Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The educational community and its knowledge and perceptions of native and invasive alien species

Abstract

Environmental education seeks to foster an appreciation for nature and the impact of humans on it while introducing citizens to scientific thinking. Biological invasions affect different aspects of life on earth and mandate urgent management actions. Education and public awareness are strongly recommended for successful prevention and management of invasive alien species (IAS). This work presents a study on knowledge and perception of the educational community of Argentina about native species and IAS. We designed an on-line semi-structured questionnaire to examine perception of the environment, recognition of native species and IAS and awareness about biological invasions. Educators recognised an important number of biotic components, mostly represented by trees, birds and mammals. Recognition of native species and IAS, and awareness of biological invasions were different between NST (Natural Science Teachers) and non-NST. Respondents had different performances when they were exposed to recognising native species though written names or photographs. Out of 532 respondents, 56% knew what biological invasions are, 21% answered “Maybe” and 23% had never heard about them. We need to foster capacity-building and encourage a two-way communication between educators and scientists, formally and informally, to engage the participation of the whole society in recognition, prevention and management of IAS.

Introduction

Raising public awareness is important to preserve ecosystems, counteract loss of biodiversity and understand the impact of humans on nature1,2,3,4. Natural ecosystems provide services that human society needs (i.e., food, medicine, climate regulation, water and soil cycles, pollination, and pest control)1. The responsible use of these ecosystem services necessarily requires public understanding. Environmental education, which seeks to foster an appreciation for nature and the impact of humans on it while introducing citizens to scientific thinking, plays an important role in this concern.

One of the main threats that affect ecosystems are biological invasions5,6,7. Invasive alien species (IAS) are moved far from their native ranges into new regions where they can overcome different biogeographical and ecological barriers, with escalating impacts on the environment, the economies and social activities6,7,8,9,10. According to Pysek and Richardson6 IAS damage ecosystem services, disrupt human well-being and are the 2nd cause of biodiversity decline, therefore IAS mandate urgent actions in the form of prevention, early detection, eradication, management and control activities11. While public awareness and education are often considered an important part of prevention they should also be seen as essential to other phases of management of IAS12. Since public opinions and attitudes can potentially affect continued introductions and management of IAS, it is imperative to understand the public’s level of knowledge and attitudes toward these pests. Recently, research on biological invasions has recognized the importance of social perceptions of IAS3,13,14,15,16 with the majority of studies focusing on the general public17.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) proclaimed The Sustainable Development Goals18 that established the implementation of measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of IAS. In reference to environmental education, it is expected that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development. To achieve these goals, countries need to substantially increase the number of trained teachers and include the concept of biological invasions or its discipline in education, whether in formal or informal contexts. For this, it is expected that researchers and educators develop, implement and evaluate novel and user-friendly resources and tools3,19.

Despite current legislation and actions led by government agencies and non-governmental environmental organizations (NGEO) to raise public awareness, many IAS and native species are still not recognised as such by citizens16,20. The topic of biological invasions is relatively new and it has only recently become relevant to environmental educators4. Several studies have evaluated the perception of students (children and teenagers) and student teachers4,7,9,10,21,22, about biodiversity and IAS in countries such Argentina, Brazil, USA, Germany, Switzerland and Spain. While Gayford2 studied perception and understanding of student from their teachers perspective in UK, no studies have analysed such perception in teachers yet.

Teachers as environmental educators are supposed to act as mediators between scientists and students. Moreover, their personal and professional perception of the environment and IAS does have an impact on how teachers approach their tasks as mediators on student learning. In this context, we analysed the perception and knowledge of native species and IAS of the educational community (mostly teachers) of Argentina, with a special focus on those with an environmental or natural science background (Natural Science Teachers, hereafter NST). We (1) explored the perception of the environment, its biotic components, and the global and local threats, of the educational community. We also (2) evaluated the recognition of photographs and written names of native species depending on the NTS condition and respondents age. Finally, (3) we studied the educational community awareness of biological invasions.

Results

Characterisation of the respondent

The internet-based survey questionnaire was completed by 532 respondents, a representative sample of the teacher population of Argentina (Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Eq S1). They were widely distributed in the country, 16 out of 24 provinces (including Buenos Aires city) (Fig. 1). More than half of the responses (279/532) were recorded within the first 30 days. Respondents covered a wide range of ages (mean = 41.21 years old, median = 40.00 years old, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S1, Supplementary Fig. S1).

Figure 1
figure 1

Geographic distribution of the questionnaire respondents (red dots). Blue gradient represents the number of inhabitants per province (state). Dark blue represents a higher number meanwhile light blue represents a lower number of inhabitants. Map was created in QGIS version 3.16 https://www.qgis.org/es/site/.

The educational community was composed by 84% of teachers in activity, 12% student teachers, 3% retired teachers and 1% non-formal education teachers (Table 1). Respondents had been working on education an average of 12.89 years (Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S1), 44% in secondary schools (12–18-year-old children), 24% in universities, 19% in primary schools (6–12-year-old children), 9% in Kindergarten (children under 6 years old), 3% in special education, and 2% in non-formal education (and others) (Table 1). Among these, NST comprised 56% while non-NST were 44%.

Table 1 Socio-demographic characterisation of respondents.

Only 15% of the respondents were members of an NGEO, and more than half (65%) visit natural protected areas more frequently than every 3 years. Most respondents (97%) practice some outdoor activity: 45% walk, 26% work in their garden, 17% actively look for animals/plants (e.g., bird watching), 9% sports like hiking or canoeing (Table 1).

Perception of the environment

Most of the respondents considered that all threats caused medium to high impact to the environment but there was a definite inclination to think that environmental threats have a higher impact globally than locally (Q11–Q12 Supplementary Appendix S1, Fig. 2, Friedman test adjusted for ties, Critical value = 2098.541, gl = 7, P(Chisq) = 0). On a global scale, climate change, habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation of natural resources and pollution were ranked as the highest impact, followed by expansion of agriculture, floodings and biological invasions. On a local scale, pollution was perceived as having the highest impact on the environment, followed by climate change and habitat loss and degradation. Overexploitation of natural resources, floodings, biological invasions and expansion of agriculture ranked with lower impact (Fig. 2, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S2).

Figure 2
figure 2

Impact perception of different threats to the environment at local and global scale. Different letters mean a significant difference (Friedman test, P < 0.05).

When respondents were asked to mention biotic components of their environment (Q13, Supplementary Appendix S1), most of them mentioned trees and birds (frequency ~ 150), followed by mammals and invertebrates (frequency ~ 100), and with low frequency (less than 20) herbaceous plants, shrubs, amphibian/reptiles and others (Fig. 3a). Considering biotic components at species level, respondents indicated 78 different species (mentioned at least five times) which were graphed in a word cloud (Fig. 3b). “Ant” and “dove” were the most frequently mentioned components followed by “willow” and the birds “hornero” and “thrush”. Interestingly, only one respondent (0.2%) mentioned humans as a biotic component of the environment. However, in the following question (Q14, Supplementary Appendix S1) when they were specifically asked if they considered humans as part of the environment, 94% responded “yes”, 2% “no” and 4% responded “maybe”. When asked to explain their reasoning behind their answer, the most common justification for these last answers (Q15, Supplementary Appendix S1) contemplated humans as part of the environment and interacting with nature and species, particularly modifying them (Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Fig. S2).

Figure 3
figure 3

Respondent perception of biotic components of the environment, (a) frequency of biotic components listed by respondents grouped in eight categories, (b) word cloud of listed biotic components by respondents. Bigger letter size implies more frequency of presence in replies.

Recognition of native species and IAS

The recognition of native species based on their photographs (Q16) or species and common written name (Q17) was analysed through 112 models (Fig. 4, Table 2, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3). In general, out of the seven models tested for each species in both formats (photograph and written names), the two that combined NST and Age as explanatory variables with and without interaction were selected. However, for visual comparison purposes and to contemplate one of the original aims of this research, models that consider these two variables were also graphed (Fig. 4, Table 2) for those cases where they were not the best explanatory models (Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3).

Figure 4
figure 4

Predicted models of native and non-native species (invasive alien species, IAS) recognition from their photos and written names, considering age as an explanatory continuous variable in X axis and Natural Science Teachers (NST) of the respondents as categorical explanatory variable in two colours. Native species are shown on the left of the figure and non-native species on the right. Each frame consists of the respondent's recognition of native species offered graphed as dots (1 = native and 0 = non-native). Curves and confidence bands (95%) came from generalised linear models.

Table 2 Generalised linear model from recognition of native species. Respondents selected native/s species of photos or written names of eight species (four native species-four invasive alien species). Selection of native species (yes or no questions) was modelled considering age and if teachers were or not, Natural Science Teachers (NST). Significant differences are written in bold.

In general, recognitions were more accurate when the respondents saw written names rather than photos, both for native species and IAS (Fig. 4). Most respondents recognised all native species, cockspur coral tree, capybara and thrush as such, except for water primrose (Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S1). Different results were obtained when presented with the photo or the written name of the cockspur coral tree (E. crista-galli, Fig. 4). NST recognition of the photo remained almost constant close to one (~ 0.8), whereas non-NST increased with age (significant interaction P < 0.5, Table 2, Supplementary Table S3). When presented with the species' written name recognition only increased significantly with age (no interaction model, Fig. 4, Table 2, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3). Out of the four native species offered, water primrose (L. g. subsp. hexapetala) was the least selected as such. The recognition of this aquatic plant differed between the photo and the species’ written name. The best models that explained water primrose’s photo recognition as native were the one with NGEO as explanatory variable and followed by the one with NST and Age (model with interaction, Fig. 4, Table 2, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3). NST recognised water primrose as native increasingly with age whereas for non-NST recognition decreased. For the species' written name NST recognised water primrose as native more than non-NST (no interaction model, Fig. 4, Table 2, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3). For capybaras’ photo and written name (H. hydrochaeris), NST recognised its native condition better than non-NST. Also, the species’ written name had a marginal recognition increase with age (no interaction models, Fig. 4, Table 2, Supplementary Appendix S2. Supplementary Table S3). In the case of the thrush photo (T. rufuventris), NST recognised the species as native better than non-NST. However, for the written name no significant differences between NST and non-NST were observed (no interaction models, Fig. 4, Table 2, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3).

On the other hand, IAS were least chosen as native (Native Species Recognition Value < 0.5, Fig. 4). Accurately, NST did not select the chinaberry tree (M. azedarach) as native compared to the non-NST regardless of respondents' age, both for the photo and written name (no interaction model, Fig. 4, Table 2, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3). Recognition of the yellow flag iris (I. pseudacorus) photo as native was low but increased with respondent’s age regardless of their NST condition (no interaction model, Fig. 4, Table 2, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3). For this species' written name, the null model had the lowest AIC, implying that recognition was free running, followed by the model with NST condition even though no parameters were significant (Fig. 4, Table 2, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3). Respondents did not choose the beaver photo (C. canadiensis) as a native species regardless of their NST condition and age. On the other hand, with the written species name, NST did not select the beaver as native compared to the non-NST (no interaction models, Fig. 4, Table 2, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3). Finally, regarding the IAS starling (S. vulgaris), both photo and the written name had low values of native species recognition and showed no significant differences between NST and non-NST nor Age (no interaction models, Fig. 4, Table 2, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3).

Biological invasions awareness

Respondents showed great awareness of biological invasions (Q18, Supplementary Appendix S1) and it was more noticeable on NST (Chi-squared = 38.812, df = 2, P (Chisq) = 3.733e−09, Fig. 5a, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Fig. S3). From a total of 532 respondents, 298 (56%) knew what biological invasions are, 111 (21%) answered “Maybe” and 123 (23%) had never heard about them. From those who knew, two out of three (66%) were NST (Fig. 5a). Such a ratio was reverted on those who did not know the concept, 2/3 were non-NST (66%, Fig. 5a). Finally, those who were not sure if they knew the concept were balanced between NST and non-NST (Fig. 5a).

Figure 5
figure 5

Biological invasions awareness from education community, (a) perception knowledge of Natural Science Teacher (NST) and non-NST, and (b) word cloud from text mining analysis of respondent knowledge about biological invasion. Bigger letter size implies more frequency of presence in replies.

People expressed with more detail what they knew about biological invasions and examples in Q19 (Supplementary Appendix S1, Fig. 5b). The most frequently mentioned words were “beaver”, “native”, “ecosystem”, “exotic”, “invasion”, “environment”, “introduced” and “natural”. The word “beaver” was the IAS most frequently mentioned for both, NST and non-NST (Fig. 5b, Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Figs. S4S5). Other IAS like “sparrow” (Passer domesticus), “deer” (Cervus elaphus), “privet” (Ligustrum spp.), “squirrel” (Callosciurus erythraeus), “hare” (Lepus europaeus), “boar” (Sus scrofa), “parrot” (Myiopsitta monachus), and “honey locust” (Gleditsia triacanthos) were more frequently mentioned in NST answers (Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Fig. S4).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study on understanding and perception of environmental issues of a teacher community focusing on native species, IAS and the awareness of biological invasions. A key aspect we found in this study is the difference between NST and non-NST regarding environmental issues.

The surveyed educational community perceived the impact of different threats to the environment to be greater globally than locally, highlighting pollution, habitat loss and degradation and overexploitation of natural resources. These drivers were also considered the most detrimental in another study with student teachers, alluding responsibility to demographic growth of the human population23. Biological invasions, one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss5, was considered less important both globally and locally in the present study as well as in other studies9,23. This could be a consequence of the absence, in the school curricula, of IAS threats to the environment4,7,10.

People trained in science and environmental areas have a better knowledge and perception of native species and IAS7,24. Here, NST recognised native species as such better than non-NST, and did not select correctly non-native species or IAS. These results were similar to other studies on perception of IAS10,16,25,26, and to others on people’s awareness of natural disasters27. Similarly, Remmele and Lindemann-Matthies10 found that biology teacher students identified IAS better than teacher students of other subjects, and more often selected management strategies to control them.

In our study, the educational community performed better in recognising native species when they chose between written names rather than photographs of the same species. Both NST and non-NST recognised the cockspur coral tree or ceibo as native with greater precision when they saw the written name, probably in accordance with its cultural value and oral and written spread. This species is important as it is the national flower, widely represented in literature and bill illustrations28. We had previously conducted outreach activities with similar results (Supplementary Appendix S3), where cockspur coral tree was also better recognised when teachers were offered the written name rather than the photograph. Nevertheless, recognising the name does not necessarily mean recognising the tree. On the other hand, IAS such as starling and beaver were considered as not native by most of the respondents. In particular, beavers are one of the main IAS vertebrates in Argentina. They are very well known for building dykes in important water courses of Tierra del Fuego Province (south of Argentina) with their environmental damaging consequences downstream29. This dilemma seems to lay on a variety of explanations, depending on each case, from how images or words (names in this case) are processed in the brain to the absence of a real search image to recognise and compare. This could also be attributed to how nature is taught, understood or perceived, from theoretical aspects in a classroom3. In Argentina, outdoor learning or hands-on practicing is not necessarily a school requirement and therefore it could be expected that people do not recognise photographs of nature, animals and plants. Traditional teaching methods often isolate classroom environments from relevant local scientific topics, separating students’ learning from actual processes and patterns that occur in nature30.

We found that the age of the respondents influenced the recognition of some species. However, there is not a clear pattern on how age influences not only NST and non-NST but also how it marks a difference between IAS and native species. A similar age-related result was found in people’s perceptions of alien parakeets24,31. In concordance, Fitzgerald32 also found that older people are reluctant to choose an IAS while we found the opposite pattern with the invasive yellow flag iris. This may be showing some changes that occurred in education and cultural aspects in the last decades regarding teaching methodologies or any other approaches to science and environmental themes. These inconclusive results should encourage more research in this aspect.

Biological invasions are becoming widely recognised and the awareness of their impacts is increasing7,20. More than half of the respondents were aware of biological invasions, especially NST who recognised more plant and animal IAS (e.g., privet, beaver, deer, squirrel, boar, parrot, starling) compared to the non-NST group. Most of these IAS are included in the Project of IAS National Strategy (ENEEI, acronym in Spanish), coordinated by the National Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, which recorded similar percentages of interest, awareness and recognition of IAS20. Interesting results could be obtained by conducting similar studies between regions with shared IAS problems (e.g., I. pseudacorus and M. azedarach invade Argentina and South Africa)33 and regions that share native and invasive species in a reciprocal way (e.g., L. g. subsp. hexapetala native to South America and invasive in Europe; and I. pseudacorus native to Europe and invasive in South America)34,35. Biological invasions will continue to increase—often at accelerating rates—in the next three decades36 impacting on biodiversity, ecology, and socio-economic and human health systems22 and demanding urgent management policies20,37,38,39. It is relevant because acceptance of IAS management (e.g., control or removal techniques) could be related to having a background of environmental knowledge4,10,26. Results from these studies could help to obtain greater support and compromise from a multiple-stakeholder approach: policy makers, scientists, teachers, students, non-formal educators and the general public2,3,10.

From our results, we encourage improvements in environmental education for currently working and future teachers. Knowledge and recognition of native species, and IAS and their potential threats should be included in formal and non-formal educational curricula using friendly novel tools to capture also the attention of the new generations. Citizen Science projects, defined as researchers engaging the public in data collection to increase scientific knowledge40, related to IAS are on the rise36,41,42,43,44. They can improve communication with the public so that it can bring changes in participants’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviours45,46,47,48. For students it can be an opportunity to participate in authentic scientific researches, thereby increasing students’ interest, motivation and attitudes towards science or the environment49.

In the context of formal education, curricula should promptly acquire changes to reach the expected goals successfully, including hands-on learning activities and formal outside learning, not only in subjects like biology, but also in a cross-curricular approach at schools and universities3,4,7,10,22. For instance, a stronger focus on species taxonomy might help teachers to share this knowledge in class10,37,38. Activities like discussion groups, role play and formal outdoor learning, proved to be useful to generate greater involvement in various scientific topics2,7,51, and prevent gender gaps in sciences52. As reported by Verbrugge et al.3 and Sosa et al.53 students and teachers can act as multiplying agents who can contribute to solving environmental problems. IAS need to be treated in a multiple and contextualised way since environmental problems involve and are related to numerous aspects of society50.

Non-formal education is related to the cultural identity of societies and their environment. Amplifying NGEO campaigns, botanic gardens, museums, wildlife parks contribution, park rangers’ tasks, and programs of reintroductions of locally-native-extinct species54 (e.g., anteaters, jaguar) are fundamental tools to increase and spread the environmental knowledge and awareness to the whole community2,55,56.

Conclusions

In accordance with the UNDP objectives, all educators (trained or not in environmental issues) should acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to promote sustainable development. Campaigns to increase awareness on environmental issues and perception of native flora and fauna of the community should be improved. We need to foster capacity-building, encourage two-way communication between educators and scientists to impact public participation right through from kindergarten to the university levels. We must strengthen environmental awareness-raising of people in relation to the role of humans as a part of nature, to find solutions for environmental threats, such as biological invasions. To achieve this, cross-curricular work, including co-development of educational material, is necessary in environmental issues to empower educators, both formal and informal, in the whole of society.

Materials and methods

Survey planning and data collection

Argentina is a country extended along 18 ecoregions57 with high biodiversity, and in the last decade, the number of IAS has increased (> 1000 spp.) causing an estimated loss of US$ 3.4 billion, equivalent to 0.63% of the gross domestic product58. We investigated the knowledge and perception of native species and IAS of the educational community in Argentina (~ 1,400,000 teachers)59. We designed a survey to query a sample of individuals from this educational community regarding their perception of the environment, recognition of native species and IAS, and their understanding of biological invasions. It consisted of an online semi-structured questionnaire of 19 sequenced questions using Google Forms with an introductory paragraph indicating the purpose of the study. The questionnaire covered four main areas: (1) characterisation of the respondents, (2) perception of the environment (biotic components and environmental threats), (3) recognition of native species and IAS, and (4) awareness of biological invasions (Supplementary Appendix S1). We used a “snowball” sampling approach through emails, social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp), and web sites from Universidad Nacional de Hurlingham (UNAHUR, unahur.edu.ar) and FuEDEI (fuedei.org). Responses were recorded during 110 days (June 5–September 23, 2020) under COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. This study was approved by UNAHUR and FuEDEI, and formal written consent was not required according to guidelines and regulations, therefore the UNAHUR Bioethics Committee confirmed the non-need for informed consent in the case of an anonymous survey like this work.

Characterisation of the respondent

To characterise the socio-demographic profile, the respondents were asked to answer: their age, city/town, education level and how they are related to education. If they were teachers we asked: subject, level and for how long they have been teaching (Supplementary Appendix S1). Later in the analysis, respondents were divided into two groups: NST (Biology, Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry) and non-NST (e.g., Art, Social Science, Literature, Physical Education).

Perception of the environment

In this section, we asked respondents to rate from 1 to 3 (1 being low and 3 high) the impact certain threats (e.g., climate change, pollution, flooding, habitat and loss degradation among others) have on the environment at local (their community) and global scale (Q11–Q12, Supplementary Appendix S1). Ranks of threats were analysed by Friedman test in agricolae package60 (version 1.3-3), followed by multiple comparison through LSD test.

We asked them to list three biotic components of the environment (Q13, Supplementary Appendix S1). We then asked if they considered human beings as a part of the environment and why (Q14–Q15, Supplementary Appendix S1). We grouped biotic components into eight taxonomic categories: trees, birds, mammals, invertebrates, herbaceous, shrubs, amphibians and reptiles, and others; and visualised their frequency through histograms. Biotic components listed (Q13) and answers as to why humans are part of the environment (Q15) were respectively analysed through text mining analysis with tm package61 (version 0.7-7) in R software62 and finally graphed the 100 most frequent words in world clouds.

Recognition of native species and IAS

We estimated the respondents’ recognition of native species through Q16 and Q17 (Supplementary Appendix S1). Respondents were asked to recognise native species from the Argentine environment by two different approaches: eight photographs (Q16) and eight written names (common and scientific) of the same species (Q17). Each question had four native and four non-native species randomly distributed (Google Forms tool).

The native species were: cockspur coral tree (Erythrina crista-galli, ceibo in Spanish), water primrose (Ludwigia grandiflora subsp. hexapetala, duraznillo de agua in Spanish), capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris, carpincho in Spanish), and thrush (Turdus rufuventris, zorzal in Spanish). We choose the cockspur coral tree because it is the Argentine national flower63 and water primrose as it is a native aquatic plant from South America not commonly known64. The capybara was chosen because it is the biggest rodent in the world and a typical species of the largest wetland in Argentina (Del Plata Basin)65, and the thrush is one of the most abundant birds in urban and non-urban areas of the country66.

The non-native species (in this case also IAS) selected belong to the same taxonomic or environmental group as the natives (trees, aquatic plants, mammals and birds). They were chinaberry tree (Melia azedarach, paraíso in Spanish), yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus, lirio amarillo in Spanish), beaver (Castor canadiensis, castor in Spanish), and starling (Sturnus vulgaris, estornino in Spanish).

The selected IAS were recently listed as nationally “Restricted and mandatory control species”39. The chinaberry tree is one of the most allergenic trees in Argentina that was highly used as an ornamental tree in public spaces67. The beaver is one of the most harmful mammals in southern Argentina29. The starling was selected for its great capacity to adapt and reproduce in urban and peri-urban areas, forming flocks of thousands of individuals68. Finally, yellow flag iris is one of the most recent and fast-expanding IAS in most Argentine wetlands, appreciated as an ornamental for its yellow flowers69.

We modelled the recognition of native species using generalised linear models (GLM) based on binomial distribution with a log link function, considering recognition of native species (photographs or written names) as the response variable with and without interaction of the explanatory variables (Age, NST, Education level, and NGEO membership) (Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3). Model selection was based according to the lowest AIC (minimum model) and Delta AIC (< 2), parsimony principle, and considering the objectives of this studies (Supplementary Appendix S2, Supplementary Table S3).

Biological invasions awareness

Perception of biological invasions was addressed in Q18 and Q19 (Supplementary Appendix S1). We asked if respondents were aware of the concept of biological invasions, then analysed and compared the frequency of yes–no-maybe answers using Pearson’s Chi-squared test. In Q19 we requested more details and examples. Comments were analysed through text mining analysis with tm61 package in R software62 and finally the 100 most frequent words graphed in a world cloud.

References

  1. Yli-Panula, E., Jeronen, E., Lemmetty, P. & Pauna, A. Teaching methods in biology promoting biodiversity education. Sustain. 10, 1–18 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gayford, C. Education: A teacher’s perspective. Environ. Educ. Res. 6, 37–41 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Verbrugge, L. N. H. et al. Novel tools and best practices for education about invasive alien species. Manag. Biol. Invasions 12, 8–24 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Waliczek, T. M., Williamson, P. S. & Oxley, F. M. College student knowledge and perceptions of invasive species. HortTechnology Hortte 27, 550–556 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, I. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. (2019) https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3553579.

  6. Pyšek, P. & Richardson, D. M. Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35, 25–55 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cordeiro de Melo, E. P. et al. Biological invasions in brazilian environmental science courses: Do we need new approaches?. Neotrop. Biol. Conserv. 16, 221–238 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Richardson, D. M. et al. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: Concepts and definitions. Divers. Distrib. 6, 93–107 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bermudez, G. M. A. & Lindemann-Matthies, P. “What matters is species richness”—high school students’ understanding of the components of biodiversity. Res. Sci. Educ. 50, 2159–2187 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Remmele, M. & Lindemann-Matthies, P. Dead or alive? Teacher students’ perception of invasive alien animal species and attitudes towards their management. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 16, em1840 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hulme, P. E. Beyond control: Wider implications for the management of biological invasions. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 835–847 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shackleton, R. T. et al. Stakeholder engagement in the study and management of invasive alien species. J. Environ. Manag. 229, 88–101 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Novoa, A., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Fried, J. & Vimercati, G. Does public awareness increase support for invasive species management? Promising evidence across taxa and landscape types. Biol. Invasions 19, 3691–3705 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shackleton, R. T. et al. Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manag. 229, 10–26 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shackleton, R. T., Larson, B. M. H., Novoa, A., Richardson, D. M. & Kull, C. A. The human and social dimensions of invasion science and management. J. Environ. Manag. 229, 1–9 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cordeiro, B., Marchante, H., Castro, P. & Marchante, E. Does public awareness about invasive plants pays off? An analysis of knowledge and perceptions of environmentally aware citizens in Portugal. Biol. Invasions 22, 2267–2281 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kapitza, K., Zimmermann, H., Martín-López, B. & von Wehrden, H. Research on the social perception of invasive species: A systematic literature review. NeoBiota 43, 47–68 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. United Nations. The sustainable development goals report 2019. United Nations publication issued by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs https://www.un-ilibrary.org/economic-and-social-development/the-sustainable-development-goals-report-2019_55eb9109-en (2019) https://doi.org/10.18356/55eb9109-en. (Accessed 5 October 2020).

  19. Stylinski, C., Storksdieck, M., Canzoneri, N., Klein, E. & Johnson, A. Impacts of a comprehensive public engagement training and support program on scientists’ outreach attitudes and practices. Int. J Sci. Educ. Part B Commun. Public Engagem. 8, 340–354 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. MAyDS. Estrategia de comunicación y concientización. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/estrategia-de-comunicacion-.pdf (2017). (Accessed 12 March 2021).

  21. Lindemann-matthies, P. The influence of an educational program on children’s perception of biodiversity. J. Environ. Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960209600805 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ladrera, R., Robredo, B., Ortega-lasuen, U., Díez, J. R. & Ruiz-gonzález, A. Unprepared to deal with invasion: Pre-service teachers’ perception, knowledge and attitudes toward invasive species. Sustain. 12, 1–17 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Vilches, A. M., Legarralde, T. I., Ramírez, S. & Darrigran, G. Investigación y desarrollo Conocimiento y valoración de la biodiversidad en estudiantes del último año de profesorados de biología y geografía de Argentina knowledge and assessment of biodiversity of future biology and geography teachers in Argentina. Rev. Educ. Biol. 18, 46–58 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ribeiro, J. et al. Investigating people’s perceptions of alien parakeets in urban environments. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 67, 1–9 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gbedomon, R. C., Salako, V. K. & Schlaepfer, M. A. Diverse views among scientists on non-native species. NeoBiota 54, 49 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ekanayake, E. M. B. P., Xie, Y., Ibrahim, A. S., Karunaratne, N. T. P. & Ahmad, S. Effective governance for management of invasive alien plants: Evidence from the perspective of forest and wildlife officers in Sri Lanka. PeerJ 2020, 1–24 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Subedi, S., Hetényi, G. & Shackleton, R. Impact of an educational program on earthquake awareness and preparedness in Nepal. Geosci. Commun. 3, 279–290 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Banco Central de la República Argentina. http://www.bcra.gob.ar/MediosPago/Emisiones_vigentes.asp (2021). (Accessed 12 March 2021).

  29. Lizarralde, M., Escobar, J. M. & Deferrari, G. Invader species in Argentina: A review about the beaver (Castor canadensis) population situation on Tierra del Fuego ecosystem. Interciencia 29, 352-356+403 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 37, 295–317 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Luna, Á., Edelaar, P. & Shwartz, A. Assessment of social perception of an invasive parakeet using a novel visual survey method. NeoBiota 89, 71–89 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fitzgerald, G., Fitzgerald, N. & Davidson, C. Public attitudes towards invasive animals and their impacts (Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Canavan, K., Paterson, I. D., Ivey, P., Sutton, G. F. & Hill, M. P. Prioritisation of targets for weed biological control III: A tool to identify the next targets for biological control in South Africa and set priorities for resource allocation Africa and set priorities for resource allocation. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 0, 1–18 (2021).

  34. Hussner, A. Alien aquatic plant species in European countries. Weed Res. 52, 297–306 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gervazoni, P. et al. The alien invasive yellow flag (Iris pseudacorus L.) in Argentinian wetlands: Assessing geographical distribution through different data sources. Biol. Invasions 22, 3183–3193 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Seebens, H. et al. Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 970–982 (2021).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gantchoff, M. G. & Belant, J. L. Anthropogenic and environmental effects on invasive mammal distribution in northern Patagonia, Argentina. Mamm. Biol. 80, 54–58 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Busso, C. A., Bentivegna, D. J. & Fernández, O. A. A review on invasive plants in rangelands of Argentina. Interciencia 38, 95–103 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  39. MAyDS. Gestión integral de especies exóticas invasoras y potencialmente invasoras. RESOL-2021-109-APN-MAD https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/242964/20210414 (2021). (Accessed 20 April 2021).

  40. Bonney, R. et al. Next steps for citizen science. Science 343, 1436–1437 (2014).

    ADS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Crall, A. W. et al. The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Underst. Sci. 22, 745–764 (2013).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Maistrello, L., Dioli, P., Bariselli, M., Mazzoli, G. L. & Giacalone-Forini, I. Citizen science and early detection of invasive species: Phenology of first occurrences of Halyomorpha halys in Southern Europe. Biol. Invasions 18, 3109–3116 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sheard, J. K., Sanders, N. J., Gundlach, C., Schär, S. & Larsen, R. S. Monitoring the influx of new species through citizen science: The first introduced ant in Denmark. PeerJ 8, e8850 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Phillips, T. B., Bailey, R. L., Martin, V., Faulkner-Grant, H. & Bonter, D. N. The role of citizen science in management of invasive avian species: What people think, know, and do. J. Environ. Manag. 280, 111709 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cronje, R., Rohlinger, S., Crall, A. & Newman, G. Does participation in citizen science improve scientific literacy? A study to compare assessment methods. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 10, 135–145 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. McKinley, D. C. et al. Investing in citizen science can improve natural resource management and environmental protection. Issues Ecol. 2015, 1–27 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Phillips, T., Porticella, N., Constas, M. & Bonney, R. A framework for articulating and measuring individual learning outcomes from participation in citizen science. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 3, 3 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L., Lewenstein, B. V. & Bonney, R. Engagement in science through citizen science: Moving beyond data collection. Sci. Educ. 103, 665–690 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kelemen-Finan, J., Scheuch, M. & Winter, S. Contributions from citizen science to science education: An examination of a biodiversity citizen science project with schools in Central Europe. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 40, 2078–2098 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Smith, A. L., Bazely, D. R. & Yan, N. D. Missing the boat on invasive alien species: A review of post-secondary curricula in Canada. Can. J. High. Educ. Rev. Can. 41, 34–47 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Collins, A. Citizen Science in the Classroom: Assessing the Impact of an Urban Field Ecology Program on Learning Gains and Attitudes Toward Science (Columbia University, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Stevenson, K. T., Szczytko, R. E., Carrier, S. J. & Peterson, M. N. How outdoor science education can help girls stay engaged with science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1900948 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sosa, A. J. et al. Integrated control of water hyacinth in peri-urban environments, linking science to society. In Proceedings of the XV International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds (eds. Hinz, H. L. et al.) 293 (CABi, 2019).

  54. Fundación Rewilding Argentina. http://www.rewildingargentina.org. (Accessed 9 October 2021).

  55. Cole, E., Keller, R. P. & Garbach, K. Risk of invasive species spread by recreational boaters remains high despite widespread adoption of conservation behaviors. J. Environ. Manag. 229, 112–119 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Reed, M. S. et al. What is social learning? Ecol. Soc. 15, 1-10 (2010).

  57. Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67, 534–545 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zilio, M. I. El Impacto Económico de las Invasiones Biológicas en Argentina: Cuánto Cuesta no Proteger la Biodiversidad. In LIV Reunión Anual de la Asociación Argentina de Economía Política (Asociación Argentina de Economía Política, 2019).

  59. Ministerio de Educación de la República Argentina. Base de Datos-Información Estadística. Base de Datos por Escuela 2019 https://www.argentina.gob.ar/educacion/evaluacion-informacion-educativa/bdd (2019). (Accessed 7 October 2021).

  60. De Mendiburu, F. & Simon, R. Agricolae—Ten years of an open source statistical tool for experiments in breeding, agriculture and biology. PeerJ 3, 1-18 (2015).

  61. Feinerer, I., Hornik, K. & Meyer, D. Text mining infrastructure in R. J. Stat. Softw. 25, 1–54 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). https://www.R-project.org/. (Accessed 4 December 2020).

  63. Oitavén, A. V. The peace garden of La Plata. World Aff. 100, 148–150 (1937).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Álvarez, C., Mario, D., García, M. E., Reyes, N. J. F. & Slanis, A. C. Morfología polínica de las especies de Ludwigia (Onagraceae, Ludwigioideae) del Noroeste de Argentina. Lilloa 54, 29–40 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Herrera-Álvarez, S., Karlsson, E., Ryder, O. A., Lindblad-Toh, K. & Crawford, A. J. How to make a rodent giant: Genomic basis and tradeoffs of gigantism in the Capybara, the world’s largest rodent. Mol. Biol. Evol. 38, 1715–1730 (2021).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Mason, P. The nesting biology of some Passerines of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Ornithol. Monogr. 36, 954–972 (1985).

  67. Baena-Cagnani, C. E., Patino, C. M. & Caceres, M. S. Pollinosis: Some immunologic and regional considerations and the description of Melia azedarach respiratory allergy. Allergol. Immunopathol. 15, 393–397 (1987).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Villanueva, R., Gorbano, P. & Rodriguez. Estudios preliminares sobre el control de la totora (Typha sp), por medio de la carpa herbivora (Ctenopharyngodon idella Val).

  69. Petracci, P. F. et al. Nuevos aportes al conocimiento de la distribución y anidación de algunas especies de aves en la Argentina. Nuestras Aves 48, 25–31 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Mayra Sosa for her help with translation and tidying of database, and Arabella Peard for her valuable comments that helped to improve this manuscript. We also thank Alejandro Ojea, Cecilia Maqueda and Paula Couto for contacting us with the authors of the questionnaire and Fig. 4 photos: Nicolás Vernazza (chinaberry tree), Adrian Grilli (thrush and starling) and “Moncho” Alvarado (beaver). This research was funded by UNDP, PGTF INT/20/K09, UNAHUR, FuEDEI and CONICET.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A.J.S., A.C.F., N.L.J., T.R., F.M., I.S. and A.F.S. contributed to build the questionnaire and data acquisition. A.J.S., N.L.J., A.C.F., T.R., F.M. and A.F.S. contributed to study design and writing of the manuscript. A.J.S., N.L.J., O.A.B., I.S. and A.F.S. performed the main analyses and led the writing of the manuscript. A.J.S., N.L.J. and A.C.F. conducted supplementary analyses. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Alejandro J. Sosa or Adriana Fernández Souto.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sosa, A.J., Jiménez, N.L., Faltlhauser, A.C. et al. The educational community and its knowledge and perceptions of native and invasive alien species. Sci Rep 11, 21474 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00683-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00683-y

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing