Setting Priorities for Monitoring and Managing Non-native Plants: Toward a Practical Approach
- 371 Downloads
Land managers face the challenge to set priorities in monitoring and managing non-native plant species, as resources are limited and not all non-natives become invasive. Existing frameworks that have been proposed to rank non-native species require extensive information on their distribution, abundance, and impact. This information is difficult to obtain and often not available for many species and regions. National watch or priority lists are helpful, but it is questionable whether they provide sufficient information for environmental management on a regional scale. We therefore propose a decision tree that ranks species based on more simple albeit robust information, but still provides reliable management recommendations. To test the decision tree, we collected and evaluated distribution data from non-native plants in highland grasslands of Southern Brazil. We compared the results with a national list from the Brazilian Invasive Species Database for the state to discuss advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches on a regional scale. Out of 38 non-native species found, only four were also present on the national list. If management would solely rely on this list, many species that were identified as spreading based on the decision tree would go unnoticed. With the suggested scheme, it is possible to assign species to active management, to monitoring, or further evaluation. While national lists are certainly important, management on a regional scale should employ additional tools that adequately consider the actual risk of non-natives to become invasive.
KeywordsCategorization Decision tree Distribution Grassland Management Non-native species
CK acknowledges financial support by the Doctoral Programme of the Evangelisches Studienwerk Villigst e.V. The data collection was conducted as part of the DFG project KO 1741/3-1. JMJ was financially supported by the DFG project JE 288/9-1. GEO receives support provided by CNPq (310022/2015-0).We appreciate helpful comments by John Wilson and two anonymous reviewers on an earlier version of this paper.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Barney JN, Tekiela DR, Barrios-Garcia MN, Dimarco RD, Hufbauer RA, Leipzig-Scott P, Nuñez MA, Pauchard A, Pyšek P, Vítková M, Maxwell BD (2015) Global Invader Impact Network (GIIN): toward standardized evaluation of the ecological impacts of invasive plants. Ecol Evol 5:2878–2889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blackburn TM, Essl F, Evans T, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Kuehn I, Kumschick S, Marková Z, Mrugała A, Nentwig W, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Rabitsch W, Ricciardi A, Richardson DM, Sendek A, Vilà M, Wilson JRU, Winter M, Genovesi P, Bacher S (2014) A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS Biol 12:e1001850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hulme PE (2012) Weed risk assessment: a way forward or a waste of time? J ApplEcol 49:10–19Google Scholar
- I3N Brazil Invasive Alien Species Database (2015) The Horus Institute for Environmental Conservation and Development. http://i3n.institutohorus.org.br/www, Accessed 16 Nov 2015
- Lockwood JL, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP (2013) Invasion ecology. Wiley-Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Marais C, van Wilgen BW, Stevens D (2004) The clearing of invasive alien plants in South Africa: a preliminary assessment of costs and progress. S Afr J Sci 100:97–103Google Scholar
- Missouri Botanical Garden (2015) Tropicos.org. http://www.tropicos.org. Accessed on 18 Sept 2015
- Nimer E (1989) Climatologia do Brasil. Fundação Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
- Roura-Pascual N, Richardson DM, Krug RM, Brown A, Chapman RA, Forsyth GG, Le Maitre DC, Robertson MP, Stafford L, Van Wilgen BW, Wannenburgh A, Wessels N (2009) Ecology and management of alien plant invasions in South African fynbos: accommodating key complexities in objective decision making. Biol Conserv 142:1595–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sala OE, Stuart ChapinF III, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schneider AA (2007) The naturalized flora of Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil: subspontaneous herbaceous plants. Biociencias (Porto Alegre) 15:257–268Google Scholar
- Schneider AA, Irgang BE (2005) Florística e fitossociologia da vegetação viária da RS-142 no município de Não-Me-Toque, RS, Brasil. Iheringia Sér Bot 60:49–62Google Scholar
- Van Kleunen M, Dawson W, Schlaepfer D, Jeschke JM, Fischer M (2010) Are invaders different? A conceptual framework of comparative approaches for assessing determinants of invasiveness. Ecol Lett 13:947–958Google Scholar