Socioecological Resilience: Quantitative Assessment of the Impact of an Invasive Species Assemblage on a Lake Ecosystem

Abstract

An invasive assemblage refers to a group of invasive species that coexist and interact within an ecosystem, significantly altering its dynamics, biodiversity, functions, and ecosystem services. Their presence in lakes can severely affect these ecosystems. The objective of this article is to present an assessment using indexes of socioecological resilience to the impact of an assemblage of two invasive species (P. clarkii and E. crassipes) in a lake ecosystem, the Fúquene Lagoon in Colombia. Socioecological resilience indexes (rating scale: 0.0–100%) are developed based on community perception within the area of influence of the lake ecosystem under study. Indexes are developed for each dimension of analysis (ecological, social, and economic) and include a global resilience index. Community perception is obtained through a survey according to the dimensions of analysis. The results of the comprehensive assessment using the developed indexes suggest significant vulnerability of the ecological (index = 37.7%) and social (index = 40.9%) resilience of the lake ecosystem to the invasive species assemblage. The low-risk perception and limited implementation of preventive measures accentuate this fragility. Although the economic dimension shows greater robustness (index = 56.9%), it is imperative to strengthen the adaptive capacity of the socioecological system to mitigate the adverse impacts of biological invasions and ensure the sustainability of the ecosystem (global resilience index = 45%). Assessing lake ecosystems’ recovery from invasive species requires a multidimensional approach, focusing on ecological, economic, and social factors to develop integrated management strategies for resilience and sustainability.

1. Introduction

The concept of socioecological resilience emerged from the ecological context, associated with the systems’ demonstrated ability to adapt and transform in response to perturbations [1]. Environmental systems, being mixed, exhibited adaptive characteristics focused on addressing external or internal alterations, which allowed the generation of new dynamics through the regeneration of processes, structures, or functions to maintain their conditions [2]. Domptail et al. [3] mentioned that in order to assess resilience, the sustainability of social–ecological systems should be considered. The system’s adaptive capacity represents the adjustment of social activities to the inherent conditions of ecosystems, aiming to transform dynamics without altering the system itself [4]. Thus, quantitative evaluation through indexes to analyze the resilience described sustainability processes and provided insights into the system’s organization, functioning, and adaptation to change events [5].

The quantitative assessment of resilience through indexes gained importance by recognizing the impact of human behaviors on ecosystems, which usually function as delimitations of socioecological systems, as well as defining the contexts and resulting problems from these interactions [6]. It is important to highlight that socioecological resilience evidenced new equilibrium points different from the initial ones, as the attributes composing the systems tended to self-organize to preserve themselves when experiencing various perturbations [7]. In the studied lake ecosystem (Fúquene Lagoon, Colombia), the presence of an assemblage of two invasive species (Procambarus clarkii and Eichhornia crassipes) was evidenced, which were considered perturbation foci, as they caused alterations to the ecosystem’s ecological structure and the social dynamics taking place there [8,9]. In the case of P. clarkii (Red Swamp Crayfish), the effects of its presence were oriented towards the transformation of physicochemical factors such as turbidity and biological factors, and the reduction of biodiversity [10]. The effects of the species E. crassipes (Water Hyacinth) on the lagoon were mainly related to its high dispersion rate and coverage over the water surface [11]. Moreover, there was a decrease in dissolved oxygen, which affected the various fish and macroinvertebrate species inhabiting the lagoon, whose populations declined over time due to the perturbation caused by both species [9,12].

These two species were considered an invasive assemblage due to their behaviors within the socio–ecosystem [13]. P. clarkii altered the structure of aquatic communities by preying on a wide range of organisms, including invertebrates, fish, and aquatic plants [14]. Its burrowing behavior increased water turbidity and sediment resuspension, which reduced light penetration and negatively affected the submerged plants [15]. Moreover, this crayfish competed with native species for food resources and habitats, displacing them and reducing their abundance [16]. E. crassipes formed dense floating mats that blocked sunlight, preventing photosynthesis in submerged aquatic plants and reducing dissolved oxygen levels in the water. This created hypoxic conditions that affected fish and other aquatic organisms [17]. The accumulation of Water Hyacinth biomass also altered nutrient cycles and increased decomposing organic matter, which affected the ecosystem’s biogeochemical processes [18]. The assemblage of these two invasive species intensified the negative impacts on lake ecosystems. The interaction between P. clarkii and E. crassipes amplified habitat degradation, biodiversity loss, and the alteration of ecological processes, compromising the ecosystem’s functioning and resilience [19].

An invasive assemblage refers to a group of invasive species that coexisted and interacted within an ecosystem [20]. These species, which were not native to the ecosystem, could significantly alter its dynamics, affecting both native species and ecosystem functions [21]. The presence of invasive assemblages in lake ecosystems could have a significant impact on these systems, affecting their biodiversity, functioning, and ecosystem services [22]. Therefore, the study and management of these invasive assemblages were probably relevant for the conservation and sustainability of lake ecosystems. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the effects of both species possibly not only affected the studied lake ecosystem but also produced negative consequences for the communities residing in the area of influence of the Fúquene Lagoon. That is, there were probably alterations to the economic activities carried out (fishing and tourism), contributing to the deterioration of ecosystem goods and services. Due to the impacts generated by other perturbation foci, such as extensive livestock farming and increasing soil and water pollution, communities were also forced to transform the land use in search of productive activities different from those previously carried out in the study area.

There were different approaches to quantitatively assessing the impact of invasive species on lake ecosystems. Among the most frequently used were statistical models and future projections [23], environmental impact assessment tools [24], and the analysis of ecosystem structure and function [25]. Statistical models were useful for forecasting the future expansion of invasive species to evaluate the present and future exposure of key ecosystem services [26]. Environmental impact assessment tools facilitated a better understanding of the magnitude of environmental impacts caused by different invasive taxa [27]. The analysis of ecosystem structure and function evaluated how invasive species altered the structure and functioning of ecosystems, contributing to the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services [28].

The quantitative assessment of socioecological resilience in lake ecosystems due to the presence of invasive species involved considering various dimensions of analysis [29]. The dimensions typically considered included the ecosystem’s capacity to withstand climate impacts and disasters (ecological resilience) and how the population became more resilient through the ecosystem itself (social and economic resilience) [30]. Different quantitative methodologies were also reported to assess ecological resilience. Among them, dynamic Bayesian network methodologies [31], modeling, measuring, and visualizing community resilience [32], quantitative methods for studying social and ecological systems [33], and urban flood resilience assessment based on the socioecological system [34] were reported worldwide. In the Latin American context, socioecological resilience assessment methodologies [35], socioecological resilience assessment in climate change scenarios [36], and agroecology and climate change [37] were also reported. Quantitative methodologies for the assessment of resilience in lake systems were based on ecosystem health indicators (species diversity, primary productivity, and water quality) [38], social indicators (community adaptive capacity and ecosystem dependence) [39], and economic indicators (economic productivity of the ecosystem and value of ecosystem services) [40].

The objective of this article is to present an assessment using indexes of socioecological resilience to the impact of an assemblage of two invasive species (P. clarkii and E. crassipes) in a lake ecosystem, the Fúquene Lagoon in Colombia. In this study, socioecological resilience indexes are developed based on community perception within the area of influence of the lake ecosystem under study. The community’s perception was obtained through the application of a survey, which took into account the following fundamental dimensions: ecological, social, and economic. In the context of socioecological resilience assessment, this study is relevant for the following practical aspects: (1) It proposes a methodology to evaluate resilience in lake ecosystems in the presence of an assemblage of invasive species (P. clarkii and E. crassipes). (2) It provides valuable information on the effectiveness of implemented management measures and on the ecosystem’s dynamics in response to disturbances. (3) It identifies potential indicators to consider during the development of methodologies for assessing socioecological resilience in lake ecosystems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Site

The lake ecosystem under study, the Fúquene Lagoon (5°27′09” N; 73°44′33” W), is located between the border of the departments of Boyacá and Cundinamarca (Colombia). On average, at the study site, the elevation is 2540 m above sea level, the annual precipitation is 1000 mm, the relative humidity is 75%, the monthly evaporation is 85 mm, and the annual temperature is 12.5 °C. The Fúquene Lagoon has a surface area of 30 km² and a total drainage area of 992 km² (Figure 1). The study area is characterized by two periods of decreased precipitation (December–February and June–August) and two periods of increased precipitation (March–May and September–November). The lake ecosystem under study has an inflowing water stream (Susa River) and an outflowing water stream (Suárez River). The average water level in the lake ecosystem is 0.71 m. The rise in the water level in the lagoon floods surrounding areas despite the existence of small dikes along the perimeter of the lagoon. The water from the lagoon is used for crop irrigation (pastures, potatoes, corn, wheat, and barley; monthly 6350 m³/ha) and domestic consumption (monthly 715,000 m³). The Fúquene Lagoon could be classified as a eutrophic, freshwater, monomictic, medium-sized lake of mixed origin (tectonic, glacial, and alluvial) [12,41,42].

The Fúquene Lagoon was selected as the study area due to the existence of socioecological issues associated with an assemblage of two invasive species (P. clarkii and E. crassipes). This lake ecosystem has historically experienced ecological deterioration and a fragile relationship between society and nature, with significant dependence on the ecosystem goods and services provided by the Fúquene Lagoon [43]. The extraction of mineral and timber products, road construction, human settlement growth, livestock farming, and extensive agriculture have generated a 76% reduction in the lagoon’s surface area since the first decade of the 20th century [42]. Lastly, the following municipalities are located within the area of influence of this lake ecosystem: Ráquira, Susa, Guachetá, Fúquene, and San Miguel de Sama (Figure 1).

2.2. Information Collection

In this study, we developed a structured survey that was administered to a representative sample over two months. This survey consisted of 20 questions related to the context of the Fúquene Lagoon, specifically addressing the ecological, social, and economic issues perceived due to the impact of biological invasions (P. clarkii and E. crassipes) on the lake ecosystem under study (

Table 1. General structure of the survey developed to assess the social–ecological resilience to the presence of an invasive species assemblage in a lake ecosystem.

Dimension	Question Focus
Basic characterization	Gender, age, visitor or resident, length of residence or number of visits, and occupation.
Social	Cause of the social problem, consequence of the invasive species assemblage, degree of ecosystem appropriation (land use, water quality, ecosystem services, and biodiversity), local knowledge (acquired learning and human activity), and development, selection, and implementation of adaptive strategies.
Ecological	Cause of the ecological problem, ecological consequences of the invasive species assemblage (biodiversity, water quality, ecosystem services, and land use), adaptive strategies implemented (restoration and conservation), and their contribution to mitigation (adaptation and human activity).
Economic	Cause of the economic problem, economic consequences of the invasive species assemblage, economic value of the ecosystem (land use), ecosystem services (water quality and biodiversity), economic productivity, and adaptive alternatives implemented.

). The survey design was based on various perspectives of socioecological resilience reported by reference studies: Weichselgartner and Kelman [44], Olsson et al. [45], Folke et al. [46], and Meerow and Newell [47], and the results of a global literature review (see Section 2.3). This approach allowed for the detection of the status of the lake ecosystem and the social, ecological, and economic elements of interest. The questions were formulated so that the responses could be coded and quantified [48,49]. The complete survey is available in the Supplementary Materials of this article (Table S1). The representative sample size for the survey administration was determined based on the report by Jain et al. [50]. The sample size determination (n = 68) considered population variability, confidence level (CI = 90%), and the desired precision to determine the optimal sample size. This ensured that the sample was sufficiently representative to allow for adequate statistical analysis. This representative sample was stratified [51] based on the municipalities within the area of influence of the lake system under study (

Table 2. Proportion of surveys per municipality in the area of influence of the lake ecosystem under study.

Ecosystem	Municipality	Population (Inhabitants)	Proportion (%)	Number of Surveys
Fúquene Lagoon	Ráquira	13,588	28.6	19
	Susa	12,302	25.9	18
	Guachetá	11,385	23.9	16
	Fúquene	5617	11.8	8
	San Miguel de Sema	4556	9.60	7
Total		47,448	100	68

). To calculate the reliability or internal consistency of the survey, Cronbach’s Alpha statistical coefficient was used [52]. This coefficient provided a measure (between 0.0 and 1.0) of how well the survey questions measured the concept of socioecological resilience. In other words, Cronbach’s Alpha assessed the degree to which all the survey questions measured the same concept (internal reliability) of socioecological resilience. A value close to one indicated higher internal reliability of the developed survey and that the survey items measured the same concept consistently [52].

2.3. Information Analysis

The methodology for information analysis encompassed six stages. The first stage involved a systematic review of the literature in scientific databases to identify the universe of information, study dimensions, and key ecological, social, and economic variables to consider in resilience studies of lake ecosystems. This literature review followed the guidelines proposed by Rodríguez-Santamaría et al. [53]. The scientific databases utilized were Scopus and Google Scholar, selected due to the significant number of documents identified within the context of this study (information universe,

Table 3. Citation frequency for possible dimensions and variables of socioecological resilience in lake ecosystems, detected in scientific databases.

Phase	Description	Keywords	Scopus		Google Scholar		Average Frequency (%)
			Documents	Frequency (%)	Documents	Frequency (%)
1	Universe	Resilience and lake ecosystem	959	100	254,000	100	100
2	Dimensions	Ecological	425	44.3	220,000	86.6	65.5
		Economic	98	10.2	172,000	67.7	39.0
		Social	103	10.7	165,000	65.0	37.9
3	Ecological variables	Land use	24	5.65	196,000	89.1	47.4
		Water Quality	47	11.1	174,000	79.1	45.1
		Biodiversity	60	14.1	163,000	74.1	44.1
		Conservation	20	4.71	179,000	81.4	43.0
		Human Activity	20	4.71	142,000	64.5	34.6
		Ecosystem Service	35	8.24	122,000	55.5	31.8
		Restoration	25	5.88	107,000	48.6	27.3
		Adaptive Management	21	4.94	89,900	40.9	22.9
	Social variables	Human	9	9.18	156,000	90.7	49.9
		Water Quality	15	15.3	123,000	71.5	43.4
		Ecosystem Service	15	15.3	119,000	69.2	42.2
		Biodiversity	12	12.2	85,200	49.5	30.9
		Adaptive Management	13	13.3	76,500	44.5	28.9
	Economic variables	Land Use	12	11.7	156,000	94.5	53.1
		Water Quality	17	16.5	136,000	82.4	49.5
		Ecosystem Service	13	12.6	124,000	75.2	43.9
		Biodiversity	12	11.7	92,300	55.9	33.8
		Restoration	9	8.74	75,800	45.9	27.3

). The period considered for the literature review was between 2013 and 2023. The literature review comprised three phases. In Phase 1, the following keywords were established to identify the universe of information: resilience and lake ecosystem. In Phase 2, the main dimensions considered in resilience studies of lake ecosystems were identified using the “keywords” analysis tool in the Scopus database. The identified dimensions were ecological, social, and economic. Lastly, in Phase 3 of the literature review, the main variables (potential indicators) related to each study dimension were identified using the “keywords” tool in the Scopus database.

The second stage of the information analysis involved processing the survey data. The survey was also structured based on the dimensions and variables identified in the literature review conducted in the first stage of information analysis. The responses to the socioecological resilience survey were processed, converting qualitative responses into quantitative data (coding and quantification) [54,55]. To validate the information collected in the surveys, it was cross-referenced with the information reported in the following institutional reference documents: “Biophysical, Ecological, and Sociocultural Characterization of the Ubaté Valley Wetlands Complex” [56], “Management of the Ubaté River Basin—Fúquene Lagoon in Colombia” [57], “Environmental Management Plan for the Regional Integrated Management District of the Fúquene, Cucunubá, and Palacio Lagoon Complex” [41], and “Management Plan for the Ubaté and Suárez River Basins” [58].

In the third stage of the analysis, indicators were developed to assess the socioecological resilience of the studied lake ecosystem quantitatively within the context of the impact of invasive species assemblages. A general matrix was constructed to identify the different variables (potential indicators) to be considered based on their frequency of occurrence in the survey responses. These variables were organized under the three considered dimensions for the quantitative evaluation of socioecological resilience. A factorial-analysis approach was utilized to develop quantitative indicators for each considered dimension. This approach identified latent variables in the dataset that explained the majority of the variation in the responses [59]. The indicators were constructed from the variables identified in the general matrix using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and a principal component analysis (PCA) conducted with Past^® V. 3.0 software [60]. The PCA involved analyzing a dataset (survey responses) characterized by containing different observations from the description of socioecological resilience variables and identifying their relationships to analyze them from a reduced dimension of the initial dataset without losing information [61]. The PCA thus facilitated the classification of variables within the framework of socioecological resilience. Values between 0.0 and 100% were assigned for each variable (indicators) based on their frequency of occurrence across the total surveys conducted [62].

In the fourth stage of the information analysis, the valuation of each indicator was collected to assign the partial value for each of the socioecological resilience indexes structured according to the three considered dimensions. The partial valuation in each dimension was performed as the weighted sum of each of the indicators that comprised it [63]. The equation used for calculating each partial resilience index was as follows (Equation (1)):

$$X={\displaystyle \frac{\sum _i^n(INi\times Pi)}{\sum _i^{n}Pi}}$$

(1)

where X = index of the evaluated dimension (social, ecological, and economic) in percentage and INi = measured variable in percentage; that is, the indicators that constituted the dimension multiplied by the number corresponding to the order of importance (Pi). It was considered that Pi was obtained according to the hierarchy of the variable, which depended on the relative frequency of occurrence within the survey responses. The denominator of the equation corresponded to the sum of the importance of the variables (indicators) considered in the corresponding dimension [64].

In the fifth stage of the information analysis, the global socioecological resilience index (GSRI) for the studied lake ecosystem was calculated. In this study, it was assumed that the three considered dimensions had equal importance. That is, the three indexes associated with the dimensions had an individual weight of 0.33 [65]. The equation used for calculating the global socioecological resilience index was as follows (Equation (2)):

$$GSRI={\displaystyle \frac{(SRI+ERI+ECRI)}{3}}$$

(2)

where GSRI = global socioecological resilience index in percentage, SRI = social resilience index in percentage, ERI = ecological resilience index in percentage, and ECRI = economic resilience index in percentage. Regarding the range of values used to evaluate socioecological resilience, the following numerical scale and color code were considered based on the report by Langebeck and Beltrán [64]: highly resilient (75–100%, green), moderately resilient (74.9–40%, yellow), and weakly resilient (39.9–0.0%, red).

In the sixth stage of the information analysis, the GSRI was validated using cross-validation techniques [66]. This involved dividing the survey responses into a training set and a test set, applying the global resilience index to the training set and then testing its performance on the test set [67]. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the robustness of the GSRI to variations in the indicators developed for each study dimension [68]. Finally, the quantitative index was analyzed and interpreted within the context of socioecological resilience in response to the impact of invasive species assemblages on the studied lake system.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Socioecological Resilience Variables

The results of the literature review suggested that the main dimensions to consider in the assessment of socioecological resilience in lake ecosystems were as follows, in order of importance: ecological (65.5%) > economic (39%) > social (37.9%). In addition, the findings indicated that within the ecological dimension, the following variables were particularly noteworthy (Table 3): land use (47.4%) > water quality (45.1%) > biodiversity (44.1%) > conservation (43%) > human activity (34.6%) > ecosystem service (31.8%) > restoration (27.3%) > adaptive management (22.9%). In the economic dimension, the variables highlighted by their citation frequency were as follows: land use (53.1%) > water quality (49.5%) > ecosystem service (43.9%) > biodiversity (33.8%) > restoration (27.3%). Regarding the social dimension, the following variables were primarily detected: human (49.9%) > water quality (43.4%) > ecosystem service (42.2%) > biodiversity (30.9%) > adaptive management (28.9%). The studies detected frequently included all three dimensions to address resilience comprehensively in response to stress factors and equilibrium conditions in lake ecosystems. Finally, this literature review allowed us to detect the dimensions and potential variables frequently used in lake ecosystem resilience studies.

3.2. Perception of Socioecological Resilience

From the analysis of the applied surveys (sampling group, n = 68), the community’s perceptions were identified and analyzed within the context of socioecological resilience in the studied lagoon. The results showed that 69% and 31% of the respondents were men and women, respectively. It was evidenced that the predominant age range of the respondents was between 36 and 60 years (52%), followed by ages under 35 years (32%) and over 60 years (16%). The results also showed that the majority of the members of the surveyed group resided in the area for more than 20 years (57%), followed by those who resided in the area between 10 and 20 years (25%). The remaining group resided in the lagoon’s area of influence for less than 10 years (18%). Costanza [69] has reported that as socioecological systems are dynamic and open, responses to disturbances could vary significantly among different demographic groups based on gender, age, economic activity, and place of residence. Thus, adaptive resilience strategies could have a cultural nature in addition to a genetic component [70]. Lastly, in relation to the statistical validity test of the developed survey, the results showed a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.88 out of 1. This result suggested adequate validity in the applied survey to study socioecological resilience to the impact of the assembly of invasive species (P. clarkii and E. crassipes).

Regarding the productive activities developed in the area of influence of the lake ecosystem, the findings showed that livestock was the predominant activity (38%), followed by activities that were not related to the ecosystem under study (35%). That is, these latter were related to labor or commercial activities outside the lagoon’s area of influence. People who engaged in agriculture in the lagoon’s area of influence corresponded to 16%, and the remaining engaged in fishing, tourism, and crafts activities (10%), which were directly related to the lagoon. All the above activities also conditioned the land use in the area of influence of the lake ecosystem. Kertész et al. [71] have reported that the conversion of lake ecosystems into agricultural lands and pastures for livestock is one of the main drivers of change in land use. This practice, driven by the growing demand for food and the intensification of agriculture, leads to the loss of aquatic habitats, landscape fragmentation, and the alteration of hydrological cycles [72].

The results suggested four population groups based on the responses in the resilience survey, identified through a principal component analysis (PCA, Figure 2). The first group, which represented 30.9% of the respondents, identified in the ecological dimension that the reduction of the water surface area and the presence of invasive species (Red Swamp Crab and Water Hyacinth) were the main problematic factors of the lake ecosystem. Havel et al. [73] have reported that these factors could significantly alter aquatic ecosystems, affecting biodiversity and ecosystem services. Baho et al. [74] have indicated that the presence of invasive species and the reduction of the water surface could decrease the resilience of lake ecosystems. In the social dimension, the adaptive strategies most commonly reported by this group were the dredging of the lake ecosystem and the filtration of water for human consumption. Shalloof et al. [75] have reported that dredging is vital but requires responsible management. Escobar et al. [76] pointed out that water filtration is an important adaptive strategy to ensure water safety in the presence of invasive species.

Studies have reported that the introduction of the Red Swamp Crayfish (P. clarkii) into aquatic ecosystems has generated a series of significant ecological disturbances. In freshwater and eutrophic lakes, in particular, this invasive crustacean has demonstrated a profound impact on native fauna and flora [77]. The invasion of P. clarkii in these types of lakes likely had a multifaceted and complex impact, affecting both the structure and functioning of these ecosystems. The combination of ecological mechanisms such as predation (generalist consumer and impact on amphibians), competition (for food resources and space), habitat modification (bioturbation and water clarification), introduction of pathogens (fungal disease of crayfish plague), and alteration of biogeochemical cycles (nutrient cycling) probably made this species one of the most harmful invaders worldwide [77,78]. Furthermore, research has reported that the Water Hyacinth (E. crassipes) is possibly one of the most problematic invasive aquatic plants globally. Its rapid growth and ability to form dense floating colonies have generated significant ecological impacts in numerous aquatic ecosystems, especially in freshwater and eutrophic lakes [79]. By modifying the habitat (formation of vegetative mats and hydrological alteration), altering water quality (reduction of dissolved oxygen and nutrient accumulation), and reducing biodiversity (decrease in diversity and alteration of trophic networks), this aquatic plant represented a significant threat to the health of aquatic ecosystems and the services they provided [79,80].

In the economic dimension, the first population group identified that the inappropriate appropriation of the territory for productive activities (use of agricultural and livestock land) was the main cause of problems related to invasive species. This group perceived the lake ecosystem under study as having a high economic value. According to Heino et al. [81], the transformation of land use could significantly alter lake ecosystems, affecting biodiversity and ecosystem services and favoring the introduction and spread of invasive species. In addition, the community suggested that water was the resource most affected by economic development and that pollution and the presence of invasive species affected the development of their productive activities. Pejchar and Mooney [82] have indicated that productive activities could increase the pressure on water resources, exacerbating the impacts of invasive species. Lastly, the findings suggested that adaptive strategies to address these economic problems included diversifying income sources with activities that did not depend on the state of the lake ecosystem.

The second population group, identified using PCA (29.4%, Figure 2), suggested that the ecological problem was primarily related to the loss of water surface area, the presence of invasive species, and the loss of biodiversity. This group perceived that invasive species had been present in the lake ecosystem for less than five years. Gao et al. [83] have reported that P. clarkii and E. crassipes cause a biodiversity loss due to their impact on macrophyte communities, sediment disturbance, and the alteration of water chemistry. Furthermore, the results indicated that adaptive strategies related to the expansion of this invasive ensemble in the studied lagoon included dredging, water filtration for human consumption, and the manual removal of invasive species. Budnick et al. [84] have pointed out that the effectiveness of the manual removal of invasive species could vary depending on various factors. The findings suggested that this population group perceived a high ecological risk for the lake ecosystem if these adaptive strategies were not implemented.

The results hinted that the second population group identified the illegal increase in areas for agriculture and livestock as the main factor of the social problem. This group highly valued their social appropriation in the lagoon territory (identification, delimitation, and social organization). In developing countries, areas illegally used in lagoons for agriculture and livestock generated significant social problems [85]. The accelerated expansion of agricultural and industrial activities in countries such as China, Brazil, and India resulted in the discharge of untreated wastewater into lakes and rivers [86], threatening the ecological integrity of lake ecosystems and endangering the health and well-being of local communities [87]. This second population group was aware of the insufficiency of the adaptive strategies implemented against the social impact of invasive species, suggesting the need for educational strategies. They perceived that the adaptive strategies were mainly focused on community control (manual collection of invasive species) and government control (dredging of the lake ecosystem). In the economic dimension, the second population group identified land use for productive activities as the main cause of problems with invasive species. They assigned a high economic value to the lagoon, highlighting water as the most affected resource. There are reports that the invasive species Red Swamp Crayfish and Water Hyacinth negatively impacted the quality and availability of water, generating risks for human health and the ecosystem [13]. The findings suggested that the community accurately pointed to water as the most affected resource. The findings also hinted that the perceptions of economic impacts were related to the occurrence of floods and droughts. Lastly, adaptive strategies consisted of having alternative sources of income to those related to the lagoon under study.

The results for the third population group (25%, Figure 2) suggested that, despite including temporary residents of the lake ecosystem, the perception of the socioecological issues caused by the invasive species assemblage was similar. This group, composed of individuals of both sexes under 45 years old and residents for more than 10 years, was linked to tourism, commercial, and artisanal activities, not always directly related to the lake ecosystem under study. The outcome highlighted water pollution as the main ecological problem, not attributing it to the presence of the invasive species assemblage, which had been present in the lagoon for six to eight years. The impacts of the invasive assemblage were mainly associated with the reduction of the water surface area and the loss of native biodiversity. Adaptive strategies such as dredging, water filtration for human consumption, and the mechanical and manual removal of invasive species were also mentioned. Without these, they perceived the risk to the population and the ecosystem as high or very high.

In the social dimension, the findings suggested that the third population group perceived the absence of governmental and institutional support as the main problem in the lake ecosystem, relating it to the invasive species. Despite notable community interest in the effects of the invasive assemblage, this group considered the implemented adaptive strategies (dredging and mechanical and manual removal) inadequate. They opted for the substitution of activities impacted by the invasive assemblage as an adaptive strategy. They also reported that environmental education was the most appropriate strategy, promoting a preventive approach over a reactive one. Studies have evidenced that environmental education not only informs about the environment but also increases awareness and knowledge about environmental problems [88]. It was also demonstrated that it helps understand and evaluate local and global problems and master critical thinking skills to make informed decisions [89]. Indeed, the need for a critical component in building human capital to sustain conservation efforts in lake ecosystems was emphasized [90].

The third population group perceived that economic exploitation and the lack of governmental control were the main problems linked to the invasive species assemblage within the economic dimension. This group associated a high economic value with the studied lagoon. They perceived that water, the resource most affected by economic activities, significantly affected economic development due to increased pollution and flooding. The most commonly used adaptive strategy was to seek alternative economic activities not dependent on the lake ecosystem. According to Williamson [91], economic activities dependent on the ecosystem’s state could be vulnerable to disturbances from invasive species. Therefore, communities sought adaptive strategies that were less dependent on the ecosystem’s state to increase their economic resilience [92].

The fourth population group (14.7%, Figure 2), composed of residents over 45 years old who had lived in the area for more than 10 years, engaged in agricultural and livestock activities dependent on the lagoon. In the ecological dimension, the results suggested that they perceived the deterioration of water quality as the primary impact of invasive species, which had been present in the lake ecosystem for over 10 years. They also implied that the invasive assemblage might have reduced biodiversity and the water surface area. The findings indicated that the most commonly used adaptive strategies were dredging, water filtration for consumption, and the manual and mechanical removal of the invasive species. Without these measures, they perceived a medium to high risk to the lake ecosystem. Socially, they highlighted community disinterest and the absence of governmental and institutional support as major issues. They perceived a low-to-medium social appropriation of the lagoon territory. In addition, they considered the adaptive strategies inappropriate in the context of the community and invasive species. They emphasized that governmental and community intervention was the best adaptive strategy for the recovery and conservation of the lagoon. Studies have indicated that the government–community partnership is essential for building positive relationships, empowering local actors, ensuring the functioning of the economy and society, and promoting resilience in vulnerable communities [93].

The results suggested that the economic problem centered on the illegal appropriation of territory for productive activities. The fourth population group emphasized the high economic value of the studied lagoon. They also pointed out that water and biodiversity were the main impacts of productive activities in the context of invasive species. The presence of these species and changes in the precipitation regime (floods or droughts) possibly affected economic development. Finally, the adaptive strategies to address the alterations of the lagoon included secondary sources of water and additional electrical energy for the effective development of economic activities.

3.3. Socioecological Resilience Assessment

3.3.1. Ecological Dimension

The resilience indicator VEL1 (ecological consequences of the invasive species assemblage) had a mean frequency of 44.1% (

Table 4. Assessment of socioecological resilience indicators by the presence of the invasive species assemblage in the lake ecosystem under study. Indicators according to the dimension of analysis.

Dimension	Indicators	Index	Frequency (%)
Ecological	Ecological consequences of invasive species assemblages	VEL1	44.1
	Water quality	VEL2	20.6
	Ecosystem restoration	VEL3	42.7
	Biodiversity	VEL4	26.5
	Recognition of invasive species assemblage	VEL5	35.3
	Landscape transformation	VEL6	47.1
	Decrease in water mirror area	VEL7	39.7
Social	Adaptive strategies	VS1	42.7
	Social consequences of invasive species assemblage	VS2	29.4
	Government intervention	VS3	33.8
	Appropriation of territory—land use	VS4	57.4
	Local knowledge (acquired learning)	VS5	55.9
	Risk prevention	VS6	30.9
	Environmental awareness and education	VS7	35.3
Economic	Economic productivity	VEC1	77.9
	Diversity of productive activities	VEC2	45.6
	Responsible use of ecosystem goods and services	VEC3	30.9
	Economic use	VEC4	64.7
	Alternative sources of economic income	VEC5	58.8
	Economic value of the lagoon	VEC6	86.8
	Adaptive strategies	VEC7	36.8

Note: Red = weakly resilient (0.0–39.9%), yellow = moderately resilient (40–74.9%), and green = highly resilient (75–100%).

), which initially suggested a considerable perception that invasive species were generating a significant impact on the lake ecosystem under study. This also confirmed previous findings (Section 3.2) regarding the reported potential negative effects of this invasive species assemblage. Instead, this resilience indicator also implied that the community was moderately resilient to the ecological effects caused by the invasive species assemblage. The resilience indicator VEL2 (water quality) had a low frequency (20.6%). This indicator suggested weak resilience due to the degradation of this fundamental parameter for the health of the lake ecosystem under study. Moreover, the resilience indicators VEL4 (26.5%) and VEL7 (39.7%) implied a perception of biodiversity deterioration and a reduction in the water surface area in the lake ecosystem (weakly resilient). Studies have reported that community perception is often reinforced by traditional knowledge and experience accumulated over generations. Local communities could have a profound understanding of lake ecosystems and were able to detect subtle changes indicating the presence of invasive species and their impact on water quantity and quality and biodiversity [94]. Thus, these last two indicators suggested the need to continue strengthening adaptive strategies to reverse these ecological deterioration processes and increase the resilience of the lake ecosystem under study.

However, the resilience indicators VEL3 (ecosystem restoration) and VEL6 (landscape transformation) had a mean frequency of 42.7% and 47.1%, respectively (Table 4). This trend suggested a community perception that efforts were being made to restore and transform the lake ecosystem landscape to its original state (moderately resilient). Thus, adaptive strategies possibly allowed for the improvement of ecosystem service provision and community well-being. Studies have reported that ecological restoration could promote the recovery of native species populations and the restructuring of ecological communities, increasing biodiversity and ecosystem resilience [81]. Furthermore, ecological restoration could help control and reduce invasive species populations through the physical removal of individuals, competition with restored native species, or modification of habitat conditions that favored invasive species [95]. Lastly, the resilience indicator VEL5 (35.3%) suggested that, although there was an awareness of the ecological problem, efforts were still needed to expand knowledge and the capacity to identify these invasive species (weak resilience).

3.3.2. Social Dimension

From a social perspective, the indicators demonstrated a variety of responses to the presence of the invasive species assemblage in the studied lake ecosystem (Table 4). The resilience indicator VS1, which measured adaptive strategies, showed a frequency of 42.7%, suggesting a moderate adaptation of the community based on the implemented strategies (moderate resilience). In other words, a considerable portion of the population developed adaptive strategies to cope with the social changes caused by the invasive species. However, the invasive species management strategies might have been designed and implemented without the active participation of community members who depended on the lake or had an interest in its well-being. This could have generated resentment, distrust, and a lack of support for the implemented adaptive measures [96]. Instead, the resilience indicator VS2 (social consequences of the invasive species assemblage) had a lower frequency of 29.4%, which might suggest that the community was not fully aware of the implications of the presence of these invasive species (weak resilience). The results suggested that community members might have had unequal access to information about the threat of invasive species, the available adaptive strategies, and the potential impacts of these measures. This could have generated inequity in decision-making and exacerbated social tensions [97].

The results showed that the resilience indicator VS3 (government intervention) had a frequency of 33.8% (Table 4), suggesting a low level of government intervention in response to the invasive species (weakly resilient). Although this indicator did not reflect the effectiveness of the interventions, it highlighted the importance of the governmental role in building sustainable solutions. Moreover, the findings suggested that this level of intervention might have been insufficient to manage the problem generated in the lake ecosystem. Studies have reported that the community might distrust governmental authorities or scientists promoting the management of invasive species, perceiving them as outsiders or having interests different from their own. This could have generated resistance to control measures and hindered collaboration [98]. However, it was important to highlight the frequency of the resilience indicators VS4 (territorial appropriation—land use) and VS5 (local knowledge—acquired learning), with values of 57.4% and 55.9%, respectively. These results suggested an adequate connection between the communities and the lake territory, and the valuable local knowledge accumulated over generations. Indeed, the community was taking measures to adapt and learn about the invasive species (moderate resilience). Studies have reported that territorial appropriation and local knowledge allow communities to respond quickly and flexibly to changes in the ecosystem, such as the emergence of new invasive species or extreme climatic events. This adaptive capacity is important for community resilience in the face of uncertain threats [99].

The findings evidenced frequencies of 30.9% and 35.3% in the resilience indicators VS6 (risk prevention) and VS7 (environmental awareness and education), respectively (Table 4). This suggested that gaps still existed in the implementation of adaptive strategies for risk management and environmental education (weak resilience). Studies have reported that addressing these deficiencies is relevant to strengthening the capacity of communities to face socioenvironmental challenges [100]. The community might also have had limited knowledge about the ecology of invasive species, their potential impacts, and the available control strategies. This could have generated apathy, a lack of support for management measures, and even actions that inadvertently promoted the spread of the invasive species assemblage [96]. Environmental education could have empowered communities to identify invasive species early and report their presence to the competent authorities. Early detection was important to implement timely control measures and prevent the proliferation of invasive species (risk reduction) [101]. Thus, environmental education was possibly one of the community engagement approaches for early warning, which enabled the development of capacity for invasive species monitoring.

3.3.3. Economic Dimension

Regarding the economic dimension, the results suggested both opportunities and challenges for the communities that depended on the studied lake ecosystem. The community perceived that the invasive species assemblage had a significant impact on the local economy. The resilience indicator VEC1 had a high frequency (77.9%), which suggested that the community in the area of influence of the lake ecosystem was highly resilient in its economic productivity in the presence of invasive species. This valuation of the indicator also suggested that the lake ecosystem played an important role in generating income for the local population. The valuation of the resilience indicator VEC2 (45.6%) suggested that the community was diversifying its economic activities in response to the invasive species. That is, there was likely potential to diversify income sources and reduce dependence on economic activities impacted by invasive species. Studies have reported that the diversification of economic activities increased the socioecological resilience of communities to environmental disturbances. By not relying on a single economic activity, communities were less vulnerable to the negative impacts of these disturbances and had a greater capacity to adapt and recover [102]. Diversification could also be a resilience strategy in the face of future uncertainty. Given that invasive species could have unpredictable effects on lake ecosystems, diversifying economic activities could help communities become more resilient to these changes [103].

The results showed a low valuation for the resilience index VEC3 (30.9%), which suggested that the community was not utilizing the ecosystem’s resources (goods and services) sustainably. This valuation also highlighted the need to strengthen sustainable practices to ensure the long-term economic viability of the lake ecosystem. However, the resilience indicators VEC4 (64.7%) and VEC5 (58.8%) showed moderate valuations, which suggested that the communities sought alternatives to generate income both from within and outside the ecosystem to compensate for the economic impacts generated by the invasive species assemblage. Studies have reported that, although some ecosystems might show partial recovery after the initial invasion, the continuous introduction of new invasive species could amplify negative impacts and hinder complete recovery. This creates a degradation cycle that forces communities to seek economic alternatives outside the ecosystem [92]. The results showed a high valuation in the resilience indicator VEC6 (86.8%), which corroborated the economic importance of this lake ecosystem for local communities. However, they highlighted the need to continue translating this valuation into the development and implementation of adaptive strategies within the economic framework. Evidence of this was the low valuation of the resilience indicator VEC7 (36.8%), which was associated with the implementation of economic adaptive strategies in response to the presence of the invasive assemblage in the studied lake ecosystem.

3.4. Indicator and Index Analysis

The findings indicated that 47.6% of all resilience indicators received a low rating (Figure 3). In order of importance, the lowest-rated resilience indicators in the ecological dimension were as follows: water quality < biodiversity < recognition of invasive species assemblage < reduction of water surface area. Studies have reported that invasive species could significantly alter the structure and function of lake ecosystems, affecting biodiversity and ecosystem services. These alterations could lead to changes in the social perception of ecosystem resilience, as local communities might observe a decline in water quality, fishing, and other recreational activities [82]. In the social dimension, the lowest-rated resilience indicators were as follows: consequences of invasive species assemblage < risk prevention < governmental intervention < environmental awareness and education. Research has reported that the perceived risk associated with invasive species could influence the implementation of preventive measures. Studies have demonstrated that a greater awareness of the ecological and economic risks of invasions could motivate communities to support prevention and control policies. Effective education and communication about these risks are essential to fostering a proactive response [101]. Economically, the lowest-rated resilience indicators were as follows: responsible use of ecosystem goods and services < adaptive strategies. Studies have reported that the responsible use of lake ecosystem goods and services is relevant to maintaining their functionality and resilience. The social perception of the importance of these services could motivate communities to adopt more sustainable adaptive strategies and support conservation policies [95].

The results suggested that the least resilient dimensions in the studied lake ecosystem were the ecological and social ones. Each of these dimensions had 57.1% of the indicators rated as weakly resilient (0.0–39.9%). The ecological and social indicators with the lowest resilience ratings were water quality and social consequences of the invasive species assemblage, respectively. Research has reported that water quality and the social consequences of the invasive species assemblage are possibly perceived as the least resilient variables due to their direct and visible impact on the ecosystem’s health and the services it provides. The community’s perception of ecological resilience as influenced by these changes, as they affected both human well-being and the ecological integrity of the lake [104]. The resilience indexes of the ecological and social dimensions in response to the invasive species assemblage in the lake ecosystem were 37.7% (weakly resilient) and 40.9% (moderately resilient), respectively (

Table 5. Indexes by dimension and global index of social–ecological resilience to the presence of the invasive species assemblage in the lake ecosystem under study.

Index	Equation	Value
Ecological index	$ERI={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\left(VEL1\times 1\right)+\left(VEL2\times 2\right)+\left(VEL3\times 3\right)+\left(VEL4\times 4\right)+\left(VEL5\times 5\right)+\left(VEL6\times 6\right)+(VEL7\times 7)\right)}{28}}$	37.7% (weakly)
Social index	$SRI={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\left(VS1\times 1\right)+\left(VS2\times 2\right)+\left(VS3\times 3\right)+\left(VS4\times 4\right)+\left(VS5\times 5\right)+\left(VS6\times 6\right)+\left(VS7\times 7\right)\right)}{28}}$	40.9% (moderately)
Economic index	$ECRI={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\left(VEC1\times 1\right)+\left(VEC2\times 2\right)+\left(VEC3\times 3\right)+\left(VEC4\times 4\right)+\left(VEC5\times 5\right)+\left(VEC6\times 6\right)+(VEC7\times 7)\right)}{28}}$	56.9% (moderately)
Global resilience index − GSRI = ${\displaystyle \frac{(ERI+SRI+ECRI)}{3}}$		45.0% (moderately)

Note: weakly resilient (0.0–39.9%), moderately resilient (40–74.9%), and highly resilient (75–100%).

).

On the other hand, the most resilient dimension was the economic one (Figure 4). In this dimension, 71.4% of the indicators were rated moderately to highly resilient (40–100%). The results suggested that the most resilient economic indicators were economic productivity (77.9%) and the economic value of the lagoon (86.8%, Table 5). Research has reported that economic productivity is measured in monetary terms, making it likely more tangible and easier to compare its evolution over time. This could have led to a perception of greater stability and resilience, as changes in economic productivity could be quantified and monitored [92]. The resilience index of the economic dimension in response to the invasive species assemblage was 56.9% (moderately resilient). Finally, the results showed a global index of 45% (ecological, social, and economic), which suggested a medium level of socioecological resilience in response to the presence of the invasive species assemblage in the studied lake ecosystem.

3.5. Local Management Strategies

The results suggested the need to implement an integrated and multidisciplinary approach to address the challenges posed by the assemblage of invasive species in the lake ecosystem under study. Regarding the ecological dimension, the findings suggested that local management strategies such as water quality restoration, native biodiversity conservation, and early detection and rapid response were relevant [105]. Studies have reported that water quality restoration is based on prioritizing actions to reduce nutrient loads, control pollution, and restore the lake ecosystem [95]. On the other hand, biodiversity conservation focused on implementing programs for the reintroduction of native species, habitat restoration, and protection of critical areas of the lake ecosystem [106]. Lastly, early detection and rapid response centered on establishing efficient monitoring systems to detect new invasions and develop rapid response protocols [107].

Socially, the findings suggested that the following local management strategies could be useful: strengthening community participation, equity in access to information, and strengthening partnerships [108]. Research has indicated that strengthening community participation makes it possible to involve local communities in all stages of ecosystem management, from planning to implementation and monitoring [109]. Moreover, equity in access to information ensures that all community members have access to clear and updated information about invasive species and management strategies [110]. Lastly, strengthening partnerships aims to promote collaboration between governmental institutions, non-governmental organizations, and local communities [111].

Regarding the economic dimension, the results suggested that the diversification of economic activities, sustainable resource use, and investment in ecosystem-based adaptation could be highly useful [112]. Studies have reported that the diversification of economic activities promotes the development of sustainable economic activities that reduce dependence on the lake ecosystem [92]. Furthermore, sustainable resource use allowed for the implementation of sustainable management practices for the lake’s natural resources [113]. Lastly, investment in ecosystem-based adaptation promoted adaptation strategies that strengthened the resilience of the ecosystem and local communities [114].

4. Conclusions

The findings of this study on the assessment of socioecological resilience in a lake ecosystem impacted by an invasive species assemblage allow us to draw the following conclusions.

The results of the socioecological resilience perception survey suggest four population groups. These population groups agree in identifying biodiversity loss and water quality degradation as the most significant ecological impacts generated by invasive species. Socially, the lack of governmental and community support is a recurring problem. Economically, illegal land appropriation and the need for diversified income sources are key aspects to improve resilience. The differences between the four population groups highlight the variability in the perception of the ecological, social, and economic problems caused by invasive species. While some groups prioritize water quality and biodiversity, others emphasize the lack of governmental support and the need for diversified adaptive strategies to improve socioecological resilience.

The assessment using resilience indicators suggests that the community has a weak-to-moderate resilience to invasive species. Indeed, water quality and biodiversity are affected. It is important to strengthen adaptive strategies to reverse ecological degradation. In the social dimension, deficiencies in community participation and governmental intervention are observed, so it is necessary to improve environmental education and risk management. Economically, although the community has a moderate resilience characterized by the diversification of productive activities, challenges persist in the sustainability of resource use. It is essential to strengthen sustainable practices and develop adaptive economic strategies to ensure the long-term viability of the lake ecosystem and its community.

The results of the comprehensive assessment using the developed indexes suggest a significant vulnerability of the ecological and social resilience of the lake ecosystem to the invasive species assemblage. The low-risk perception and limited implementation of preventive measures accentuate this vulnerability. Although the economic dimension shows greater robustness, it is imperative to strengthen the adaptive capacity of the socioecological system to mitigate the adverse impacts of biological invasions and ensure the sustainability of the ecosystem.

The comprehensive assessment of the socioecological recovery capacity of lake ecosystems in the presence of an invasive species assemblage requires a multidimensional approach. Ecological factors, especially land use and water quality, are key. The economic and social dimensions are also fundamental, highlighting the need to develop and implement integrated management strategies to improve resilience and sustainability in these lake ecosystems.

This study enhances the understanding of using perceptions and indexes to assess socioecological resilience in lake ecosystems in the presence of an assemblage of invasive species. However, the following limitations are part of this study and require special attention. Indeed, these limitations could also become future lines of research. (1) The lack of technical knowledge among community members may limit the accuracy of the assessments. Therefore, future research should focus on strengthening the training of participants in evaluation methods and raising awareness about the concepts of socioecological resilience. (2) Although the sample size of the surveyed individuals was determined using statistical techniques (confidence level = 90%, n = 68), we recommend increasing the confidence level to 95% in future studies to achieve a larger sample size (n = 382). This will reduce potential biases and provide greater certainty in the generalization of the results. (3) Community perceptions may change over time as individuals adapt to new changes in the ecosystem. Therefore, future research should include longitudinal studies.