MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417032224 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.70217

Assessing the success of a horizon scanning approach in predicting invasive non‐native species arrival

2025· article· en· W4417032224 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jodey Peyton, Stephanie Rorke, David C. Aldridge, Oliver L. Pescott, Katharina Dehnen‐Schmutz, David G. Noble, Jack Sewell, Alan J. A. Stewart, Tim Adriaens, Björn C. Beckmann, J. Robert Britton, Juliet Brodie, Peter Brown, Imogen C. N. Cavadino, Paul F. Clark, Alison M. Dunn, Jim Foster, Colin Harrower, Martin Harvey, Michelle C. Jackson, Tomos Siôn Jones, Christine A. Maggs, Gabrielle Martin, Fiona Mathews, Aileen C. Mill, Debbie Murphy, Robin Payne, Wolfgang Rabitsch, Trevor Renals, Karsten Schönrogge, Richard Shaw, Graham Smith, Paul Stebbing, P. A. Stroh, Hannah J. Tidbury, Elena Tricarico, Jeanne Vallet, Kevin J. Walker, Louisa E. Wood, Christine A. Wood, Ben A. Woodcock, Helen E. Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle UniversityMuséum National d'Histoire NaturelleCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité de FribourgUniversity of StirlingUniversity of SussexNordisk MinisterrådBotanical Society of Britain and IrelandDurham UniversityCentre for Ecology and HydrologyCoventry UniversityBournemouth UniversityUniversity of CambridgeQueen's University BelfastUniversity of OxfordCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture ScienceUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeUniversity of ExeterAnglia Ruskin UniversityDirectorate for Biological SciencesInternational Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisQueen's UniversityAgentschap voor Natuur en BosNewcastle UniversityUniversity of Leeds
KeywordsHorizonInvasive speciesBiodiversityTime horizonBiosecurityDeepwater horizon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite increasing awareness of invasive non‐native species (INNS) and enhanced biosecurity controls in many countries, INNS are still arriving and establishing in new destinations, remaining a globally acknowledged threat to native biodiversity. Preventing the introduction of INNS, as opposed to controlling them once they have arrived, is recognised as the most effective approach to their management. Horizon scanning represents one of the key tools to identify high‐risk INNS that have yet to arrive within a region and has been applied in many contexts around the world, but to date there have been no studies that systematically assess the effectiveness of this approach. Here, we revisit the horizon scan for Great Britain conducted in 2013 that assessed the likelihood of high‐risk INNS arriving within the next 10 years, establishing and having an impact on biodiversity and ecosystems. We evaluated the success of this exercise in predicting arrival of these species within the subsequent 10 years. Ninety‐two species were shortlisted in the 2013 horizon scan. In total, 31 of the 92 species identified in the 2013 horizon scan had arrived by 2023. We found that 12 of the top 20 species had arrived within 10 years. In predicting arrival, there was a significant effect of species having arrived previously to Great Britain, and the number of countries in Western Europe and Baltic countries in which an INNS was found prior to 2013. Policy implications : We conclude that horizon scanning provides a rapid, affordable and successful mechanism to predict the arrival of high‐risk INNS. We highlight the importance of citizen science, including biological recording, and of local expertise for detecting and documenting arrival of INNS. We discuss knowledge gaps that could help inform and improve future horizon scanning. In addition, we recommend regularly repeating horizon scanning exercises to support biosecurity and awareness raising for INNS.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207