Weed Risk Assessments Are an Effective Component of Invasion Risk Management

Gordon, Doria R.; Flory, S. Luke; Lieurance, Deah; Hulme, Philip E.; Buddenhagen, Christopher E.; Caton, Barney P.; Champion, P. D.; Culley, Theresa M.; Daehler, C. C.; Essl, Franz; Hill, Jeffrey E.; Keller, Reuben P.; Kohl, Lisa M.; Koop, Anthony L.; Kumschick, Sabrina; Lodge, David M.; Meyerson, Laura A.; Pallipparambil, Godshen R.; Panetta, F. Danne; Porter, Read; Pyšek, Petr; Quinn, Lauretta; Richardson, David M.; Simberloff, Daniel; Vilà, Montserrat

doi:10.1614/ipsm-d-15-00053.1

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…claim that our study (Smith et al 2015) "misrepresents the utility of WRA tools" and outline four key issues. We affirm that our study was conducted in accordance with Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) guidelines (Koop et al 2012;Pheloung et al 1999) and is equally robust as or more robust than other evaluations of bioenergy crop invasiveness using WRAs; moreover, we detail cherry-picked quotes and misrepresentation of our conclusions by Gordon et al (2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 63%

Weed Risk Assessments Can Be Useful, But Have Limitations

Barney

Smith

Tekiela

2016

Invasive plant sci. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 63%

Weed Risk Assessments Can Be Useful, But Have Limitations

Barney

Smith

Tekiela

2016

Invasive plant sci. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For the Australian weed risk assessment—one of the most often applied and tested risk assessments for alien plants (e.g., Gassó, Basnou, & Vilà, ; Gordon, Onderdick, Fox, & Stocker, ; Kumschick & Richardson, ; Nishida et al., ; Pheloung, Williams, & Halloy, )—clear guidelines were developed to counteract potential sources of bias (Gordon et al., ). However, it is still not always possible for different assessors to reach consensus on the outcomes of the assessments (c.f., discussion in Gordon et al., ). Due to its global relevance as a potential IUCN classification system for alien taxa, extensive guidelines were also developed for the EICAT scheme by Hawkins et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians

Kumschick

Measey

Vimercati

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The magnitude of impacts some alien species cause to native environments makes them targets for regulation and management. However, which species to target is not always clear, and comparisons of a wide variety of impacts are necessary. Impact scoring systems can aid management prioritization of alien species. For such tools to be objective, they need to be robust to assessor bias. Here, we assess the newly proposed Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) used for amphibians and test how outcomes differ between assessors. Two independent assessments were made by Kraus (Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 46, 2015, 75‐97) and Kumschick et al. (Neobiota, 33, 2017, 53‐66), including independent literature searches for impact records. Most of the differences between these two classifications can be attributed to different literature search strategies used with only one‐third of the combined number of references shared between both studies. For the commonly assessed species, the classification of maximum impacts for most species is similar between assessors, but there are differences in the more detailed assessments. We clarify one specific issue resulting from different interpretations of EICAT, namely the practical interpretation and assigning of disease impacts in the absence of direct evidence of transmission from alien to native species. The differences between assessments outlined here cannot be attributed to features of the scheme. Reporting bias should be avoided by assessing all alien species rather than only the seemingly high‐impacting ones, which also improves the utility of the data for management and prioritization for future research. Furthermore, assessments of the same taxon by various assessors and a structured review process for assessments, as proposed by Hawkins et al. (Diversity and Distributions, 21, 2015, 1360), can ensure that biases can be avoided and all important literature is included.

show abstract

“…certain taxa of mites or plant pathogenic rust fungi); and if there are important differences between sub-species or infra-specific entities (e.g. varieties and cultivars; see Datta et al 2020 andGordon et al 2016). Ideally the analysis should consider whatever taxonomic grouping for which the risk is the same (e.g.…”

Section: ) Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A related issue is that of subspecific entities -certain cultivars or varieties could be considered safe for cultivation even if the "parental stock" is invasive (e.g. Datta et al 2020;Gordon et al 2016). There is provision within the RAAT framework to assess sub-specific entities separately, but often data on underlying traits are missing (e.g., proof of sterility).…”

Section: Dealing With Risks That Vary Significantly With Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework to support alien species regulation: the Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa (RAAT)

Kumschick¹,

Wilson²,

Foxcroft³

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human livelihoods and well-being in almost all regions of the world depend on taxa which are alien. Such taxa also, however, threaten human health, sustainable development, and biodiversity. Since it is not feasible or desirable to control all alien taxa, decision-makers increasingly rely on risk analyses to formalise the best available evidence of the threats posed and whether and how they can be managed. There are a variety of schemes available that consider the risks of alien taxa, but we argue a new framework is needed: 1) given major recent developments in international frameworks dealing with biological invasions (including the scoring of impacts); 2) so that decisions can be made consistently across taxa, regions and realms; 3) to explicitly set out uncertainties; and 4) to provide decision-makers with information both on the risks posed and on what can be done to mitigate or prevent impacts. Any such scheme must also be flexible enough to deal with constraints in capacity and information. Here we present a framework to address these points – the Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa (RAAT). It outlines a series of questions related to an alien taxon’s likelihood of invasion, realised and potential impacts, and options for management. The framework provides a structure for collating relevant data from the published literature to support a robust, transparent process to list alien taxa under legislative and regulatory requirements, with the aim that it can be completed by a trained science graduate within a few days. The framework also provides a defensible process for developing recommendations for the management of assessed taxa. We trialled the framework in South Africa and outline the process followed and some of the taxa assessed to date.

show abstract

Weed Risk Assessments Are an Effective Component of Invasion Risk Management

Cited by 14 publications

References 11 publications

Weed Risk Assessments Can Be Useful, But Have Limitations

Weed Risk Assessments Can Be Useful, But Have Limitations

How repeatable is the Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT)? Comparing independent global impact assessments of amphibians

A framework to support alien species regulation: the Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa (RAAT)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About