. high, medium, low) for each invasive species in one or more policy sector domains (see Definitions). Please consider the following while completing this exercise: - How easy is it to assign an impact to a specific policy sector domain? If there are challenges, please provide examples. - Is the policy sector domains’ categorization comprehensive enough to include all possible impacts of IAS on policy sectors? Species 1 Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb. Common name: Alligator weed https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/spexplorer/species/factsheet/R00669 Plantae >> Tracheophyta >> Magnoliopsida >> Caryophyllales >> Amaranthaceae Reference #1: Burgin, S., & Norris, A. (2008). Alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) in New South Wales, Australia: a status report. Weed Biology and Management, 8(4), 284-290. […]“To determine the status of and management strategies for alligator weed, a questionnaire was circulated to all 166 local government (including county council) areas in New South Wales in 2007 via email, using the public local government directory list. A reply period of 28 days was allowed for the return of the survey. A second email was sent to the same address 7 days before the end of the advertised period; however, all the surveys received beyond this date were included in the results”[…] […]“Approximately half of the respondents to the survey of New South Wales local government areas reported that alligator weed was present in their jurisdiction”[…]. […]“Almost all the respondents reported that the weed posed a threat to natural systems, agricultural and/or recreational areas.”[…] […]“When the same survey was undertaken in 2001, ~85% of local government authorities in New South Wales responded and almost half of these reported that they had alligator weed present. By 2005, it was estimated that almost 4000 ha were infested with alligator weed in New South Wales (Ensbey 2005). As Burgin et al. (2008) reported that only three authorities who did not report the weed in 2001 reported its presence in 2007, and one had apparently eradicated the weed, the spread within local government areas has probably been substantial.”[…] […]“Over three-quarters of the respondents reported that alligator weed was present in the aquatic form in their local government area. In Australia, alligator weed does not produce viable seeds but spreads via fragments of the plant with at least one node (Julien et al. 1995). Once established, the weed can form dense mats in aquatic areas (Julien et al. 1992) and potentially spread downstream, including into terrestrial areas in flood-prone regions. For example, after recent flood conditions in the Hawkesbury–Nepean River system that had not occurred for ~5 years, alligator weed propagules remained in turf cultivation after the flood waters retreated (S. Burgin, 2008, personal observation).Therefore, this one flood event had the potential to disperse alligator weed to new aquatic and terrestrial habitats. This potential for the weed’s spread has been realized in the failure of turf farms in the lower Hunter River, New South Wales, together with other small farm crops (Centre for Weed Management 2003).”[…] […]“The outcomes of this status report paint a grim picture that is repeated across the country: once weeds become established, they are effectively impossible to eradicate (Julien 2006). Agricultural lands, native ecosystems, waterways, and recreational and urban areas are already impacted by alligator weed. If the resources for research and management are not provided, the species will continue to spread and this will lead to the erosion of biodiversity that occurs when an invasive species outcompetes local endemic species, leading to further losses to agriculture and local industries, such as tourism”[…] Reference #2: Tanveer, A., Ali, H. H., Manalil, S., Raza, A., & Chauhan, B. S. (2018). Eco-biology and management of alligator weed [Alternanthera philoxeroides)(Mart.) Griseb.]: a review. Wetlands, 38(6), 1067-1079. […] “The purpose of this review article is to create awareness about the extremely dangerous invasive alligator weed, its diverse ecological and economic threats, and management options along with future research priorities”[…] […] “Alligator weed is usually considered as one of the most significant threats to plant diversity that can disrupt the ecological balance in its invaded sites (Shen et al. 2005; Bassett et al. 2012). It is a highly competitive weed, displaces pasture as well as other plant species (Julien and Bourne 1998), and is considered as an invasive weed of cotton, maize, rice, soybean, and many vegetables (Lu et al. 2002; Ye et al. 2003). Alligator weed infestation has been reported to reduce 45, 19, and 20% yield in rice, maize, and vegetable crops, respectively (Yi 1992; Zhang et al. 2004; Andres et al. 2013). China spent US$72 million each year for the management of this problematic weed (Liu and Diamond 2005). In addition to competition with crops for moisture, nutrients, and space, alligator weed has a strong tendency to reduce crop yields through its allelopathic effects (Wu et al. 2007; Schooler et al. 2008; Xie et al. 2010). ”.[…] […] “Alligator weed can affect the agricultural community in a number of ways either by competing with crops, displacing native plants, disrupting natural water flow, preventing drainage, reducing oxygen levels beneath mats and by providing habitat for mosquito […]“In 1997, a tularemia outbreak occurred in the province of Cuenca in association with P. clarkii handling (Díaz de Tuesta et al., 2001). Francisella tularensis tularensis (McCoy & Chapin, 1912) is the bacterium that causes this serious infectious disease. This bacterium has been found in the stomach, hepatopancreas and water of P. clarkii, but not in its exoskeleton. These findings indicate that the red swamp crayfish is not a direct transmission vector of tularemia, and the most likely cause of this outbreak was the contamination of river water with animals killed by tularemia (lagomorphs), which then also infected P. clarkii.”[…] […] “Furthermore, this non-native species generates negative environmental impacts on macrophytic algae, amphibians, molluscs and macroinvertebrate diversity in aquatic ecosystems (Rodríguez et al., 2005; Souty-Grosset et al., 2006; Correia et al., 2005; 2007)” […] Reference #3: Lodge, D.M.; Deines, A.; Gherardi, F.; Yeo, D.C.; Arcella, T.; Baldridge, A.K.; Barnes, M.A.; Chadderton,W.L.; Feder, J.L.; Gantz, C.A.; et al. Global Introductions of Crayfishes: Evaluating the Impact of Species Invasions on Ecosystem Services. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2012, 43, 449–472; McLaughlan, C., Gallardo, B., & Aldridge, D. C. (2014). How complete is our knowledge of the ecosystem services impacts of Europe's top 10 invasive species?. Acta Oecologica, 54, 119-130. […] “red swamp crayfish is used as human food for domestic consumption and/or export (Figure 2). However, in Europe red swamp crayfish sales have often replaced those of native species (see the sidebar, Crayfish as Vectors of Parasites and Pathogens), whereas consumers in Sweden are willing to pay tenfold for native crayfishes compared to the red swamp crayfish (Holdich 1999; and L. Edsman, personal communication). Red swamp crayfish has also been introduced as food for fishes (e.g., in and for other edible species, e.g., American bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana in Japan (Gherardi 2011a). However, red swamp crayfish also reduce the provisioning of other food. In African lakes, it spoils valuable fish caught in gillnets (up to 30% of the catch) and damages fish nets (de Moor 2002), and it is a pest in Japanese fish ponds (Maezono & Miyashita 2004)” […] […] “red swamp crayfish is a vector for multiple parasites and pathogens, including crayfish plague, which, since its first appearance in Europe in 1860, has reduced production of native commercial crayfishes, Astacus astacus and Astacus leptodactylus, by up to 90% in Scandinavia, Germany, Spain, and Turkey (see the sidebar, Crayfish as Vectors of Parasites and Pathogens). However, in Africa, predation by red swamp crayfish reduces the populations of the snails that host the trematodes that cause human schistosomiasis, reducing the prevalence of the disease in humans (Mkoji et al. 1999). With respect to natural hazard regulation, burrowing by red swamp crayfish in European coastal wetlands (Scalici et al. 2010) could reduce coastal protection from severe storms and sea level rise”[…] […] “Foraging, burrowing, and locomotory activities by red swamp crayfish can lead to erosion of littoral zone sediments, changing benthic geomorphology (Angeler et al. 2001).” […] “In northern Italy, crayfish burrowing damages 30% of the irrigation canals, costing 8% of the annual income of the management authority (M. Fantesini, personal communication). Red swamp crayfish also affect nutrient cycling in sediments (Angeler et al. 2001), reducing organic matter and increasing phosphorus and nitrogen in sediments (Gherardi 2008).” “Red swamp crayfish commonly reduces the abundance of submersed and semiaquatic macrophytes by 50% to 100% via herbivory and stalk-cutting in the Palearctic (GutierrezYurrita et al. 1999, Rodr ´ ´ıguez et al. 2003, Gherardi & Acquistapace 2007) and Ethiopian (Rosenthal et al. 2005) realms, often reducing refuge availability for many other species and inducing undesirable increases in phytoplankton, especially cyanobacteria (Gherardi & Lazzara 2006). Similarly, predation by red swamp crayfish causes declines in many invertebrate taxa, often eliminating snails and other slow-moving species in the Palearctic (Gherardi & Acquistapace 2007) and Ethiopian realms (Lodge et al. 2005). In Italy, predation by the red swamp crayfish has driven to extinction a once locally abundant semiaquatic beetle (Carabus clatratus) (Casale & Busato 2008)”[…] […] “Decreased abundance of the native European crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes has significant negative cultural impact, including the loss of local festivals focused on crayfish. The importance of the native crayfish in the history of European countries is demonstrated by its frequent appearance in emblems, coats of arms, toponymies, and family names (Gherardi 2011b)” […] Species 4 Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758) Common name: Goldfish https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/spexplorer/species/factsheet/R02742 Animalia >> Chordata >> Cypriniformes >> Ciprinidae Reference #1: van der Veer, G., & Nentwig, W. (2015). Environmental and economic impact assessment of alien and invasive fish species in Europe using the generic impact scoring system. Ecology of Freshwater fish, 24(4), 646-656. […] “For alien fish in Europe, we compiled a list of 40 established species. By literature research, we assessed the environmental impact (through herbivory, predation, competition, disease transmission,hybridisation and ecosystem alteration) and economic impact (on agriculture, animal production, forestry, human infrastructure, human health and human social life) of each species”. […] […] “Carassius auratus/C. gibelio also had the highest impact (3.6 impact points) on animal production due to its transmission of the cyprinid herpesvirus-3 to farmed carp (El-Matbouli & Soliman 2011)”.[…] […] “Carassius auratus/C. gibelio showed the highest impact points in the hybridisation category because of their ability to hybridise with C. carassius and Cyprinus carpio, which has resulted in a decline of C. carassius in Great Britain (Hume et al.1983; H€anfling et al. 2005; Sayer et al. 2011)”. […] Reference #2: Piewbang, C., Wardhani, S. W., Sirivisoot, S., Surachetpong, W., Sirimanapong, W., Kasantikul, T., & Techangamsuwan, S. (2024). First report of natural Cyprinid herpesvirus-2 infection associated with fatal outbreaks of goldfish (Carassius auratus) farms in Thailand. Aquaculture, 581, 740481. […] “Fatal outbreaks of ornamental goldfish (C. auratus) in association with CyHV-2 infection were firstly reported in Thailand.”[…] […] “The viral loads were predominately found in the kidney, spleen and gills, respectively. Liver, brain, heart and intestine of infected fish were also positive for CyHV2 qPCR detection. ”[…] […] “ CyHV-2 has been associated with fatal outbreaks in various countries, including Australia (Stephens et al., 2004), China (Jiang et al., 2020; Luo et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2019), Czech Republic (Daněk et al., 2012), France (Boitard et al., 2016), Germany (Adamek et al., 2018), Hungary (Doszpoly et al., 2011), Italy (Fichi et al., 2016), India (Sahoo et al., 2016), Japan (Jung and Miyazaki, 1995), Netherlands (Ito et al., 2017), Poland (Panicz et al., 2019), Taiwan (Chang et al., 1999), Switzerland (Giovannini et al., 2016), Turkey (Kalaycı et al., 2018), United Kingdom (Jeffery et al., 2007) and USA (Goodwin et al., 2006; Groff et al., 1998), resulting in significant economic losses.” […] […] “It is crucial to emphasize the importance of conducting comprehensive surveillance to monitor the prevalence of CyHV-2 and its impact on fish populations. This intensive surveillance is essential for effective disease monitoring and management strategies to prevent further spread of CyHV-2”[…] Reference #3: Panicz, R., Sadowski, J., & Eljasik, P. (2019). Detection of Cyprinid herpesvirus 2 (CyHV-2) in symptomatic ornamental types of goldfish (Carassius auratus) and asymptomatic common carp (Cyprinus carpio) reared in warm-water cage culture. Aquaculture, 504, 131-138.. […]“New cases of herpesviral haematopoietic necrosis (HVHN) were identified in Poland”[…]. “The new CyHV-2 strain was identified in both fish grown in the cage farm (SC12016) and batches (SC2-2016) recently imported from Thailand.”[…] […] “CyHV-2 spread and the possible fish mortalities it causes in the natural environment arise mainly from asymptomatic carriers which have escaped or have been intentionally released into freshwater environments, e.g. by aquarists.”[…] […] “Additionally, our study identified common carp (Cyprinus carpio) individuals reared in neighbouring cages as asymptomatic carriers of CyHV-2”[…] […] “that temperature itself is not the only factor that unambiguously determines the development of HVHN.” […] “ mortality can be attributed to the stressogenic impact of daily water temperature fluctuations (20–29 °C).”[…] “Increased water temperatures influence both primary and secondary production in a discharge channel environment, stimulate fish farming in cages, but may also facilitate pathogen persistence and distribution by native ichthyofauna in the channel and drainage basin” […] […] “Since an increasing number of countries publish reports on HVHN, a robust transnational strategy for the control of CyHV-2 infections is urgently required to limit the losses in aquaculture and the natural environment associated with this viral disease” […] Species 5 Asparagopsis armata Harvey 1855 Common name: Harpoon weed https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/spexplorer/species/factsheet/R01543 Plantae >> Rhodophyta >> Florideophyceae >> Bonnemaisoniales >> Bonnemaisoniaceae Reference #1: Bernardo Duarte, João Carreiras, Eduardo Feijão,Ricardo Cruz de Carvalho, Ana Rita Matos, Vanessa F. Fonseca, Sara C. Novais and Marco F. L. Lemos (2021). Potential of Asparagopsis armata as a Biopesticide for Weed Control under an Invasive Seaweed Circular-Economy Framework. Biology 10(12), 1321. […] “the present work aims to test the potential of an A. armata exudate cocktail as a biopesticide for weed control, evaluating its effects on the physiology of a model plant, Thellungiella halophila, which is a close relative to Arabidopsis thaliana (the model glycophyte weed) and has been ascribed as a new model marine/halophyte plant due to its tolerance to saline environments; therefore, it is the ideal plant to assess the exudates produced in seawater, reducing the potential artefacts imposed by potential salt stress” […] […] “Asparagopsis armata gametophytes were collected by scuba diving from the protected marine area around the Berlenga Island, Peniche, Portugal” […] “In the lab, after being cleaned and sorted, four aquaria with 5 kg of A. armata and 50 L of artificial seawater (distilled water with Premium REEF salt (TMC, Lisbon, Portugal) adjusted to 35 PSU) were left in the dark at 20 °C. After 12 h, the seaweed was removed, and the water from the different aquaria was pooled and sieved for bigger particles, followed by filtration through a 0.45 µm cellulose acetate membrane filter (Whatman, Maidstone, UK). The exudate was then kept in PET bottles at −20 °C until further use and represented the 100% stock concentration.” […] “The cocktail of the exudate produced by the red seaweed A. armata induces a high degree of stress when applied in plants, sharing several effects and modes of action with several major synthetic biocides (such as basagran, bromicide, lumax, gramoxone, indole derivatives, clomazone, paraquat and pyridazinones), which impair several aspects mostly related to the plant energetic metabolism, with severe reductions in the chloroplastidial electron transport and consequent reduction of ATP generation and CO2 harvesting, eventually leading to plant death. This way, the A. armata exudate cocktail presents a high potential to be applied as a biopesticide, being a green and sustainable eco-friendly solution to reduce environmental contamination by hazardous chemical substances from human origin. In addition to the here-described biocide potential from a low-cost marine resource, an added value would be the resultant increased harvesting of this invasive seaweed, thus promoting more healthy and diverse shores. In comparison with the traditional chemical/artificial pesticides, the natural origin of this cocktail is also a matter of added-value in terms of increased public acceptance and of reduced environmental impact. The greatest opportunity is the fact that the extractive process leaves an intact and substantial by-product that may be further used for the current markets already using this seaweed, given that it does not lose the market target bioactivity. A study of the remaining biomass bioactivities (after exudate release) will be paramount to set the foundations for its use in an A. armata biorefinery, where this seaweed may serve several markets and thus present multiple revenue opportunities in a blue circular-economy framework” […] Reference #2: Carla O. Silva, Marco F.L. Lemos, Rui Gaspar, Carlos Gonçalves, João M. Neto (2021). The effects of the invasive seaweed Asparagopsis armata on native rock pool communities: Evidences from experimental exclusion. Ecological Indicators 125, 107463 […] “the main aim was to evaluate the effect of A. armata on intertidal seaweed and macroinvertebrate assemblages using a removal experiment in which the presence of this exotic species was manipulated. It is predicted that with the presence of A. armata in certain pools, the remaining assemblages would be distinct, in terms of composition and structure, from those found in rock pools where A. armata was experimentally removed.” […] […] “February 2018 to December 2018 in Portinho da Areia Norte (WGS84: 39.369587, −9.377899) at the south part of the Peniche peninsula, central western coast of Portugal” […] “In January 2018, 6 tide pools were randomly selected in the rocky intertidal area, with relatively similar size and invaded by A. armata. All pools were located at approximately the same tide level, which allow them to be isolated from the sea about the same time during a tidal cycle. The tidal rock pools position (semi-exposed sites) allowed seawater renewal every tidal cycle”[…] “From the six intertidal rock pools used on experimental manipulations, three were maintained without A. armata (C pools) by regular manual removal of macroalgae so that the effect of its absence could be assessed in the community. Three other rock pools were not experimentally manipulated during the study period and A. armata was freely present (A pools). The manipulation period lasted for 10 months and community samples were collected twice per season, in a total of eight data points. The manipulation was maintained over the course of the experiment by periodically removing new Asparagopsis recruits, every 2–3 weeks”[…] […] “A. armata had a significant impact on the native intertidal macroalgal assemblage, and, although less evident, also over macroinvertebrate assemblages. Results indicated that physico-chemical parameters did not have a strong contribution on pool type differentiation in terms of environmental conditions, with most of the variation occurring between seasons. Both rock pool types, with A. armata (A) and without it (C), presented similarities for the environmental conditions, which made them closer to each other within the same season then between seasons. ” […] […] “the effect of A. armata on the macroalgal assemblage was detected in spring and summer seasons. During summer, with lower A. armata biomass, a higher macroalgal richness was evident. This result agrees with the concept known as “biotic resistance” proposed by Elton (1958) that states that communities with higher diversity should be less susceptible to invasion because of a more complete utilization of resources. On the other hand, in spring, when A. armata registered higher biomass in the invaded pools, a higher biomass of native macroalgae was registered” […] “High densities of A. armata inhabiting the tide pools could be responsible for a decrease in the macroalgae diversity through competitive interactions”. “Ellisolandia elongata decreased in biomass when A. armata was present, which is supported by previous studies made by Guerra-García et al. (2012), that report E. elongata as the main algal species affected by the presence of A. armata.” […] “ results suggest that there was a significant effect of A. armata on macroalgae assemblages, with statistically significant differences detected on abundance and taxonomic composition of native macroalgal communities; and less evident on macroinvertebrate communities, but detected as higher values for number of species, abundance and diversity in rock pools with A. armata for Winter and Spring seasons, and the opposite for the rest of the year” […] Reference #3: Pinteus, S., Lemos, M. F., Simões, M., Alves, C., Silva, J., Gaspar, H., ... & Pedrosa, R. (2020). Marine invasive species for high-value products' exploration–Unveiling the antimicrobial potential of Asparagopsis armata against human pathogens. Algal Research, 52, 102091. […] “the antimicrobial potential of A. armata extracts and fractions were tested against the human pathogens Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida albicans, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella enteritidis. Moreover, the mechanisms behind the antimicrobial effects were analyzed, namely cytoplasmatic membrane disruption and DNA damage. Biofilm inhibitory ability was also evaluated” […] […] “Asparagopsis armata was collected in the Berlengas Natural Reserve (Portugal; 39° 24′43″ N, 9° 29′56″ W) by scuba diving and transported to the laboratory in cooled boxes. The samples were washed firstly with seawater to remove epibionts, sand and debris, and then with distilled water. Finally, samples were frozen at −80 °C and freeze-dried. The freeze-dried seaweed powder was extracted overnight (1:40 biomass:solvent ratio) with a methanol (MeOH) and dichloromethane (DCM) mixture (1:1) with constant stirring in the dark. The solvents were evaporated under low pressure, at 40 °C and 150 rpm, in a rotary evaporator (Heidolph, Laborota 4000, Germany), and the resulting biomass (crude extract) stored at −20 °C until further use” […] […] “Asparagopsis armata exhibited antimicrobial potential against all studied microorganisms revealing strong inhibitory effects, especially against S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and C. albicans, with several fractions presenting an IC50 lower than 100 μg/mL.” […] […] “It is plausible to assume that the mechanisms of action behind the growth inhibition are associated with membrane damage and DNA damage, which represent a great opportunity for the development of new antimicrobial drugs of natural origin, featuring these dual targeting mechanisms, decreasing the possibility of recovery, minimizing the rising of resistant strains. ” […] “The results showed that A. armata produces compounds with a high inhibitory activity against S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and C. albicans growth, possibly mediated by cytoplasmatic membrane disruption and DNA damage. GC–MS analysis suggested that the most active fractions were mainly composed of bromoditerpenes and fatty acids. The attained results point to the relevance of the invasive A. armata as a source of antimicrobial substances with broad-spectrum activity.” Google Form Example of the google form used during the workshop. 2/17/25, 3:21 PM Exercise Species Impacts https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1hrN6eWU7TJ0hQfpRJ_2qEHzC0xY0twwnW2gMZIqwVTA/edit?allow_large_form 1/102 Exercise Species Impacts Evaluate each invasive species and determine whether it has a positive, negative, unknown (Data Deficient) on one or more policy domains. Assign a confidence level (high=3, medium=2, low=1) for each policy domain. Please refer to your assigned working group to select the right section. 1. What is your group? * Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Group 8 Group 9 Group 10 GROUP 1 2/17/25, 3:21 PM Exercise Species Impacts https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1hrN6eWU7TJ0hQfpRJ_2qEHzC0xY0twwnW2gMZIqwVTA/edit?allow_large_form 2/102 2. Alternanthera philoxeroides Please note that impact and confidence levels are: negative high= -3 negative medium=- 2 negative low=- 1 positive high= 3 positive medium= 2 positive low= 1 DD= data deficient - 3 - 2 - 1 3 2 1 DD Agriculture Soil Forestry Security and safety Infrastructure (rroad,, rraiills) Inland waters Maritime (Porrtt) Security Efficiency Renewable energy Animal health Plant health Food and feed safety Human health Industry