Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:18:23.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Approaches for Assessing the Status of Nonnative Plants: A Comparative Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Alison M. Fox  and
Doria R. Gordon
Alison M. Fox
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 110500, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0500
Doria R. Gordon*
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, and Courtesy Professor, Department of Biology, P.O. Box 118526, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
*
Corresponding author's E-mail:dgordon@tnc.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The magnitude of the invasive plant species problem necessitates prioritization of species for control, regulatory, and public-education programs. Many such priority lists exist but few have been developed according to specified procedures and criteria. We reviewed approaches to assessing the status of nonnative plant species currently occurring in natural areas (status assessments). We identify four generalized types of status assessments, which reflect a gradation from those that simply adopt existing lists from elsewhere (type 1), to those with relatively easy and rapid development and implementation (type 2), to those that are more time-consuming and costly but may be more robust in the face of challenges (types 3 and 4). These latter assessments explicitly have greater transparency, objectivity, and consistency than the other types. We use a matrix of assessment characteristics to distinguish the types of 17 example status assessments. We also review the factors related to assessment intent, scope, structure, content, and implementation that must be considered during the development of new status assessments so that the resulting tool and its products are appropriate for the user's purposes. These analyses should facilitate evaluation of different assessment methods and provide a basis for development of improved assessments. Identification of the relatively low percentage of nonnative plant species that are inflicting ecological and economic harm using well-understood and accepted assessment methods should facilitate a more comprehensive, collective approach to implementation of effective management efforts.

Keywords

Invasive plantsalienexoticintroduced speciesstatus assessments
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 166 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous 2006. HB 294-2006 National Post-Border Weed Risk Management Protocol. Sydney Standards Australia International Ltd.; Auckland: Standards New Zealand; Adelaide: CRC Australian Weed Management. 76.Google Scholar
Backstrom, C. H. and Hursh-Cesar, G. 1981. Survey Research. New York McGraw-Hill. 436.Google Scholar
Brown, T. C. 1997. The state's role. Pages 339–356. In Simberloff, D., Schmitz, D. C., and Brown, T. C. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Washington, DC Island.Google Scholar
Caley, P. and Kuhnert, P. 2006. Application and evaluation of classification trees for screening unwanted plants. Aust. Ecol 31:647–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cathey, H. M. 1990. USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map. USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1475. Washington, DC U.S. National Arboretum, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/hzm-se1.html. Accessed: January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Champion, P. D. and Clayton, J. S. 2001. A weed risk assessment model for aquatic weeds in New Zealand. Pages 194–202. In Groves, R. H., Panetta, F. D., and Virtue, J. G. Weed Risk Assessment. Collingwood, Australia CSIRO.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. C., Denslow, J. S., Ansari, S., and Kuo, H. 2004. A risk assessment system for screening out invasive pest plants from Hawai‘i and other Pacific Islands. Conserv. Biol 18:360–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Environmental Law Institute 2002. Halting the Invasion: State Tools for Invasive Species Management. http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.aspID10678. Accessed: January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Florida Invasive Species Working Group 2005. 2005 Annual Report of the Statewide Invasive Species Working Group. http://www.iswgfla.org/news/PDF/Annual20Report20for202005.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Fox, A. M. and Gordon, D. R. 2004. Criteria for listing invasive plants. Invasive Plants in Natural and Management Ecosystems (IPINAMS-EMAPI7) Symposium. Weed Technol 18:1309–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, A. M., Gordon, D. R., Dusky, J. A., Tyson, L. L., and Stocker, R. K. 2000. The story behind the IFAS assessment of non-native plants in Florida's natural areas. Wildland Weeds Mag. Fla. Exot. Pest Plant Counc 3/4:4–7.Google Scholar
Fox, A. M., Gordon, D. R., and Stocker, R. K. 2003. Challenges of reaching consensus on assessing which non-native plants are invasive in natural areas in Florida. HortScience 38:11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D. R. 1998. Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species in ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecol. Appl 8:975–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D. R., Fox, A. M., Onderdonk, D. A., Stocker, R. K., and Gantz, C. 2008. Predicting invasive plants in Florida using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 1:178–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D. R. and Thomas, K. P. 1997. Introduction of invasive non-indigenous plants into Florida: history, screening and regulatory approaches. Pages 21–37. in: Simberloff, D., Schmitz, D. C., and Brown, T. C. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Washington, DC Island.Google Scholar
Groves, R. H., Panetta, F. D., and Virtue, J. G. 2001. Weed Risk Assessment. Collingwood, Australia CSIRO. 244.Google Scholar
Heffernan, K. E., Coulling, P. P., Townsend, J. F., and Hutto, C. J. 2001. Ranking Invasive Exotic Plant Species in Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 01-13. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. 27. http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/documents/rankinv.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Hiebert, R. D. and Stubbendieck, J. 1993. Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for Management and Control. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of Interior Natural Resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08. 48.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Humphries, S. E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conserv. Biol 9:761–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, A. W. and Mulkey, W. D. 2006. Economic Impacts of Agricultural and Natural Resource Industries in Florida, 2003. Gainesville, FL University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences EDIS document FE627. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE627. Accessed: January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Kowarik, I. 1995. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. Pages 15–38. In Pysek, P., Rejmanek, M., and Wade, M. Plant Invasions—General Aspects and Special Problems. Amsterdam Academic.Google Scholar
Langeland, K. A. 2002. Proper uses of FLEPPC's List of Invasive Species. Wildland Weeds Mag. Fla. Exot. Pest Plant Counc 5/3:16–17.Google Scholar
Lee, D. 2005. The private cost of upland invasive plants in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Report to Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Charles Bronson. http://iswgfla.org/files/Lee20-20Private20costs20Uplands2005.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Lippincott, C. 1996. Estimates of cultivated, native, naturalized, and weedy plant species in Florida. Palmetto 16/2:12.Google Scholar
Malakoff, D. 1999. Plan to import exotic beetle drives some scientists wild. Science 248/5418:1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group 2005. The Evaluation of Non-Native Plant Species for Invasiveness in Massachusetts (with annotated list). http://www.newfs.org/protect/docs/docs/MIPAG040105.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Naylor, R. L. 2000. The economics of alien species invasion. Pages 241–259. In Mooney, H. A. and Hobbs, R. J. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Washington, DC Island.Google Scholar
Pheloung, P. C., Williams, P. A., and Halloy, S. R. 1999. A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J. Environ. Manag 57:239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ 52:273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J. R., Morse, L. E., Benton, N., Hiebert, R., Lu, S., and Killeffer, T. 2008. The Invasive Species Assessment Protocol: A tool for creating regional and national lists of invasive nonnative plants that negatively impact biodiversity. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 1:36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichard, S. H. and Hamilton, C. W. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv. Biol 11:193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhode Island Invasive Species Council 2001. Rhode Island Invasive Species Council: Listing Criteria. http://www.rinhs.org/what-we-do/invasives/ri-invasive-species-resources/-criteria/. Accessed: January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Robertson, M. P., Villet, M. H., Fairbanks, D. H. K., Henderson, L., Higgins, S. I., Hoffmann, J. H., Le Maitre, D. C., Palmer, A. R., Riggs, I., Shackleton, C. M., and Zimmermann, H. G. 2003. A proposed prioritization system for the management of invasive alien plants in South Africa. S.Afr. J. Sci 99:37–43.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. 1997. The biology of invasions. Pages 3–17. In Simberloff, D., Schmitz, D. C., and Brown, T. C. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Washington, DC Island.Google Scholar
Thorp, J. R. and Lynch, R. 2000. The Determination of Weeds of National Significance. http://www.weeds.org.au/docs/WoNS/. Accessed: January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Vitousek, P., Loope, L., D'Antonio, C., and Hassol, S. J. 1995. Biological invasions as global change. Pages 213–336. In Hassol, S. J. and Katzenberger, J. Elements of Change 1994. Aspen, CO Aspen Global Change Institute.Google Scholar
Weiss, J. E. R. and Iaconis, L. J. 2002. Pest Plant Invasiveness Assessment. http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/invasive. Accessed: January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Philips, A., and Losos, E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, M. 1996. Biological Invasions. London Chapman and Hall. 244.Google Scholar