TY - JOUR A1 - Darwall, William A1 - Bremerich, Vanessa A1 - De Wever, Aaike A1 - Dell, Anthony I. A1 - Freyhof, Joerg A1 - Gessner, Mark O. A1 - Grossart, Hans-Peter A1 - Harrison, Ian A1 - Irvine, Ken A1 - Jähnig, Sonja C. A1 - Jeschke, Jonathan M. A1 - Lee, Jessica J. A1 - Lu, Cai A1 - Lewandowska, Aleksandra M. A1 - Monaghan, Michael T. A1 - Nejstgaard, Jens C. A1 - Patricio, Harmony A1 - Schmidt-Kloiber, Astrid A1 - Stuart, Simon N. A1 - Thieme, Michele A1 - Tockner, Klement A1 - Turak, Eren A1 - Weyl, Olaf T1 - The alliance for freshwater life BT - a global call to unite efforts for freshwater biodiversity science and conservation JF - Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems N2 - 1. Global pressures on freshwater ecosystems are high and rising. Viewed primarily as a resource for humans, current practices of water use have led to catastrophic declines in freshwater species and the degradation of freshwater ecosystems, including their genetic and functional diversity. Approximately three-quarters of the world's inland wetlands have been lost, one-third of the 28 000 freshwater species assessed for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List are threatened with extinction, and freshwater vertebrate populations are undergoing declines that are more rapid than those of terrestrial and marine species. This global loss continues unchecked, despite the importance of freshwater ecosystems as a source of clean water, food, livelihoods, recreation, and inspiration. 2. The causes of these declines include hydrological alterations, habitat degradation and loss, overexploitation, invasive species, pollution, and the multiple impacts of climate change. Although there are policy initiatives that aim to protect freshwater life, these are rarely implemented with sufficient conviction and enforcement. Policies that focus on the development and management of fresh waters as a resource for people almost universally neglect the biodiversity that they contain. 3. Here we introduce the Alliance for Freshwater Life, a global initiative, uniting specialists in research, data synthesis, conservation, education and outreach, and policymaking. This expert network aims to provide the critical mass required for the effective representation of freshwater biodiversity at policy meetings, to develop solutions balancing the needs of development and conservation, and to better convey the important role freshwater ecosystems play in human well-being. Through this united effort we hope to reverse this tide of loss and decline in freshwater biodiversity. We introduce several short- and medium-term actions as examples for making positive change, and invite individuals, organizations, authorities, and governments to join the Alliance for Freshwater Life. KW - biodiversity KW - conservation evaluation KW - endangered species KW - fish KW - invertebrates KW - macrophytes Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2958 SN - 1052-7613 SN - 1099-0755 VL - 28 IS - 4 SP - 1015 EP - 1022 PB - Wiley CY - Hoboken ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Braga, Raul Renno A1 - Gomez-Aparicio, Lorena A1 - Heger, Tina A1 - Simoes Vitule, Jean Ricardo A1 - Jeschke, Jonathan M. T1 - Structuring evidence for invasional meltdown BT - broad support but with biases and gaps JF - Biological invasions : unique international journal uniting scientists in the broad field of biological invasions N2 - Negative interactions have been suggested as a major barrier for species arriving in a new habitat. More recently, positive interactions drew attention from community assembly theory and invasion science. The invasional meltdown hypothesis (IMH) introduced the idea that positive interactions among non-native species could facilitate one another’s invasion, even increasing their impact upon the native community. Many studies have addressed IMH, but with contrasting results, reflecting various types of evidence on a multitude of scales. Here we use the hierarchy-of-hypotheses (HoH) approach to differentiate key aspects of IMH, organizing and linking empirical studies to sub-hypotheses of IMH. We also assess the level of empirical support for each sub-hypothesis based on the evidence reported in the studies. We identified 150 studies addressing IMH. The majority of studies support IMH, but the evidence comes from studies with different aims and questions. Supporting studies at the community or ecosystem level are currently rare. Evidence is scarce for marine habitats and vertebrates. Few sub-hypotheses are questioned by more than 50% of the evaluated studies, indicating that non-native species do not affect each other’s survival, growth, reproduction, abundance, density or biomass in reciprocal A ↔ B interactions. With the HoH for IMH presented here, we can monitor progress in empirical tests and evidences of IMH. For instance, more tests at the community and ecosystem level are needed, as these are necessary to address the core of this hypothesis. KW - Facilitation KW - Mutualism KW - Review KW - Nonindigenous KW - Exotic Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1582-2 SN - 1387-3547 SN - 1573-1464 VL - 20 IS - 4 SP - 923 EP - 936 PB - Springer CY - Dordrecht ER -