Environmental Management

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 465–475 | Cite as

Setting Priorities for Monitoring and Managing Non-native Plants: Toward a Practical Approach

  • Christiane Koch
  • Jonathan M. Jeschke
  • Gerhard E. Overbeck
  • Johannes Kollmann


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.


Categorization 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.

Supplementary material

267_2016_718_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (7 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 7 kb)


  1. 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
  2. Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Carlton JT, Duncan RP, Jarošík V, Wilson JRU, Richardson DM (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 26:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Caplat P, Coutts S (2011) Integrating ecological knowledge, public perception and urgency of action into invasive species management. Environ Manage 48:878–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christen D, Matlack G (2009) The habitat and conduit functions of roads in the spread of three invasive plant species. Biol Invasions 11:453–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chytrý M, Wild J, Pyšek P, Jarošík V, Dendoncker N, Reginster I, Pino J, Maskell LC, Vilà M, Pergl J, Kuehn I, Spangenberg JH, Settele J (2012) Projecting trends in plant invasions in Europe under different scenarios of future land-use change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collinge SK, Ray C, Gerhardt F (2011) Long-term dynamics of biotic and abiotic resistance to exotic species invasion in restored vernal pool plant communities. Ecol Appl 21:2105–2118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crooks JA (2005) Lag times and exotic species: the ecology and management of biological invasions in slow-motion. Ecoscience 12:316–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daehler CC, Denslow JS, Ansari S, Kuo HC (2004) A risk-assessment system for screening out invasive pest plants from Hawaii and other Pacific Islands. Conserv Biol 18:360–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dana ED, Jeschke JM, García-de-Lomas J (2014) Decision tools for managing biological invasions: existing biases and future needs. Oryx 48:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dias J, Assis Monteiro, da Fonte MA, Baptista R, Mantoani MC, Holdefer DR, Domingues Torezan JM (2013) Invasive alien plants in Brazil: a nonrestrictive revision of academic works. Nat Conservacao 11:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodet M, Collet C (2012) When should exotic forest plantation tree species be considered as an invasive threat and how should we treat them? Biol Invasions 14:1765–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Driscoll DA, Catford JA, Barney JN, Hulme PE, Inderjit MTG, Pauchard A, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Riley S, Visser V (2014) New pasture plants intensify invasive species risk. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:16622–16627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrenfeld JG (2010) Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. Ann Rev Ecol Evol System 41:59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Essl F, Nehring S, Klingenstein F, Milasowszky N, Nowack C, Rabitsch W (2011) Review of risk assessment systems of IAS in Europe and introducing the German-Austrian Black List Information System (GABLIS). J Nat Conserv 19:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faulkner KT, Robertson MP, Rouget M, Wilson JRU (2014) A simple, rapid methodology for developing invasive species watch lists. Biol Conserv 179:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuentes N, Ugarte E, Kuhn I, Klotz S (2010) Alien plants in southern South America. A framework for evaluation and management of mutual risk of invasion between Chile and Argentina. Biol Invasions 12:3227–3236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godoy O, Saldaña A, Fuentes N, Valladares F, Gianoli E (2011) Forests are not immune to plant invasions: phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation allow Prunella vulgaris to colonize a temperate evergreen rainforest. Biol Invasions 13:1615–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK, Gantz C (2008) Predicting invasive plants in Florida using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:178–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gutiérrez JL, Jones CG, Sousa R (2014) Toward an integrated ecosystem perspective of invasive species impacts. Acta Oecol 54:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hejda M, Pysek P, Jarosik V (2009) Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities. J Ecol 97:393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hulme PE (2012) Weed risk assessment: a way forward or a waste of time? J ApplEcol 49:10–19Google Scholar
  23. I3N Brazil Invasive Alien Species Database (2015) The Horus Institute for Environmental Conservation and Development., Accessed 16 Nov 2015
  24. Jeschke JM, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Dick JTA, Essl F, Evans T, Gaertner M, Hulme PE, Kuehn I, Mrugala A, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Rabitsch W, Ricciardi A, Richardson DM, Sendek A, Vilà M, Winter M (2014) Defining the impact of non-native species. Conserv Biol 28:1188–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joly M, Bertrand P, Gbangou RY, White MC, Dubé J, Lavoie C (2011) Paving the way for invasive species: road type and the spread of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Environ Manage 48:514–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keller RP, Lodge DM, Finnoff DC (2007) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 12:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumschick S, Richardson DM (2013) Species-based risk assessments for biological invasions: advances and challenges. Divers Distrib 19:1095–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leung B, Roura-Pascual N, Bacher S, Heikkilä J, Brotons L, Burgman MA, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Essl F, Hulme PE, Richardson DM, Sol D, Vilà M (2012) TEASIng apart alien species risk assessments: a framework for best practices. Ecol Lett 15:1475–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lockwood JL, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP (2013) Invasion ecology. Wiley-Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Londo G (1976) The decimal scale for releves of permanent quadrats. Vegetatio 33:61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Magee T, Ringold P, Bollman M, Ernst TL (2010) Index of alien impact: a method for evaluating potential ecological impact of alien plant species. Environ Manage 45:759–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. McGeoch MA, Butchart SHM, Spear D, Marais E, Kleynhans EJ, Symes A, Chanson J, Hoffmann M (2010) Global indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses. Divers Distrib 16:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGeoch MA, Spear D, Kleynhans EJ, Marais E (2012) Uncertainty in invasive alien species listing. Ecol Appl 22:959–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGregor KF, Watt MS, Hulme PE, Duncan RP (2012) How robust is the Australian Weed Risk Assessment protocol? A test using pine invasions in the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Biol Invasions 14:987–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Missouri Botanical Garden (2015) Accessed on 18 Sept 2015
  39. Nimer E (1989) Climatologia do Brasil. Fundação Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  40. Overbeck GE, Muller SC, Fidelis A, Pfadenhauer J, Pillar VD, Blanco CC, Boldrini II, Both R, Forneck ED (2007) Brazil’s neglected biome: the South Brazilian Campos. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 9:101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Goodell K, Wonham M, Kareiva PM, Williamson MH, Von Holle B, Moyle PB, Byers JE, Goldwasser L (1999) Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol Invasions 1:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pauchard A, Alaback PB (2004) Influence of elevation, land use, and landscape context on patterns of alien plant invasions along roadsides in protected areas of South-Central Chile. Conserv Biol 18:238–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pheloung PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manage 57:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rejmánek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ricciardi A, Cohen J (2007) The invasiveness of an introduced species does not predict its impact. Biol Invasions 9:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD, West CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distrib 6:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roberts W, Harrod O, Mitterdorfer B, Pheloung P (2011) Regulating invasive plants and use of weed risk assessments. Current Opinion Environ Sustain 3:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rolim R, de Ferreira P, Schneider A, Overbeck GE (2015) How much do we know about distribution and ecology of naturalized and invasive alien plant species? A case study from subtropical southern Brazil. Biol Invasions 17:1497–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Sandvik H, Sæther B-E, Holmern T, Tufto J, Engen S, Roy HE (2013) Generic ecological impact assessments of alien species in Norway: a semi-quantitative set of criteria. Biodivers Conserv 22:37–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schneider AA (2007) The naturalized flora of Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil: subspontaneous herbaceous plants. Biociencias (Porto Alegre) 15:257–268Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Strayer DL, Eviner VT, Jeschke JM, Pace ML (2006) Understanding the long-term effects of species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 21:645–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Strum SC, Stirling G, Mutunga SK (2015) The perfect storm: land use change promotes Opuntia stricta’s invasion of pastoral rangelands in Kenya. J Arid Environ 118:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thiele J, Kollmann J, Markussen B, Otte A (2010) Impact assessment revisited: improving the theoretical basis for management of invasive alien species. Biol Invasions 12:2025–2035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomas SM, Moloney KA (2015) Combining the effects of surrounding land-use and propagule pressure to predict the distribution of an invasive plant. Biol Invasions 17:477–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Van Wilgen BW, Richardson DM (2014) Challenges and trade-offs in the management of invasive alien trees. Biol Invasions 16:721–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Warwick SI, Francis A (2005) The biology of Canadian weeds. 132. Raphanus raphanistrum L. Can J Plant Sci 85:709–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zenni RD, Ziller SR (2011) An overview of invasive plants in Brazil. Rev Brasileira Bot 34:431–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christiane Koch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jonathan M. Jeschke
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Gerhard E. Overbeck
    • 2
  • Johannes Kollmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Restoration Ecology, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem ManagementTechnische Universität MünchenFreising-WeihenstephanGermany
  2. 2.Department of BotanyUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  3. 3.Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB)BerlinGermany
  4. 4.Institute of BiologyFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  5. 5.Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations