[Invasive-species] New webpages for the Belgian Forum on Invasive Species

pieret.n pieret.n at fsagx.ac.be
Fri Jan 27 17:05:05 CET 2006

Dear Etienne,  Ton, Roger, Jean-Pierre and other colleagues,

Concerning the choose of a specific date determining if a species has to be 
considered like exotic or naturalized, Pysek (1998) proposed to consider as 
exotic a species reaching the introduction area as consequence of the 
activities of neolithic or postneolithic man or of his domestic animals.
In the exotic species, he distinguished two goups. The archaeophytes: 
exotics introduced before 1500, and neophytes: introduced after 1500. In 
the attached paper, he showed that a difference exists between these two 
groups: the archaeophytes are more linked to the rural environment, the 
neophytes are closely associated to human activities... consequently, the 
invasive species are more often neophytes.

This conclusion could be used in our list to identify exotic to consider. I 
mean that archaeophytes could not be considered...

However, like mentionned by Etienne, Kolar & Lodge in TREE (2001) concluded 
that "no pattern between time since introduction and successful competion 
of an invasion transition has been observed across taxa. A study aiming to 
predict the Australian weed status of plants even found invasiveness to be 
greater for longer-established species"... in contradiction with Pysek. 
Etienne proposes then to merge the classes C and D and named this class Non 
invasive exotic species ? Exotic species with low detrimental impact ? ...

I join the article



At 17:36 20/01/2006 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Ton, Roger, Jean-Pierre and other colleagues,
>I think the question of definition is really fundamental. For me, it's 
>important to focus on the species that can cause detrimental impact to 
>environment, economy or public health and to use this list as a tool to 
>make awareness about the negative impact some exotic species can have (= 
>invasive species).
>That's why I would like to propose not to have a single list including all 
>the exotic species living in Belgium, but to make the distinction between 
>the four categories described in the attached document : black list, watch 
>list, list of non invasive exotic species and list of exotic naturalised 
>As proposed by the Swiss Commission of Wild Plant Conservation, I think 
>it's important to focus on the two former categories as they include 
>exotic species that need to be monitored because of their potential 
>detrimental impact (see e.g. 
>On the other hand, species of the two latter categories are only of minor 
>importance as they probably do not represent any threat.
>I would like to ask you if we can agree on the definitions of those 
>categories, before trying to modify the Belgian species list accordingly 
>and to develop black list and watch list for Belgium 
>Thank you very much in advance for your help and suggestions. Best regards,
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:ton.vanhaaren at aquasense.nl>Ton van Haaren
>To: <mailto:invasive-species at biodiversity.be>Invasive alien species in 
>Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:41 AM
>Subject: RE: [Invasive-species] New webpages for the Belgian Forum on 
>Invasive Species
>Dear All
>As you may notice, the WEW has a different opinion about the definition of 
>an alien species. We add all species that are non-indigenous to The 
>Netherlands and are introduced into our country through the dissappearance 
>of a barrier of dispersal. Barriers that were formerly present and 
>prevented species to disperse themselves are removed and consequently 
>these species could arrive in our country. This could be the construction 
>of canals, shipping, by air etc. One of the most important barriers 
>between the Danube river basis and the Rhine river basis was removed in 
>sept. 1992 through the construction of the Main-Danube channel. This 
>definition also means that we do not discriminate in species that has any 
>effect and species that has an effect (economical, ecological or public 
>health) or species that are invasive or non-invasive or species that are 
>succesfull or unsuccesfull. We have chosen to do so for it may occur that 
>one species in one particular period is succesfull and later on 
>(re-introduces or else) succesfull and invasive.
>It is up to you were you draw the line. Most of the Dutch species 
>mentioned in our list have no (noticable) effect what so ever. But the 
>effect on the community in a certain habitat is not that easy to 
>establish. For instance the mysid-shrimp Limnomysis benedeni and the 
>gammarid shrimp Dikerogammarus villosus appear to have an effect on the 
>indigenous fauna. But both species probably are invasive in our river 
>systems because they were 'empty'. In habitats with a reasonable 
>development of indigenous fauna both species are less abundant. 
>Procambarus clarkii, Hemimysis anomala, Atyaephyra and many other species 
>are non-invasive (except for instance Orconectes limosus and Eriocheir 
>chinensis). The mosquitoe Aedes albopictus is only recorded in the 
>Netherlands in glasshouses and not in wild. But all those species will 
>appear in our Dutch list for they fitt the description of our definition. 
>But it is essential to describe in the Belgian list what your definition 
>of an exotic species is. In The Netherlands the term 'exotic' has many 
>definitions, it depends on what kind of people they are (scientists, 
>newspapers, civilians, bird-watchers etc.)
>best wishes
>Ton van Haaren
>From: BRANQUART Etienne [mailto:E.Branquart at mrw.wallonie.be]
>Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 12:46 PM
>To: Invasive alien species in Belgium
>Subject: Re: [Invasive-species] New webpages for the Belgian Forum on 
>Invasive Species
>Dear Ton, Jean-Pierre and other colleagues,
>Thank you very much for these additional remarks. I have to say that I'm 
>very impressed by the amount of information gathered by the Werkgroep 
>Ecologisch Waterbeheer (<http://www.wew.nu\exoten>www.wew.nu\exoten). I 
>updated the information presented on 
>The question is where to stop. As stated by Leo, there are hundreds of 
>adventive and naturalized plant species for Belgium but only a few of them 
>are known to be detrimental for environment. We decided earlier to include 
>in that list species that (i) are non indigenous, (ii) were recorded in 
>Belgium and (iii) are either in strong geographical expansion or are known 
>to produce detrimental impacts on environment sensu lato. According to 
>those criteria, it can be asked if we have to include in the list species 
>as Procambarus clarkii, Hemimysis anomala, Atyaephyra demareti, etc. Any 
>opinion ?
>Some additional questions :
>(i) what to do with Stenopelmus rufinasus, which is feeding exclusively on 
>Azolla (known as an IAS in Belgium) and can be considered as a good 
>biocontrol agent for this species (see 
>(ii) what to do with bark beetles as Ips typographus and Pityogenes 
>chalcographus which are mainly damaging spruce trees, which are not 
>considered as indigenous in Belgium ?
>(iii) what to do with Nysius huttoni, a bug from New Zealand which is 
>known to produce huge damage on wheat and cruciferous crops... but can 
>also feed on numerous wild plants in Europe ?
>(iv) what to do with Aedes albopictus, a mosquito vector of the human West 
>Nile Virus ?
>Thank for your ideas and suggestions. Cheers,
>  ----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:ton.vanhaaren at aquasense.nl>Ton van Haaren
>To: <mailto:invasive-species at biodiversity.be>Invasive alien species in 
>Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:36 AM
>Subject: RE: [Invasive-species] New webpages for the Belgian Forum on 
>Invasive Species
>Dear Etienne
>I have seen the invasive species list of Belgium and I do think that the 
>list is somewhat short. Although I do not have any idea how many species 
>and which species really do occur in Belgium, but there are some errors 
>made in that list. As a member of the Dutch version of invasive species 
>forum, I'm responsible for the invertebrate list of the invasive species 
>in The Netherland presented on 
><http://www.wew.nu\exoten>www.wew.nu\exoten. While verifying the Dutch 
>list with the Belgian list there are some differences of which I mention 
>some below. Also the list of freshwater species of the higher plants must 
>be longer than this (5 species!). in The Netherland there are about 30 
>species recorded.
>the absence of Corbicula fluminalis strikes me. It has been introduced in 
>The Netherlands in 1988. Dreissena polymorpha most likely originates from 
>the Ponto-Caspian area Mytilopsis leucophaeta is a species that originates 
>from N-America or NW-Africa. The first European record is from 1835 from 
>the harbour of Antwerpen. The original distribution area is the Gulf of 
>Mexico and adjacent Atlantic Ocean. Astacus leptodactylus originates form 
>Eastern Europe Chelicorophium curvispinum, Dikerogammarus villosus and D. 
>hamobaphes originate from the Ponto-Caspian area. Dikerogammarus 
>haemobaphes in Belgium seems unlikely, the nearest record in western 
>Europe seems to be some few records in Germany. Recent claims from this 
>species in the Nertherlands were all female or specimens with an artefact. 
>Orchestia cavimana originate from southern Europe the North-American 
>Gammarus tigrinus is quit common in The Netherlands since 1960. It seems 
>likely that this species also occurs in Belgium. the absence of both 
>Hemimysis anomala and Limnomysis benedeni seems peculiar. The last species 
>is extremely common throughout The Netherlands since it was introduced in 
>1997. the absence of Atyaephyra desmaresti (a meditterenean species). This 
>species has been collected in Belgium for the first time in 1886. the 
>oligochaet Quistadrilus multisetosis also occurs in Belgium and originates 
>from North-America. This species had probably been introduced (at least in 
>The Netherland) around 1980. the mosquitoe Aedes albopictus also occurs in 
>Belgium as an invasive species from North-America or Asia. There is a 
>record from 2003 from Antwerpen. Although I understand this species is 
>deliberately omitted from the list, for it's a vector of a human disease. 
>the beetle Stenopelmus rufinasus is a north-American species that has been 
>introduced in France at the beginning of the 20th century. Between 
>1915-1922 the beetle arrived in The Netherlands and is now extremely 
>common on and between Azolla. the fish Ctenopharyngidon idellus originates 
>(Dutch specimens) from china Hypophthalmichthys molitrix originates from 
>Russia or China
>Note that this is just a short list of Dutch species, and that the origin 
>or introduction year maybe different in Belgium. You may check our list on 
>Best wishes
>Ton van Haaren
>From: BRANQUART Etienne [mailto:E.Branquart at mrw.wallonie.be]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:47 PM
>To: invasive-species at biodiversity.be
>Subject: [Invasive-species] New webpages for the Belgian Forum on Invasive 
>Dear all,
>New webpages of the Belgian Forum on Invasive Species have been developed 
>and are accessible from the following URL :
>As you'll see, the list of invasive alien species in Belgium has been 
>updated, thanks to the contribution of numerous forum members. I would 
>like to take the opportunity to thank all of you who contributed to this 
>task by sending information on new invasive species in Belgium. Species 
>factsheets will be incorporated in the new website in a few days, 
>including additional species profiles on fishes, parakeets, etc. A special 
>thank to Dieter Anseeuw, Marie Pairon and Diederik Strubbe who prepared 
>background information for those new profiles.
>Of course, new species and information can be added to this reference list 
>for Belgium. Please feel free to send new information on the list or 
>directly to my e-mail address.
>On those pages, new information is also avaiable on international IAS 
>resources (working groups, research networks, etc.), thematic news and 
>events, etc. Additional information on legislation and other IAS-related 
>issues will be also developed in the future. Any comment or suggestion is 
>very welcome.
>Very best regards,
>Etienne Branquart
>Dr.  Etienne Branquart
>Belgian Biodiversity Platform (SPO)
>Ministere de la Region wallonne
>Centre de Recherche de la Nature, des Forets et du Bois (DGRNE)
>Avenue Marechal Juin, 23
>B-5030 Gembloux- Belgium
>Tel :   + 32 (0)81 620 420
>Fax :  + 32 (0)81 620 436
>E-mail : <mailto:E.Branquart at mrw.wallonie.be>E.Branquart at mrw.wallonie.be
>URL: <http://www.biodiversity.be>http://www.biodiversity.be
>Ce message n'engage aucunement la DGRNE et reste informel.  Tout courrier
>officiel doit toujours actuellement être confirmé par lettre et revêtu de la
>signature d'un agent dûment mandaté
><< Please read our E-mail Disclaimer at http://emaildisclaimer.grontmij.com >>
>Invasive-species mailing list
>Invasive-species at biodiversity.be
><< Please read our E-mail Disclaimer at http://emaildisclaimer.grontmij.com >>
>Invasive-species mailing list
>Invasive-species at biodiversity.be
>Invasive-species mailing list
>Invasive-species at biodiversity.be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.biodiversity.be/pipermail/invasive-species/attachments/20060127/0011487d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Pysek 2003.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 839440 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.biodiversity.be/pipermail/invasive-species/attachments/20060127/0011487d/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
Faculté des Sciences agronomiques de Gembloux
Laboratoire d'Ecologie
Passage des Déportés, 2
5030 Gembloux
Tél.: 081/62.22.40
Fax.: 081/61.48.17
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.biodiversity.be/pipermail/invasive-species/attachments/20060127/0011487d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Invasive-species mailing list