The case for a more precise approach begins with taxonomy. The Spanish Catalogue of Invasive Alien Species uses O. maxima as its regulatory category, but names found in historical, agricultural and ecological sources do not always refer to the same biological entity. Current taxonomic treatments recognize O. maxima as an accepted species and list names such as Opuntia amyclaea and O. ficus-indica var. amyclaea among its synonyms. Other studies discuss Opuntia dillenii, a name that Plants of the World Online treats as a synonym of Opuntia tuna. These distinctions matter because invasive potential, biological-control responses, ecological interactions and agricultural uses can vary among taxa. A label applied to a group of plants may therefore combine populations with different histories and behaviors. The authors emphasize that species-level identification is particularly important before evidence from one cactus is used to justify control of another. Without that clarification, a single regulatory category can obscure the biological differences that management is supposed to address.

Demographic records further complicate the idea that Spanish Opuntia populations have followed a simple pattern of unchecked expansion. Government agricultural statistics estimated that slightly more than three million bushes recorded as O. maxima grew outside farmland in Spanish territories in 1961. About 1.5 million were in the Canary Islands, while mainland populations included approximately 797,000 in Andalusia and 453,500 in Murcia. By 2011, the total had fallen by nearly 95 percent, to 169,588 bushes, with most remaining in the Canary Islands. In 2019, the records listed 101,445 in the Canary Islands but only about 320 on the mainland—310 in Andalusia and 10 in Murcia. The decline became especially steep after the arrival of the cochineal insect Dactylopius opuntiae in 2007. Estimates in the preceding decade had generally ranged between 200,000 and 300,000 bushes, then dropped below historical levels. These figures do not by themselves measure ecological impact, but they challenge a narrative of uniform demographic expansion and show why current abundance, recent decline and historical distribution all need to be considered.

Population size, however, cannot settle the invasion question. A species may decline overall while still causing serious damage in particular habitats, just as a plant that is harmful in one location may provide resources or structure in another. The Perspective reviews evidence from Spanish islands and mainland sites showing that some Opuntia taxa have become embedded in local ecological networks. Studies of pollination in Tenerife and Menorca found that alien plants, including Opuntia, did not simply displace native plants from pollinator interactions; in some circumstances, they reinforced existing connections between plants and pollinators. Research on seed dispersal likewise found complex interactions involving native and alien animals. These findings do not make the cacti harmless. They show instead that removing them can alter relationships that have developed in transformed landscapes. In Tabarca, removing Opuntia was associated with detrimental effects on local arthropods. On Benidorm, eliminating the plants during an effort to restore native vegetation had unforeseen negative effects on yellow-legged gull colonies. Such examples suggest that eradication should be evaluated as an ecological intervention, not treated as an automatic synonym for restoration.

Other evidence points in the opposite direction and underscores the need for targeted control. The Spanish catalogue reports O. maxima invading stands of Pinus pinea and scrub dominated by Pistacia lentiscus near Doñana, where competition with native vegetation may be a serious concern. In the Canary Islands, research on the lizard Gallotia galloti found that it consumes seeds from both native and alien plants, including O. dillenii. The seeds of Opuntia retained germination potential after passing through the lizard’s gut, while seeds of a plant identified as Scilla cf. haemorrhoidalis, endemic to the islands, were negatively affected. Because the lizard fed according to availability, these interactions could favor some Opuntia taxa while reducing the frequency of vulnerable native plants. The authors therefore reject both extremes: neither alien status alone nor cultural familiarity can establish whether a population should remain. Control is most clearly justified where effects on native or endemic communities are demonstrated or strongly plausible. In those cases, removal should be coupled with restoration capable of replacing lost habitat structure and supporting native communities.

The cactus’s social history makes that balance unusually complicated. European colonizers introduced Opuntia to the Iberian Peninsula during the 1500s, probably first as an ornamental plant. In arid regions, people later cultivated it extensively for fruit, fodder and property boundaries. The plant also supported production of cochineal, a scale insect whose carmine pigment was once an important commercial red dye. In the Canary Islands—especially Tenerife, Lanzarote and Gran Canaria—cultivation expanded for dye production, but high labor costs, synthetic dyes and the shift toward tourism and services reduced its economic importance. On mainland Spain, particularly in Andalusia and Murcia, the fruits known as “chumbos” remained part of local diets. The decline of the bushes after 2007 has consequently been experienced not only as an ecological change but as a loss of food traditions, rural income, landscape identity and local memory. Reports from southern communities have linked the disappearance of chumberas with concern about lost livelihoods and, in some places, increased vulnerability to landslides. These accounts do not override conservation priorities, but they demonstrate that management decisions have consequences beyond species lists and maps.

Aridification raises the stakes because the cactus is now being evaluated in landscapes where water scarcity is reshaping agriculture and restoration. Models place much of the plant’s potential distribution in coastal and peri-coastal areas, where mild climates overlap with dense settlement, tourism, infrastructure, irrigated farming and intense water demand. In places such as La Axarquía, southern Spain’s expanding irrigated agriculture has contributed to severe water stress, creating pressure to reconsider land uses that depend less heavily on irrigation. The authors suggest that carefully identified and managed Opuntia could, in suitable settings, contribute to a more diversified dryland economy. Its fruits have food value, its pads can serve as fodder, and its drought tolerance may support production where water-intensive crops are becoming harder to sustain. Prickly pear stands have also been associated in other Mediterranean research with soil protection and the natural regeneration of woody plants in areas at risk of desertification. These potential benefits remain conditional: a cactus that helps stabilize degraded land in one setting could threaten an endemic community in another. Climate adaptation therefore requires site-specific evidence, not a general presumption that drought tolerance makes any introduced population desirable.

The proposed alternative is a nature-positive management system that treats risk and value as variables to be measured at population level. Authorities would first clarify taxonomic identity, then assess ecological interactions, habitat sensitivity, landscape history and realistic restoration goals. Where native or endemic species are threatened, intervention could include control or eradication, followed by restoration rather than simple removal. In degraded, arid or historically transformed landscapes where ecological risk is low or manageable, containment, tolerance or carefully regulated use could be considered instead of blanket eradication. This framework also asks managers to account for food security, rural livelihoods, local knowledge, cultural value and the relationship between production and water demand. Revived cultivation might support low-water agriculture or niche markets, while cochineal production could benefit from renewed interest in natural dyes and improved extraction methods. None of these possibilities is presented as a guaranteed solution, and the Perspective does not report a new experiment, systematic review or taxonomic revision. It is a synthesis intended to improve decisions. Its broader warning is that conservation baselines are shifting: as climate change and land-use transformation make some historical ecosystems increasingly difficult to restore, effective policy may need to protect biodiversity while acknowledging the ecological functions and human meanings that long-established alien populations can acquire.

The authors also caution that the sharp demographic decline should not be interpreted as evidence that ecological questions have disappeared. The spread of Dactylopius opuntiae changed the abundance of plants recorded under the O. maxima category, but it does not resolve whether surviving populations belong to the same taxa or whether their effects are benign across all habitats. Biological control can therefore alter the visibility and distribution of a population without eliminating the need for ecological assessment. Monitoring should track recruitment, vegetative spread, interactions with native species and changes in habitat condition, rather than relying only on counts of established bushes.

This approach also places restoration objectives at the center of management. Removing a long-established cactus may be appropriate where it threatens endemic flora or sensitive communities, but removal alone does not recreate the former ecological state. Decisions should specify what habitat or function is intended to replace the population, how success will be measured and whether restoration is feasible under increasing aridity and water scarcity. By linking these choices to the Sustainable Development Goals, the Perspective frames invasive-species policy as a coordination problem involving biodiversity, land degradation, water use and rural well-being. Its emphasis on transparent evidence and site-level evaluation is intended to make regulation more proportionate without weakening protection where risks are substantial.

Subject of Research: Context-dependent management of naturalized Opuntia populations in Spain under aridification

Article Title: Rebalancing the management of naturalized Opuntia in Spanish territories under aridification: taxonomy, invasion status, cultural value, and climate adaptation

Article References: Perea-García, J. O., & Medina-Lorenzo, E. (2026). Rebalancing the management of naturalized Opuntia in Spanish territories under aridification: taxonomy, invasion status, cultural value, and climate adaptation. Discover Ecology, 2(1), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44396-026-00039-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44396-026-00039-8

Keywords: Opuntia, Spain, invasive species, taxonomic uncertainty, aridification, water scarcity, restoration ecology, climate adaptation, Rebalancing, management, naturalized, Spanish