Biological Invasions

, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp 1571–1577 | Cite as

Towards a global database of weed risk assessments: a test of transferability for the tropics

  • Kwek Yan Chong
  • Richard T. Corlett
  • Darren C. J. Yeo
  • Hugh T. W. Tan
Original Paper


Worldwide spread and establishment of alien plant species continues to accelerate and damage ecological and agricultural systems. Early warning and prevention of high-risk introductions is the most cost-effective approach to minimise losses while maximising benefits, and the Australian Weed Risk Assessment (A-WRA) system has been the most well-developed and successful predictive scheme. However, any system would be limited if the results or scores were confined to the locality of assessment. We compiled A-WRA scores conducted in four tropical to sub-tropical regions and tested the accuracy of these scores for predicting naturalisations for a separate well-documented, equatorial, exotic flora where weed risk assessments have never been conducted. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves reflect high accuracies of predictions, comparable to those in other studies. No significant differences in accuracy were found between each regional subset and the compiled set of scores. Our results show that A-WRA scores assessed at one locality can be used for others of similar climate, increasing the utility of every species’ assessment. A global database of A-WRA scores would enable rapid local decision-making in border controls on imported plant species. A growing record of species assessments would also facilitate monitoring evolutionary and ecological aspects of invasive species.


Plant naturalizations Weed risk assessment Biosecurity Prediction accuracy Tropical regions Information sharing 



We thank C.K. Yeo for suggesting Receiver Operating Characteristic curves to be used in our analysis, and D.R. Gordon for providing information on risk assessment studies from Florida. We also thank N. Sodhi and P.K.L. Ng for their advice and suggestions. Two anonymous referees and the Associate Editor gave very helpful comments for improving the paper.


  1. Andreu J, Vilà M (2010) Risk analysis of potential invasive plants in Spain. J Nat Conserv 18:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J (2004) Statistics review 13: receiver operating characteristic curves. Crit Care 8:508–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caley P, Lonsdale WM, Pheluong PC (2006) Quantifying uncertainty in predictions of invasiveness, with emphasis on weed risk assessment. Biol Invasions 8:1595–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chong KY, Tan HTW, Corlett RT (2009) A checklist of the total vascular plant flora of singapore: native, naturalised and cultivated species. Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
  5. Crosti R, Cascone C, Cipollaro S (2010) Use of a weed risk assessment for the Mediterranean region of Central Italy to prevent loss of functionality and biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. Biol Invasions 12:1607–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daehler CC (2009) Short lag times for invasive tropical plants: evidence from experimental plantings in Hawai’i. PLoS ONE 4:e4462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daehler CC, Carino DA (2000) Predicting invasive plants: prospects for a general screening system based on regional models. Biol Invasions 2:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daehler CC, Denslow JS, Ansari S, Kuo H-C (2004) A risk-assessment system for screening out invasive pest plants from Hawaii and other Pacific islands. Conserv Biol 18:360–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawson W, Burslem DFRP, Hulme PE (2009) The suitability of weed risk assessment as a conservation tool to identify invasive plant threats in East African rainforests. Biol Conserv 142:1018–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gasso N, Basnou C, Vila M (2010) Predicting plant invaders in the Mediterranean through a weed risk assessment system. Biol Invasions 12:463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon DR, Gantz CA (2008) Screening new plant introductions for potential invasiveness: a test of impacts for the United States. Conserv Lett 1:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK, Gantz C (2008a) Predicting invasive plants in Florida using the Australian weed risk assessment. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 1:178–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK (2008b) Consistent accuracy of the Australian weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. Divers Distr 14:234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gren I-M, Isaacs L, Carlsson M (2009) Costs of alien invasive species in Sweden. Ambio 38:135–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hulme PE (2009) Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J Appl Ecol 46:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hulme PE, Pyšek P, Nentwig W, Vilà M (2009) Will threat of biological invasions unite the European Union? Science 324:40–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, and IUCN, Gland, pp 65–72Google Scholar
  18. Keller RP, Lodge DM, Finnoff DC (2007) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:203–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keller RP, Lodge DM, Lewis MA, Shogren JF (2009) Bioeconomics of invasive species–integrating ecology, Economics policy and management. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Kiew R (2009) Additions to the weed flora of Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Nat J 61:133–142Google Scholar
  21. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 Distr 12:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lodge DM, Williams S, MacIsaac HJ, Hayes KR, Leung B, Reichard S, Mack RN, Moyle PB, Smith M, Andow DA, Carlton JT, McMichael A (2006) Biological invasions: recommendations for US policy and management. Ecol Appl 16:2035–2054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 11:1319–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pheluong PC, Williams PA, Halloy SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J Environ Manag 57:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien—invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pimentel D, Pimentel M, Wilson A (2007) Plant, animal, and microbe invasive species in the United States and World. In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 315–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pyšek P, Křivánek M, Jarošík V (2009) Planting intensity, residence time, and species traits determine invasion success of alien woody species. Ecology 90:2734–2744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD, West CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distr 6:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperilled species in the Unites States. Bioscience 48:607–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang Z, Pepe MS (2005) A linear regression framework for Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. UW Biostatistics Working Paper Series.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kwek Yan Chong
    • 1
  • Richard T. Corlett
    • 1
  • Darren C. J. Yeo
    • 1
  • Hugh T. W. Tan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesNational University of SingaporeSingaporeRepublic of Singapore

Personalised recommendations