Abstract
Predictive tools for preventing introduction of new species with high probability of becoming invasive in the U.S. must effectively distinguish non-invasive from invasive species. The Australian Weed Risk Assessment system (WRA) has been demonstrated to meet this requirement for terrestrial vascular plants. However, this system weights aquatic plants heavily toward the conclusion of invasiveness. We evaluated the accuracy of the WRA for 149 non-native aquatic species in the U.S., of which 33 are major invaders, 32 are minor invaders and 84 are non-invaders. The WRA predicted that all of the major invaders would be invasive, but also predicted that 83% of the non-invaders would be invasive. Only 1% of the non-invaders were correctly identified and 16% needed further evaluation. The resulting overall accuracy was 33%, dominated by scores for invaders. While the overall accuracy increased to 57% when the points assigned to aquatic life forms were removed, 57% of the non-invaders required further evaluation rather than were identified as having low probability of naturalizing. Discrimination between non-invaders and invaders would require an increase in the threshold score from the standard of 6 for this system to 19. That higher threshold resulted in accurate identification of 89% of the non-invaders and over 75% of the major invaders. Either further testing for definition of the optimal threshold or a separate screening system will be necessary for accurately predicting which freshwater aquatic plants are high risks for becoming invasive.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J (2004) Statistics review 13: receiver operating characteristic curves. Crit Care 8:508–512
Bisset P (1905) The book of water gardening. A. T. De la Mare, New York, p 199
Bureau of Invasive Plant Management (2008) Status of the Aquatic Plant Maintenance Program in Florida Public Waters. Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006–2007. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. http://www.myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/InvasivePlants_Aquatic06-07.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2009
Burns JH (2006) Relatedness and environment affect traits associated with invasive and noninvasive introduced Commelinaceae. Ecol Appl 16:1367–1376
Champion PD, Clayton JS (2000) Border control for potential aquatic weeds. Stage 1. Weed risk model. Science for conservation 141. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand
Champion PD, Clayton JS (2001) A weed risk assessment model for aquatic weeds in New Zealand. In: Groves RH, Panetta FD, Virtue JG (eds) Weed risk assessment. CSIRO Publishing, Victoria, Australia, pp 194–202
Champion PD, Burnett DA, Petroeschevsky A (2008) Risk assessment of aquatic plant trade species in Australia. Report to: New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and National Aquatic Weeds Management Group, NIWA Client Report AUS2008/001, NIWA Project NAU07901, Western Australia, Australia
Chittenden FJ (ed) (1951) The royal horticultural society dictionary of gardening, vol 4. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 604
Ciruna KA, Meyerson LA, Gutierrez A (2004) The ecological and socio-economic impacts of invasive alien species in inland water ecosystems. Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity on behalf of the Global Invasive Species Programme, Washington, D.C., p 34
Coile NC (1995) Common plants of Florida’s aquatic plant industry. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of plant industry, Gainesville, Florida, p 132
Cook CDK, Gut BJ, Rix EM, Schneller J, Seitz M (1974) Water plants of the world. Dr. W Junk BV Publishers, The Hague, p 561
Crosson H (2005) Keeping aquatic plants in their place: Common sense tips to protect lakes and rivers. LandscapeOnline.com. http://www.plantright.org/library/pdfs/Crosson2005.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2009
Crusio W (1979) A revision of Anubias Araceae Primitiae Africanae 12. Meded Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 79(14):1–48
Daehler CC (1998) The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: ecological insights and comparison to agricultural weeds. Biol Conserv 84:167–180
Daehler CC (2009) Short lag times for invasive tropical plants: evidence from experimental plantings in Hawai’i. PLoS ONE 4(2):e4462. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004462
Daehler CC, Carino DA (2000) Predicting invasive plants: prospects for a general screening system based on current regional models. Biol Invasions 2:93–102
Daehler CC, Denslow JS, Ansari S, Kuo H (2004) A risk-assessment system for screening out invasive pest plants from Hawaii and other Pacific islands. Conserv Biol 18:360–368
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845
Gordon DR, Gantz CA (2008) Potential impacts on the horticultural industry of screening new plants for invasiveness. Conserv Lett 1:227–235
Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK (2008a) Accuracy of the Australian weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. Divers Distrib 14:234–242
Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK, Gantz C (2008b) Predicting invasive plants in Florida using the Australian weed risk assessment. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:178–195
Gordon DR, Mitterdorfer B, Pheloung PC, Ansari S, Buddenhagen C, Chimera C, Daehler CC, Dawson W, Denslow JS, LaRosa A, Nishida T, Onderdonk DA, Panetta FD, Pyšek P, Randall RP, Richardson DM, Tshidada NJ, Virtue JG, Williams PA (2010) Guidance for addressing the Australian weed risk assessment questions. Plant Prot Q 25(2):56–74
Haynes RR, Holm-Nielsen LB (1994) The Alismataceae. In: Flora Neotropica 64:1–112. New York Botanical Garden Press on behalf of Organization for Flora Neotropica, New York
Kato H, Hata K, Yamamoto H, Yoshioka T (2006) Effectiveness of the weed risk assessment system for the Bonin Islands. In: Koike F, Clout MN, Kawamichi M, De Poorter M, Iwatsuki K (eds) Assessment and control of biological invasion risk. Shoukadoh Book Sellers, Kyoto, Japan and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp 65–72
Keller RP, Lodge DM, Finnoff DC (2007) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. PNAS 104:203–207
Kowarik I (1995) Time lags in biological invasion with regard to the success and failure of alien species. In: Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Wade M (eds) Plant invasions—general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp 15–38
Křivánek M, Pyšek P (2006) Predicting invasions by woody species in a temperate zone: a test of three risk assessment schemes in the Czech Republic (Central Europe). Divers Distrib 12:319–327
Les DH, Mehrhoff LJ (1999) Introduction of nonindigenous aquatic vascular plants in southern New England: a historical perspective. Biol Invasions 1:281–300
Mack RN (2000) Cultivation fosters plant naturalization by reducing environmental stochasticity. Biol Invasions 2:111–122
Maki K, Galatowitsch S (2004) Movement of invasive aquatic plants into Minnesota (USA) through horticultural trade. Biol Conserv 118:389–396
McClay A, Sissons A, Wilson C, Davis S (2010) Evaluation of the Australia Weed Risk Assessment system for the prediction of plant invasiveness in Canada. Biol Invasions 12: 4085–4098
Nishida T, Yamashita N, Asai M, Kurokawa S, Enomoto T, Pheloung PC, Groves RH (2009) Developing a pre-entry weed risk assessment system for use in Japan. Biol Invasions 11:1319–1333
Office of Technology Assessment (1993) Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. U.S. Congress/OTA-F-565, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C
Pheloung PC (1995) Determining the weed potential of new plant introductions to Australia. A report on the development of a Weed Risk Assessment System commissioned by the Australian Weeds Committee and the Plant Industries Committee, Perth, Western Australia
Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manage 57:239–251
Sawyer RV, Perkins EH (1934) Water gardens and goldfish. New York, A. T. De La Mare, New York and General Publishing Company, Ltd, Toronto, Canada, p 259
Schmitz DC, Schardt JD, Leslie AJ, Dray FA, Osborne JA, Nelson BV (1993) The ecological impact and management history of three invasive alien aquatic plant species in Florida. In: McKnight BN (ed) Biological pollution: the control and impact of invasive exotic species. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana, pp 173–194
Smith CS, Lonsdale WM, Fortune J (1999) When to ignore advice: invasion predictions and decision theory. Biol Invasions 1:89–96
Speichert G, Speichert S (2004) Encyclopedia of water garden plants. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, p 386
Stodola J (1967) Encyclopedia of water plants. TFH Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey, p 368
Stuckey RL, Salamon DP (1987) Typha angustifolia in North America: a foreigner masquerading as a native. Am J Bot 74:757
Tricker W (1897) The water garden. AT De La Mare, New York, p 120
Van TK, Wheeler GS, Center TD (1999) Competition between Hydrilla verticillata and Vallisneria americana as influenced by soil fertility. Aquat Bot 62:225–233
Von Holle B, Simberloff D (2005) Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–3218
Wunderlin RP, Hansen BF (2008) Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants. [Landry SM, Campbell KN (application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research.] Institute for Systematic Botany, University of South Florida, Tampa. http://www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/. Accessed May 6, 2009
Zedler JB, Paling E, McComb A (1990) Differential salinity responses help explain the replacement of native Juncus kraussii by Typha orientalis in Western Australian salt marshes. Austral J Ecol 15:57–72
Zhang Z, Pepe MS (2005) A linear regression framework for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Washington: University of Washington Biostatistics Working Paper Series, paper 253
Acknowledgments
We appreciate J. Gardina and J. Chase’s assistance with literature review and for help with identification of aquatic plant species for this test from D. Keller, E. Elgin, J. Chase, R. Keller, J. Schardt, D. Schmitz, and R. Weaver. Comments from W.L. Chadderton, P. Champion, O. Harrod, C. Jacono, B. Mitterdorfer, D. Onderdonk, P. Pheloung and anonymous reviewers have improved this paper. This work was completed with funding from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Invasive Plant Management Section, Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, and Florida and Michigan Chapters of The Nature Conservancy. The conclusions reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the sponsoring agencies or organization.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gordon, D.R., Gantz, C.A. Risk assessment for invasiveness differs for aquatic and terrestrial plant species. Biol Invasions 13, 1829–1842 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0002-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0002-2