Closing the Knowing–Doing Gap in Invasive Plant Management: Accessibility and Interdisciplinarity of Scientific Research

Matzek, Virginia; Covino, Justin; Funk, Jennifer L.; Saunders, Martin

doi:10.1111/conl.12042

Cited by 116 publications

(130 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They were more likely to value personal and peer knowledge and first-hand management experiences than academic research and journal publications. This finding concurs with recent surveys concerning the "knowing-doing" gap in invasive species management, which show that limited access to scientific publications, limited time to peruse literature, and limited overlap in utility of theoretical research to applied issues contribute to infrequent reliance on academic publications for management (Matzek et al 2014).…”

Section: Future?supporting

confidence: 90%

Missing the bandwagon: Nonnative species impacts still concern managers

Kuebbing¹,

Simberloff²

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent critics of invasion biology advocate reduced efforts against nonnative species, arguing that attempts to manage invasions are often costly and futile and that managers are indiscriminately managing species regardless of their impact. Whether this criticism has affected ground-level operations is unknown. A survey of land stewards of a major conservation NGO reveals that this plea has not been heeded; in fact, managers report that they would increase nonnative species management if more resources were available. While respondents overwhelmingly listed nonnative, invasive species as their highest priority for management, we found little evidence supporting the criticism that practitioners focus on nonnative species with minimal ecological impact. Additionally, we found that more conservation practitioners reported managing problematic "weedy" native species over nonnative species that are not invasive. Our results indicate that these managers are selective rather than profligate, targeting species that are having a demonstrable impact or are likely to do so. They feel hamstrung by resource shortages despite their rigorous target selection. Why the increasing literature calling for changed treatment of nonnatives has not led to changed operations is uncertain. Possible reasons are that the critics are not prescriptive or unified about management prioritization, or that these managers simply reject the proposed new paradigm.

show abstract

Section: Future?supporting

confidence: 90%

Missing the bandwagon: Nonnative species impacts still concern managers

Kuebbing¹,

Simberloff²

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We consider sustained and expanded collaborations between land managers and academic scientists a key mechanism for performing these outcome assessments and improving success of NIS management. Advancing these collaborations will require changes in reward systems that currently differ among managers, scientists, funders and the public at large (Acharya 2010;Esler et al 2010a;Kettenring and Adams 2011;Matzek et al 2014;Lavoie and Brisson 2015;Matzek et al 2015;Addison et al 2016). If not improved, we can expect continuation of systemic failures in how we approach and fund invasive species management for conservation purposes (Stocker 2004;Blossey 2016a, b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of invasive Phragmites australis in the Adirondacks: a cautionary tale about prospects of eradication

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive plant management (largely mechanical and chemical) consumes an ever-increasing portion of budgets for land management organizations, but metrics of success, other than extent of areas treated or resources expended is rarely available. Here we assess success of managing 346 populations of invasive Phragmites australis (range 0.36-4134 m 2 ; cover 37-75%) in the Adirondack Park in upstate New York, USA. We began by treating 18 patches in 2010 using herbicide; gradually adding patches treated annually or intermittently for a total of 334 by the end of the project period. We monitored each population annually and if P. australis was present mapped its spatial extent and estimated cover. We considered P. australis eradicated when live stems were absent from a site for at least three consecutive years. Our treatments reduced size and cover of P. australis populations and eradication was achieved at 104 of 294 sites. However, probability of eradicating P. australis over a 7-year project timeframe was 0.83 for the smallest patches (0.36 m 2 ), whereas at medium (45 m 2 ) and large patches ([3000 m 2 ) probability of eradication decreased to 0.26 and 0.02, respectively. Our results question efficacy of managing large P. australis populations with the goal of eradication. We urge conservation organizations to clearly articulate management objectives beyond short-term suppression of target plants and to promote accountability by providing quantitative measurements of outcomes.

show abstract

“…The last decade saw increasing concerns that scientific research was not being used to underpin policy and practice in the fields of conservation and environmental science [1][2][3][4][5][6][7], with decisions generally being experiencebased rather than evidence-based [2,8]. Methods for evidence-based decision-making are more developed in disciplines such as medicine and social science.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic mapping was developed in social sciences in response to a lack of empirical data when answering questions using systematic review methods, and a need for a method to describe the literature across a broad subject of interest. Systematic mapping does not attempt to answer a specific question as do systematic reviews, but instead collates, describes and catalogues available evidence (e.g. primary, secondary, theoretical, economic) relating to a topic or question of interest. The included studies can be used to identify evidence for policy-relevant questions, knowledge gaps (to help direct future primary research) and knowledge clusters (sub-sets of evidence that may be suitable for secondary research, for example systematic review). Evidence synthesis in environmental sciences faces similar challenges to those found in social sciences. Here we describe the translation of systematic mapping methodology from social sciences for use in environmental sciences. We provide the first process-based methodology for systematic maps, describing the stages involved: establishing the review team and engaging stakeholders; setting the scope and question; setting inclusion criteria for studies; scoping stage; protocol development and publication; searching for evidence; screening evidence; coding; production of a systematic map database; critical appraisal (optional); describing and visualising the findings; report production and supporting information. We discuss the similarities and differences in methodology between systematic review and systematic mapping and provide guidance for those choosing which type of synthesis is most suitable for their requirements. Furthermore, we discuss the merits and uses of systematic mapping and make recommendations for improving this evolving methodology in environmental sciences.

show abstract

Closing the Knowing–Doing Gap in Invasive Plant Management: Accessibility and Interdisciplinarity of Scientific Research

Cited by 116 publications

References 35 publications

Missing the bandwagon: Nonnative species impacts still concern managers

Missing the bandwagon: Nonnative species impacts still concern managers

Management of invasive Phragmites australis in the Adirondacks: a cautionary tale about prospects of eradication

A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About