1. Introduction
The dynamic interface between terrestrial and marine environments in coastal areas supports high levels of specialized biodiversity [1]. Coastal zones are among the most threatened ecosystems globally [2], with the Mediterranean region being particularly vulnerable to environmental and anthropogenic pressures [3]. Coastal landscapes, composed of a mosaic of habitats, are particularly fragile and vulnerable to biodiversity loss, with the invasion of alien species (AS) being one of the major threats [4,5]. The invasion of coastal areas by alien species is amplified by anthropogenic disturbances, such as urbanization, pollution, agriculture [6,7,8,9], and tourism pressure [10]. Additionally, the fragmentation of coastal mosaics intensifies the adverse effects of climate change, further increasing susceptibility to alien invasions [11,12]. AS pose a significant threat to biodiversity [13], leading to changes in species composition, degradation of habitats, and the loss of crucial ecosystem processes (e.g., productivity, nutrient cycle, and soil characteristics) [14,15] and the related ecosystem services [16,17].
The detrimental effects of AS on natural communities and ecosystems have been documented worldwide [18,19,20]. Numerous studies have highlighted the impact of IAPs (invasive alien plants) on native biodiversity, particularly on focal species composition and cover [15], as well as the consequent alteration of ecosystem functioning [21,22,23]. Studies on IAAs (invasive alien animals) also evidenced consistent negative effects on the ecological balance, hydraulic dynamics and economic sustainability of invaded aquatic ecosystems [24,25]. Biological invasions are a major concern in the Mediterranean, posing a significant threat to biodiversity conservation [26,27], with the Adriatic coast being particularly affected [28]. As with most research on invasive alien species in other ecosystems [29], studies in this region typically focus on individual habitats or sites and are often limited to one or a few species. Notably, some research has concentrated on alien vascular plants [22,30,31], while studies on alien fauna remain scarce [32]. Conserving coastal mosaics would benefit from a comprehensive overview of both flora and fauna across the landscape. Innovative and cost-effective tools, such as Citizen Science (CS), may offer valuable support for this initial data collection, helping professionals in prioritizing monitoring areas [33].
Biological invasions are a key concern in environmental policy [34], leading the European Union to adopt the IAS (invasive alien species) Regulation in 2014 (Regulation (EU) no. 1143/2014; hereafter referred as IAS Regulation). This regulation addresses the threat posed by invasive alien species to biodiversity and ecosystem services, listing species of “Union concern”. It mandates coordinated actions among European countries for monitoring, early warning, and managing these species to mitigate their impact on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning [27,35]. The economic limitations for biodiversity management restrict the possibilities of implementing monitoring programs based on large-scale fieldwork [36]. Furthermore, systematically surveying and monitoring complex and dynamic ecosystems (e.g., coastal dunes or riverbanks) using conventional biodiversity field campaigns might not be possible due to high costs [37].
Protected areas, widely recognized as essential for biodiversity conservation and as critical barriers against the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive alien species (IAS) [38], are increasingly threatened by IAS invasions worldwide. Managing IAS poses significant challenges for protected area managers [39]. In European protected areas, plant invasions are particularly concerning, ranking as the second most significant biodiversity threat after habitat fragmentation [40]. The prevention of IAS introduction and establishment, alongside early warning, rapid detection, and swift intervention, is widely regarded as the most effective strategy [41]. In this context, Citizen Science (CS) could play a valuable role in supporting proactive management through early warning and monitoring systems [42].
Given the substantial threat posed by alien species in coastal landscapes [5] and within protected areas networks [43], there is a pressing need for rapid and effective monitoring tools, and Citizen Science (CS) could be the optimal solution [33,36]. Citizen Science, by engaging public participants, enables the generation of extensive datasets across broad spatial scales and long time periods, contributing valuable knowledge to support IAS management actions. This collaborative approach produces valuable insights that can inform timely and effective management actions to mitigate invasions. Furthermore, public participation through Citizen Science plays a crucial role in raising awareness [44], creating learning opportunities, fostering civic engagement, and influencing policy development [45]. It also contributes to environmental management for IAS, helping to reduce their establishment, spread, and impact. The early detection of invasive alien species (IAS) is a fundamental prerequisite for any effective containment or eradication strategy [46,47,48,49], as well as for modeling future invasion risks [50,51], both claimed by the European regulation. Traditional IAS detection usually involves intensive field investigations, which can be time-consuming and costly [52]. Nowadays, the use of CS enables the acquisition of data on biodiversity and its threats in wider areas with higher visitation frequency and has expanded the range of applications in the field of IAS detection [53,54]. Moreover, CS is a worthwhile and valid tool for the early detection of invasive alien species [55] and for the long-term monitoring of their spread [56]. Specific applications have been developed for monitoring alien species through dedicated campaigns [36,57,58,59,60] in various environments such as forests [61] and grasslands [62]. However, further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of a generalist multi-taxa Citizen Science project for the monitoring of invasive alien species in coastal ecosystems [42,60].
One of the most widely used platforms in CS studies is iNaturalist, a global platform that enables users worldwide to share biodiversity observations, making it a vital tool for biodiversity monitoring on an international scale [63]. iNaturalist is accessible globally, allowing users to share biodiversity data from anywhere at any time, though uploads. The platform provides open access to all data, enabling users to freely download and utilize the information for research, conservation, and educational purposes [64]. Among the methods used to gather and share biodiversity data on iNaturalist, Bioblitzes are well recognized events held in parks, natural habitats, and urban areas. These events facilitate rapid biodiversity assessments within specific geographic locations over short time frames, involving local communities and policymakers, thereby fostering a broader understanding and appreciation of environmental biodiversity [65].
While Citizen Science offers a powerful tool for large-scale data collection, it is subject to some limitations. Spatial biases often arise due to human population density, as areas with a higher number of inhabitants or higher visitation rates are more likely to be monitored [54]. Temporal biases also affect data quality, with higher observation rates during daylight hours and favorable weather conditions, which leads to limited data on nocturnal species and increased reporting during the summer month.
Nevertheless, the utilization of Citizen Science can significantly contribute by reporting new species occurrences or unobserved behaviors in local fauna and flora [66,67]. This enhanced data acquisition provides essential information for conservation and environmental management. For instance, the number of observations recorded by CS can vary considerably over time and across seasons, offering valuable insights into seasonal invasion patterns. Recent studies have shown peaks in observation activity corresponding to periods of biological activity [67], as is the case for annual plants that are visible during the growing season and can be underestimated if monitored during a single period of the year. On the other hand, many alien plant species exhibit phenological patterns that differ from those of native species (e.g., [30]), allowing them to be observed by citizens during periods when experts typically do not schedule monitoring or data collection campaigns.
In this context, the present work sets out to explore the contribution of a generalist multi-taxa Citizen Science project, “Wild Coast Adriatic” (WCA), developed on the iNaturalist platform, for monitoring and documenting alien species occurrences in marine–coastal ecosystems of the Central Adriatic Sea in Italy. Through this research, we aim to highlight the potential of Citizen Science in tackling the challenges related to monitoring alien species. Specifically, we explore how Citizen Science can aid in monitoring IAS within complex ecosystems, such as coastal dunes, where traditional field surveys tend to be expensive and often provide incomplete data. A generalist multi-taxa CS project like WCA, which provides a comprehensive overview of both flora and fauna across different habitats in the landscape, throughout the year, may be valuable for collecting baseline initial data and guiding the prioritization of monitoring efforts.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
The study area, located on the Italian Central Adriatic coast, covers approximately 166 km (Molise and Abruzzo Regions), extends 300 m inland and 500 m seaward, and is characterized by a Mediterranean climate [68,69] (Figure 1). The mean annual temperature reaches 16 °C with a yearly precipitation of 385.8 mm (data available at
The analyzed seashore is characterized by sandy or gravelly/pebbly beaches, occasionally interrupted by rocky promontories and river mouths. Previous research has highlighted the ecological significance of this area [71,72,73,74] that, despite anthropogenic pressure, still host several habitats that, according to the Habitats directive of the European Union (Council Directive 92/43/EEC; hereafter HD), are of conservation concern (e.g., 1210: Annual vegetation of drift lines; 2110: Embryonic shifting dunes; 2120: Shifting dunes with Ammophila arenaria; 2130*: Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation; 2230: Malcolmietalia dune grasslands; 2250*: Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp.; 2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs; 2270*: Wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster; 9340: Quercus ilex and Quercus rotundifolia forests; 1240: Vegetated sea cliffs of the Mediterranean coasts with endemic Limonium spp.; 1410: Mediterranean salt meadows Juncetalia maritimi; 1420: Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornietea fruticosi); 1510*: Mediterranean salt steppes; 1150*: Coastal lagoons (Limonietalia); 3170*: Mediterranean temporary ponds; 6420: Mediterranean tall humid herb grasslands of the Molinio-Holoschoenion; 3250: Constantly flowing Mediterranean rivers with Glaucium flavum; 1110: Sandbanks slightly covered by seawater; 1130: Estuaries; 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays; and 1170: Reefs).
Moreover, the study area includes seven Natura 2000 sites (Figure 1, IT7120215—Torre del Cerrano; IT7140107—Lecceta Litoranea di Torino di Sangro e Foce del Fiume Sangro; IT7140108—Punta Aderci—Punta della Penna; IT7140109—Marina di Vasto; IT7228221—Foce Trigno—Marina di Petacciato; IT722216—Foce Biferno Litorale di Campomarino; and IT722217—Foce Saccione—Bonifica Ramitelli) and two nodes of the Long-Term Ecological Research Network (LTER—IT20-003-T—Foce Saccione-Bonifica Ramitelli and IT20-002-T—Foce Trigno—Marina di Petacciato) (Figure 1).
Regarding the presence of alien species along the analyzed coast, some local studies have evidenced the occurrence of some alien plants, such as Acacia saligna (Labill.) H.L.Wendl. and Oenothera stucchii Soldano [22,30,31], while fewer studies have highlighted alien fauna, such as Anadara transversa (Say, 1822) and Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846) [32].
2.2. Data Download
We extracted the observations of alien species collected from 2020 to 2023 stored in the generalist multi-taxa Citizen Science project “Wild Coast Adriatic” (WCA-
The WCA project was developed on the iNaturalist platform (Figure 2), as it is both useful and reliable for supporting biodiversity research and data collection [78,79]. The platform’s diffusion is further enhanced by the increasing use of mobile devices such as phones and tablets, which enable accurate data collection [60]. Each WCA record included a photo or audio file, the geographic coordinates, the date, and an attempt of identification. The thorough assessment of each observation’s quality begins with categorizing newly submitted entries as “needs ID” (NI). This indicates that the entry requires verification and potential correction by iNaturalist community members who specialize in the relevant taxonomic categories. After verification, several observations were upgraded to the category of “research grade” (RG). Observations that were uploaded without evidence of the organism, for example a date or location, or those that were marked as “captive/cultivated” were automatically given as “casual” [78]. The organisms referable to different taxonomic levels were assigned by iNaturalist to the following coarse categories: Actinopterygii, Amphibians, Arachnids, Aves, Chromists, Fungi and Lichens, Insects, Mammals, Mollusks, Plants, Protozoa, Reptiles, and Other Animals (
2.3. Data Characterization and Analysis
After a brief description of the observations gathered in the WCA project, we analyzed alien species, both terrestrial and aquatic.
Following the iNaturalist categorization of WCA observations into alien and native species, we calculated the percentage of observations and the proportion of species classified as ‘alien taxa’ for all species, as well as separately for flora and fauna. The iNaturalist assignments were checked by consulting Galasso et al. [80] and Bartolucci et al. [81,82] for the flora and Loy et al. [83] and GBIF [84] for the fauna. The few casual records (in captivity or planted) were excluded from the analysis. We checked whether they are listed as species of European concern in the IAS Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 1143/2014), which mandates monitoring, prevention, and management, and explored their abundance and distribution.
Then, we explored the following:
The temporal trends in record collection by quantifying the number of observations of alien species per year and season, as it could facilitate the monitoring of expansion dynamics and the identification of risk factors;
The alien species continent of origin, as it could be useful to understand invasion routes and facilitate management plans;
The spatial distribution of alien species observations across the study area and quantification of the presence of the records both inside and outside the protected areas such as Natura 2000 sites (
https://www.mase.gov.it/pagina/regione-molise-0 ; accessed on 11 April 2024) and LTER network (https://deims.org/6d7ffd99-40e1-4f0d-ad26-6904581dbe9b ; accessed on 11 April 2024), which has important implications for biodiversity management and conservation [43].
All analyses were performed with R Statistical Software [85] using the “ggplot2” package [86].
2.4. Participants and Settings
WCA includes observations recorded by approximately 250 citizens, aged between 16 and 65 years. Nearly half of the contributors to the WCA project are male (n = 134), while one-third are female (n = 78), and 16% did not declare their gender. The project, initially supported by the Interreg Italy-Croatia CASCADE program, was implemented through a series of Citizen Science activities, primarily of two types: Bioblitz and observation campaigns led by local experts. Two one-day Bioblitz events were implemented with a total of 52 participants. One event was held at Abruzzo at the Marina di Vasto Regional Nature Reserve (SAC IT7140109—Marina di Vasto), and the other was held at Molise at the Fantine Communal Nature Reserve in Campomarino (SAC IT222217/eLTER IT20-003-T—Foce Scaccione—Bonifica Ramitelli). Participants for the Bioblitz were recruited through direct communication and the dissemination of posters via social media, official websites, emails, and physical flyers. Additionally, 10 observation campaigns, each lasting a few hours, were led by local experts and naturalistic guides with similar participant recruitment approaches. Most participants in these campaigns were students and ordinary citizens of various ages, including children and adults. These activities took place inside and outside different protected areas of the two regions, such as the Torre del Cerrano Marine Protected Area in Abruzzo (IT7120215—Torre del Cerrano) and the Mouth of Biferno river in Molise (IT722216—Foce Biferno Litorale di Campomarino). Interestingly, numerous reports were registered outside the scheduled initiatives by several participants who, after the activities, remained interested in collaborating.
3. Results
During the considered years (2020–23), the WCA project documented a total of 2933 observations, 74.5% of which (2194) obtained research-grade status, referring to 687 species. Among the research-grade observations, 139 (6.3%) are relative to alien records, referring to 50 different alien species (Table 1). In total, 120 observations are of alien plant (AP) species, 78.3% of which (94) obtained research-grade status, with a total of 29 species belonging to 15 taxonomic families (Table 1). Two of these species, Acacia saligna (with 11 records) and Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle (with 4 records) are of European concern. Regarding the taxonomic families of the AP species, Asteraceae and Fabaceae accounted for 38% (28% and 10%, respectively, Figure 3) of the total, followed by Aizoaceae (7%), Cactaceae (7%), Caprifoliaceae (7%), Onagraceae (7%), Oxalidaceae (7%), and Solanaceae (7%) (Figure 3, Appendix A, Table A1).
Regarding alien fauna, a total of 50 observations were reported in the WCA project, 90% of which (45) obtained research-grade status, encompassing 21 species, and belonging to 8 iNaturalist categories. Insect species are the most abundant, representing 43% of the total, followed by Mollusks (24%) and Mammals (9%) (Figure 3). Three species of alien fauna are included in the IAS Regulation: Myocastor coypus (Molina 1782) (12 records), Trachemys scripta (Thunberg in Schoepff, 1792) (4 records), and Gambusia holbrooki (Girard, 1859) (1 record) (Appendix A, Table A2).
Concerning the origin of alien species, most of them come from the Americas (Figure 4). This pattern holds even when the data are disaggregated, with both alien flora and fauna showing the highest numbers coming from the American continent. In terms of total species, the Americas are closely followed by Asia, which exhibits a greater number of fauna species compared to flora. Africa follows, with a similar number of plant and animal species (Figure 4).
The number of observations per year tends to increase over time for overall taxa, as well as when considering either plants or animals (Figure 5). The number of observations increases steadily from 2020 to 2023, with a slight dip in the year 2022. An exception to this trend is fauna, which had the highest number of observations in 2021 (Figure 5).
The number of observations varied across seasons with higher numbers in summer (41) and autumn (43). The number of observations for alien plants consistently surpasses those for animals, with the peak occurring in autumn (33) for flora and in summer (18) for fauna (Figure 6).
The geographic distribution of alien species records for both flora and fauna revealed a heterogeneous pattern of occurrences, with a higher concentration in the Southern sector of the Abruzzo region (Figure 7).
Most observations (60%) were recorded outside protected areas, while only 55 records of alien species were documented within Natura 2000 sites and LTER sites (Figure 7, Appendix A, Table A1 and Table A2). Specifically, both alien flora and fauna were more frequently found outside protected areas. However, alien plants had a higher proportion of occurrences within protected areas (42.5%) compared to alien fauna (33.3%) (Figure 7, Appendix A, Table A1 and Table A2).
4. Discussion
The present study identified a significant number of exotic species widely distributed across the Italian Central Adriatic coastal area. Consistent with findings from other Citizen Science initiatives [59,78], we observed a predominance of alien plant species over animal ones. This trend may be attributed to differences in mobility and the relative ease of detecting plant species. Sessile plants, being stationary, are more easily observable and accessible, while mobile and often elusive animals tend to avoid human presence, making them less likely to be observed (
The increasing number of observations over time, coupled with the consistent number of observations across seasons, suggest the effectiveness of Citizen Science (CS) campaigns. WCA initiatives have successfully engaged and motivated volunteers to continue collecting data independently, even in the absence of expert-led campaigns.
The registered presence of alien species represents a further warning sign about the ecological integrity of the Italian Central Adriatic coast [90]. The improved knowledge of their composition and distribution may be crucial for the conservation of biodiversity and the management of alien invasions in these marine–coastal ecosystems. Concerning the alien flora, the substantial number of Asteraceae and Fabaceae species found with WCA project in our study area aligns well with the overall composition of alien flora in Italy and Europe [80,91]. The relatively low number of Poaceae species compared to the overall alien flora in Italy [80] is likely due to the difficulty in identifying these species. Both amateur enthusiasts and professional botanists often encounter difficulties when relying solely on photos for Poaceae species identification [92]. As for alien fauna, insects were the taxonomic group with the most species observed. Plant–insect interactions can sometimes be surprising [93], and these arthropods can even thrive in harsh environments characterized by highly specialized flora, such as coastal areas [94]. Furthermore, the planting of alien ornamental plants in gardens and bathing establishments, such as Palms, has promoted the spread of other phytophagous insects, such as the red palm weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus), which we have recorded in semi-natural areas.
This species, being a major problem in the Mediterranean region and responsible for the loss of over 100,000 palm trees with estimated annual costs of several hundred million EUR since their introduction into Europe, has specific European-level strategies for the eradication and containment (see for details
Regarding alien fauna species of European concern, the most frequently observed is Myocastor coypus, a large semi-aquatic rodent native to South America, introduced in the early 20th century for commercial breeding purposes (mainly for fur production) [108]. The presence of coypu in the national territory poses both ecological and economic challenges [108], as it can be very damaging to the environment [109]. In this context, it is crucial to urgently implement the management and containment strategy developed by the Ministry of the Environment in collaboration with the National Wildlife Fund Institute, outlined in the “Guidelines for the control of coypu (Myocastor coypus) [108]”, following a thorough assessment of its current distribution along the Central Adriatic coast.
The largest number of alien species comes from America, with 20 species of flora and 9 species of fauna, followed by Asia and Africa. The notable prevalence of American species may be attributed to the expansive and diverse ecosystems present in America [110], which offer a rich assortment of taxa that have discovered analogous habitats in Europe [111,112]. Moreover, this observed trend could potentially signify a long-standing history of commerce and interaction spanning multiple centuries among various geographical areas [113].
In line with the growing popularity of Citizen Science [114,115] and iNaturalist as a biodiversity data collection platform [116], WCA recorded an increase in the number of observations per year across all alien taxa as well as when considering plants or animals separately. In our case, the intensity of survey activities has grown as more people have engaged in Citizen Science in recent years, leading to the increased accumulation of observational data [60]. Furthermore, over time, more individuals began using CS tools independently after the organized activities, and WCA also saw an increase in the number of observations in the last year, even without formal CS initiatives. Such results underscore the importance and contribution of Citizen Science initiatives and the iNaturalist platform for monitoring and studying alien species spread [59].
Alien species occurrences have been reported in all seasons, but predominantly in the summer (41), when the presence of more people and tourists increases observation rates [88]. Warmer weather and extended daylight hours make summer more appealing for recreational activities [54], leading to increased public data collection. A secondary peak in observations is registered in autumn (43), during the blooming period of most alien plants, while native plants have already completed their life cycles [22]. This shifted blooming period makes alien plants more visible in autumn [30], attracting greater attention from citizens. The observed seasonal detection of alien species provides a basis for tailoring coastal monitoring activities and concentrating efforts during specific periods that reflect the phenological behavior and detectability of these species.
Regarding the invasion of protected areas such as coastal Natura 2000 sites and long-term ecological research (LTER) sites, we recorded a lower presence of alien species compared to unprotected areas. This suggests that, while alien species may still colonize these zones, their invasion rate is likely curtailed due to the presence of effective conservation measures, biotic filters (e.g., high biodiversity and ecosystem function), and relatively lower anthropogenic pressures, including reduced propagule pressure from infrastructures and less frequent human disturbances [43,117]. Indeed, conservation actions and biodiversity management strategies enhance ecosystem resilience and help protect them from the significant threat posed by alien species [81]. Continuous monitoring and research at Natura 2000 and LTER sites are crucial for refining management strategies and assessing the effectiveness of current conservation measures. This targeted approach improves the control of alien species and contributes to the overall health and stability of ecosystems. Additionally, the collected data can be used to develop distribution models for alien species, identify invasion hotspots, and focus attention and control measures on invaded coasts [117].
5. Conclusions
Our study highlights the value of Citizen Science (CS) as a valuable tool for detecting and monitoring alien species (AS) in marine–coastal ecosystems. The Wild Coast Adriatic (WCA) project successfully used the iNaturalist platform to document the presence of AS along the Italian Central Adriatic coast, also within protected areas. CS sampling enabled the recording of a significant number of alien species across the study area, with some taxa recorded for the first time in specific coastal areas. This underscores the potential of Citizen Science as a cost-effective surveillance, early warning and monitoring tool that complements expert efforts while reducing the need of extensive fieldwork. Among the different families (flora) and taxonomic categories (fauna) observed, there are some species of Union concern, that are regulated at the European level and for which management and eradication plans are required. The presence of these species was reported to the management authorities, who in turn implement a specific monitoring or eradication actions. The number of observations and citizen scientists increased over time, highlighting the growing potential of Citizen Science for alien species early detection and support for implementing effective containment and management strategies.
Monitoring and studying the spatial and temporal distribution patterns of alien species is essential for developing effective management and conservation policies. Additionally, the year-round distribution of IAS records underscores the critical need for continuous monitoring efforts to achieve a comprehensive understanding of their temporal behavior and spread in within local ecosystems and PAs. Our results revealed that alien species are distributed heterogeneously inside and outside the protected areas (Natura 2000 and LTER sites), suggesting the effectiveness of protected areas in preserving natural ecosystems. Moreover, our results suggest that generalist multi-taxa Citizen Science projects such as Wild Coast Adriatic can serve as valuable tools for alien species monitoring, helping in biodiversity conservation and management of alien invasions in marine–coastal ecosystems. The increasing recruitment of citizen scientists underline the growing public awareness on the importance of alien species monitoring, prevention, and control in Italian coastal ecosystems.
Conceptualization, F.C., M.V. and M.L.C.; methodology, F.C., M.V. and M.L.C.; data collection, F.C., M.V. and A.S.; software, F.C. and M.V.; formal analysis, F.C. and M.V.; investigation, F.C., M.V., M.L.C. and A.S.; resources, M.L.C., G.M. and A.S.; data curation, F.C. and M.V.; writing—original draft preparation, F.C., M.V. and M.L.C.; writing—review and editing, F.C., M.V., M.L.C., A.S. and G.M.; visualization, F.C. and M.V.; supervision, F.C., M.V., M.L.C., A.S. and G.M; project administration, M.L.C. and A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Data are available on iNaturalist platform (
Thanks to the INPS (National Institute of Social Security) for a PhD scholarship and the LTER (Long-Term Ecological Research) network. Thanks to the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR) for supporting a researcher contract on green axes. We are thankful to the Ambiente Basso Molise Association, the Marine Protected Area Torre del Cerrano, and the Abruzzo Institute for Protected Areas for their valuable support in involving students, local people, and tourists in Citizen Science activities. We want to express our gratitude to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions that contributed to the improvement of the original manuscript. Finally, we would like to sincerely thank all the citizens and the experts who contributed to the success of the project by uploading their observations and/or contributing to the recognition of taxa.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Study area along the Central Adriatic coast, with the boundaries of the regions highlighted in red, including seven Natura 2000 sites (1: Torre del Cerrano; 2: Lecceta litoranea di Torino di Sangro e foce del Fiume Sangro; 3: Punta Aderci—Punta della Penna; 4: Marina di Vasto; 5: Foce Trigno—Marina di Petacciato; 6: Foce Biferno—Litorale di Campomarino; and 7: Foce Saccione—Bonifica Ramitelli) and two LTER sites (8: LTER Foce Trigno–Marina di Petacciato and 9: LTER Foce Saccione-Bonifica Ramitelli).
![View Image - Figure 3. Percent of WCA alien species per floristic taxonomic family [87] and fauna taxonomic group (classes are defined according to iNaturalist classification scheme: https://www.inaturalist.org; accessed 27 March 2024).](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/6/hqX2b?_a=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&_s=KTa8JMb%2BcJAaGk48EIBl8JzfSng%3D "View Image - Figure 3. Percent of WCA alien species per floristic taxonomic family [87] and fauna taxonomic group (classes are defined according to iNaturalist classification scheme: https://www.inaturalist.org; accessed 27 March 2024).")
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Percent of WCA alien species per floristic taxonomic family [87] and fauna taxonomic group (classes are defined according to iNaturalist classification scheme: https://www.inaturalist.org; accessed 27 March 2024).
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Number of alien research-grade (RG) observations per year. The trend lines are shown as dashed lines.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Number of alien observations per season. Winter (December, January, and February), spring (March, April, and May), summer (June, July, and August), and autumn (September, October, and November).
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. Distributions of alien species observations along the study area (highlighted in the red oval).
Number of records and species recorded in the Wild Coast Adriatic project (WCA), along with the number of aliens (overall, flora and fauna) and the relative numbers reaching the research grade or in Needs ID.
| Total | Research Grade | Needs ID | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Records | WCA (overall) | 2933 | 2194 | 739 |
| Aliens | 170 | 139 | 31 | |
| Alien Flora | 120 | 94 | 26 | |
| Alien Fauna | 50 | 45 | 5 | |
| Species | WCA (overall) | 786 | 687 | 190 |
| Aliens | 58 | 50 | 14 | |
| Alien Flora | 34 | 29 | 11 | |
| Alien Fauna | 24 | 21 | 3 |
Appendix A. List of Alien Species with “Research-Grade” (RG) Status Collected from 2020 to 2023, in the Generalist Multi-Taxa Citizen Science (CS) Project “Wild Coast Adriatic” (WCA)
List of alien plant species along with the taxonomic family status [
| N. Observations | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Family | Status | Life Growth | Origin | Total | Inside PA | Outside PA |
| Acacia saligna (Labill.) H.L.Wendl. | Fabaceae | Invasive Neophyte | P scap | Oceania | 11 | 7 | 4 |
| Agave americana L. subsp. americana | Asparagaceae | Invasive Neophyte | P caesp | America | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle | Simaroubaceae | Invasive Neophyte | P scap | Asia | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| Ambrosia psilostachya DC. | Asteraceae | Invasive Neophyte | G rhiz | America | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Amorpha fruticosa L. | Fabaceae | Invasive Neophyte | P caesp | America | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Bidens subalternans DC. | Asteraceae | Invasive Neophyte | T scap | America | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Carpobrotus acinaciformis (L.) L.Bolus | Aizoaceae | Invasive Neophyte | Ch suffr | Africa | 6 | 1 | 5 |
| Carpobrotus edulis (L.) N.E.Br. | Aizoaceae | Invasive Neophyte | Ch suffr | Africa | 5 | 2 | 3 |
| Datura stramonium L. | Solanaceae | Invasive Neophyte | T scap | America | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Erigeron bonariensis L. | Asteraceae | Invasive Neophyte | T scap | America | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Erigeron canadensis L. | Asteraceae | Invasive Neophyte | T scap | America | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Euphorbia maculata L. | Euphorbiaceae | Invasive Neophyte | T rept | America | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Helianthus annuus L. subsp. annuus | Asteraceae | Casual Neophyte | T scap | America | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Lonicera japonica Thunb. | Caprifoliaceae | Invasive Neophyte | P lian | Asia | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Mirabilis jalapa L. | Nyctaginaceae | Invasive Neophyte | G bulb | America | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Nicotiana glauca Graham | Solanaceae | Invasive Neophyte | NP | America | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Oenothera glazioviana Micheli | Onagraceae | Invasive Neophyte | H bienn | America | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Oenothera stucchii Soldano | Onagraceae | Invasive Neophyte | H bienn | Europa | 12 | 9 | 3 |
| Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. | Cactaceae | Invasive Neophyte | P succ | America | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. | Cactaceae | Invasive Neophyte | P succ | America | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Oxalis articulata Savigny | Oxalidaceae | Invasive Neophyte | G bulb | America | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Oxalis pes-caprae L. | Oxalidaceae | Invasive Neophyte | G bulb | Africa | 7 | 1 | 6 |
| Paspalum dilatatum Poir. | Poaceae | Invasive Neophyte | H caesp | America | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth. | Hydrophyllaceae | Naturalized Neophyte | T scap | America | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Pittosporum tobira (Thunb.) W.T.Aiton | Pittosporaceae | Naturalized Neophyte | P caesp | Asia | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Robinia pseudoacacia L | Fabaceae | Invasive Neophyte | P scap | America | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Senecio inaequidens DC. | Asteraceae | Invasive Neophyte | Ch suffr | Africa | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Symphyotrichum squamatum (Spreng.) G.L.Nesom | Asteraceae | Invasive Neophyte | T scap | America | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| Xanthium orientale subsp. italicum (Moretti) Greuter | Asteraceae | Invasive Neophyte | T scap | America | 9 | 5 | 4 |
| 94 | 40 | 54 | |||||
List of alien fauna species, along with the taxonomic group, taxonomic family, geographic origin, and numbers of observations: Total, Inside PA and Outside PA (Protected Areas—Natura 2000 sites and LTER sites). Bold font highlights invasive alien species of European Union concern [
| N. Observations | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Taxonomic Group | Family | Origin | Total | Inside PA | Outside PA |
| Gambusia holbrooki (Girard, 1859) | Actinopterygii | Poeciliidae | America | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Steatoda nobilis (Thorell, 1875) | Arachnida | Theridiidae | Macaronesia | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Threskiornis aethiopicus (Latham, 1790) | Aves | Threskiornithidae | Africa; Asia | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Blatta orientalis (Linnaeus, 1758) | Insects | Blattidae | Africa; Asia | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855) | Insects | Pentatomidae | Asia | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Harmonia axyridis (Pallas, 1773) | Insects | Coccinellidae | Asia | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Icerya purchasi (Maskell, 1878) | Insects | Margarodidae | Oceania | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Isodontia mexicana (de Saussure, 1867) | Insects | Sphecidae | America | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Paysandisia archon (Burmeister, 1880) | Insects | Castniidae | America | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier, 1790) | Insects | Dryophthoridae | Asia | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Sceliphron caementarium (Drury, 1773) | Insects | Sphecidae | America | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Trichopoda pictipennis (Fabricius, 1781) | Insects | Tachinidae | America | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Hystrix cristata (Linnaeus, 1758) | Mammals | Hystricidae | Africa | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Myocastor coypus (Molina, 1782) | Mammals | Myocastoridae | America | 12 | 6 | 6 |
| Anadara kagoshimensis (Tokunaga, 1906) | Mollusks | Arcidae | Asia | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Anadara transversa (Say, 1822) | Mollusks | Arcidae | America | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| Magallana gigas (Thunberg, 1793) | Mollusks | Ostreidae | Asia | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Potamopyrgus antipodarum (J. E. Gray, 1843) | Mollusks | Tateidae | Oceania | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Rapana venosa (Valenciennes, 1846) | Mollusks | Muricidae | Asia | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun, 1896) | Other Animals | Portunidae | America | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Trachemys scripta (Thunberg in Schoepff, 1792) | Reptiles | Emydidae | America | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| 45 | 15 | 30 | ||||
References
1. Walker, S.; Wilson, J.B.; Steel, J.B.; Rapson, G.L.; Smith, B.; King, W.M.G.; Cottam, Y.H. Properties of Ecotones: Evidence from Five Ecotones Objectively Determined from a Coastal Vegetation Gradient. J. Veg. Sci.; 2003; 14, pp. 579-590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02185.x]
2. Defeo, O.; McLachlan, A.; Schoeman, D.S.; Schlacher, T.A.; Dugan, J.; Jones, A.; Lastra, M.; Scapini, F. Threats to Sandy Beach Ecosystems: A Review. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.; 2009; 81, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.09.022]
3. Malavasi, M.; Bartak, V.; Carranza, M.L.; Simova, P.; Acosta, A.T.R. Landscape Pattern and Plant Biodiversity in Mediterranean Coastal Dune Ecosystems: Do Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Really Matter?. J. Biogeogr.; 2018; 45, pp. 1367-1377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13215]
4. Chytrý, M.; Maskell, L.C.; Pino, J.; Pyšek, P.; Vilà, M.; Font, X.; Smart, S.M. Habitat Invasions by Alien Plants: A Quantitative Comparison among Mediterranean, Subcontinental and Oceanic Regions of Europe. J. Appl. Ecol.; 2008; 45, pp. 448-458. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01398.x]
5. Muñoz-Vallés, S.; Cambrollé, J. The Threat of Native-Invasive Plant Species to Biodiversity Conservation in Coastal Dunes. Ecol. Eng.; 2015; 79, pp. 32-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.03.002]
6. Ciccarelli, D. Mediterranean Coastal Sand Dune Vegetation: Influence of Natural and Anthropogenic Factors. Environ. Manag.; 2014; 54, pp. 194-204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0290-2]
7. de Francesco, M.C.; Carranza, M.L.; Varricchione, M.; Tozzi, F.P.; Stanisci, A. Natural Protected Areas as Special Sentinels of Littering on Coastal Dune Vegetation. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 5446. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11195446]
8. Di Febbraro, M.; Frate, L.; de Francesco, M.C.; Stanisci, A.; Tozzi, F.P.; Varricchione, M.; Carranza, M.L. Modelling Beach Litter Accumulation on Mediterranean Coastal Landscapes: An Integrative Framework Using Species Distribution Models. Land; 2021; 10, 54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land10010054]
9. Sarmati, S.; Bonari, G.; Angiolini, C. Conservation Status of Mediterranean Coastal Dune Habitats: Anthropogenic Disturbance May Hamper Habitat Assignment. Rend. Lincei; 2019; 30, pp. 623-636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12210-019-00823-7]
10. Delgado-Fernandez, I.; O’Keeffe, N.; Davidson-Arnott, R.G.D. Natural and Human Controls on Dune Vegetation Cover and Disturbance. Sci. Total Environ.; 2019; 672, pp. 643-656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.494]
11. Giulio, S.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Carboni, M.; Campos, J.A.; Chytrý, M.; Loidi, J.; Pergl, J.; Pyšek, P.; Isermann, M.; Janssen, J.A.M. et al. Alien Flora across European Coastal Dunes. Appl. Veg. Sci.; 2020; 23, pp. 317-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12490]
12. Malavasi, M.; Carboni, M.; Cutini, M.; Carranza, M.L.; Acosta, A.T.R. Landscape Fragmentation, Land-Use Legacy and Propagule Pressure Promote Plant Invasion on Coastal Dunes: A Patch-Based Approach. Landsc. Ecol.; 2014; 29, pp. 1541-1550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0074-3]
13. Genovesi, P.; Shine, C. Convention relative à la conservation de la vie sauvage et du milieu naturel de l’Europe. European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species; Council of Europe Publishing: Strasbourg, France, 2011; ISBN 9789287170415
14. ISPRA. Specie Aliene Invasive: I Nuovi Dati Del Rapporto IPBES. Available online: https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/archivio/notizie-e-novita-normative/notizie-ispra/2023/09/specie-aliene-invasive-i-nuovi-dati-del-rapporto-ipbes (accessed on 2 October 2024).
15. Santoro, R.; Jucker, T.; Carranza, M.; Acosta, A. Assessing the Effects of Carpobrotus Invasion on Coastal Dune Soils. Does the Nature of the Invaded Habitat Matter?. Community Ecol.; 2011; 12, pp. 234-240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.12.2011.2.12]
16. Gigante, D.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Agrillo, E.; Armiraglio, S.; Assini, S.; Attorre, F.; Bagella, S.; Buffa, G.; Casella, L.; Giancola, C. et al. Habitat Conservation in Italy: The State of the Art in the Light of the First European Red List of Terrestrial and Freshwater Habitats. Rend. Lincei; 2018; 29, pp. 251-265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12210-018-0688-5]
17. Milanović, M.; Knapp, S.; Pyšek, P.; Kühn, I. Linking Traits of Invasive Plants with Ecosystem Services and Disservices. Ecosyst. Serv.; 2020; 42, 101072. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101072]
18. Lazzaro, L.; Bolpagni, R.; Buffa, G.; Gentili, R.; Lonati, M.; Stinca, A.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Adorni, M.; Aleffi, M.; Allegrezza, M. et al. Impact of Invasive Alien Plants on Native Plant Communities and Natura 2000 Habitats: State of the Art, Gap Analysis and Perspectives in Italy. J Environ. Manag.; 2020; 274, 111140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111140]
19. Pyšek, P.; Jarošík, V.; Hulme, P.E.; Pergl, J.; Hejda, M.; Schaffner, U.; Vilà, M. A Global Assessment of Invasive Plant Impacts on Resident Species, Communities and Ecosystems: The Interaction of Impact Measures, Invading Species’ Traits and Environment. Glob. Chang. Biol.; 2012; 18, pp. 1725-1737. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02636.x]
20. Vilà, M.; Hulme, P.E. Impact of Biological Invasions on Ecosystem Services; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017.
21. Calabrese, V.; Frate, L.; Iannotta, F.; Prisco, I.; Stanisci, A. Acacia Saligna: An Invasive Species on the Coast of Molise (Southern Italy). For.@—J. Silvic. For. Ecol.; 2017; 14, pp. 28-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3832/efor2211-013]
22. de Francesco, M.C.; Tozzi, F.P.; Buffa, G.; Fantinato, E.; Innangi, M.; Stanisci, A. Identifying Critical Thresholds in the Impacts of Invasive Alien Plants and Dune Paths on Native Coastal Dune Vegetation. Land; 2023; 12, 135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land12010135]
23. Gentili, R.; Schaffner, U.; Martinoli, A.; Citterio, S. Invasive Alien Species and Biodiversity: Impacts and Management. Biodiversity; 2021; 22, pp. 1-3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2021.1929484]
24. Cocchi, R.; Bertolino, S. Piano Di Gestione Nazionale Della Nutria Myocastor Coypus. 2021; Available online: https://www.mase.gov.it/sites/default/files/archivio/allegati/trasparenza_valutazione_merito/ATTIGENERALI/2021/piano_gestione_nutria_10-2021.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2024).
25. Macchi, S.; Scali, S.; Bisi, F.; Martinoli, A.; Alonzi, A.; Carnevali, L. Piano Nazionale per La Gestione Testuggine Palustre Americana (Trachemys Scripta). 2020; Available online: https://forestefauna.provincia.tn.it/Fauna/Fauna-selvatica/Il-piano-faunistico-provinciale/Documenti-tecnici-di-approfondimento/Documenti-tecnici-di-approfondimento/Altra-fauna/Specie-aliene/Piano-nazionale-per-la-gestione-della-testuggine-palustre-americana-Trachemys-scripta (accessed on 19 June 2024).
26. DAISIE. Handbook of Alien Species in Europe; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009; ISBN 978-1402082795
27. EEC. Regolamento (ue) n. 1143/2014 del parlamento europeo e del consiglio Del 22 Ottobre 2014 Recante Disposizioni Volte a Prevenire e Gestire l’introduzione e La Diffusione Delle Specie Esotiche Invasive. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1143 (accessed on 19 June 2024).
28. UNEP/MAP-SPA/RAC. Conservation of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity in the Adriatic Sea Sub-Region by 2030 and Beyond. Ed. SPA/RAC, Tunis: 83 pp. 2021; Available online: www.spa-rac.org (accessed on 19 June 2024).
29. Van Kleunen, M.; Dawson, W.; Essl, F.; Pergl, J.; Winter, M.; Weber, E.; Kreft, H.; Weigelt, P.; Kartesz, J.; Nishino, M. et al. Global Exchange and Accumulation of Non-Native Plants. Nature; 2015; 525, pp. 100-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14910] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26287466]
30. Marzialetti, F.; Di Febbraro, M.; Frate, L.; De Simone, W.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Carranza, M.L. Synergetic Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and Satellite Images for Detecting Non-Native Tree Species: An Insight into Acacia Saligna Invasion in the Mediterranean Coast. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2022; 10, 880626. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.880626]
31. Tozzi, F.P.; Carranza, M.L.; Frate, L.; Stanisci, A. The Impact of Acacia Saligna on the Composition and Structure of the Mediterranean Maquis. Biodiversity; 2021; 22, pp. 53-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2021.1936640]
32. Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A.; Marchini, A.; Cantone, G.; Castelli, A.; Chimenz, C.; Cormaci, M.; Froglia, C.; Furnari, G.; Gambi, M.C.; Giaccone, G. et al. Alien Species along the Italian Coasts: An Overview. Biol. Invasions; 2010; 13, pp. 215-237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9803-y]
33. Lehtiniemi, M.; Outinen, O.; Puntila-Dodd, R. Citizen Science Provides Added Value in the Monitoring for Coastal Non-Indigenous Species. J. Environ. Manag.; 2020; 267, 110608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110608] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32349951]
34. Meyerson, L.A.; Pauchard, A.; Brundu, G.; Carlton, J.T.; Hierro, J.L.; Kueffer, C.; Pandit, M.K.; Pyšek, P.; Richardson, D.M.; Packer, J.G. Moving Toward Global Strategies for Managing Invasive Alien Species; Global Plant Invasions; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; ISBN 978-3-030-89683-6
35. EUR-Lex. Access to European Union Law. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/1203/oj (accessed on 2 October 2024).
36. Pocock, M.J.O.; Adriaens, T.; Bertolino, S.; Eschen, R.; Essl, F.; Hulme, P.E.; Jeschke, J.M.; Roy, H.E.; Teixeira, H.; de Groot, M. Citizen Science Is a Vital Partnership for Invasive Alien Species Management and Research. iScience; 2024; 27, 108623. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.108623] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38205243]
37. Del Vecchio, S.; Fantinato, E.; Silan, G.; Buffa, G. Trade-Offs between Sampling Effort and Data Quality in Habitat Monitoring. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2019; 28, pp. 55-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1636-5]
38. Gallardo, B.; Aldridge, D.C.; González-Moreno, P.; Pergl, J.; Pizarro, M.; Pyšek, P.; Thuiller, W.; Yesson, C.; Vilà, M. Protected Areas Offer Refuge from Invasive Species Spreading under Climate Change. Glob. Change Biol.; 2017; 23, pp. 5331-5343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13798]
39. Foxcroft, L.C.; Pyšek, P.; Richardson, D.M.; Genovesi, P.; MacFadyen, S. Plant Invasion Science in Protected Areas: Progress and Priorities. Biol. Invasions; 2017; 19, pp. 1353-1378. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1367-z]
40. Baquero, R.A.; Ayllón, D.; Oficialdegui, F.J.; Nicola, G.G. Tackling Biological Invasions in Natura 2000 Network in the Light of the New Eu Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Manag. Biol. Invasions; 2021; 12, pp. 776-791. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2021.12.4.01]
41. Moodley, D.; Angulo, E.; Cuthbert, R.N.; Leung, B.; Turbelin, A.; Novoa, A.; Kourantidou, M.; Heringer, G.; Haubrock, P.J.; Renault, D. et al. Surprisingly High Economic Costs of Biological Invasions in Protected Areas. Biol. Invasions; 2022; 24, pp. 1995-2016. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02732-7]
42. Mannino, A.M.; Balistreri, P. Citizen Science: A Successful Tool for Monitoring Invasive Alien Species (IAS) in Marine Protected Areas. The Case Study of the Egadi Islands MPA (Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). Biodiversity; 2018; 19, pp. 42-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2018.1468280]
43. Lozano, V.; Di Febbraro, M.; Brundu, G.; Carranza, M.L.; Alessandrini, A.; Ardenghi, N.M.G.; Barni, E.; Bedini, G.; Celesti-Grapow, L.; Cianfaglione, K. et al. Plant Invasion Risk inside and Outside Protected Areas: Propagule Pressure, Abiotic and Biotic Factors Definitively Matter. Sci. Total Environ.; 2023; 877, 162993. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162993] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36948323]
44. IPBES. Invasive Alien Species Assessment: Summary for Policymakers. The Thematic Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and Their Control Summary for Policymakers Summary for Policymakers of the Ipbes Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and Their Control. 2023; Available online: https://www.ipbes.net/document-library-catalogue/summary-policymakers-invasive-alien-species-assessment (accessed on 28 June 2024).
45. McKinley, D.C.; Miller-Rushing, A.J.; Ballard, H.L.; Bonney, R.; Brown, H.; Cook-Patton, S.C.; Evans, D.M.; French, R.A.; Parrish, J.K.; Phillips, T.B. et al. Citizen Science Can Improve Conservation Science, Natural Resource Management, and Environmental Protection. Biol. Conserv.; 2017; 208, pp. 15-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015]
46. Genovesi, P.; Scalera, R.; Brunel, S.; Roy, D.B.; Solarz, W. Towards an Early Warning and Information System for Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Threatening Biodiversity in Europe. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, K, Denmark, 2010; Volume 5. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en (accessed on 17 June 2024).
47. Perrings, C.; Mooney, H.; Williamson, M. Bioinvasions and Globalization: Ecology, Economics, Management, and Policy; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2010; ISBN 9780199560165
48. Simpson, A.; Jarnevich, C.; Madsen, J.; Westbrooks, R.; Fournier, C.; Mehrhoff, L.; Browne, M.; Graham, J.; Sellers, E. Invasive Species Information Networks: Collaboration at Multiple Scales for Prevention, Early Detection, and Rapid Response to Invasive Alien Species. Biodiversity; 2009; 10, pp. 5-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2009.9712839]
49. Yemshanov, D.; Haight, R.G.; Koch, F.H.; Venette, R.C.; Swystun, T.; Fournier, R.E.; Marcotte, M.; Chen, Y.; Turgeon, J.J. Optimizing Surveillance Strategies for Early Detection of Invasive Alien Species. Ecol. Econ.; 2019; 162, pp. 87-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.04.030]
50. Bradley, B.A. Remote Detection of Invasive Plants: A Review of Spectral, Textural and Phenological Approaches. Biol. Invasions; 2014; 16, pp. 1411-1425. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0578-9]
51. Roy, H.E.; Rorke, S.L.; Beckmann, B.; Booy, O.; Botham, M.S.; J Brown, P.M.; Harrower, C.; Noble, D.; Sewell, J.; Walker, K. The Contribution of Volunteer Recorders to Our Understanding of Biological Invasions. Biol. J. Linn. Soc.; 2015; 115, pp. 678-689. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bij.12518]
52. Dai, J.; Roberts, D.A.; Stow, D.A.; An, L.; Hall, S.J.; Yabiku, S.T.; Kyriakidis, P.C. Mapping Understory Invasive Plant Species with Field and Remotely Sensed Data in Chitwan, Nepal. Remote Sens. Environ.; 2020; 250, 112037. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112037]
53. Encarnação, J.; Teodósio, M.A.; Morais, P. Citizen Science and Biological Invasions: A Review. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2021; 8, 602980. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.602980]
54. Fraisl, D.; Hager, G.; Bedessem, B.; Gold, M.; Hsing, P.Y.; Danielsen, F.; Hitchcock, C.B.; Hulbert, J.M.; Piera, J.; Spiers, H. et al. Citizen Science in Environmental and Ecological Sciences. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers; 2022; 2, 64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00144-4]
55. Geoghegan, H.; Dyke, A.; Pateman, R.; West, S.; Everett, G. Understanding Motivations for Citizen Science. Final Report on Behalf of the UK Environmental Observation Framework (UKEOF). 2016; Available online: https://www.sei.org/publications/understanding-motivations-for-citizen-science/ (accessed on 11 June 2024).
56. Silvertown, J. A New Dawn for Citizen Science. Trends Ecol. Evol.; 2009; 24, pp. 467-471. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19586682]
57. Alessi, J.; Bruccoleri, F.; Cafaro, V. How Citizens Can Encourage Scientific Research: The Case Study of Bottlenose Dolphins Monitoring. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 2019; 167, pp. 9-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.09.018]
58. Bila Dubaić, J.; Lanner, J.; Rohrbach, C.; Meimberg, H.; Wyatt, F.; Čačija, M.; Galešić, M.; Ješovnik, A.; Samurović, K.; Plećaš, M. et al. Towards a Real-Time Tracking of an Expanding Alien Bee Species in Southeast Europe through Citizen Science and Floral Host Monitoring. Environ. Res. Commun.; 2022; 4, 085001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ac8398]
59. Dimson, M.; Berio Fortini, L.; Tingley, M.W.; Gillespie, T.W. Citizen Science Can Complement Professional Invasive Plant Surveys and Improve Estimates of Suitable Habitat. Divers. Distrib.; 2023; 29, pp. 1141-1156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13749]
60. Grattarola, F.; Rodríguez-Tricot, L.; Zarucki, M.; Laufer, G. Status of the Invasion of Carpobrotus Edulis in Uruguay Based on Citizen Science Records. Biol. Invasions; 2024; 26, pp. 935-942. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03242-w]
61. Dunkley, R.A. Monitoring Ecological Change in UK Woodlands and Rivers: An Exploration of the Relational Geographies of Citizen Science. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr.; 2019; 44, pp. 16-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tran.12258]
62. Deák, B.; Tóth, C.A.; Bede, Á.; Apostolova, I.; Bragina, T.M.; Báthori, F.; Bán, M. Eurasian Kurgan Database-a Citizen Science Tool for Conserving Grasslands on Historical Sites. Hacquetia; 2019; 18, pp. 179-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/hacq-2019-0007]
63. López-Guillén, E.; Herrera, I.; Bensid, B.; Gómez-Bellver, C.; Ibáñez, N.; Jiménez-Mejías, P.; Mairal, M.; Mena-García, L.; Nualart, N.; Utjés-Mascó, M. et al. Strengths and Challenges of Using INaturalist in Plant Research with Focus on Data Quality. Diversity; 2024; 16, 42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/d16010042]
64. Bowser, A.; Wiggins, A.; Shanley, L.; Preece, J.; Henderson, S. Sharing Data While Protecting Privacy in Citizen Science. Interactions; 2014; 21, pp. 70-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2540032]
65. Meeus, S.; Silva-Rocha, I.; Adriaens, T.; Brown, P.M.J.; Chartosia, N.; Claramunt-López, B.; Martinou, A.F.; Pocock, M.J.O.; Preda, C.; Roy, H.E. et al. More than a Bit of Fun: The Multiple Outcomes of a Bioblitz. Bioscience; 2023; 73, pp. 168-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac100] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36936381]
66. Giannetti, D.; Schifani, E.; Leonardi, S.; Fior, E.; Sangiorgi, S.; Castracani, C.; Bardiani, M.; Campanaro, A.; Grasso, D.A. A Multidimensional Study on Population Size, Deadwood Relationship and Allometric Variation of Lucanus Cervus through Citizen Science. Insect Conserv. Divers.; 2023; 16, pp. 638-648. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/icad.12660]
67. Kobori, H.; Dickinson, J.L.; Washitani, I.; Sakurai, R.; Amano, T.; Komatsu, N.; Kitamura, W.; Takagawa, S.; Koyama, K.; Ogawara, T. et al. Citizen Science: A New Approach to Advance Ecology, Education, and Conservation. Ecol. Res.; 2016; 31, pp. 1-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11284-015-1314-y]
68. Carranza, M.L.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Stanisci, A.; Pirone, G.; Ciaschetti, G. Ecosystem Classification for EU Habitat Distribution Assessment in Sandy Coastal Environments: An Application in Central Italy. Environ. Monit. Assess.; 2008; 140, pp. 99-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9851-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17624597]
69. del Vecchio, S.; Prisco, I.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Stanisci, A. Changes in Plant Species Composition of Coastal Dune Habitats over a 20-Year Period. AoB Plants; 2015; 7, plv018. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plv018]
70. Frattaroli, A.R.; Acosta, A.; Ciaschetti, G.; Martino, L.D.; Pirone, G.; Stanisci, A. Indagine Sulla Qualità Ambientale Della Costa Dell’Abruzzo Meridionale e Del Molise (Adriatico Centrale) Su Base Floristico-Vegetazionale. Fitosociologia; 2007; 44, pp. 117-127.
71. Drius, M.; Carranza, M.L.; Stanisci, A.; Jones, L. The Role of Italian Coastal Dunes as Carbon Sinks and Diversity Sources. A Multi-Service Perspective. Appl. Geogr.; 2016; 75, pp. 127-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.08.007]
72. Miccadei, E.; Mascioli, F.; Piacentini, T.; Ricci, F. Geomorphological Features of Coastal Dunes along the Central Adriatic Coast (Abruzzo, Italy). J. Coast. Res.; 2011; 27, pp. 1122-1136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00161.1]
73. Stanisci, A.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Carranza, M.L.; De Chiro, M.; Del Vecchio, S.; Di Martino, L.; Frattaroli, A.R.; Fusco, S.; Izzi, C.F.; Pirone, G. et al. EU Habitats Monitoring along the Coastal Dunes of the LTER Sites of Abruzzo and Molise (Italy). Plant Sociol.; 2014; 51, pp. 51-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7338/pls2014512S1/07]
74. Tozzi, F.P.; Varricchione, M.; de Francesco, M.C.; Carranza, M.L.; Stanisci, A. Vegetation Dynamics on a Restored Salt Marsh Mosaic: A Re-Visitation Study in a Coastal Wetland in Central Italy. Wetlands; 2022; 42, 101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13157-022-01627-6]
75. Compagnone, F.; Varricchione, M.; Innangi, M.; Di Febbraro, M.; Loy, A.; Stanisci, A.; de Francesco, M.C.; Matteucci, G.; Carranza, M.L. Coastal Biodiversity Assessment Aided by Citizen Science Volunteers: A Look at the Italian Central Adriatic. Land; 2023; 12, 2023. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land12112023]
76. Aristeidou, M.; Herodotou, C.; Ballard, H.L.; Higgins, L.; Johnson, R.F.; Miller, A.E.; Young, A.N.; Robinson, L.D. How Do Young Community and Citizen Science Volunteers Support Scientific Research on Biodiversity? The Case of Inaturalist. Diversity; 2021; 13, 318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/d13070318] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35873351]
77. Baker, P.M.; Samuels, B.; Hain, T.J.A. Using Citizen Science to Document Biodiversity on a University Campus: A Year-Long Case Study. Conservation; 2024; 4, pp. 533-546. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/conservation4030032]
78. Aristeidou, M.; Herodotou, C.; Ballard, H.L.; Young, A.N.; Miller, A.E.; Higgins, L.; Johnson, R.F. Exploring the Participation of Young Citizen Scientists in Scientific Research: The Case of INaturalist. PLoS ONE; 2021; 16, e0245682. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245682] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33465161]
79. Hochmair, H.H.; Scheffrahn, R.H.; Basille, M.; Boone, M. Evaluating the Data Quality of INaturalist Termite Records. PLoS ONE; 2020; 15, e0226534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226534]
80. Galasso, G.; Conti, F.; Peruzzi, L.; Alessandrini, A.; Ardenghi, N.M.G.; Bacchetta, G.; Banfi, E.; Barberis, G.; Bernardo, L.; Bouvet, D. et al. A Second Update to the Checklist of the Vascular Flora Alien to Italy. Plant Biosyst.; 2024; 158, pp. 297-340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2024.2320129]
81. Bartolucci, F.; Galasso, G.; Peruzzi, L.; Conti, F. Report 2021 on Plant Biodiversity in Italy: Native and Alien Vascular Flora. Nat. Hist. Sci.; 2023; 10, pp. 41-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4081/nhs.2022.623]
82. Bartolucci, F.; Galasso, G.; Peruzzi, L.; Conti, F. Report 2020 on Plant Biodiversity in Italy: Native and Alien Vascular Flora. Nat. Hist. Sci.; 2021; 8, pp. 41-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4081/nhs.2021.520]
83. Loy, A.; Aloise, G.; Ancillotto, L.; Angelici, F.M.; Bertolino, S.; Capizzi, D.; Castiglia, R.; Colangelo, P.; Contoli, L.; Cozzi, B. et al. Mammals of Italy: An Annotated Checklist. Hystrix; 2019; 30, pp. 87-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-00196-2019]
84. GBIF.org. GBIF Home Page. Available online: https://www.gbif.org (accessed on 2 October 2024).
85. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2024.
86. Wickham, H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4
87. Pignatti, S.; Guarino, R.; La Rosa, M. Flora d’Italia; Edagricole Calderini: Bologna, Italy, 2017; ISBN 8850652429
88. Feder, M.E. Plant and Animal Physiological Ecology, Comparative Physiology/Biochemistry, and Evolutionary Physiology: Opportunities for Synergy: An Introduction to the Symposium. Integr. Comp. Biol.; 2002; 42, pp. 409-414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icb/42.3.409]
89. McCarthy, M.A.; Moore, J.L.; Morris, W.K.; Parris, K.M.; Garrard, G.E.; Vesk, P.A.; Rumpff, L.; Giljohann, K.M.; Camac, J.S.; Bau, S.S. et al. The Influence of Abundance on Detectability. Oikos; 2013; 122, pp. 717-726. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20781.x]
90. Drius, M.; Bongiorni, L.; Depellegrin, D.; Menegon, S.; Pugnetti, A.; Stifter, S. Tackling Challenges for Mediterranean Sustainable Coastal Tourism: An Ecosystem Service Perspective. Sci. Total Environ.; 2019; 652, pp. 1302-1317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.121] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30586816]
91. Kalusová, V.; Čeplová, N.; Danihelka, J.; Večeřa, M.; Pyšek, P.; Albert, A.; Anastasiu, P.; Biurrun, I.; Boch, S.; Cottaz, C. et al. Alien Plants of Europe. Preslia; 2024; 96, pp. 149-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.23855/preslia.2024.149]
92. Rzanny, M.; Wittich, H.C.; Mäder, P.; Deggelmann, A.; Boho, D.; Wäldchen, J. Image-Based Automated Recognition of 31 Poaceae Species: The Most Relevant Perspectives. Front. Plant Sci.; 2022; 12, 804140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.804140] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35154194]
93. ISPRA. Piante e Insetti Impollinatori: Un’alleanza per La Biodiversità; ISPRA: Roma, Italy, 2021; ISBN 9788844810665
94. Rasino, M.d.V.; Fattorini, S.; Sciarretta, A.; Colacci, M.; Stanisci, A.; Carranza, M.L. Cross-Taxon Analysis in the Highly Threatened Mediterranean Dunes Reveals Consistent Diversity Patterns in Butterfly and Plant Communities. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2024; 33, pp. 3643-3661. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02914-w]
95. D’Souza, S.L.; D’Souza, N.; Shenoy, K.B. Molluscan Diversity of Coastal Karnataka, India and Role of Physicochemical Parameters on Their Diversity. J. Coast. Conserv.; 2022; 26, 2. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11852-021-00849-w]
96. Zenetos, A.; Delongueville, C.; Scaillet, R. An Overlooked Group of Citizen Scientists in Non-Indigenous Species (NIS) Information: Shell Collectors and Their Contribution to Molluscan NIS Xenodiversity. Diversity; 2024; 16, 299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/d16050299]
97. Abdul Halim, S.S.; Shuib, S.; Talib, A.; Yahya, K. Species Composition, Richness, and Distribution of Molluscs from Intertidal Areas at Penang Island, Malaysia. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol.; 2019; 41, pp. 165-173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14456/sjst-psu.2019.20]
98. Kousteni, V.; Tsiamis, K.; Gervasini, E.; Zenetos, A.; Karachle, P.K.; Cardoso, A.C. Citizen Scientists Contributing to Alien Species Detection: The Case of Fishes and Mollusks in European Marine Waters. Ecosphere; 2022; 13, e03875. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3875]
99. Burton, A.C.; Beirne, C.; Gaynor, K.M.; Sun, C.; Granados, A.; Allen, M.L.; Alston, J.M.; Alvarenga, G.C.; Calderón, F.S.Á.; Amir, Z. et al. Mammal Responses to Global Changes in Human Activity Vary by Trophic Group and Landscape. Nat. Ecol. Evol.; 2024; 8, pp. 924-935. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02363-2]
100. Richardson, D.M.; Rejmánek, M. Trees and Shrubs as Invasive Alien Species—A Global Review. Divers. Distrib.; 2011; 17, pp. 788-809. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00782.x]
101. Wilson, J.R.U.; Gairifo, C.; Gibson, M.R.; Arianoutsou, M.; Bakar, B.B.; Baret, S.; Celesti-Grapow, L.; Ditomaso, J.M.; Dufour-Dror, J.M.; Kueffer, C. et al. Risk Assessment, Eradication, and Biological Control: Global Efforts to Limit Australian Acacia Invasions. Divers. Distrib.; 2011; 17, pp. 1030-1046. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00815.x]
102. Bar, P.; Cohen, O.; Shoshany, M. Invasion Rate of the Alien Species Acacia Saligna within Coastal Sand Dune Habitats in Israel. Isr. J. Plant Sci.; 2004; 52, pp. 115-124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1560/8BK5-GFVT-NQ9J-TLN8]
103. Celesti-Grapow, L.; Pretto, F.; Carli, E.; Blasi, C.; Accogli, R.; Albano, A.; Alessandrini, A.; Arrigoni, V.; Assini, S.; Banfi, E. et al. Flora Vascolare Alloctona e Invasiva Delle Regioni d’Italia; Casa Editrice Università La Sapienza: Roma, Italy, 2010.
104. Del Vecchio, S.; Acosta, A.; Stanisci, A. The Impact of Acacia Saligna Invasion on Italian Coastal Dune EC Habitats. C R. Biol.; 2013; 336, pp. 364-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2013.06.004] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23932256]
105. Gutierres, F.; Reis, E.; Lobo, A. Acacia Saligna (Labill.) H. Wendl. in the Sesimbra County: Invaded Habitats and Potential. Distribution Modeling. J. Coast. Res.; 2011; 64, pp. 403-407.
106. Marzialetti, F.; Bazzichetto, M.; Giulio, S.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Stanisci, A.; Malavasi, M.; Carranza, M.L. Modelling Acacia Saligna Invasion on the Adriatic Coastal Landscape:An Integrative Approach Using LTER Data. Nat. Conserv.; 2019; 34, pp. 127-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.34.29575]
107. Yelenik, S.G.; Stock, W.D.; Richardson, D.M. Ecosystem Level Impacts of Invasive Acacia Saligna in the South African Fynbos. Restor. Ecol.; 2004; 12, pp. 44-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00289.x]
108. Cocchi, R.; Riga, F. Linee Guida per Il Controllo Della Nutria (Myocastor coypus) Cons. Natura. 2001; Available online: https://www.mase.gov.it/sites/default/files/archivio/biblioteca/protezione_natura/qcn_nutria.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2024).
109. Bertolino, S.; Genovesi, P. Semiaquatic Mammals Introduced into Italy: Case Studies in Biological Invasion. Biological Invaders in Inland Waters: Profiles, Distribution, and Threats; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 175-191.
110. Tietje, M.; Antonelli, A.; Forest, F.; Govaerts, R.; Smith, S.A.; Sun, M.; Baker, W.J.; Eiserhardt, W.L. Global Hotspots of Plant Phylogenetic Diversity. New Phytol.; 2023; 240, pp. 1636-1646. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.19151]
111. Fristoe, T.S.; Chytrý, M.; Dawson, W.; Essl, F.; Heleno, R.; Kreft, H.; Maurel, N.; Pergl, J.; Pyšek, P.; Seebens, H. et al. Dimensions of Invasiveness: Links between Local Abundance, Geographic Range Size, and Habitat Breadth in Europe’s Alien and Native Floras. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2021; 118, e2021173118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021173118]
112. Guarino, R.; Chytrý, M.; Attorre, F.; Landucci, F.; Marcenò, C. Alien Plant Invasions in Mediterranean Habitats: An Assessment for Sicily. Biol. Invasions; 2021; 23, pp. 3091-3107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02561-0]
113. Arianoutsou, M.; Bazos, I.; Christopoulou, A.; Kokkoris, Y.; Zikos, A.; Zervou, S.; Delipetrou, P.; Cardoso, A.C.; Deriu, I.; Gervasini, E. et al. Alien Plants of Europe: Introduction Pathways, Gateways and Time Trends. PeerJ; 2021; 9, e11270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11270] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34141463]
114. Bergami, C.; Campanaro, A.; Davis, C.; L’Astorina, A.; Pugnetti, A.; Oggioni, A. Environmental Citizen Science Practices in the ILTER Community: Remarks from a Case Study at Global Scale. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2023; 11, 1130020. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1130020]
115. Theobald, E.J.; Ettinger, A.K.; Burgess, H.K.; DeBey, L.B.; Schmidt, N.R.; Froehlich, H.E.; Wagner, C.; HilleRisLambers, J.; Tewksbury, J.; Harsch, M.A. et al. Global Change and Local Solutions: Tapping the Unrealized Potential of Citizen Science for Biodiversity Research. Biol. Conserv.; 2015; 181, pp. 236-244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.021]
116. Grattarola, F.; Martínez-Lanfranco, J.A.; Botto, G.; Naya, D.E.; Maneyro, R.; Mai, P.; Hernández, D.; Laufer, G.; Ziegler, L.; González, E.M. et al. Multiple Forms of Hotspots of Tetrapod Biodiversity and the Challenges of Open-Access Data Scarcity. Sci. Rep.; 2020; 10, 22045. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79074-8]
117. Bazzichetto, M.; Malavasi, M.; Bartak, V.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Rocchini, D.; Carranza, M.L. Plant Invasion Risk: A Quest for Invasive Species Distribution Modelling in Managing Protected Areas. Ecol. Indic.; 2018; 95, pp. 311-319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.07.046]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Varricchione, Marco 2
; Stanisci, Angela 2
; Matteucci, Giorgio 3
; Carranza, Maria Laura 2
1 EnviXLab, Department of Biosciences and Territory, University of Molise, Contrada Fonte Lappone, I-86090 Pesche, Italy;
2 EnviXLab, Department of Biosciences and Territory, University of Molise, Contrada Fonte Lappone, I-86090 Pesche, Italy;
3 National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC), I-90133 Palermo, Italy;