Urban areas are hubs for invasive alien (non-native) species (IAS) which can cause major problems in and around urban areas. Urban conservation practitioners face complex decisions about which IAS require management, where and when these management interventions are necessary, and how to implement them effectively. While researchers increasingly advocate the assignment of critical thresholds informing IAS management decisions, little attention has been given to the development of criteria for such thresholds or related practical application protocols in the context of urban environmental management. We review approaches that have been applied to manage IAS in urban areas and evaluate which thresholds are considered and applied before, during, and after management actions. Our literature search revealed 75 publications, with clear geographic bias. Less than half of all studies had implications for the prioritization of IAS management in urban areas and only 31% of these directly assessed such priorities. Only 8% of studies referenced a threshold or decision trigger when proposing management approaches for IAS in urban areas. This suggests that decisions to manage IAS in urban areas are often made on an ad hoc basis, without considering objective and transparent criteria, and/or are prompted by external factors (such as funding availability) that are not recorded in the formal literature. There is a need for IAS management in urban areas to be evidence-based and informed by well-tested measures and transparent decision triggers. Resources should be directed towards integrating evidence-based thresholds and tailored prioritization schemes into urban management frameworks to support decisions about what, where, and when IAS management is required.

城市地区是外来（非本地）入侵物种 (IAS) 的中心，这些物种可能会在城市地区和周边地区造成重大问题。城市保护从业者面临着复杂的决策，包括哪些 IAS 需要管理、何时何地需要这些管理干预措施以及如何有效实施这些干预措施。虽然研究人员越来越多地提倡指定用于 IAS 管理决策的关键阈值，但很少有人关注在城市环境管理背景下制定此类阈值或相关实际应用协议的标准。我们审查已应用于管理城市地区 IAS 的方法，并评估在管理行动之前、之中和之后考虑和应用的阈值。我们的文献检索揭示了 75 篇具有明显地域偏见的出版物。不到一半的研究对城市地区 IAS 管理的优先级有影响，其中只有 31% 直接评估了这些优先级。在提出城市地区 IAS 管理方法时，只有 8% 的研究参考了阈值或决策触发因素。这表明在城市地区管理 IAS 的决定通常是临时做出的，没有考虑客观和透明的标准，和/或由未记录在正式文献中的外部因素（如资金可用性）推动。城市地区的 IAS 管理需要以证据为基础，并通过经过良好测试的措施和透明的决策触发因素提供信息。