Historical review maps 25 years of Neobiota in European invasion science

A historical review traces Neobiota’s development from a 24-member German working group established in 1999 into a Europe-based, internationally connected association for biological invasion science. Drawing on organizational records, conference materials and unpublished information from organizers, the review examines the association’s governance, biennial conference series, publishing activities, international participation and policy engagement.

Neobiota began with a meeting on April 9–10, 1999, at the Technische Universität Berlin. Twenty-four experts from universities, research centres, the German Environment Agency, a conservation organization and CABI agreed to establish an interdisciplinary working group. A follow-up meeting adopted the name “Neobiota – Working Group on Biological Invasions,” and the founders set four objectives: fostering scientific exchange, advancing research on the causes and ecological effects of invasions, disseminating applications such as control strategies, and connecting science with policy and the media.

The authors describe their approach as “internal reflexivity” because individuals directly involved in Neobiota’s formation and development analysed the association’s history. The study combined historical evidence from founding members, organizational reports, conference programmes, abstract books and proceedings with quantitative analysis of 884 oral-presentation abstracts, excluding keynotes. Abstract classifications covered research field, geographic scale, topic, approach, habitat and taxon. The authors also collected information on participants, institutional affiliations, keynote speakers and session chairs, and examined changes in the use of “neobiota” in English-language Google Books publications from 2000 to 2020.

Neobiota deliberately retained an informal network model without formal registration, membership procedures or fees, with voluntary roles and access open to people working in the field. During its first decade, it developed a Council and Board. The Council, first elected at the 2008 Prague conference, was designed to represent European countries and elect Board members. The 10-member Board, established in 2010, supports the leadership, elects the president and vice-president, and selects future conference venues. The review documents this governance development and the association’s subsequent European and international activities without establishing that the structures themselves caused the association’s expansion.

The biennial NEOBIOTA conference series began in Berlin in 2000 and has covered 12 European countries, including Turkey. Attendance increased from 100 participants representing nine countries in 2000 to 421 participants representing 47 countries at Lisbon in 2024. Participation temporarily declined at the hybrid-format 2020 meeting in Vodice. Across the conference series, 73 countries were represented, while participants from 34 non-European countries had attended since the 2002 Halle conference. Europe remained the largest source of participants, with North America the second most represented region.

Ecological research consistently predominated among the classified presentations. Establishment and spread, environmental impacts and species traits were recurring themes, whereas policy, socioeconomic effects and other social dimensions were addressed less frequently. Studies using secondary data became more common over time, while theoretical studies were presented less often; observational and manipulative studies fluctuated without a clear directional trend. Terrestrial habitats predominated, although the marine-focused 2024 Lisbon meeting had a high proportion of aquatic studies. Plants were the most frequently represented taxon, while several animal groups, algae and bacteria or fungi appeared less often.

The review also identifies persistent geographic inequality. Under the World Bank income classification used in the analysis, participants affiliated with institutions in non-high-income countries averaged 7.4% of conference participants. The authors associate this underrepresentation with financial and formal barriers, including travel funding and visa restrictions. Gender representation was more mixed: women accounted for approximately 31% of 57 keynote speakers and 34% of 166 sessions with known chairs. The analysis inferred gender from given names, and missing chair information limits interpretation. The authors report that keynote invitations approached gender parity after the 2016 Vianden conference and that session-chair representation moved toward parity from Dublin in 2018.

Neobiota’s publishing activity began with a proceedings and monograph series that operated from 2000 to 2008. Participants at the 2010 Copenhagen conference resolved to establish the peer-reviewed, open-access journal NeoBiota, which began publication with Pensoft Publishers in 2011. Its stated scope includes basic and applied research across taxa and ecosystems, mechanisms of introduction, establishment and spread, ecological, evolutionary, economic and societal impacts, and ethical, legal, social and policy perspectives. By mid-2025, the journal had published 511 articles and was supported by 75 subject editors.

Conferences also served as forums for public and policy engagement. Conservation agencies helped plan and fund the 2000 Berlin meeting, which included a coordinated press release, and later conferences issued resolutions addressed to national bodies and the European Union. The review states that numerous scientists associated with Neobiota supplied evidence or advice during consultations that shaped EU Regulation 1143/2014, which requires member states to control species on the Union List of Invasive Alien Species of Union concern. Associated scientists have also participated in regulatory forums and risk-assessment work, although the review does not attribute legislative change to any single conference.

Overall, the review characterizes Neobiota’s main achievements as bridging disciplinary and geographical divisions, sustaining scientific exchange, internationalizing a Europe-rooted research network, creating open publication channels and contributing scientific expertise to policy. The evidence is association-centered and draws partly on records maintained by participants, while systematic data on informal interactions are lacking. The authors identify more visible socio-ecological research and more consistent inclusion of underrepresented groups as priorities for the association’s future development.

Subject of Research: Historical review of the Neobiota association’s development in biological invasion science

Article Title: Twenty-five years of Neobiota: building a community for invasion science in Europe and beyond

Article References: Kowarik, I., Novoa, A., Bosch-Guiu, A., Brundu, G., Essl, F., Gervazoni, P., Henke, T., Kühn, I., Starfinger, U., Vilà, M., & Pyšek, P. (2026). Twenty-five years of Neobiota: building a community for invasion science in Europe and beyond. NeoBiota, 107, 35-61. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.107.173229

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.107.173229

Keywords: Neobiota, biological invasions, invasion science, scientific associations, conference history, research governance, open-access publishing, science policy, research equity, Twenty-five, years, building