Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non‐native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non‐indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non‐native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non‐native’, i.e. those non‐native species that have established self‐sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non‐native’ – populations of established non‐native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non‐native species.

中文翻译：

---

驯服入侵科学中的术语风暴

科学中的标准化术语对于清晰的解释和交流非常重要。在入侵科学这一动态且快速发展的学科中，技术术语的激增缺乏一个标准化的发展框架。其结果是术语的使用错综复杂且不一致，对损害和干预措施的描述存在各种差异。因此，需要一个标准化框架来提供清晰、普遍适用且一致的术语，以促进研究人员、利益相关者和政策制定者之间更有效的沟通。术语不一致的原因是自 20 世纪 90 年代以来，由来自不同学科和国家的专家撰写的关于生物入侵模式和过程的科学出版物以及立法者和政策制定者侧重于实际应用、法规和资源管理的出版物呈指数级增长。 。跨利益相关者协调和标准化术语仍然是入侵科学中的一个挑战。在这里，我们回顾和评估入侵科学中使用的多个术语（例如“非本地”、“外来”、“入侵”或“入侵者”、“外来”、“非本土”、“自然化”、“害虫”） ）提出更简化和标准化的术语。我们提出并翻译成其他 28 种语言的简化框架基于以下术语 (我）“非本地”，表示物种被运输到其自然生物地理范围之外，（二、）“已建立的非本地物种”，即那些在野外新地点建立了自我维持种群的非本地物种，以及（三、）“入侵性非本地物种”——已建立的非本地物种种群，最近在其入侵范围内主动或被动地扩散或迅速扩散，无论有或没有人类干预。我们还强调了概念化“传播”对于侵袭性分类和“影响”对于管理的重要性。最后，我们提出了一种基于（我）分散机制，（二、）物种起源，（三、）人口状况，以及（四号） 影响。总的来说，我们提出的框架在不引入新术语的情况下旨在促进入侵科学和非本地物种管理方面的有效沟通和合作。