@article{fdi:010068329,
  title = {{S}pace invaders ; biological invasions in marine conservation planning},
  author = {{G}iakoumi, {S}. and {G}uilhaumon, {F}ran{\c{c}}ois and {K}ark, {S}. and {T}erlizzi, {A}. and {C}laudet, {J}. and {F}elline, {S}. and {C}errano, {C}. and {C}oll, {M}arta and {D}anovaro, {R}. and {F}raschetti, {S}. and {K}outsoubas, {D}. and {L}edoux, {J}. {B}. and {M}azor, {T}. and {M}erigot, {B}. and {M}icheli, {F}. and {K}atsanevakis, {S}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{A}im{B}iological invasions are major contributors to global change and native biodiversity decline. {H}owever, they are overlooked in marine conservation plans. {H}ere, we examine for the first time the extent to which marine conservation planning research has addressed (or ignored) biological invasions. {F}urthermore, we explore the change of spatial priorities in conservation plans when different approaches are used to incorporate the presence and impacts of invasive species. {L}ocation{G}lobal analysis with a focus on the {M}editerranean {S}ea region. {M}ethods{W}e conducted a systematic literature review consisting of three steps: (1) article selection using a search engine, (2) abstract screening and (3) review of pertinent articles, which were identified in the second step. {T}he information extracted included the scale and geographical location of each case study as well as the approach followed regarding invasive species. {W}e also applied the software {M}arxan to produce and compare conservation plans for the {M}editerranean {S}ea that either protect, or avoid areas impacted by invasives, or ignore the issue. {O}ne case study focused on the protection of critical habitats, and the other on endemic fish species. {R}esults{W}e found that of 119 papers on marine spatial plans in specific biogeographic regions, only three (2.5%) explicitly took into account invasive species. {W}hen comparing the different conservation plans for each case study, we found that the majority of selected sites for protection (ca. 80%) changed in the critical habitat case study, while this proportion was lower but substantial (27%) in the endemic fish species case study. {M}ain conclusions{B}iological invasions are being widely disregarded when planning for conservation in the marine environment across local to global scales. {M}ore explicit consideration of biological invasions can significantly alter spatial conservation priorities. {F}uture conservation plans should explicitly account for biological invasions to optimize the selection of marine protected areas.},
  keywords = {alien species ; biological invasions ; conservation planning ; impacts ; management actions ; marine biogeographic regions ; marine protected areas ; {M}editerranean {S}ea},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{D}iversity and {D}istributions},
  volume = {22},
  numero = {12},
  pages = {1220--1231},
  ISSN = {1366-9516},
  year = {2016},
  DOI = {10.1111/ddi.12491},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010068329},
}