To be, or not to be, a non-native species in non-English languages: gauging terminological consensus amongst invasion biologists

In invasion biology, terminological frameworks contribute to the improvement of effective communication among scientists, stakeholders, and policy-makers. This is important not only for informing policy decisions but also for engaging the broader public in understanding the risks associated with biological invasions. Meanwhile, the role of non-English languages in advancing knowledge in invasion biology has gained momentum in recent years. Building on the seminal contributions in this scientific discipline by Professor Gordon H. Copp, this paper examines the provision of three key terms defining species invasiveness in 28 non-English languages. We first define the three non-redundant terms “non-native species”, “established species”, and “invasive species”. Through a comparative analysis of the equivalent of these terms in the 28 non-English languages, as contributed by our panel of invasion biologists and native speakers, with those in a reference review paper, and following the diffusion-of-English versus ecology-of-language paradigms, we identify discrepancies and nuances reflecting the dynamic nature of terminology in invasion biology. While some languages showed consensus in terminology, others differed due to either the avoidance of a culturally or politically laden term for “non-native” or the achievement of greater precision in meaning. Our findings highlight the requirement for clear and precise terminology in invasion biology and suggest the adoption of multidisciplinary approaches to reach consensus and facilitate communication amongst scientists, policy-makers, and the general public in a globally interconnected and rapidly changing world. This will enhance international collaboration and accelerate knowledge exchange, leading to more effective management of biological invasions.