Testing the Australian Weed Risk Assessment with different estimates for invasiveness

Speek, T.A.A.; Davies, J.; Lotz, L.A.P.; Putten, Wim H. van der

doi:10.1007/s10530-012-0368-9

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…major, minor or non‐weeds, Speek et al . ). This implies that multiple – possibly contradictory – forms of invasiveness are routinely condensed into a single form.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…; Speek et al . ). Even if precise definitions are provided, people may be unaware of their own underlying motivations for listing some species as invasive because of cognitive biases (Burgman ; Hulme ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Even though some definitions share no common criteria, most classifications and studies of species invasiveness categorize species as either invasive or not (though some specify different strengths of invasiveness, e.g. major, minor or non-weeds, Speek et al 2013). This implies that multiplepossibly contradictoryforms of invasiveness are routinely condensed into a single form.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Invasive species classifications commonly use expert opinion derived from observation (Burgman 2004;McGeoch et al 2012;Speek et al 2013). Even if precise definitions are provided, people may be unaware of their own underlying motivations for listing some species as invasive because of cognitive biases (Burgman 2001;Hulme 2012).…”

Section: Rationale For Invasive Species Listing Is Inaccurate or Imprmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Disentangling the four demographic dimensions of species invasiveness

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary A definitive list of invasive species traits remains elusive, perhaps due to inconsistent ways of identifying invasive species. Invasive species are typically identified using one or more of four demographic criteria (local abundance, geographic range, environmental range, spread rate), referred to here as the demographic dimensions of invasiveness. In 112 studies comparing invasive and non‐invasive plant traits, all 15 combinations of the four demographic dimensions were used to identify invasive species; 22% of studies identified invasive species solely by high abundance, while 25% ignored abundance. We used demographic data of 340 alien herbs classified as invasive or non‐invasive in Victoria, Australia, to test whether the demographic dimensions are independent and which dimensions influence invasive species listing in practice. Species' abundances, spread rates and range sizes were independent. Relative abundance best explained the invasiveness classification. However, invasive and non‐invasive species each spanned the full range of each demographic dimension, indicating that no dimension clearly separates invasive from non‐invasive species. Graminoids with longer minimum residence times were more frequently classified as invasive, as were forbs occurring near edges of native vegetation fragments. Synthesis. Conflating multiple forms of invasiveness, by not distinguishing invasive species that are identified using different demographic criteria, may obscure traits possessed by particular subsets of invasive species. Traits promoting high abundance likely differ from those enabling fast spread and broad ranges. Examining traits linked with the four demographic dimensions of invasiveness will highlight species at risk of becoming dominant, spreading quickly or occupying large ranges.

show abstract

“…major, minor or non‐weeds, Speek et al . ). This implies that multiple – possibly contradictory – forms of invasiveness are routinely condensed into a single form.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rationale For Invasive Species Listing Is Inaccurate or Imprmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Disentangling the four demographic dimensions of species invasiveness

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such challenges include strategically prioritising research on the impacts of understudied species, in areas of the world where invasive species are less studied and different aspects of the invasion process less well covered. Although fairly robust models exist to explain the success of introduced plants ( Pheloung, Williams & Halloy, 1999 ), formal risk assessment still faces multiple challenges even for this group ( Hulme, 2012 ; Speek et al, 2013 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review

Wilgen

Gillespie

Richardson

et al. 2018

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For many taxa, new records of non-native introductions globally occur at a near exponential rate. We undertook a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications on non-native herpetofauna, to assess the information base available for assessing risks of future invasions, resulting in 836 relevant papers. The taxonomic and geographic scope of the literature was also compared to a published database of all known invasions globally. We found 1,116 species of herpetofauna, 95% of which were present in fewer than 12 studies. Nearly all literature on the invasion ecology of herpetofauna has appeared since 2000, with a strong focus on frogs (58%), particularly cane toads (Rhinella marina) and their impacts in Australia. While fewer papers have been published on turtles and snakes, proportionately more species from both these groups have been studied than for frogs. Within each herpetofaunal group, there are a handful of well-studied species: R. marina, Lithobates catesbeianus, Xenopus laevis, Trachemys scripta, Boiga irregularis and Anolis sagrei. Most research (416 papers; 50%) has addressed impacts, with far fewer studies on aspects like trade (2%). Besides Australia (213 studies), most countries have little location-specific peer-reviewed literature on non-native herpetofauna (on average 1.1 papers per established species). Other exceptions were Guam, the UK, China, California and France, but even their publication coverage across established species was not even. New methods for assessing and prioritizing invasive species such as the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa provide useful frameworks for risk assessment, but require robust species-level studies. Global initiatives, similar to the Global Amphibian Assessment, using the species and taxonomic groups identified here, are needed to derive the level of information across broad geographic ranges required to apply these frameworks. Expansive studies on model species can be used to indicate productive research foci for understudied taxa.

show abstract

A New Method for Post-introduction Risk Assessment of Biological Invasions Among Introduced Shrubs in Developing Countries

Seburanga

Bizuru

Mwavu

et al. 2015

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk-assessment methods are useful in collecting data that can help decision making to prevent the introduction of new species that have the potential of invading as well as in management of established taxa. Not only the complexity and unaffordability of available pre-introduction risk-assessment models make them rarely or inconsistently applied in the least-developed countries, but also there is lack of tools to assess the status of already introduced plant species. In this study, an affordable and rapid method of assessment of invasiveness among introduced plant species was developed and tested in Rwanda. This method defines three invasion stages (potential, effective, and suppressive invaders) and four levels of risk assessment: post-introduction assessment of species inherent invasive potential (Level 1), post-establishment assessment of species capacity of regeneration (Level 2), post-naturalization assessment of species range of occurrence and ability for long-distance dispersal (Level 3), and post-naturalization assessment of species ability to outcompete other plants in the community and transform the landscape (Level 4). A review of invasive species in Rwanda was developed through desk review, examination of herbarium records, and vegetation surveys. This method should be applicable in other countries that lack the means for a more conventional scientific investigation or under any circumstance where a quick and inexpensive assessment is needed. The method could be useful to environmental managers for timely intervention with strategies specific to different stages of invasion (post-introduction, post-establishment, or post-naturalization) and allocate resources accordingly.

show abstract

Testing the Australian Weed Risk Assessment with different estimates for invasiveness

Cited by 8 publications

References 33 publications

Disentangling the four demographic dimensions of species invasiveness

Disentangling the four demographic dimensions of species invasiveness

A taxonomically and geographically constrained information base limits non-native reptile and amphibian risk assessment: a systematic review

A New Method for Post-introduction Risk Assessment of Biological Invasions Among Introduced Shrubs in Developing Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About