ORIGINAL RESEARCH

 

A list of alien taxa for South Africa

 

 

T.A. Zengeya^{I, II}; K.T. Faulkner^{I, III}; M.P. Mtileni^{I, III}; L. Fernández Winzer^{I, IV, V}; S. Kumschick^{I, VI}; E.J. McCulloch-Jones^{I, III, IV}; S.A. Miza-Tshangana^{I, VII}; T.B. Robinson^VI; A. Sifuba^I; W. Engelbrecht^I; B.W. van Wilgen^VI; J.R.U. Wilson^{I, IV}

^IKirstenbosch Research Centre, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa
^IICentre for Invasion Biology, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
^IIIDepartment of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
^IVCentre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
^VSchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
^VICentre for Invasion Biology, School for Climate Studies, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
^VIIDepartment of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Western Cape Government, South Africa

Correspondence

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a comprehensive list of alien taxa in South Africa developed as part of triennial national status reports on biological invasions. It includes: taxa that are, have been, or were proposed to be regulated; alien taxa that are or have been present in South Africa (including those only ever recorded in quarantine facilities); taxa that are native to a part of South Africa that have formed native-alien populations in another part of the country; and taxa which have been categorised at some point as alien or for which the risk of invasion in South Africa has been evaluated. Names used previously are included so it is clear why taxa listed in historical sources are no longer considered alien or present, and how such names have been interpreted in terms of the latest authoritative taxonomic sources. The list also includes information on the invasion status of the taxa, their pathways, distributions, impacts and management, with metadata provided for all 38 variables, including confidence and data sources for 23 of them. The development of documented and repeatable workflows ensures it is clear why taxa (and associated information) are included in the list and facilitates reviews and updates. Based on information up to the end of December 2022, the list includes over 6 000 taxa, of which over 3 500 are alien taxa confirmed as present outside of captivity or cultivation. However, several key data sources still need to be verified and integrated into the list (particularly taxa in captivity or cultivation). Thus, this list should not yet be regarded as a complete baseline of the knowledge of alien taxa present in South Africa. The list is presented in a manner that is tidy and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) and will be maintained, expanded and updated, so that the list will be dynamic and aim for completeness. By so doing, the list will allow the number and status of alien taxa to be tracked over time, informing management planning and regulatory decisions.

Keywords: alien species, biological invasions, checklists, invasive species, inventories, non-native species, species lists.

---

 

 

Introduction

South Africa is a large, mega-biodiverse country that has a long history of alien taxa introductions and invasions (Faulkner et al. 2020; Van Wilgen et al. 2020). Alien taxa in South Africa come from a range of taxonomic groups, occur in a variety of habitats and have had pervasive impacts (Van Wilgen et al. 2022b). In an effort to improve our knowledge on biological invasions in South Africa, and to inform invasive species management and policy, various lists of alien taxa have been developed (Faulkner et al. 2015; Zengeya et al. 2025). These lists each have their own purpose and focus. For example, taxon-, habitat-, and site-specific lists of aliens have been compiled for freshwater fishes (El-lender & Weyl 2014), marine organisms (Robinson et al. 2020a), terrestrial molluscs (Herbert 2010), and the Prince Edward Islands (Fernández Winzer et al. 2024, 2025b).

Lists of alien taxa are challenging to produce and maintain (McGeoch et al. 2012), not least because they are dynamic, with new taxa being added to the lists as they are introduced and/or detected, and others being removed as they die out or are eradicated (Van Wilgen et al. 2020; Matthys et al. 2025). However, many South African lists are static and are produced as one-off publications [though updated versions of lists of alien marine organisms (Robinson et al. 2020a) and biological control agents (Zachariades 2021) are published periodically]. Lists also differ between curators. For example, the numbers reported for alien terrestrial vertebrates in South Africa vary greatly across lists (Van Wilgen et al. 2020). These discrepancies are partly due to the lists being compiled using different methods, but also because different lists implement different standards and definitions (Van Wilgen et al. 2020).

Lists of alien taxa often provide important ancillary information on, for example, introduction pathways, distributions, invasion status and dates of first record (Faulkner et al. 2015). However, as for the lists themselves, there is significant variation in what ancillary information is presented and in the completeness of this information (Faulkner et al. 2015), and sources and confidence levels are rarely consistently and systematically included. Global standards have been developed for alien species data that are maintained by the Darwin Core team (Groom et al. 2019) and tools (Reyserhove et al. 2020) have been developed to automate the process required to make data FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reuseable; Wilkinson et al. 2016). These standards have been followed elsewhere (e.g., Reyserhove et al. 2020) but, to date, South African lists of alien taxa have not followed these standards or have not explicitly tried to meet FAIR data principles.

A comprehensive, up-to-date list of alien taxa in South Africa is required to provide estimates on the status and trends of biological invasions, and to get an idea of whether interventions are effective. In particular, such estimates are required for South Africa's triennial report 'The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa', which the South African National Biodiversity Institute is mandated to produce under the Alien and Invasive Species Regulations of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA A&IS Regulations; Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries of 2020). Three reports have been produced to date, each with an accompanying list (Van Wilgen & Wilson 2018; Zengeya & Wilson 2020, 2023a). A list of alien taxa is also required for South Africa to measure and report on its progress towards global conservation targets, such as Target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Building on the list produced for the last national status report (SANBI & CIB 2023a), here we present a consolidated list of alien taxa for South Africa that provides current knowledge on their statuses, and information on their pathways, distributions, impacts and management. This list follows global biodiversity data standards, and the data are intended to be tidy and FAIR. The intention is also for this list to form a baseline for updating other relevant lists [e.g., the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species for South Africa, which lists invasive taxa that are recorded (or in this case presumed) to have negative impacts (Robinson et al. 2020b)].

Objective

To compile a consolidated list of alien taxa in South Africa updated in line with triennial national status reports, with the aim, in future, to update as information becomes available with information accessible through a dashboard (Zengeya et al. 2025).

 

Materials and methods

Information about the data

Region

Mainland South Africa and inshore islands [a separate list is curated for the Prince Edward Islands, South Africa's sub-Antarctic territories (SANBI & CIB 2023b; Fernández Winzer et al. 2024, 2025b)].

Period of study

Sources published or available up to 31 December 2022, with sources dating from 1906 (Theobald 1906). Some alien taxa were introduced to South Africa prior to European colonisation in the second half of the 17th century, but the majority were introduced since then (Faulkner et al. 2020).

Methodology

The list of alien taxa in South Africa is the result of a process to consolidate and standardise information on the presence of alien taxa in South Africa from various sources. The list is intended to primarily record the presence of alien taxa in South Africa (be they inside or outside of captivity or cultivation). However, the list also includes some taxa that are not present in the country, in particular, those that were listed as prohibited under the NEM:-BA A&IS Regulations of 2014 or 2016 or in draft lists of the regulations in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (prohibited taxa are those that were believed to be absent but pose a significant risk of invasion; Wilson & Kumschick 2024). Moreover, some taxa that are native to South Africa are also included: in particular taxa with native-alien populations (sensu Nelufule et al. 2022), and taxa that are included as mandated by the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations of 2020 [e.g., 'indigenous' taxa for which risk analyses have been completed; for a full discussion see 'isNative' in the metadata (SANBI & CIB 2023c)].

Data were extracted from various sources and merged based on standardised taxonomy (Figure 1). The processes followed are documented and described below.

1. Collation and review of available data

The data sources varied (e.g., government reports, peer-reviewed papers, grey-literature, atlassing projects and online databases) and contained various types of information (Table 1). Most data sources were peer-reviewed literature and included lists of plants (e.g., Glen 2002; Hoy et al. 2021), microbes (e.g., Wood 2017; Paap et al. 2018), invertebrates (e.g., Prinsloo & Uys 2015; Hurley et al. 2017; Janion-Scheepers & Griffiths 2020), amphibians (e.g., Measey et al. 2020), fishes (e.g., Ellender & Weyl 2014; Weyl et al. 2020), reptiles (e.g., Van Rensburg et al. 2011; Measey et al. 2020), birds (e.g., Macdonald et al. 1986; Picker & Griffiths 2017), and mammals (e.g., Van Rensburg et al. 2011; Measey et al. 2020). Several sources contained context-specific lists of alien taxa, for example, aquatic animals (De Moor & Bruton 1988), those in the pet trade (e.g., Nelufule et al. 2020), protected areas (Foxcroft et al. 2023), marine taxa (Robinson et al. 2020a), and the regulatory lists (Wilson 2025). Information was also obtained from databases such as the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD; https://www.ibol.org/phase1/bold/), Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 (SABAP2) (http://sabap2.birdmap.africa/), the Botanical Database of Southern Africa (BODATSA) (http://posa.sanbi.org/), and the Southern African Plant Invaders Atlas (SAPIA).

2. Processing

An intermediary file was created to store the extracted, digitised information from a data source or from several related data sources, based on broad categories such as organism types (e.g., microbes, plants, freshwater fishes), habitats (e.g., marine taxa) or pathways (e.g., pet trade).

2a. Standardisation

The data were systematically curated with metadata that provide details of what information is contained in each column, and what the different levels in each column mean (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7433112). The process to check taxonomic information was automated (see Faulkner 2026) and is briefly described below. There are several taxonomic backbones available, and various tools exist to automate the name-matching process (see Grenié et al. 2022 for a review). Choosing the right backbones is challenging, as factors like taxonomic and spatial scope must be considered. We selected the taxonomic backbones based on the recommendations of Grenié et al. (2022), which suggest that regularly updated, regional, taxon-specific backbones should generally be preferred, but in cases where information is not locally available, global backbones are more appropriate. Therefore, for plant taxa, the nomenclature was first checked against BODATSA, and if the information was not available, the World Checklist of Vascular Plants was used (as available through the Plants of the World Online, POWO; https://powo.science.kew.org). The nomenclature of non-plant taxa was checked against the Global Biodiversity Information Facility taxonomic backbone (GBIF; https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei). However, for many taxa, other user-defined taxonomic backbones were needed. For example, plant taxa not found in BODATSA and POWO were checked against the International Plant Name Index (IPNI; https://www.ipni.org/) and names of animal taxa not found on GBIF were checked against Nema-plex (http://nemaplex.ucdavis.edu/) for nematodes, the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS; https://www.marinespecies.org/) for marine taxa, and published lists in other cases (e.g., for biological control agents released on plants, Zachariades 2021). Issues were flagged and noted in the intermediary file, such as unresolved terms, missing data and translated names (e.g., lumped or split names). Synonyms, names misapplied, names for which there were typos, or names with no authorship information provided in the original source were noted in the 'otherNamesUsed' column. The list of names in 'otherNamesUsed' is not intended to be exhaustive but is a pragmatic list so that people can find taxa that they otherwise might think are missing (i.e., if a name was used as the primary name for a taxon in at least one source it was included). A value of NA is possible for 'scientificName' for example for regulated species that are not valid taxa.

2b. Status of alien taxa

The status of an alien taxon in South Africa was determined using information on its nativity, occurrence, degree of establishment, introduction status and regulatory status (see below). The source was recorded and confidence estimated for all fields used to determine status, together with notes on any translations and interpretations.

isNative: 'isNative' assesses whether the taxon's native distribution range was within (at least a part of) South Africa. It is a factor with four levels (TRUE, FALSE, cryptogenic, data deficient). If a taxon is native to a part of South Africa (i.e., TRUE) then it does not belong in this dataset unless one of the following is true: the taxon has, or at some point had, native-alien populations (Nelufule et al. 2022) in South Africa; the taxon is (or was) prohibited from being introduced to another part of South Africa under the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations; a risk analysis/ assessment has been conducted on the taxon for South Africa; or the taxon was at some point classified as alien to the whole of South Africa although the taxon's nativity has since been settled and it is clear it is native. Cryptogenic taxa are of unknown biogeographic origin and cannot be definitively categorised as native to any part of South Africa, but neither can be definitively categorised as alien to South Africa where they are present. Data deficient is when an assessment of biogeographic status is unfeasible because of uncertainty in the taxon identity.

occurrenceStatus: Evaluates whether a taxon occurs in South Africa (as of December 2022). It is a factor with four levels (absent, present, doubtful and not evaluated). A taxon is noted as absent if an analysis of the available evidence suggests that the taxon is not present in South Africa or there is no evidence of presence. A taxon is assumed present if there is evidence to document the presence of the taxon in South Africa. The occurrence of a taxon is assumed to be doubtful if there is some evidence of the taxon having been present in South Africa, but there is doubt either over the evidence (including taxonomic or geographic imprecision in the records) and/or whether the taxon is still present. The occurrence status of a taxon is noted as not evaluated if there has been no specific attempt to ascertain if the taxon is present (or has been present) in South Africa.

Not all the values of the vocabulary for the Darwin Core term 'dwc:occurrenceStatus' are used (common, irregular, rare) as information on abundance is stored under 'organismQuantity'. Values for 'occurrenceStatus' can inherit presences from 'IntroductionStatus' and 'degreeOfEstablishment' but can only inherit absences if used in combination with 'isNative' (e.g., native taxa that are not present outside of their native ranges are still, of course, present).

degreeOfEstablishment: This variable specifies the degree to which the taxon, where it is alien in South Africa, is surviving, reproducing and expanding its range. The coding is taken from the Unified Framework for Biological Invasions (Blackburn et al. 2011):

• A0-A1: Never introduced beyond limits of native range to (a part of) South Africa (A0) OR was introduced but no longer present (A1).

• B1-C2: Includes a range of taxa from those in quarantine to those that are reproducing outside of captivity or cultivation but where there is no clear evidence of having formed self-sustaining populations.

• C3-D1: Taxa where there is naturalisation, and possibly spread, but there is no clear evidence of forming self-sustaining populations at a significant distance from point of introduction.

• D2-E: Populations are self-sustaining at a significant distance from the point of introduction.

The wording and description are based largely on the Darwin Core term (dwc:degreeOfEstablishment; Groom et al. 2019), with the use of native rather than indigenous and the separation of A into A0 and A1 to indicate cases where taxa are no longer present in South Africa. In cases where a taxon can unequivocally be categorised at a certain level, but might be at a higher level, then the lower confirmed level should be used [e.g., if there is strong evidence of naturalisation (C3), but the evidence is ambiguous as to whether there has been spread (D1), or whether that spread resulted in new self-sustaining populations (D2), then that population(/taxon) would be scored as C3].

'degreeOfEstablishment' can also be assessed as NA if 'occurrenceStatus' is absent or doubtful OR if 'isNative' is TRUE and 'occurrenceStatus' is present, and there is no indication of any individuals in what would be considered an alien range, or if it is not evaluated.

IntroductionStatus: This variable is a factor with four levels that provides a high-level classification of categories in the Unified Framework for Biological Invasions (Blackburn et al. 2011) that are used to assess 'degreeOfEstablishment':

• A0-A1: not currently present 'NA';

• B1-C2: introduced but not naturalised 'presentAsAlienNotNaturalised';

• C3-D1: naturalised but not invasive 'Naturalised-NotInvasive', and

• D2-E: invasive 'Invasive'.

It also specifically flags taxa with native-alien populations (sensu Nelufule et al. 2022). These are taxa that are native to a part of South Africa but have formed naturalised 'NaturalisedNotInvasive:NativeAlienPopulations' or invasive populations 'Invasive:NativeAlien-Populations' in another part of South Africa to which the taxon is alien. Native taxa with individuals in captivity or cultivation outside their native range in South Africa are not included.

Regulatory status: Regulatory status refers to whether a taxon was regulated as an invasive alien species under the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations (Wilson 2025). The values for regulatory status include: for listed taxa, the category of listing ('1a', '1b', '2', '3', and 'context-specific'); 'Not.listed:was.listed' for taxa that are not listed but were listed in the past; 'Not.listed:was.proposed' for taxa that were formally proposed for listing but never included on promulgated lists; 'Uncertain' for taxa where it is uncertain if they are listed or not (e.g., the identity of the taxon is at a higher level than the regulatory listing); and 'Not.listed' for taxa that are not currently listed. The listing is as per the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations of 2020. See Wilson and Kumschick (2024) for a review of how the lists have changed over time. Detailed notes on translated names and interpretations are available in Wilson (2025). If a taxon is not present in the country it is (or should be) regarded as unlisted, unless there is a discrepancy in the regulatory lists. For example, several freshwater crayfish species (Faxonius limosus, F. rusticus, and Pacifastacus leniusculus) are listed on the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations of 2020 but there is no evidence that they are present in South Africa (see also Table S1 in Matthys et al. 2025).

2c. Ancillary data

Additional fields in the intermediary file were used to capture information on whether the taxon was included in the species lists of previous reports, other information or motivations that needed to be flagged, and useful information on any other fields (pathways, distributions, impacts and management) as per the species list if data are available.

3. Merging

Intermediary files were manually merged by standardised names and unification of ancillary data. Taxa with any flags on unresolved terms, missing data and translations were retained in the intermediary files and feedback provided to the source of the data for clarification and or correction. More than ten intermediary files were created and to mitigate individual subjectivity, all databases were cross-checked against the list metadata by at least one member of the core author team (TAZ, KTF, JRUW).

Literature: The bibliography used is available in the list, and a summary of key sources is presented in Table 1.

Storage of data set: online repository (http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14937470)

License: CC BY-NC 4.0.

Format of data set: digital xlsx file

Version: v20250520 see http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7433102 for all versions. The version published along with the third status report (v20240308) contains the same data but the more recent version discussed in this paper resolves a few issues, e.g., typographical and transcription errors and inconsistencies in the use of terms across variables.

Language: English

Data structure: Full metadata are presented online (SANBI & CIB 2023c; http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217211) with a summary presented in Table 1. The list has 85 fields that provide information on the status of alien taxa in South Africa, with information on their pathways, distributions, impacts and management. The list attempts to adhere to the FAIR data principles. Specifically: data are Findable and Accessible through publication on the SANBI website (http://iasreport.sanbi.org.za) and an online repository that houses all published versions (http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7433102); Interoperable by adapting fields to ensure, where possible, they conform to the Darwin Core data standards; and Reusable in terms of ensuring that it is easy to determine who generated the original data and obtaining permission for others to use the data. The associated data files were also produced in line with recommendations to make the data tidy - each row refers to a taxon and each column a particular variable with consistent units. The list also assesses the level of confidence (low, medium, high) for variables where there may be uncertainty following accepted best practice principles [see SANBI & CIB (2023a) for details].

Summary of dataset

In the 6 198 taxa assessed for presence in South Africa there is evidence that 3 828 taxa are present, the presence of 1 639 taxa is doubtful, 714 taxa are recorded as absent and the occurrence status of 17 taxa was not evaluated (Table 2). Over half of the taxa that are present are plants (2 318 taxa), confirming the assertion that South Africa is a hotspot for plant invasions. Only a few of the taxa that are present were assessed as cryptogenic (28 taxa) or are native to some part of South Africa (257 taxa). Taxa that were assessed as absent were mostly animals (310 invertebrates and 165 vertebrates) and plants (211 taxa). Most of these taxa are either biocontrol agents that were released to control invasive plants but that did not establish, taxa listed as prohibited in at least one version of NEM:BA A&IS Lists, or taxa included in previous status reports but there is no evidence that they are present. Doubtful taxa were mostly plants (1 290 taxa) (presumed to be in cultivation, but there is uncertainty if they are present).

A fraction (13%) of the taxa that are present are listed under the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations of 2020. These are mostly plants (366 taxa) and animals (122 taxa). Some of the listed taxa were assessed as either absent (14 taxa) or their occurrence is doubtful (58 taxa).

Of the 1 811 taxa assessed for their introduction and establishment status in South Africa as of December 2022, over a third of them are invasive (719 taxa), 120 taxa are known to be naturalised but not invasive, 329 taxa are present, but not naturalised and 643 are absent (Figure 2). The statuses of the remaining 4 387 taxa are yet to be evaluated.

 

 

Limitations of dataset

Biological invasions are dynamic in nature, and there are often significant delays between when a taxon is introduced, when it is recorded, and when that record is reported and incorporated into a dataset. Therefore, this list, like all lists of alien taxa, represents a snapshot of the situation. Many data sources have informed the list, but not all have been verified and integrated into the list. For example, due to a recent research focus, there are several lists of alien taxa in the pet and aquarium trades (e.g., Nelufule et al. 2020; Mantintsilili et al. 2022; Shivambu et al. 2022). However, there are many more alien taxa in captivity or under cultivation that are not yet included in the list, largely as data are not readily accessible or interoperable. Similarly, many groups and habitats have been under-sampled. For example, information on most microorganisms is either not incorporated, is hard to incorporate as issues of nativity are unresolved, or there simply has been no sampling (e.g., few ecto-mycorrhizal fungi have been incorporated to date, despite their large conspicuous fruiting bodies; Goldman & Gryzenhout 2019). Thus, the list provides an underestimate of the number of alien taxa in the country, and this number will increase as new and historical data sources are verified and incorporated, and as new alien taxa are recorded and reported. As with many similar biodiversity datasets, the data that are generally available are on naturalised or invasive alien taxa from large and charismatic groups.

The data sources that inform the list are highly variable as they were developed for various purposes, followed different methods and implemented different standards and definitions. This list aims to provide a wide range of additional data on alien taxa in South Africa; however, not all the columns are presently complete. While in many cases this is because the primary research is yet to be performed (e.g., assessment of impacts), in other cases information exists that will be incorporated in future. These limitations mean that the list is not yet a complete baseline of the knowledge of which alien taxa are present in South Africa. As such, differences between this list and the lists from previous reports (e.g., addition or removal of a taxon) need to be carefully interrogated, as they do not necessarily mean that there has been a true change (sensu Zengeya et al. 2025).

Usage notes

The list can be used to report on the status of biological invasions in South Africa, track and report on progress towards Target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and inform monitoring and management. The data can be integrated with other alien species lists to obtain estimates at regional and global levels. However, the limitations detailed above mean that care needs to be taken when using the dataset to track trends. Change over time should be determined using a revised baseline that considers the recent incorporation of historical data and when data were recorded, rather than when they were reported. We therefore encourage authors wishing to use this list to consult the corresponding author (TAZ).

Workflows

The overall workflow is presented in Figure 1, but specific workflows were developed to facilitate adding information to the list. In the third status report, seven workflows are outlined in SANBI and CIB (2023d), details are provided in the legend to Figure 1. The intention is that all these workflows and associated scripts will be provided on public online repositories such as Zenodo and GitHub to allow for easy access and use (Zengeya et al. 2025). For example, the workflow and script for checking taxonomic information is already available on GitHub (e.g. https://github.com/KatelynFaulkner/rsa-ans-workflow).

 

Discussion

The list presented here is the first consolidated list of all alien taxa in South Africa that aims at presenting data in a FAIR and tidy manner and that explicitly states the sources used and the confidence in the data presented. The list was constructed using set workflows (e.g., Faulkner 2026; Figure 1; SANBI & CIB 2023d), and data have, as far as possible, been standardised and verified. However, while the list meets the mandated requirements to produce a list of invasive species under South African regulations (Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries 2020), it is still not an appropriate baseline given key data sources have not yet been incorporated.

The status of alien taxa in South Africa will, of course, change over time. Taxa might need to be removed from the list due to taxonomic changes (e.g., a name becomes invalid), and their introduction status updated as more evidence of the current presence of taxa in South Africa become available (cf. Matthys et al. 2025). Taxa might be added either from existing data sources not yet incorporated or from new research and observations. A workflow has been developed to document updates such as tracking data sources (SANBI & CIB 2023d). Workflows are also needed to reduce the time between information being collected and when information is incorporated into the list, and ultimately to reduce the time between detection and action (Fernández Winzer et al. 2025a). More fundamentally, the list relies on the availability of data on biological invasions in South Africa. Capacity and resources for active and passive surveillance, the identification of new observations in the field, and the identification and classification of those observations are essential prerequisites if this list is to be an accurate representation of the alien taxa in South Africa.

We recognise that this list, as all such lists, contains errors. We are hopeful that by setting up a transparent process for creating the list, people will engage with what is here, provide feedback and help correct errors. Please write to IAS.report.SANBI@gmail.com if you find issues. We similarly commit to providing feedback to data custodians when we identify issues while incorporating their information. In presenting these data we are thus presenting a structure and process that will enable us to move towards a dashboard, while ensuring users can readily identify and report issues. By standardising access to data on biological invasions, we hope this list will help policymakers proactively address the issue (Groom et al. 2025; Zengeya et al. 2025).

 

Acknowledgements

The list is the result of many people who have worked on biological invasions in South Africa. We would particularly like to thank those who contributed as authors to the species chapters of the first and second reports: Andrew Turner, Charles Griffiths, Dai Herbert, Heather Terrapon, Ian Rushworth, Lee-Anne Botha, Lesley Henderson, Llewellyn Foxcroft, Michelle Greve, Musa Mlambo, Nonkazimulo Mdidimba, Pat Holmes, Pieter Winter, Rob Little, Tendamudzimu Munyai, Therese Forsyth, Trudy Paap, Tumelo Morapi, Xoliswa Ndeleni and Zanele Mnikathi; those who contributed information in the form of personal communications, in particular, Charlene Janion-Scheepers, Charles Griffiths and Costas Zachariades; and those who commented on drafts of the report when it was out for public review. Finally, we are very grateful to various people assisting with nomenclatural queries, in particular Caroline Mashau, David Richardson, Davina Saccaggi, Iain Paterson, John Bolton, Marieka Gryzenhout, Pieter Winter and Simon van Noort. We thank our late colleagues John Measey and Olaf Weyl for their contributions to the South African status reports and the science and management of biological invasions in South Africa, and the late Kay Montgomery for guidance on the status report and how to communicate the findings.

Authors' contributions

Authorship was based on those named as authors or contributing authors to the species chapter of the third report on the status of biological invasions in South Africa, and by evaluating authors and contributing authors to the other two reports based on them meeting two authorship criteria (data curation and methodology) before being invited to contribute further (review and editing). Conceptualisation: BWvW, JRUW, KTF, TAZ; methodology: AS, BWvW, EJMJ, JRUW, KTF, LFW, SK, SAMT, WE, TAZ; data curation: AS, BWvW, EJMJ, JRUW, KTF, LFW, MPM, TBR, SK, SAMT, WE, TAZ; writing - original draft: JRUW, KTF, MPM, TAZ; writing - review and editing: all.

Conflict of interest

TZ, KF and JW were part of the editorial team for the special issue 'Developing lists of alien taxa in Africa', but they took no part in the peer review and decision-making process for this paper.

Funding

We thank the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) for funding, noting that this publication does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of DFFE or its employees. JRUW, KTF, SK, MPM, TAZ also received funding from the B-Cubed project (Biodiversity Building Blocks for policy), which is funded by the European Union's Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme (ID No. 101059592). Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union (EU) nor the European Commission (EC). Neither the EU nor the EC can be held responsible for them.

 

References

Blackburn, T.M., Pysek, P., Bacher, S., Carlton, J.T., Duncan, R.P., Jarosík, V., Wilson, J.R. & Richardson, D.M., 2011, 'A proposed unified framework for biological invasions', Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26(7), 333-339, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.023.         [ Links ]

Bromilow, C., 2018, Problem plants and alien weeds of southern Africa, ed. 4, Briza Publications, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014, 'Pathways of introduction of invasive species, their prioritization and management', Montreal (pp. 1-18), UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/18/9/ Add.1 www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-18/official/sbstta-18-09-add1-en.pdf.         [ Links ]

Cheek, M.D., Wilson, J.R., Richardson, D.M. & Proches, S., 2022, 'The status of arboreta in South Africa and the taxa they contain', Southern Forests: a Journal of Forest Science 84(2), 174-191, https://doi.org/10.2989/20702620.2022.2102453.         [ Links ]

De Moor, I.J. & Bruton, N.M., 1988, 'Atlas of alien and translocated indigenous aquatic animals in southern Africa', South African National Scientific Programmes Report 144, Foundation for Research Development, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, 2020, 'National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) Alien and Invasive Species Regulations', Government Gazette, notice 1020 of 2020, no. 43735, 25 September 2020, Pretoria, pp. 14-44.         [ Links ]

Ellender, B.R. & Weyl, O.L.F., 2014, 'A review of current knowledge, risk and ecological impacts associated with non-native freshwater fish introductions in South Africa', Aquatic Invasions 9, 117-132, https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2014.9.2.01.         [ Links ]

Evans, T., Kumschick, S. & Blackburn, T.M., 2016, 'Application of the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) to a global assessment of alien bird impacts', Diversity and Distributions 22, 919-931, https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12464.         [ Links ]

Faulkner K.T., 2026, 'An automated workflow to standardise taxon names for South African alien species lists', African Biodiversity & Conservation https://doi.org/10.38201/abc.v56.2.a2.         [ Links ]

Faulkner, K.T., Burness, A., Byrne, M., Kumschick, S., Peters, K., Robertson, M.P., Saccaggi, D.L., Weyl, O.L.F. & Williams, V.L., 2020, 'South Africa's pathways of introduction and dispersal and how they have changed over time', in B.W. van Wilgen, G.J. Measey, D.M. Richardson, J.R. Wilson & T.A. Zengeya, (eds), Biological invasions in South Africa, Springer, Cham, Switzerland (pp. 311-352), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_12.         [ Links ]

Faulkner, K.T., Hurley, B.P., Robertson, M.P., Rouget, M. & Wilson, J.R.U., 2017, 'The balance of trade in alien species between South Africa and the rest of Africa', Bothalia: African Biodiversity & Conservation 47(2), 1-16, https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2157.         [ Links ]

Faulkner, K.T., Spear, D., Robertson, M.P., Rouget, M. & Wilson, J.R.U., 2015, 'An assessment of the information content of South African alien species databases', Bothalia: African Biodiversity & Conservation 45, a1103, https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v45i1.1103.         [ Links ]

Fernández Winzer, L., Faulkner, K.T., Paap, T. & Wilson, J.R.U., 2025a, 'From detection to action - a proposed workflow to ensure first reports of alien species from molecular analyses are acted upon', NeoBiota 104, 339-359, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.104.162310.         [ Links ]

Fernández Winzer, L., Greve, M., Le Roux, P., Faulkner, K. & Wilson, J., 2025b, 'Using indicators to assess the status of biological invasions and their management on islands: the Prince Edward Islands, South Africa as an example', Biological Invasions 27, 108, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-024-03463-7.         [ Links ]

Fernández Winzer L., Greve, M., Le Roux, F.C., Faulkner, K., Wilson, J.R.U. & Pagad, S., 2024, 'Protected Areas - Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species - Prince Edward Island and Marion Island, South Africa', Version 1.5, Invasive Species Specialist Group ISSG, Checklist data-set, https://cloud.gbif.org/griis/resource?r=pa-prince-edward-islands&v=1.5.         [ Links ]

Foxcroft, L.C., Moodley, D., Nichols, G.R. & Pysek, P., 2023, 'Naturalized and invasive alien plants in the Kruger National Park, South Africa', Biological Invasions 25, 30493064, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03098-0.         [ Links ]

Glen, H.F., 2002, Cultivated plants of southern Africa: botanical names, common names, origins, literature, Jacana Media & National Botanical Institute, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

Goldman, G.B. & Gryzenhout, M., 2019, Field guide to mushrooms & other fungi of South Africa, Struik Nature, Cape Town.         [ Links ]

Grenié, M., Berti, E., Carvajal-Quintero, J., Dâdlow, G.M.L., Sagouis, A. & Winter, M., 2022, 'Harmonizing taxon names in biodiversity data: a review of tools, databases and best practices', Methods in Ecology and Evolution 14(1), 12-25, https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13802.         [ Links ]

Groom, Q., Abraham, L., Adriaens, T., Breugelmans, L., Clarke, D.A., Dove, S., Estupinan-Suarez, L.M., Faulkner, K.T., Fernandez, M., Hendrickx, L.A., Hui, C., Joly, A., Kumschick, S., Langeraert, W., Martini, M., Miller, J., Oldoni, D., Pereira, H., Preda, C., Robertson, T., Rocchini, D., Ryckewaert, M., Seebens, H., Sica, Y.V., Teixeira, H., Trekels, M., Vandaele, T., Wilson, J.R.U., Zengeya, T. & Desmet, P., 2025, 'Creating the vision of rapid, repeatable, reactive data workflows for policy on biodiversity', Ecological Solutions and Evidence 6, e70113, https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.70113.         [ Links ]

Groom, Q., Desmet, P., Reyserhove, L., Adriaens, T., Oldoni, D., Vanderhoeven, S., Baskauf, S.J., Chapman, A., McGeoch, M., Walls, R., Wieczorek, J., Wilson, J.R.U., Zermoglio, P.F.F. & Simpson, A., 2019, 'Improving Darwin Core for research and management of alien species', Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 3, e38084, https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.38084.         [ Links ]

Harrower, C.A., Scalera, R., Pagad, S., Schönrogge, K. & Roy, H.E., 2018, 'Guidance for interpretation of CBD categories on introduction pathways', Technical note, pp. 1-108, https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/9d85/3bc5/d640f059d03acd717602cd76/sbstta-22-inf-09-en.pdf.         [ Links ]

Henderson, L., 2001, Alien weeds and invasive plants: a complete guide to declared weeds and invaders in South Africa, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria, 300 pp.         [ Links ]

Henderson, L. & Wilson, J.R.U., 2017, 'Changes in the composition and distribution of alien plants in South Africa: An update from the Southern African Plant Invaders Atlas', Bothalia: African Biodiversity & Conservation 47, 2, a2172, https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2172.         [ Links ]

Herbert, D.G., 2010, 'The introduced terrestrial mollusca of South Africa', SANBI Biodiversity Series 15, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

Hoy, L.H., Brown, L.R., Hendrick, R.M. & Barrett, A.S., 2021, 'Determining a landscape plant database matched to hydrozones for South Africa', Journal of Applied Horticulture 23(1), 28-36, https://doi.org/10.37855/jah.2021.v23i01.06.         [ Links ]

Janion-Scheepers, C. & Griffiths, C.L., 2020, 'Alien terrestrial invertebrates in South Africa', in B.W. van Wilgen, G.J. Measey, D.M. Richardson, J.R. Wilson & T.A. Zengeya, (eds), Biological invasions in South Africa, Springer, Berlin (pp. 183-204), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_7.         [ Links ]

Kesner, D. & Kumschick S., 2018, 'Gastropods alien to South Africa cause severe environmental harm in their global alien ranges across habitats', Ecology and Evolution 8(16), 8273-8285, https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4385.         [ Links ]

Klein, H., 2011,'A catalogue of the insects, mites and pathogens that have been used or rejected, or are under consideration, for the biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa', African Entomology 19, 515-549, https://doi.org/10.4001/003.019.0214.         [ Links ]

Kumschick, S., Vimercati, G., De Villiers, F.A., Mokhatla, M.M., Davies, S.J., Thorp, C.J., Rebelo, A.D. & Measey, G.J., 2017, 'Impact assessment with different scoring tools: How well do alien amphibian assessments match?', NeoBiota 33, 53-66, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.33.10376.         [ Links ]

Macdonald, I.A.W., Kruger, F.J. & Ferrar, A. (eds), 1986, The ecology and management of biological invasions in southern Africa, Oxford University Press, Cape Town.         [ Links ]

Mantintsilili, A., Shivambu, N., Shivambu, T.C. & Downs, C.T., 2022, 'Online and pet stores as sources of trade for reptiles in South Africa', Journal for Nature Conservation 67, 126154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126154.         [ Links ]

Matthys, C.K., Wilson, J.R. & Geerts, S., 2025, 'Argument maps can support decisions to declare the presence of alien species: South Africa as a case study', NeoBiota 105, 113-130, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.105.161591.         [ Links ]

McGeoch, M.A., Spear, D., Kleynhans, E.J. & Marais, E., 2012, 'Uncertainty in invasive alien species listing', Ecological Applications 22, 959-971, https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1252.1.         [ Links ]

Measey, J., Hui, C. & Somers, M.J., 2020, 'Terrestrial vertebrate invasions in South Africa', in B.W. van Wilgen, G.J. Measey, D.M. Richardson, J.R. Wilson & T.A. Zengeya, (eds), Biological invasions in South Africa, (pp. 115-151), Springer, Cham, Switzerland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_5.         [ Links ]

Nelufule, T., Robertson, M.P, Wilson, J.R.U. & Faulkner, K.T., 2022, 'Native-alien populations - an apparent oxymoron that requires specific conservation attention', NeoBiota 74, 57-74, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.74.81671.         [ Links ]

Nelufule, T., Robertson, M.P., Wilson, J.R.U., Faulkner, K.T., Sole, C. & Kumschick, S., 2020, 'The threats posed by the pet trade in alien terrestrial invertebrates in South Africa', Journal for Nature Conservation 55, 125831, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125831.         [ Links ]

Nkuna, K.V., Visser, V., Wilson, J.R.U. & Kumschick, S., 2018, 'Global environmental and socio-economic impacts of selected alien grasses as a basis for ranking threats to South Africa', NeoBiota 41, 19-65, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.41.26599.         [ Links ]

Paap, T., De Beer, Z.W., Migliorini, D., Nel, W.J. & Wingfield, M.J., 2018, 'The polyphagous shot hole borer (PSHB) and its fungal symbiont Fusarium euwallaceae: a new invasion in South Africa, Australasian Plant Pathology 47, 231-237, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13313-018-0545-0.         [ Links ]

Picker, M. & Griffiths, C.L., 2011, Alien & invasive animals: a South African perspective, Struik Nature, Cape Town, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Picker, M.D. & Griffiths, C.L., 2017, 'Alien animals in South Africa-composition, introduction history, origins and distribution patterns', Bothalia: African Biodiversity & Conservation 47, a2147, https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2147.         [ Links ]

Pretorius, L., 2008, 'Introduced biological control agents of insect pests to South Africa 1892-2008', Unpublished report, Agricultural Research Council, Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Prinsloo, G.L. & Uys, V.M., 2015, Insects of cultivated plants and natural pastures in southern Africa, Entomological Society of Southern Africa, Hatfield, South Africa.         [ Links ]

Robinson, T., Ivey, P., Powrie, L., Winter, P., Wong, L.J. & Pagad, S., 2020b, 'Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species - South Africa', Version 2.7, Invasive Species Specialist Group ISSG, viewed 4 February 2025, https://www.gbif.org/dataset/3cabcf37-db13-4dc1-9bf3-e6f3fbfbbe23.         [ Links ]

Robinson, T.B., Peters, K. & Brooker, B., 2020a, 'Coastal invasions: the South African context', in B.W. van Wilgen, G.J. Measey, D.M. Richardson, J.R. Wilson & T.A. Zengeya, (eds), Biological invasions in South Africa (pp. 229-247), Springer, Cham, Switzerland, https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-030-32394-3_9.         [ Links ]

Reyserhove, L., Desmet, P., Oldoni, D., Adriaens, T., Strubbe, D., Davis, A.J., Vanderhoeven, S., Verloove, F. & Groom, Q., 2020, 'A checklist recipe: making species data open and FAIR', Database 2020, baaa084, https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baaa084.         [ Links ]

SANBI, 2023, 'Permits issued in respect of South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act's Alien and Invasive Species Regulations over the period October 2014-December 2022', Zenodo, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7947508.         [ Links ]

SANBI & CIB, 2023a, 'Appendix 2. The species list', in T.A. Zengeya & J.R. Wilson (eds), The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2022, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217197.         [ Links ]

SANBI & CIB, 2023b, 'Appendix 7. The species list for the Prince Edward Islands', in T.A. Zengeya & J.R. Wilson (eds), The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2022, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217229.         [ Links ]

SANBI & CIB, 2023c, 'Appendix 3. Metadata for the list of alien species in South Africa', in T.A. Zengeya & J.R. Wilson (eds), The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2022, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217211.         [ Links ]

SANBI & CIB, 2023d, 'Appendix 4. Workflows', in T.A. Zengeya & J.R. Wilson (eds), The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2022, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217222.         [ Links ]

Seebens, H., Blackburn, T.M., Dyer, E.E., ..., Essl, F., et al., 2018, 'Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115, E2264-E2273, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719429115.         [ Links ]

Shivambu, T.C., Shivambu, N. & Downs, C.T., 2022, 'An assessment of avian species sold in the South African pet trade', African Journal of Ecology 60, 980-995, https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.13029.         [ Links ]

Theobald, F.V., 1906, 'Some notable instances of the distribution of injurious insects by artificial means', Science Progress in the Twentieth Century 1(1), 58-72.         [ Links ]

Van Rensburg B.J., Weyl, O.L., Davies, S.J., Van Wilgen, N.J., Spear, D., Chimimba, C.T. & Peacock, F., 2011, 'Invasive vertebrates of South Africa', in D. Pimental (ed), Biological invasions: Economic and environmental costs of alien plant, animal, and microbe species, (pp. 325-378), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, https://doi.org/10.1201/b10938.         [ Links ]

Van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R. & Zengeya, T.A., 2020, 'Biological Invasions in South Africa: an overview', in B.W. van Wilgen, G.J. Measey, D.M. Richardson, J.R. Wilson & T.A. Zengeya, (eds), Biological Invasions in South Africa, Springer, Cham, Switzerland (pp. 3-31), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_1.         [ Links ]

Van Wilgen, B.W., Wannenburgh, A., Wilson, J.R.U., 2022a 'A review of two decades of government support for managing alien plant invasions in South Africa', Biological Conservation 274, 109741, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109741.         [ Links ]

Van Wilgen, B.W. & Wilson, J.R., 2018, 'The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2017', South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch.         [ Links ]

Van Wilgen, B.W., Zengeya, T.A. & Richardson, D.M., 2022b, 'A review of the impacts of biological invasions in South Africa, Biological Invasions 24, 27-50, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02623-3.         [ Links ]

Weyl, O.L.F., Ellender, B., Wassermann, R.J., Truter, M., Dalu, T., Zengeya, T.A. & Smit, N.J., 2020, 'Alien freshwater fauna in South Africa', in B.W. van Wilgen, G.J. Measey, D.M. Richardson, J.R. Wilson & T.A. Zengeya, (eds), Biological invasions in South Africa (pp 151-182), Springer, Berlin https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_6.         [ Links ]

Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., et al., 2016, 'Comment: The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship', Scientific Data 3, 160018, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.         [ Links ]

Wilson, J.R., 2025, 'A list of taxa currently and historically regulated under South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Alien & Invasive Species Regulations', v1.1 (20250325), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7638965.         [ Links ]

Wilson, J.R.U. & Kumschick, S., 2024, 'The regulation of alien species in South Africa', South African Journal of Science, 120, https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2024/17002.         [ Links ]

Wood, A.R., 2017, 'Fungi and invasions in South Africa', Bothalia: African Biodiversity & Conservation, 47(2), 1-16, https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2124.         [ Links ]

Zachariades, C., 2018,'Biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa: a list of all insects, mites and pathogens released as biological control agents from 19132018', Agricultural Research Council, Plant Health and Protection, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

Zachariades, C., 2021, 'A catalogue of natural enemies of invasive alien plants in South Africa: classical biological control agents considered, released and established, exotic natural enemies present in the field, and bioherbicides', African Entomology 29, 1077-1142, https://doi.org/10.4001/003.029.1077.         [ Links ]

Zengeya, T., Faulkner, K., Mtileni, P., Wilson, J.R.U., 2025, 'Lessons and challenges in creating alien species lists: insights from South Africa's national reports on the status and management of biological invasions', NeoBiota, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.101.162932.         [ Links ]

Zengeya, T., Ivey, P., Woodford, D.J., Weyl, O., Novoa, A., Shackleton, R., Richardson, D. & Van Wilgen B., 2017, 'Managing conflict-generating invasive species in South Africa: Challenges and trade-offs', Bothalia: African Biodiversity & Conservation, 47, a2160, https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2160.         [ Links ]

Zengeya, T.A. & Wilson, J.R. (eds), 2023a, The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2022, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217182.         [ Links ]

Zengeya, T.A. & Wilson, J.R., 2023b, 'Supplementary Material to the status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2022', South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217189.         [ Links ]

Zengeya, T.A. & Wilson, J.R., 2020, 'The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2019', South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch, https://zenodo.org/records/3947613.         [ Links ]

 

 

Correspondence:
T.A. Zengeya
E-mail: T.Zengeya@sanbi.org.za

Submitted: 26 May 2025
Accepted: 12 January 2026
Published: 27 March 2026

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Please note that supplementary materials are not edited, proofread or designed by SANBI Graphics and Editing and is the sole work and responsibility of the author(s).

 

 

Supplementary material

The list of alien taxa for South Africa analysed as part of this paper (v20250520) is available here: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14937470; with the metadata here: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217211; and workflows here: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217222.

For more information on the reports on the status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa see http://iasreport.sanbi.org.za. A copy of the 2023 report (on which most of this paper is based is available here: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217182.

The latest version of the list of alien taxa for South Africa is available here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7433102.