Apeer-reviewed open-access journa 1] BioRisk 4(1): 1 1-26 (2010) 2 . doi: 10.3897/biorisk.4.70 RESEARCH ARTICLE B | O R IS www.pensoftonline.net/biorisk Taxonomy, time and geographic patterns Chapter 2 Alain Roques INRA UR633 Zoologie Forestiére, 2163 Av. Pomme de pin, 45075 Orléans, France Corresponding author: Alain Roques (alain.roques@orleans.inra.fr) Academic editor: David Lees | Received 15 April 2010 | Accepted 20 May 2010 | Published 6 July 2010 Citation: Roques A (2010) Taxonomy, time and geographic patterns. Chapter 2. In: Roques A et al. (Eds) Alien terrestrial arthropods of Europe. BioRisk 4(1): 11-26. doi: 10.3897/biorisk.4.70 Abstract A total of 1590 species of arthropods alien to Europe have already established on the continent, including 226 more or less cosmopolitan species of uncertain origin (cryptogenic). These alien species are dispersed across 33 taxonomic orders, including crustaceans, chilopods, diplopods, pauropods, Symphyla, mites, arachnids, and insects. However, insects largely dominate, accounting for more than 87% of the species, far in excess of mites (6.4%). Three of the insect orders, namely Coleoptera, Hemiptera and Hymenop- tera, overall account for nearly 65 % of the total. The alien fauna seems to be highly diverse with a total of 257 families involved, of which 30 have no native representatives. However, just 11 families contribute more than 30 species, mainly aphids, scales and hymenopteran chalcids. For a number of families, the arrival of alien species has significantly modified the composition of the fauna in Europe. Examples are given. The number of new records of aliens per year has increased exponentially since the 16 century, but a significant acceleration was observed since the second half of the 20" century, with an average of 19.6 alien species newly reported per year in Europe between 2000 and 2008. This acceleration appears to be mainly related to the arrival of phytophagous species, probably with the plant trade, whereas the contribu- tion of detritivores, parasitoids and predators has decreased. Some taxa have not shown any acceleration in the rate of arrivals. Asia has supplied the largest number of alien arthropods occurring in Europe (26.7 %), followed by North America (21.9%) but large differences in the region of origin are apparent between taxa. Once established, most alien species have not spread throughout Europe, at least yet, with 43.6 % of the species only present in one or two countries, and less than 1% present in more than 40 countries. Large differences also exist between European countries in the total number of alien arthropods recorded per country. Italy (700 species) and France (690 species), followed by Great Britain (533 species), host many more species than other countries. The number of alien species per country is significantly corre- lated with socioeconomic and demographic variables. Copyright Alain Roques. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. i Alain Roques / BioRisk 4(1): 11-26 (2010) Keywords aliens, arthropods, Europe, globalization, taxonomy, Asia, drivers of biological invasion Introduction Expanding world-wide trade, globalisation of economies and climate change are all factors that contribute to an accelerated international movement and establishment of alien organisms, allowing them to overcome geographic barriers (Hulme et al. 2008, Hulme 2009, Walther et al. 2009, Roques 2010). These alien species have already been shown to impose enormous costs on agriculture, forestry as well as to threaten human health and biodiversity (Williamson 1996, Wittenberg and Cock 2001, Pimentel et al. 2002, 2005, Vila et al. 2009). Although terrestrial arthropods, and particularly in- sects, represent a large part of the alien species problem, they appear to have received disproportionately less attention compared to plants, vertebrates, and aquatic organ- isms, especially regarding their possible ecological impact (Kenis et al. 2009). Most of the works concerning alien terrestrial invertebrates have dealt with case studies of pests having a high economic or sanitary impact, such as gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar (L.)) in North America (Liebhold et al. 1992), Asian long-horned beetles (Anoplophora spp.; Haack et al. 2010), or Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus (Skuse); Eritja et al. 2005). More synthetic studies have been carried out at guild level (e.g., bark beetles; Brockerhoff et al. 2005) or at ecosystem level, especially for forest insects (Liebhold et al. 1995, Mattson et al. 1996, 2007, Niemela and Mattson 1996, Langor et al. 2009). However, continental inventories of alien arthropod species, or even of alien insects, are still lacking in most regions, although such studies are needed to assess which taxo- nomic or bio-ecological groups of alien species are better invaders or more harmful to the economy or environment, and which ecosystems or habitats are at greater risk (Mondor et al., 2007). In Europe, the potential problems caused by alien arthropods have tradition- ally been considered as less severe than in North America, Australasia or South Af- rica (Niemela and Mattson 1996). As a result, unlike other groups of animals and plants, no checklist of alien terrestrial arthropods was available in any of the European countries until the early 2000s. However, in the last 20 years, several exotic pests of economic concern, to name a few, the western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte), the red palm weevil (Ahynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier)), the har- lequin labybeetle (Harmonia axyridis (Pallas)), or the chestnut gall maker (Dryocos- mus kuriphilus (Yasumatsu)), have invaded Europe, inducing more interest in the issue of alien arthropods. The horse-chestnut leaf miner, Cameraria ohridella Deschka and Dimi¢, an alien in Europe originating from the Balkans, has also raised much public concern because of its spectacular damage to urban trees in invaded areas of Central and Western Europe (Valade et al. 2009). Thus, checklists of alien arthropods began to be compiled from 2002 onwards, successively covering Austria (Essl and Rabitsch 2002), Germany (Geiter et al. 2002), Taxonomy, time and geographic patterns. Chapter 2 13 the Netherlands (Reemer 2003), the Czech Republic (Sefrové and Lagttiivka 2005), Scandinavia (Nobanis 2005), the United Kingdom (Hill et al. 2005, Smith et al. 2007), Italy (Pellizzari et al. 2005), Serbia and Montenegro (Glavendeki¢ et al. 2005), Switzerland (Kenis 2005), Israel (Roll et al. 2007), Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia (Tomov et al. 2009), and Hungary (Ripka 2010). However, a major advance in the knowledge of alien arthropod species established in Europe was the European project DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe) in 2008. Besides fur- nishing national and regional lists, this project provided for the first time an overview of the alien fauna of arthropods that has established on the continent. DAISIE identi- fied a total of 1517 alien terrestrial invertebrates, of which 1424 arthropods. However, limited expertise in some taxa during the DAISIE project meant full coverage of all the terrestrial arthropods could not be achieved with the same level of precision. The work- ing group formed on this occasion therefore decided to continue its activity over the next two years, enlarging its taxonomic scope and competencies, in order to provide the most exhaustive list of the alien terrestrial arthropods of Europe as possible, with detailed information about each species. The update of the DAISIE list revealed in this book accounts for 1590 arthropod spe- cies alien to Europe, i.e. 166 more species, including both additions and deletions from the former list, and a much better coverage of taxonomic groups other than insects and spiders (i.e., mites, myriapods and crustaceans). In order to allow a comparison of their invasive patterns, the different taxonomic groups are presented separately in 21 chapters which have the same format. Because of the large number of species in some groups, these have been divided into several distinct chapters; i-e., four chapters for Hemiptera and five chapters for Coleoptera. Each chapter successively analyzes the taxonomy of the alien species component compared to that of the native fauna, the temporal trends of in- troduction, the biogeographic patterns, including both details of the region of origin and the distribution of the species in Europe, the pathways of introduction, the ecosystems and habitats which are invaded, and the economic and ecological impact of the biologi- cal invaders. At the end of each chapter, a table summarizes key information regarding all species in the taxa which are alien to Europe; i.e. of ascertained exotic origin or cryp- togenic (see Chapter | for definitions): family, feeding regime, date and country of first record in Europe, invaded countries, habitats, plant or animal host, and one reference at least (usually that of the first record). In a number of cases, a second table includes a list and similar information for the species considered as alien in Europe; i.e. spreading to new countries within Europe, especially for species of Mediterranean origin recorded in more northern areas and species of continental Europe which have colonized islands. We did not provide such tables systematically. Indeed, it was difficult to ascertain for a lot of these species whether they have been introduced in other parts of Europe through direct or indirect human activity - and thus meet our definition of aliens (see Chapter I) - or they are naturally expanding, e.g. with global warming, or even if their native distribu- tion range was incompletely known before their “discovery’ in these new areas. The geographic range covered in this book is primarily Europe in geographic sense, with the main Mediterranean islands and archipelagos (Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sar- 14 Alain Roques / BioRisk 4(1): 11-26 (2010) dinia, Sicily, Malta, Crete, and the Ionian, North Aegean and South Aegean islands) and those of the North Sea (Aland, Svalbard) which are considered separately from the associated continental countries. Ireland was considered as a single biogeographic en- tity (i.e., Republic of Ireland plus Northern Ireland). Because of their possible impor- tance as a first step for the invasion of continental Europe, the islands of the Altantic Ocean (Madeira, the Canary Islands, The Azores Archipelgao), were also included in the analysis but they may also correspond to a source of aliens of Macaronesian origin colonizing the European continent. This substantial work allowed us to figure out the relative importance of the different taxa of alien arthropods in a standardized fashion to other groups as well as to compare their respective habitats (PySek et al. 2009), and environmental and economic impacts (Vila et al. 2009). The present chapter presents the most important patterns exhibited by the terrestrial arthropods alien to Europe. 2.2 Taxonomy of arthropods alien to Europe Alien terrestrial arthropods represent the second most numerous group of organisms introduced to Europe (Roques et al. 2009). A total of 1364 species originating from other continents have established so far, to which we add 226 more or less cosmopoli- tan species of uncertain origin (cryptogenic) for a total of 1590 species. Insects largely dominate this list, accounting for more than 87%, far in excess of mites (6.4%) (Fig- ure 2.1). These alien species are dispersed across 33 taxonomic orders, including two orders of crustaceans, 10 of myriapods (three of chilopods, five of diplopods, one of pauropods and one of Symphyla), four of mites, one of arachnids, and 16 of insects. However, the relative importance of each order is highly variable (Figure 2.2). Three of the insect orders, namely Coleoptera, Hemiptera and Hymenoptera, overall account for nearly 65 % of total alien arthropods, representing 25.0%, 20.0% and 18.7%, respectively. The number of alien Hymenoptera established in Europe is thus much higher than previously considered (Daisie 2009). Diptera (6.2 %), Lepidoptera (6.1 %) Thysanoptera (3.3 %) and Psocoptera (3.1 %) have much lower importance as do Prostigmata mites (4.9 %- see Chapter 7.4) and Aranea (3.0 %), the only non-insect orders to exhibit more than 45 alien species. The other orders are anecdotal. It should be noted that some orders show no alien species whereas there are important compo- nents of the native fauna such as Trichoptera. More generally, at the order level, the taxonomic composition of the alien fauna significantly differs from that of the native European arthropod fauna. Calculations done on insects have revealed that establish- ment patterns differ between orders (Roques et al. 2009). Hemiptera are nearly three times better represented in the alien fauna than in the native fauna (20.0% vs. 8.0%). The alien entomofauna also includes proportionally more thrips (3.3 vs 0.6%), psocids (3.1 vs. 0.3%) and cockroaches (1.1 vs. 0.2%) than the native fauna, but much fewer dipterans (6.2 vs. 21%) and hymenopterans (18.7 vs. 25%). Differences are less pro- nounced for Coleoptera (25.0 vs. 30.0%) and Lepidoptera (6.1 vs. 10%). Taxonomy, time and geographic patterns. Chapter 2 15 Number of species alien to Europe 0 400 800 1200 1600 Acari Aranea ame] Exotic origin ascertained Chilopoda ian Cryptogenic Phylum Crustacea Diplopoda Insecta 1390 Pauropoda Symphila Figure 2.1. Relative importance of the different phyla in the 1590 species of arthropods alien to Europe. Species of ascertained exotic origin and cryptogenic species are presented separately. The number to the right of each bar indicates the total number of alien species observed per phylum. The alien fauna seems to be highly diverse with a total of 257 families involved. However, only 38 of these families contribute 10 and more alien species, while 11 fam- ilies more than 30 species (Figure 2.3). These 11 families mostly include hemipterans comprising aphids (Aphididae with the highest number of alien species - 102 spp.) and scales (Diaspididae and Pseudococcidae), as well as hymenopteran chalcids used for biological control such as Aphelinidae (63 spp.) and Encyrtidae (55 spp.), mites (Erio- phyidae), and thrips (Thripidae). All of these except snout beetles (Curculionidae) and ants (Formicidae) are tiny arthropods. Noticeably, whilst these families dominate the alien fauna of arthropods, they are less intercepted by the phytosanitary quarantine services at European borders. A comparison done by Roques (2010) between intercep- tions and establishments of alien species in Europe during the period 1995 — 2005 for the alien insects and mites associated with woody plants in Europe has revealed that the major families of invaders were largely undetected (e.g. aphids, midges, scales, leaf- hoppers and psyllids). In contrast, the groups which were predominantly intercepted (e.g. long-horned and bark-beetles), actually made little contribution to the estab- lished alien entomofauna. Similar results were obtained at country level for Austria, the Czech Republic, and Switzerland (Kenis et al. 2007). For a number of families, the arrival of alien species has significantly modified the composition of the fauna presently observed in Europe. First, a total of 30 families had no representatives in Europe before the arrival of aliens. These include seven families of myriapods (Henicopiidae - 5 spp., Haplodesmidae, Rhinicricidae, Oryidae, Sipho- notidae, Oniscodesmidae, Pseudospirobolellidae, Spirobolellidae, Trigoniulidae - 1 sp. each), four mite families (Listrophoridae - 4 spp., Myocoptidae, Pyroglyphidae and Varroidae - 1 sp. each), and one spider family (Sicariidae - 2 spp.). For insects, no native species existed for three alien families of psocids (Lepidopsocidae - 5 spp., Psyl- 16 Alain Roques / BioRisk 4(1): 11-26 (2010) Percentage of species vs. total arthropods alien to Europe 0 10 20 30 Crustaceans lsopoda I Krehineda Geophilomorpha Lithobiomorpha Scolopendromorpha : Polydesmida Myriapods Callipodida Symphylomorpha Spiders | Aranea abt : xodida Mites Mesostigamata Astigmata Coleoptera Hemiptera Hymenoptera Insects Blattodea Order Figure 2.2. Relative importance of the different taxonomic orders in the 1590 species of arthropods alien to Europe. Species of ascertained exotic origin and cryptogenic species are summed. The number to the right of each bar indicates the total number of alien species observed per order. lopsocidae - 5 spp., and Psoquillidae - 3 spp.), three lice families (Gliricolidae - 2 spp., Gyropidae and Trimenopidae - 1 sp. each), two Blattodea families (Blaberidae - 10 spp., and Blattidae - 6 spp.), two scale families (Phoenicococcidae and Dactylopiidae - 1 sp. each), two beetles families (Ptylodactylidae or little ash beetles - 2 spp. and Acan- thonemidae or toe-winged beetles - 1 sp.), one lepidopteran family (Castniidae - 1 sp., the palm moth Paysandisia archon (Burmister)), one Phasmatodea family (Phasmatidae - 4 spp.), one family of Hemiptera Auchenorrhnycha (Acanaloniidae - 1 spp.), and one thrips family (Merothripidae - 1 sp.). Taxonomy, time and geographic patterns. Chapter 2 17 Number of species alien to Europe 120 Aphididae 102 Aphelinidae Diaspididae Curculionidae Encyrtidae Formicidae Dermestidae = opnyicae seudococcidae Thripidae ( Hemiptera Pyralid Pay daly [___] Hymenoptera ralidae rambidae | ‘ Eulophidae HE Coleoptera UE Baul ol bs Lepidoptera eyrodidae , Nitidulidae [ED Diptera Chrysomelidae [I Thysanoptera Cecidaryiiaae Psocoptera occidae Anobiidae ieee Blattodea Cerambycidae Drosophilidae Latridiidae Braconidae Tenebrionidae - Liposcelididae Phlaeothripidae Torymidae Pteromalidae Ptiliidae Psyllidae Coccinellidae Trichogrammatidae Theridiidae Blaberidae se Sa alle Si ctopsocidae Tortricidae GE Acari Ss Aranea Family Figure 2.3. Families of arthropods contributing most to the fauna alien to Europe. Only the families with numbers of alien species equal to 10 or more are shown. Corresponding taxonomic orders are indi- cated by different colors. The number to the right of each bar indicates the total number of alien species observed per family. In some other families, alien species could be over-represented. This is especially true for scales, where aliens now represent nearly half of the total Diaspididae fauna ob- served in Europe (60 out of 130 species - 44.6 %), a third of the Coccidae fauna (23 out of 70 species - 32.3 %), and a fourth of the Pseudococcidae fauna (37 out of 141 species 18 Alain Roques / BioRisk 4(1): 11-26 (2010) - 25.7 %). Similar high proportions of aliens are observed for psocids (Pachytroctidae - 66.7%, Ectopsocidae - 57%, and Liposcelidae - 26.4 %), hemipterans (Aleyrodidae - 39.1 % and Adelgidae - 36.0 %), hymenopterans (Agaonidae - 40.0 %, Aphelinii- dae 24.2 %, and Siricidae - 23.8%), and saturnid lepidopterans (30.0 %). Even if the relative proportions are lower, the arrival of a large number of alien species has also largely modified the faunal taxonomic structure in dermestid beetles (21.9 % of aliens), tetranychid mites (15.1 %), drosophilid flies (14.8 %), and encyrtid chalcids (7.2 %). 2.3 Temporal trends of arrival in Europe of alien arthropods Some alien arthropods were introduced to Europe long ago accompanying human movements. For instance, a number of ectoparasites of humans and early-domesticated animals such the head louse (Pediculus capitis De Geer), the crab louse (Phtirus pubis (L.)), the cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis felis (Bouché)), the rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis (Rothschild)) or the human flea (Pulex irritans L). are probably allochtonous in Europe, having arrived in ancient times with their hosts (Mey 1988; Beaucournu and Launay, 1990). Thus, Pulex irritans was shown to have been present in Europe since the Bronze Age at least, having been found in remains of lake dwellings in the French Jura, dating back to 3100 B.C. (Yvinec et al. 2000). Fragments of insects related to stored products were also found in Roman and Viking graves (e.g., Sitophilus granarius; Levinson and Levinson 1994). However, unlike plants and other animal groups, a clear identification of the archaeozoans* has appeared difficult for arthropods. Therefore, we only qualified as aliens the neozoan* species, i.e. those having likely been introduced after 1500. The introduction of alien arthropods is usually accidental, the release of biological control agents remaining limited, as well as the escape of arthropod ‘pets’ from captiv- ity (see Chapter 3). Thus, the introduction phase is rarely observed and pathways of introduction are poorly known. Consequently, an alien arthropod is usually discovered when it is already established, spreading and causing damage. ‘The precise date of ar- rival in Europe is not known for most species. Even conspicuous species, such as the Asian long-horned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky), have been reported with a delay of at least 3—5 years since establishment (Herard et al. 2006). However, taking into account these caveats, the date of first record in Europe- the single temporal datapoint usually obtainable- may be used as a proxy for the date of first arrival. The date of first record in Europe, relying on published papers, could be obtained for 1421 of the 1590 alien species (89.4%). The number of new records per year ap- pears to have increased exponentially since the 16" century, but a significant accelera- tion was observed during the second half of the 20" century (Figure 2.4a). As a prob- able result of globalization, this trend is still increasing with an average of 19.6 alien species newly reported per year in Europe between 2000 and 2008; i-e., a value nearly double the 10.9 species that were observed per year during the period 1950- 1974. In order to understand better this process, we decompose the values according to the feeding regime of the alien species (Figure 2.4b). Fluctuations in the number of Taxonomy, time and geographic patterns. Chapter 2 19 % 176 8 ao. 2 “odio 0 vo oe T otal arthropods. a ra] a o eeeen== Phytophagous species c = 32 c $s = Detrivorous species 2 ww LY wo === Parasitic/ predator species as LP aS 2 2-5 9 vu vv Lan A ey B 3 § 3 ie = 167 a. © ae a su lYT 14 50 CUT co an} ct cf @ 6 15 RB 6 ®S o a § =o = go . fe £2 oe SS . Se PF 2 So Fe RSSRFERE R$ 8 F FF F S 1 1 1 a i i i] i] 1 1 i] LU i L i] SSRSARRRES S$ 8H 8S S BK S mowndrnranan os nm 82 DO RF OH OB OH —-=---F —- -— aA - =- =| =| = =| | A Time period Time period Figure 2.4. Temporal changes in the mean number of new records per year of arthropod species alien to Europe from 1500 to 2008. A Total arthropods (Best fit: y= -0.411- 0.407x + 0.304 x’; r* = 0.965) B Detail per feeding regime. total arthropods newly arriving per year in Europe appear to be strongly dependent on the increasing arrival of phytophagous species, especially during the last ten years. In contrast, the number of detritivores and parasitoids/ predators has appeared to decrease during this last decade, and contributed much less to the overall increase, whereas these three feeding guilds had contributed more or less equally during the first half of the 20" century. After the period 1950- 2000 when alien parasitoids and predators markedly increased probably in relation with the wave of releases of biological control agents, the explosion of ornamental trade since the 1990s is likely to have triggered the arrival of alien phytophagous arthropods, as has been shown for insects related to woody plants (Roques 2010). Specific analyses per taxa have confirmed these tendencies. Whereas the arrival of mites (see Figure 7.4.2), scales (see Figure 9.3.2.), flies (see Figure 10.2) or lepidopterans (see Figure 11.2), which are mainly phytophagous groups, has revealed a similar acceleration in the number of newly recorded aliens during the last period, no such trend has been observed for the parasitic lice and fleas (see Chapter 13.4), nor for the detritivorous Blattodea (see Chapter 13.3). 2.4 Biogeographic patterns of arthropod species alien to Europe Origin of the species alien to Europe A precise region of origin was ascertained for 1271 species (79.9%) of the 1590 al- ien arthropod species, while 93 species were only known to be native to tropical or subtropical regions. The remaining 226 cryptogenic invertebrates are mostly cosmo- 20 Alain Roques / BioRisk 4(1): 11-26 (2010) politan species for which there is no agreement regarding their area of origin. This is particularly true for stored products pests and for some ectoparasites on cattle and pets that occur on other continents. A few other cryptogenic species have appeared in Europe without having been detected elsewhere. However, data on their phylogeog- raphy, population ecology, parasitoids and dispersal biology strongly suggest that they originate from another continent. The horse-chestnut leaf miner, Cameraria ohridella, is illustrative of the difficulty in identifying the native range of such species. Whereas this leaf miner was previously considered as an extra- European alien, recent genetic studies indicate that it originates from the southern Balkans (Valade et al. 2009). Asia has supplied the major part of the alien arthropods occurring in Europe (26.7 %) followed by North America (21.9%) (Figure 2.5). Analysing specifically insect data per time unit has revealed that the relative contribution of Asia and North America was stable over time (Roques et al. 2009). During the periods 1950-1989 and 1990-2007, 29% and 21% of the established insects were of Asian and North American origin respectively. The contribution of tropical and subtropical areas is surprisingly impor- tant. The overall contribution of species from Australasia, Africa, Central and South America in combination with species of undefined tropical areas represents 37% of all alien insects in Europe. While we agree that insect species coming from these areas are not just native to tropical ecosystems, this proportion is nevertheless outstanding. Unlike the temporal trends, the regions of origin do not differ significantly be- tween feeding regimes. Asia is the main region of origin for alien phytophages, para- sitoids/ predators and detrivorous species although a bit less important for the latter group (Figure 2.5). Tropical : Tropical 5.8% Africa a America 5.9% Africa 16.0% South America 10.6% " 14.4% Total arthropods Parasitic/ predator species North America North America Asia 22.9% 21.9% 26.7% Asia 27.9% Australasia Australasia 6.3% 5.4% Tropical . . Afri T U South America 5.3% ae aoe Africa 12.3% 13.4% South America Phytophagous species 10.7% Detrivorous species Asia d 30.0% Asia North America 17.6% 26.7% North America 9.3% Australasia Australasia 5.5% 9.3% Figure 2.5. Region of origin of the 1590 arthropod species alien to Europe. Total arthropods and break- down per feeding regime are presented. Percentages of the total per category are shown under each region. Taxonomy, time and geographic patterns. Chapter 2 21 However, a comparison of the native range of species from the different orders revealed significant differences (y,= 388.26; P=0.0000). Most mites (51.5% - see Fig- ure 7.4.3), hymenopterans (32.3 % - see Figure 12.3), and dipterans (30.6 %- see Figure 10.3) have arrived from North America whilst 37.2 % of lepidopterans (see Figure 11.3) and 31.5 % of hemipterans have originated from Asia. Coleoptera have come from various regions, including a significant component from Australasia (9.5%) mostly linked to the introduction of Eucalyptus and Acacia spp. in the Mediterranean regions of Europe. Coleoptera also represent a large proportion of the cosmopolitan stored product pests that are predominantly of tropical or subtropical origin. Patterns of spread Once established, most alien species have not spread throughout Europe, at least yet. We used the presence in a country as a proxy of the invaded range because it appeared impossible to get sufficient data for a quantitative assessment of this invaded range area for most alien species. A total of 694 species (i.e., 43.6 %) have not invaded more than one country/ island additional to the one where they arrived, and 63.6 % are present only in five European countries (Figure 2.6). Less than 1% (12 out of 1590) of the alien arthropods are present in more than 40 countries; among these are the melon and cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover, and several beetles associated with stored products especially seed bruchids (e.g.,. Callosobruchus chinensis (L)). Detritivorous species ap- peared to have dispersed significantly more (8.5+0.5 countries) than phytophagous species (7.140.3) and parasitoids/ predators (5.540.3) (Krsukall-Wallis test. F 10.97; P=0.0000). 2,1598 30 454 20 Percentage of the total species of arthropods alien in Europe 240 un AaZ@—Rono-a YY on -— == tO eg enn SO tt By MOP Mm AA ee 12345 67 8 JIOIIIZIZI415 1617 18192021 22232425 2627 2829303 | 323334353637 3839404] 43 444748515254 No. Countries Figure 2.6. Geographic spread of the arthropod species alien to Europe expressed as the number of countries colonized by these species and their frequency. 22 Alain Roques / BioRisk 4(1): 11-26 (2010) Number of alien species [|__| nodata ND so-99 [7 200-259 SI 200 - 599 [> RRR 00-19 ES 200-359 IT 00 - 700 Figure 2.7. Comparative colonization of continental European countries and islands by dipteran speci- es alien zo Europe. Archipelagos: 1 Azores 2 Madeira 3 Canary islands. Large differences also exist between European countries in the total number of alien arthropods recorded per country (Figure 2.7 and 2.8). Italy (700 species) and France (690 species), followed by Great Britain (533 species), host many more spe- cies than other countries. The same ranking is obtained when the number of alien species per km” is considered. Differences in sampling effort may have affected the analyses. However, the number of alien insects is significantly and positively corre- lated with country surface area (r= 0.3621; P= 0.0384). More westerly countries and islands appear in general relatively more colonized. The number of alien species signifi- cantly decreases with the longitude of the countries’ centroids (r= -0.6988; P= 0.0038) whereas latitude does not seem to have a significant influence (r=-0.378; P= 0.168). Islands also host proportionally more alien species than continental countries relative to their size (Kruskall-Wallis test on the number of alien species per km’; F, ., = 6.205 P=0.0160) but this is independent of the coast length (r= 0.174; P= 0.384). In conti- nental countries, bordering the sea does not influence the number of alien insect spe- Taxonomy, time and geographic patterns. Chapter 2 23 No. species No. species 300 200 100 0 0 200 400 600 700 Italy (mainland) France (mainland) 690 Great Britain 533 Spain (mainland) 486 Germany 404 Czech Republic Belgium 344 Switzerland 339 Austria 306 Spain (Canary islands) 302 Denmark 299 Netherlands 289 Italy aed 278 Portugal (mainland) Greece (mainland) 274 Hungary 263 Poland 26! Bulgaria 252 Portugal (Madeira) 246 Portugal (Azores) 238 Sweden 215 Albania 184 Romania 179 Croatia 172 Israel 168 Slovakia 164 Lar hs Total alien species Finland (mainland) 155 France (Corsica) 154 Italy (Sardinia) m 153 Goventa 143 Ukraina 142 Norway (mainland) 132 Russia (European) 127 Cyprus 118 Ireland 14 Latvia HI Lithuania 103 Estonia 86 Moldova 64 Belarus Greece (Crete) = 35 Macedonia 54 Spain (Balearic islands) 54 Luxemburg | 52 Bosnia 50 Montenegro 48 Iceland Greece (South Aegean islands) 19 Lichtenstein Greece (North Aegean islands) Faroe islands Greece (lonian islands) Norway (Svalbard) Numbers of first records for Europe 12 Wye Yo-vwono-—o™N~ VN tww ooocowr Figure 2.8. Comparison between the number of first records for Europe observed for the alien species in a country (left) and the total number of alien species now present in the country (right). cies (P=0.6404). In addition, the country or island where a species was first recorded in Europe has been identified for 1399 species out of the 1590 alien arthropods (Figure 2.8). The same country ranking was obtained as for the total number of arthropods present per country. Indeed, there is significant correlation (r= 0.8745; P=0.0000) between the two values. However, much stronger correlations exist between the number of alien arthro- pods in a country and the total volume of merchandise imports of the country (r= 0.875; P=0.0000), the density of the road network (r= 7578; P= 0.0001), and the size of the human population (r= 0.5918; P= 0.0047). These results confirm the decisive importance of socioeconomic and demographic drivers in arthropod invasion. 24 Alain Roques / BioRisk 4(1): 11-26 (2010) References Brockerhoff EG, Bain J, Kimberley M, Knizek M (2006) Interception frequency of exotic bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) and relationship with establishment in New Zealand and worldwide. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 289-298. DAISIE (Ed) The Handbook of Alien Species in Europe. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. 399 pp. Eritja R, Escosa R, Lucientes J, Marqués E, Roiz D, Ruiz S (2005) Worldwide invasion of vec- tor mosquitoes: present European distribution and challenges for Spain. Biological Inva- sions 7: 87-97. Essl F, Rabitsch W (Eds) (2002) Neobiota in Osterreich. Umweltbundesamt, Wien. 432 pp. Geiter O, Homma S, Kinzelbach R (2002) Bestandsaufnahme und Bewertung von Neozoen in Deutschland. Untersuchung der Wirkung von Biologie und Genetik ausgewahlter Neo- zoen auf Okosysteme und Vergleich mit den potentiellen Effekten gentechnisch verindert- er Organismen. Berlin: Umweltbundesamt. Glavendeki¢é M, Mihajlovi¢ L, Petanovi¢ R (2005) Introduction and spread of invasive mites and insects in Serbia and Montenegro. In: Plant protection and plant health in Europe: in- troduction and spread of invasive species. BCPC Conference, Humbolt University, Germany, June 2005, 229-230. Hérard F, Ciampitti M, Maspero M, Krehan H, Benker U, Boegel C, Schrage R, Bouhot- Delduc L, Bialooki P (2006) Anoplophora species in Europe: infestations and management processes. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 36: 470-474. Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 10-18. Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M, Klotz S, Kithn I, Minchin D, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Panov V, Pergl J, Pysek P, Roques A, Sol D, Solarz W, Vila M (2008) Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 403-414. Kenis M (2005) Insects-Insecta. In: Wittenberg R (Ed) An inventory of alien species and their threat to biodiversity and economy in Switzerland. Délemont: CABI Bioscience Switzerland, 131-212. Kenis M, Auger-Rozenberg MA, Roques A, Timms L, Péré C, Cock MJW, Settele J, Augustin S, Lopez-Vaamonde C (2009) Ecological effects of invasive alien insects. Biol Invasions 11: 2-452 Kenis M, Rabitsch W, Auger-Rozenberg MA, Roques A (2007) How can alien species in- ventories and interception data help us prevent insect invasions? Bulletin of Entomological Research 97: 489-502. Langor DW, DeHaas L, Foottit RG (2009) Diversity of non-native terrestrial arthropods on woody plants in Canada. Biological Invasions 11: 5-19. Liebhold AM, Halverson JA, Elmes GA (1992) Gypsy moth invasion in North America: a quantitative analysis. Journal of Biogeography 19: 513-520. Liebhold AM, MacDonald WL, Bergdahl D, Mastro VC (1995) Invasion by exotic forest pests: a threat to forest ecosystems. Forest Science Monographs 30: 1-49 Taxonomy, time and geographic patterns. Chapter 2 25 Mattson WJ, Niemela P, Millers I, Inguanzo Y (1994) Immigrant phytophagous insects on woody plants in the United States and Canada: an annotated list. General Technical Report NC- 169. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. Mattson WJ, Vanhanen H, Veteli T, Sivonen S, Niemela P (2007) Few immigrant phytopha- gous insects on woody plants in Europe: legacy of the European crucible? Biological Inva- sions 9: 957-974 . Mondor EB, Tremblay MN, Messing RH (2007). Morphological and ecological traits promot- ing aphid colonization of the Hawaiian Islands. Biological Invasions 9: 87-100. Niemela P, Mattson WJ (1996) Invasion of North American forests by European phytophagous insects: legacy of the European crucible? BioScience 46: 741-753. Nobanis (2005) Zhe North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species. www.nobanis. com. Pelizzari G, Dalla Monta L, Vacante V (2005) List of alien insect and mite pests introduced to Italy in sixty years (1945 — 2004). In: Plant protection and plant health in Europe: introduc- tion and spread of invasive species. BCPC Conference, Humbolt University, Germany, June 2005,275. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2002) Environmental and economic costs as- sociated with non-indigenous species in the United States. In: Pimentel D (Ed) Biological Invasions. Economic and Environmental costs of Alien Plants, Animal and Microbe Species. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press, 285-306. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52: 273-88. PySek P, Bacher S, Chytry M, Jarosik V, Wild J, Celesti-Grapow L, Gasso N, Kenis M, Lamb- don PW, Nentwig W, Pergl J, Roques A, Sol D, Solarz W, Vila M, Hulme PE (2009) Con- trasting patterns in the invasions of European terrestrial and freshwater habitats by alien plants, insects and vertebrates. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19: 317-331. Reemer M (2003) Invasieve Arthropoda in Nederland: Een eerste inventarisatie. Leiden: Sticht- ing European Invertebrate Survey. 63 pp. Ripka G (2010) [An overview of the alien arthropod pest species in Hungary (I.)] (in Hungar- ian). Noévényvédelem 2. Roll E, Dayan T, Simberloff D (2007) Non-indigenous species in Israel and adjacent areas. Biological Invasions 9: 629-643. Roques A (2010) Alien forest insects in a warmer world and a globalized economy: Impacts of changes in trade, tourism and climate on forest biosecurity. New Zealand Journal of For- estry, suppl 40: 77-94. Roques A, Rabitsch W, Rasplus JY, Lopez-Vaamonde C, Nentwig W, Kenis M (2009) Alien ter- restrial invertebrates of Europe. In: DAISIE (Ed) The Handbook of Alien Species in Europe. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 63-79. Sefrova H, Lasttivka Z (2005) Catalogue of alien animal species in the Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 53: 151-170. 26 Alain Roques / BioRisk 4(1): 11-26 (2010) Smith RM, Baker RHA, Malumphy CP, Hockland S$, Hammon RP, Ostoja-Starzewski JC, Col- lins DW (2007) Recent non-native invertebrate plant pest establishments in Great Britain: origins, pathways, and trends. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 9: 307-326. Tomov R, Trencheva K, Trenchev G, Cota E, Ramadhi A, Ivanov B, Naceski S, Papazova-Anak- ieva I, Kenis M (2009) Non-indigenous insects and their threat to biodiversity and economy in Albania, Bulgaria and Republic of Macedonia. Sofia-Moscow: Pensoft, publishers, 112 pp. Valade R, Kenis M, Hernandez A, Augustin S, Mari Mena N, Magnoux E, Rougerie R, Lakatos F, Roques A, Lopez-Vaamonde C (2009) Mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA mark- ers reveal a Balkan origin for the highly invasive Horse-Chestnut leaf miner Cameraria ohridella (Lep. Gracillariidae). Molecular Ecology 18 : 3458-3470. Vila M, Basnou C, Pysek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme PE and Daisie Partners (2009) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 135-144. Walther GR, Roques A, Hulme PE, Sykes MT, Pysek P, Kithn I, Zobel M, and members of the ALARM Climate Change — Biological Invasions Working Group (2009) Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24: 686-692. Williamson M (1996) Biological Invasions. London: Chapman and Hall. 244 pp. Wittenberg R, Cock MJW (Eds) (2001) Lnvasive alien species: a toolkit of best prevention and management practices. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. 228 pp.