Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:56:11.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where Do We Go From Here? The Challenges of Risk Assessment for Invasive Plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Peter S. White  and
Allison E. Schwarz
Peter S. White
Affiliation:
North Carolina Botanical Garden and Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus Box 3280, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3280
Allison E. Schwarz
Affiliation:
North Carolina Botanical Garden and Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus Box 3280, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3280
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Exotic species invasions in natural areas are one of the most significant threats to biological diversity globally. Pest plants pose a significant problem because they often go undetected until widespread ecological damage has already occurred. Effective control is both uncertain and expensive. However, not all introduced species become invasive, leading to the hope that we can develop risk assessment criteria for new plant introductions. Two recently proposed assessment programs are reviewed, one based on North American woody plants and the other based on Australian pest species, and the challenges in their application are discussed. Among the significant issues are spatial and temporal variation in plant performance that affect the documentation of invasive behavior and the tendency for horticulturists to value traits that produce invasive behavior (rapid growth, early and consistent flowering, lack of pests and diseases, and vegetative persistence). Two policy alternatives are suggested for botanical gardens as examples of models for plant introduction policies that could be adapted to other institutions: the Conservation Aware Garden and the Strict Conservation Garden. The former is based on risk assessment, whereas the latter prohibits movement of species across barriers to their dispersal. Information needs, the importance of international communication, and adaptive management are discussed as elements of a program to reduce the spread of pest invaders.

Keywords

Exotic plant speciesnew plant introductionspest invadersweediness characteristicsAMOARBROTESCITEALAPELONJAPUELOMLAQULYTSAELGANSENJATAAAPEICCR
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 744 - 751
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by the 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

Baker, H. G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergelson, J., Newman, J. A., and Floresroux, E. M. 1993. Rates of weed spread in spatially heterogeneous environments. Ecology 74:999–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, J. Jr. and Bidwell, J. R. 1996. Discontinuities in technological and natural system caused by exotic species. Biodivers. Conserv. 5:1085–1094.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. 1993. Mechanisms controlling invasion of coastal plant communities by the alien succulent Carpobrotus edulis , Ecology 74:83–95.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Huenneke, L. F. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 6:324–337.Google Scholar
Imura, O, and Carstensen, S. 1993. Herbivory of kudzu (Pueraria lobata) in origin and introduced region. Proc. XV Int. Bot. Congr., Yokohama, Japan. 289.Google Scholar
Lodge, D. M. 1993. Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8:133–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McEvoy, P. B. and Rudd, N. T. 1993. Effects of vegetation disturbances on insect biological control of tansy ragwort, Senecio jacobaea . Ecol. Appl. 3:682–698.Google Scholar
Panetta, F. D. 1993. A system for assessing proposed plant introductions for weed potential. Plant Prot. Q. 8:10–14.Google Scholar
Pheloung, P. C. 1995. Determining Weed Potential of New Plant Introductions to Australia. A report on the development of a Weed Risk Assessment system commissioned and endorsed by the Australian Weeds Committee and the Plant Industries Committee. Agricultural Protection Board, Western Australia. 143 p.Google Scholar
Rejmanek, M. and Richardson, D. M. 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichard, S. H. 1997. Learning from the past. The Public Garden Special Supplement, January 1997:25–27.Google Scholar
Reichard, S. H. and Campbell, F. 1996. Invited but unwanted. American Nurseryman, July:39–45.Google Scholar
Reichard, S. H. and Hamilton, C. W. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv. Biol. 11:193–203.Google Scholar
Schierenbeck, K. A., Mack, R. N., and Sharitz, R. R. 1994. Effects of herbivory on growth and biomass allocation in native and introduced species of Lonicera . Ecology 73:1661–1672.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technological Assessment. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 391 p.Google Scholar
Westbrooks, R. G. and Eplee, R. E. 1996. Regulatory exclusion of harmful non-indigenous plants from the United States by USDA APHIS PPQ. Castanea 61:305–312.Google Scholar
White, P. S. 1997. A bill falls due: botanical gardens and the exotic species problem. The Public Garden. The Public Garden Special Supplement, January 1997:22–25.Google Scholar
While, P. S. 1998. Biodiversity and the exotic species threat. In Britton, K., ed. Exotic Pests of Eastern Forests. Atlanta, GA: Tennessee Exotic Plant Council and USDA Forest Service. pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Williamson, M. and Fitter, A. 1996. The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661–1666.Google Scholar