Biological invasions have emerged as one of the main drivers of biodiversity change and decline, and numbers of species classed as alien in parts of their ranges are rapidly rising. The European Union established a dedicated regulation to limit the impacts of invasive alien species (IAS), which is focused on the species on a Union List of IAS of particular concern. However, no previous study has specifically addressed the ecology of invasive alien mammals included on the Union List.We performed a systematic review of published literature on these species. We retrieved 262 publications dealing with 16 species, and we complemented these with the most up-to-date information extracted from global databases on IAS.We show that most of the study species reached Europe as pets and then escaped from captivity or were intentionally released. On average each year in the period 1981-2020, 1.2 species were recorded for the first time as aliens in European countries, and most species are still expanding their alien ranges by colonising neighbouring territories. France is the most invaded nation, followed by Germany, Italy, and the Russian Federation, and the muskrat , the American mink , and the raccoon dog are the most widespread species, having invaded at least 27 countries each. Invasive mammals of European Union concern are threatening native biodiversity and human well-being: worryingly, 81% of the 16 study species are implicated in the epidemiological cycle of zoonotic pathogens.Containing secondary spread to further countries is of paramount importance to avoid the establishment of new populations of invasive mammals and the related impacts on native communities, ecosystem services, and human health.We present a compendium on the ecology and impacts of invasive mammals of European Union concern. It can be used to assist environmental policies, identify and subsequently fill knowledge gaps, and inform stakeholders.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, is genomically similar to a SARS-like beta-coronavirus found in Asian rhinolophid bats. This evolutionary relationship impressed the global media, which then emphasised bats as key actors in the spillover that resulted in the pandemic. In this study, we highlight changes in the traditional and new media coverage of bats and in Internet search volumes that occurred since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.We analysed Google and Wikipedia searches for bats and coronaviruses in 21 countries and eight languages, as well as television broadcasts in the USA, some of which have global coverage, between January 2016 and December 2020. In January 2020, the amount of television news about bats boomed, and news associated with the term 'bat' shifted to COVID-19-related topics. A nearly identical pattern was observed in Google searches during 2020 at the global scale. The daily time series of television coverage and Internet search volumes on bats and coronavirus in the USA covaried in the first quarter of 2020, in line with the existence of a media bubble. Time-series analysis revealed that both the Google Trends index and visits to Wikipedia pages about bats boomed in early 2020, despite the fact that this time of year is usually characterised by low search volumes.Media coverage emphasised, correctly or not, the role of bats in the COVID-19 pandemic and amplified public interest in bats worldwide. The public image of these mammals, in many cases threatened and important ecosystem service providers, was seriously compromised. We therefore recommend that policymakers and journalists prioritise scientifically accurate communication campaigns about bats, which would help counteract the surge in bat persecution, and leverage interest towards positive human-bat interactions.

The COVID-19 outbreak is having an unprecedented effect on human society, but how is it affecting the mammals that people live with? Mammals that were part of tourism experiences are of concern, because they impact on people's health and livelihoods and, since many of them are now dependent on people, we urge consideration of the status of these mammals as a result of the pandemic.We provide a systematic review of the impacts the COVID-19 outbreak has had on mammals in tourism venues. We examine reports of diverse species in various settings responding to changes in their environments that are occurring because of the pandemic.We searched the scholarly literature, preprints, and online news sources using combinations of the search terms 'tourism', 'animals', 'wildlife', 'coronavirus', and 'COVID-19'. We searched Web of Science, SCOPUS, EBSCOHost, JSTOR, bioRxiv, OSFPREPRINTS, GDELT, Google News, and National Public Radio, and analysed a total of 39 news articles, one peer-reviewed article, and six preprints.In total, we identified 92 distinct animal reports representing 48 mammal species. We used an existing tourism classification schema to categorise each article based on the situation reported, with the new addition of one context. We classified 92 separate animal reports in 46 articles into four (of six possible) contexts: mammals as attractions ( = 40 animal reports), mammals as commodities ( = 33), mammals as threats ( = 2), and unusual sightings of mammals ( = 17). Shortage of food, in danger of losing home, having an enriched/relaxed environment, spatial expansion, disease transmission, and poaching are the major impacts or events reported in these contexts.We suggest changes for each context with respect to how people interface with mammals, with the goal of improving the lives of mammals and the people dependent on them.

It has been a long time since the world has experienced a pandemic with such a rapid devastating impact as the current COVID-19 pandemic. The causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unusual in that it appears capable of infecting many different mammal species. As a significant proportion of people worldwide are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and may spread the infection unknowingly before symptoms occur or without any symptoms ever occurring, there is a non-negligible risk of humans spreading SARS-CoV-2 to wildlife, in particular to wild non-human mammals. Because of SARS-CoV-2's apparent evolutionary origins in bats and reports of humans transmitting the virus to pets and zoo animals, regulations for the prevention of human-to-animal transmission have so far focused mostly on these animal groups. We summarise recent studies and reports that show that a wide range of distantly related mammals are likely to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, and that susceptibility or resistance to the virus is, in general, not predictable, or only predictable to some extent, from phylogenetic proximity to known susceptible or resistant hosts. In the absence of solid evidence on the susceptibility and resistance to SARS-CoV-2 for each of the >6500 mammal species, we argue that sanitary precautions should be taken by humans interacting with any other mammal species in the wild. Preventing human-to-wildlife SARS-CoV-2 transmission is important to protect these animals (some of which are classed as threatened) from disease, but also to avoid establishment of novel SARS-CoV-2 reservoirs in wild mammals. The risk of repeated re-infection of humans from such a wildlife reservoir could severely hamper SARS-CoV-2 control efforts. Activities during which direct or indirect interaction with wild mammals may occur include wildlife research, conservation activities, forestry work, pest control, management of feral populations, ecological consultancy work, management of protected areas and natural environments, wildlife tourism and wildlife rehabilitation in animal shelters. During such activities, we recommend sanitary precautions, such as physical distancing, wearing face masks and gloves, and frequent decontamination, which are very similar to regulations currently imposed to prevent transmission among humans. We further recommend active surveillance of domestic and feral animals that could act as SARS-CoV-2 intermediate hosts between humans and wild mammals.

Zoonotic pathogens and parasites that are transmitted from vertebrates to humans are a major public health risk with high associated global economic costs. The spread of these pathogens and risk of transmission accelerate with recent anthropogenic land-use changes (LUC) such as deforestation, urbanisation, and agricultural intensification, factors that are expected to increase in the future due to human population expansion and increasing demand for resources.We systematically review the literature on anthropogenic LUC and zoonotic diseases, highlighting the most prominent mammalian reservoirs and pathogens, and identifying avenues for future research.The majority of studies were global reviews that did not focus on specific taxa. South America and Asia were the most-studied regions, while the most-studied LUC was urbanisation. Livestock were studied more within the context of agricultural intensification, carnivores with urbanisation and helminths, bats with deforestation and viruses, and primates with habitat fragmentation and protozoa.Research into specific animal reservoirs has improved our understanding of how the spread of zoonotic diseases is affected by LUC. The behaviour of hosts can be altered when their habitats are changed, impacting the pathogens they carry and the probability of disease spreading to humans. Understanding this has enabled the identification of factors that alter the risk of emergence (such as virulence, pathogen diversity, and ease of transmission). Yet, many pathogens and impacts of LUC other than urbanisation have been understudied.Predicting how zoonotic diseases emerge and spread in response to anthropogenic LUC requires more empirical and data synthesis studies that link host ecology and responses with pathogen ecology and disease spread. The link between anthropogenic impacts on the natural environment and the recent COVID-19 pandemic highlights the urgent need to understand how anthropogenic LUC affects the risk of spillover to humans and spread of zoonotic diseases originating in mammals.

Roads are a potential threat to bat conservation. In addition to the direct risk of collision of bats with vehicles, roads could pose a threat to bat populations as a result of habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, and could act as barriers to movements of bats between habitats.We performed a systematic review of the literature and conducted meta-analyses to assess the threat posed by roads to bats as a result of 1) collisions between bats and vehicles and 2) roads acting as barriers to movements of bats.Based on collated records of 1207 bat road casualties in Europe, we found that low-flying species are more prone to collisions than high-flying species, and that juveniles are more vulnerable to collisions than adults. In addition, meta-analysis identified a significant bias towards male casualties. Casualties included rare species such as and geographically restricted species such as species.The bias towards male casualties could be indicative of greater natal philopatry or lower dispersal among females, or of sexual segregation in habitats of varying quality, i.e. females may occupy better quality habitats than males, and road density may be lower in better quality habitats.Whether or not roads act as barriers to the movement of bats depends on a complex interplay of habitat and species-specific behaviour. For example, the presence of favourable habitat for bats - notably woodland - was found in this review to be linked with significantly reduced barrier effects but a heightened risk of collision.Our data suggest that roads do pose a threat to bats. Future research should assess the contribution of traffic noise and street lighting to the barrier effect of roads. Where new road schemes are monitored by ecological practitioners, it is vital that consistent protocols are employed to ensure that bat activity can be compared before and after the road is built. Evidence from such research should be used to minimize the risks for bats of any roads built in the future, and to design safe crossing points for bats.

Despite conservation concerns for many species of bats, factors causing mortality in bats have not been reviewed since 1970. Here we review and qualitatively describe trends in the occurrence and apparent causes of multiple mortality events (MMEs) in bats around the world.We compiled a database of MMEs, defined as cases in which ≥ 10 dead bats were counted or estimated at a specific location within a maximum timescale of a year, and more typically within a few days or a season. We tabulated 1180 MMEs within nine categories.Prior to the year 2000, intentional killing by humans caused the greatest proportion of MMEs in bats. In North America and Europe, people typically killed bats because they were perceived as nuisances. Intentional killing occurred in South America for vampire bat control, in Asia and Australia for fruit depredation control, and in Africa and Asia for human food. Biotic factors, accidents, and natural abiotic factors were also important historically. Chemical contaminants were confirmed causes of MMEs in North America, Europe, and on islands. Viral and bacterial diseases ranked low as causes of MMEs in bats.Two factors led to a major shift in causes of MMEs in bats at around the year 2000: the global increase of industrial wind-power facilities and the outbreak of white-nose syndrome in North America. Collisions with wind turbines and white-nose syndrome are now the leading causes of reported MMEs in bats.Collectively, over half of all reported MMEs were of anthropogenic origin. The documented occurrence of MMEs in bats due to abiotic factors such as intense storms, flooding, heat waves, and drought is likely to increase in the future with climate change. Coupled with the chronic threats of roosting and foraging habitat loss, increasing mortality through MMEs is unlikely to be compensated for, given the need for high survival in the dynamics of bat populations.

1Avian influenza (AI) viruses primarily circulate in wild waterfowl populations and are occasionally transmitted to domestic poultry flocks. However, the possible roles of other wildlife species, such as wild mammals, in AI virus ecology have not been adequately addressed.2Due to their habitat and behaviour, many wild mammals may be capable of transmitting pathogens among wild and domestic populations. Exposure to AI viruses has been reported in an array of wild and domestic animals. The presence of wild mammals on farms has been identified as a risk factor for at least one poultry AI outbreak in North America. These reports suggest the need for seroprevalence studies examining the exposure of wild mammals to AI viruses.3Serological tests are routinely used to assess domestic poultry, domestic swine and human exposure to influenza A viruses, but these tests have not been validated for use in wild mammals. As such, some of these protocols may require adjustments or may be inappropriate for use in serology testing of wild mammals. Herein, we review these serological techniques and evaluate their potential usefulness in AI surveillance of wild mammals. We call for care to be taken when applying serological tests outside their original area of validation, and for continued assay verification for multiple species and virus strains.