Complex socio-environmental interdependencies drive biological invasions, causing damages across large spatial scales. For widespread invasions, targeting of management activities based on optimization approaches may fail due to computational or data constraints. Here, we evaluate an alternative approach that embraces complexity by representing the invasion as a network and using network structure to inform management locations. We compare optimal versus network-guided invasive species management at a landscape-scale, considering siting of boat decontamination stations targeting 1.6 million boater movements among 9,182 lakes in Minnesota, United States. Studying performance for 58 counties, we find that when full information is known on invasion status and boater movements, the best-performing network-guided metric achieves a median and lower-quartile performance of 100% of optimal. We also find that performance remains relatively high using different network metrics or with less information (median >80% and lower quartile >60% of optimal for most metrics) but is more variable, particularly at the lower quartile. Additionally, performance is generally stable across counties with varying lake counts, suggesting viability for large-scale invasion management. Our results suggest that network approaches hold promise to support sustainable resource management in contexts where modelling capacity and/or data availability are limited.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 per month
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
The network data used in this study were previously reported37 and are available at https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/216936. The minimal dataset supporting this study, including network data, lake metadata including infestation status and geospatial data delineating county boundaries are available50.
Analysis used R v.4.0.2 (2020-06-22) using packages dplyr (v.1.0.7), purrr (v.0.3.4), ggplot2 (v.3.3.3), igraph (v.1.2.5), quantreg (v.5.61) and Rglpk (v.0.6-4). Full analysis code underlying all analyses are available50.
Banks, N. C., Paini, D. R., Bayliss, K. L. & Hodda, M. The role of global trade and transport network topology in the human-mediated dispersal of alien species. Ecol. Lett. 18, 188–199 (2015).
Epanchin-Niell, R. et al. Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 210–216 (2009).
Charles, H. & Dukes, J. S. in Biological Invasions (ed. Nentwig, W.) 217–237 (Springer, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36920-2_13
Gallardo, B., Clavero, M., Sánchez, M. & Vilà, M. Global ecological impacts of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 151–163 (2016).
Diagne, C. et al. High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 592, 571–576 (2021).
Sardain, A., Sardain, E. & Leung, B. Global forecasts of shipping traffic and biological invasions to 2050. Nat. Sustain. 2, 274–282 (2019).
Epanchin-Niell, R. S. & Hastings, A. Controlling established invaders: integrating economics and spread dynamics to determine optimal management. Ecol. Lett. 13, 528–541 (2010).
Chades, I. et al. General rules for managing and surveying networks of pests, diseases, and endangered species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 8323–8328 (2011).
Epanchin-Niell, R. S. & Wilen, J. E. Optimal spatial control of biological invasions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 63, 260–270 (2012).
Epanchin-Niell, R. S. & Wilen, J. E. Individual and cooperative management of invasive species in human-mediated landscapes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 97, 180–198 (2015).
Aadland, D., Sims, C. & Finnoff, D. Spatial dynamics of optimal management in bioeconomic systems. Comput. Econ. 45, 545–577 (2015).
Baker, C. M. Target the source: optimal spatiotemporal resource allocation for invasive species control. Conserv. Lett. 10, 41–48 (2017).
Bushaj, S., Büyüktahtakın, İ. E., Yemshanov, D. & Haight, R. G. Optimizing surveillance and management of emerald ash borer in urban environments. Nat. Res. Model. 34, e12267 (2021).
Fischer, S. M., Beck, M., Herborg, L.-M. & Lewis, M. A. Managing aquatic invasions: optimal locations and operating times for watercraft inspection stations. J. Environ. Manag. 283, 111923 (2021).
Büyüktahtakın, İ. E. & Haight, R. G. A review of operations research models in invasive species management: state of the art, challenges, and future directions. Ann. Oper. Res. 271, 357–403 (2018).
Epanchin-Niell, R. S. Economics of invasive species policy and management. Biol. Invasions 19, 3333–3354 (2017).
Bodin, Ö. et al. Improving network approaches to the study of complex social–ecological interdependencies. Nat. Sustain. 2, 551–559 (2019).
Nowzari, C., Precaido, V. M. & Pappas, G. J. Analysis and control of epidemics: a survey of spreading processes on complex networks. IEEE Control Syst. 36, 26–46 (2016).
Newman, M. E. J. Spread of epidemic disease on networks. Phys. Rev. E 66, 016128 (2002).
Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J. & Tardos, E. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proc. 9th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 137–146 (ACM Press, 2003).
Pastor-Satorras, R. & Vespignani, A. Immunization of complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 65, 036104 (2002).
Pastor-Satorras, R., Castellano, C., Van Mieghem, P. & Vespignani, A. Epidemic processes in complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 925–979 (2015).
Holme, P., Kim, B. J., Yoon, C. N. & Han, S. K. Attack vulnerability of complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 65, 056109 (2002).
Muirhead, J. R. & Macisaac, H. J. Development of inland lakes as hubs in an invasion network. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 80–90 (2005).
de la Fuente, B., Saura, S. & Beck, P. S. Predicting the spread of an invasive tree pest: the pine wood nematode in southern europe. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2374–2385 (2018).
Minor, E. S. & Urban, D. L. A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 22, 297–307 (2008).
Morel-Journel, T., Assa, C. R., Mailleret, L. & Vercken, E. Its all about connections: hubs and invasion in habitat networks. Ecol. Lett. 22, 313–321 (2019).
Perry, G. L. W., Moloney, K. A. & Etherington, T. R. Using network connectivity to prioritise sites for the control of invasive species. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 1238–1250 (2017).
Kvistad, J. T., Chadderton, W. L. & Bossenbroek, J. M. Network centrality as a potential method for prioritizing ports for aquatic invasive species surveillance and response in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Manag. Biol. Invasions 10, 403 (2019).
Haight, R. G., Kinsley, A. C., Kao, S.-Y., Yemshanov, D. & Phelps, N. B. Optimizing the location of watercraft inspection stations to slow the spread of aquatic invasive species. Biol. Invasions 23, 3907–3919 (2021).
McEachran, M. C. et al. Stable isotopes indicate that zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) increase dependence of lake food webs on littoral energy sources. Freshw, Biol. 64, 183–196 (2019).
Karatayev, A. Y., Burlakova, L. E. & Padilla, D. K. in Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe. Distribution, Impacts and Management (eds Leppäkoski, E. et al.) 433–446 (Springer, 2002).
Prescott, T. H., Claudi, R. & Prescott, K. L. Impact of Dreissenid mussels on the infrastructure of dams and hydroelectric power plants. In Quagga and Zebra Mussels (eds Nalepa, T. F. & Schloesser, D. W.) 243–258 (CRC Press, 2013).
Invasive Species of Aquatic Plants and Wild Animals in Minnesota: Annual Report for 2020 (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2020).
Kanankege, K. S., Alkhamis, M. A., Phelps, N. B. & Perez, A. M. A probability co-kriging model to account for reporting bias and recognize areas at high risk for zebra mussels and eurasian watermilfoil invasions in Minnesota. Front. Vet. Sci. 4, 231 (2018).
Mallez, S. & McCartney, M. Dispersal mechanisms for zebra mussels: population genetics supports clustered invasions over spread from hub lakes in Minnesota. Biol. Invasions 20, 2461–2484 (2018).
Kao, S.-Y. Z. et al. Network connectivity of Minnesota waterbodies and implications for aquatic invasive species prevention. Biol. Invasions 23, 3231–3242 (2021).
Kleinberg, J. M. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. In Proc. 9th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 668–677 (1998).
McDonald-Madden, E. et al. Using food-web theory to conserve ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 7, 10245 (2016).
Bossenbroek, J. M., Kraft, C. E. & Nekola, J. C. Prediction of long-distance dispersal using gravity models: zebra mussel invasion of inland lakes. Ecol. Appl. 11, 1778–1788 (2001).
Leung, B., Bossenbroek, J. M. & Lodge, D. M. Boats, pathways, and aquatic biological invasions: estimating dispersal potential with gravity models. Biol. Invasions 8, 241–254 (2006).
Beger, M. et al. Integrating regional conservation priorities for multiple objectives into national policy. Nat. Commun. 6, 8208 (2015).
Runting, R. K. et al. Larger gains from improved management over sparing–sharing for tropical forests. Nat. Sustain. 2, 53–61 (2019).
Kinsley, A. C. et al. AIS Explorer: prioritization for watercraft inspections. A decision-support tool for aquatic invasive species management. J. Environ. Manage. 314, 115037 (2022).
Vander Zanden, M. J. & Olden, J. D. A management framework for preventing the secondary spread of aquatic invasive species. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65, 1512–1522 (2008).
Kanankege, K. S. et al. Lessons learned from the stakeholder engagement in research: application of spatial analytical tools in one health problems. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 254 (2020).
Kroetz, K. & Sanchirico, J. The bioeconomics of spatial-dynamic systems in natural resource management. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 7, 189–207 (2015).
Cade, B. S. & Noon, B. R. A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1, 412–420 (2003).
Koenker, R. in Asymptotic Statistics (eds Mandl, P. & Hušková, M.) 349–359 (Springer, 1994).
Ashander, J. Analysis code and data for ‘Guiding large-scale management of invasive species using network metrics’. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14402447 (2021).
We thank A. Kinsley for comments on a previous draft. Funding for this research was provided by Resources for the Future and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the National Science Foundation (NSF) DBI-1639145. The Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service also provided support. L.E.D. acknowledges support from NSF OCE-2049360.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Sustainability thanks Jonathan Bossenbroek and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Sections 1–8, Algorithms 1 and 2, Figs. 1–7, Tables 1–5 and References.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ashander, J., Kroetz, K., Epanchin-Niell, R. et al. Guiding large-scale management of invasive species using network metrics. Nat Sustain 5, 762–769 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00913-9
This article is cited by
Network metrics guide good control choices
Nature Sustainability (2022)