Teun Everts
@teuneverts.bsky.social
Invasion ecologist with a softspot for environmental DNA applications in fundamental and applied biological invasions research 👽🧬
Postdoctoral researcher @INBOVlaanderen
Associate Editor @BioinvasionsRecords
Media & Communication @INVASIVESNET
Postdoctoral researcher @INBOVlaanderen
Associate Editor @BioinvasionsRecords
Media & Communication @INVASIVESNET
💥This is one of the most complete reviews on impacts of biological invasions, and was a shared effort of many experts globally.
Co-leading this was a huge honour!
Co-leading this was a huge honour!
December 30, 2025 at 12:34 PM
💥This is one of the most complete reviews on impacts of biological invasions, and was a shared effort of many experts globally.
Co-leading this was a huge honour!
Co-leading this was a huge honour!
📈📉 #Non-native species can generate negative, neutral, or positive effects, often at the same time and in different domains.
Effective management therefore requires integrated, transparent, and #context-aware impact assessments, not one-size-fits-all labels.
Effective management therefore requires integrated, transparent, and #context-aware impact assessments, not one-size-fits-all labels.
December 30, 2025 at 12:32 PM
📈📉 #Non-native species can generate negative, neutral, or positive effects, often at the same time and in different domains.
Effective management therefore requires integrated, transparent, and #context-aware impact assessments, not one-size-fits-all labels.
Effective management therefore requires integrated, transparent, and #context-aware impact assessments, not one-size-fits-all labels.
⚙️ Impacts emerge through #mechanisms (e.g. #competition, #predation, #hybridization, ecosystem engineering) but manifest at different biological levels—from individuals to ecosystems.
Confusing mechanisms with consequences is a common source of error in impact studies.
Confusing mechanisms with consequences is a common source of error in impact studies.
December 30, 2025 at 12:31 PM
⚙️ Impacts emerge through #mechanisms (e.g. #competition, #predation, #hybridization, ecosystem engineering) but manifest at different biological levels—from individuals to ecosystems.
Confusing mechanisms with consequences is a common source of error in impact studies.
Confusing mechanisms with consequences is a common source of error in impact studies.
🌐 Interest in invasion impacts has exploded since the 1980s—but growth in publications has not resolved core problems.
Despite more data, comparability, context-dependence, and bias remain major obstacles to drawing robust conclusions across systems.
Despite more data, comparability, context-dependence, and bias remain major obstacles to drawing robust conclusions across systems.
December 30, 2025 at 12:30 PM
🌐 Interest in invasion impacts has exploded since the 1980s—but growth in publications has not resolved core problems.
Despite more data, comparability, context-dependence, and bias remain major obstacles to drawing robust conclusions across systems.
Despite more data, comparability, context-dependence, and bias remain major obstacles to drawing robust conclusions across systems.
💡 Invasion #impacts extend far beyond ecology.
They span #ecological, #economic, and #socio-cultural domains, often simultaneously—yet are shaped by data gaps, confounding factors, scale, and stakeholder values.
Our framework shows why “impact” is never a single, simple number.
They span #ecological, #economic, and #socio-cultural domains, often simultaneously—yet are shaped by data gaps, confounding factors, scale, and stakeholder values.
Our framework shows why “impact” is never a single, simple number.
December 30, 2025 at 12:27 PM
💡 Invasion #impacts extend far beyond ecology.
They span #ecological, #economic, and #socio-cultural domains, often simultaneously—yet are shaped by data gaps, confounding factors, scale, and stakeholder values.
Our framework shows why “impact” is never a single, simple number.
They span #ecological, #economic, and #socio-cultural domains, often simultaneously—yet are shaped by data gaps, confounding factors, scale, and stakeholder values.
Our framework shows why “impact” is never a single, simple number.
Invasion impacts extend far beyond ecology.
They span #ecological, #economic, and #socio-cultural domains, often simultaneously—yet are shaped by data gaps, confounding factors, scale, and stakeholder values.
Our framework shows why “impact” is never a single, simple number.
They span #ecological, #economic, and #socio-cultural domains, often simultaneously—yet are shaped by data gaps, confounding factors, scale, and stakeholder values.
Our framework shows why “impact” is never a single, simple number.
December 30, 2025 at 12:23 PM
Invasion impacts extend far beyond ecology.
They span #ecological, #economic, and #socio-cultural domains, often simultaneously—yet are shaped by data gaps, confounding factors, scale, and stakeholder values.
Our framework shows why “impact” is never a single, simple number.
They span #ecological, #economic, and #socio-cultural domains, often simultaneously—yet are shaped by data gaps, confounding factors, scale, and stakeholder values.
Our framework shows why “impact” is never a single, simple number.
Huge milestone (again) 😁. Congrats Franck, well-deserved! 👽
December 22, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Huge milestone (again) 😁. Congrats Franck, well-deserved! 👽
But then the question becomes: what do we, as a scientific community, value most: an objective review system where outcome can not be influenced by prior knowledge on author identity, or the ability to post an unreviewed, and therefore unfinished, work?
December 13, 2025 at 11:37 AM
But then the question becomes: what do we, as a scientific community, value most: an objective review system where outcome can not be influenced by prior knowledge on author identity, or the ability to post an unreviewed, and therefore unfinished, work?
I think double (and even triple) blind review should be the standard. I dont know why a reviewer should know the identity of the authors?
Authors uploading preprints choose to reveal their identity. By abolishing double blind review, you dont leave the choice to the authors, which is problematic.
Authors uploading preprints choose to reveal their identity. By abolishing double blind review, you dont leave the choice to the authors, which is problematic.
December 12, 2025 at 10:17 AM
I think double (and even triple) blind review should be the standard. I dont know why a reviewer should know the identity of the authors?
Authors uploading preprints choose to reveal their identity. By abolishing double blind review, you dont leave the choice to the authors, which is problematic.
Authors uploading preprints choose to reveal their identity. By abolishing double blind review, you dont leave the choice to the authors, which is problematic.