Biological Invasions

, Volume 13, Issue 8, pp 1829–1842

Risk assessment for invasiveness differs for aquatic and terrestrial plant species

Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Aquatic plants Australian Weed Risk Assessment Invasive Prevention 

References

  1. Bewick V, Cheek L, Ball J (2004) Statistics review 13: receiver operating characteristic curves. Crit Care 8:508–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bisset P (1905) The book of water gardening. A. T. De la Mare, New York, p 199Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Burns JH (2006) Relatedness and environment affect traits associated with invasive and noninvasive introduced Commelinaceae. Ecol Appl 16:1367–1376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 ZealandGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 194–202Google Scholar
  7. 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, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. Chittenden FJ (ed) (1951) The royal horticultural society dictionary of gardening, vol 4. Clarendon Press, Oxford, p 604Google Scholar
  9. 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 34Google Scholar
  10. 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 132Google Scholar
  11. Cook CDK, Gut BJ, Rix EM, Schneller J, Seitz M (1974) Water plants of the world. Dr. W Junk BV Publishers, The Hague, p 561Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Crusio W (1979) A revision of Anubias Araceae Primitiae Africanae 12. Meded Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 79(14):1–48Google Scholar
  14. Daehler CC (1998) The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: ecological insights and comparison to agricultural weeds. Biol Conserv 84:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Daehler CC, Carino DA (2000) Predicting invasive plants: prospects for a general screening system based on current regional models. Biol Invasions 2:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 18:360–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gordon DR, Gantz CA (2008) Potential impacts on the horticultural industry of screening new plants for invasiveness. Conserv Lett 1:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK (2008a) Accuracy of the Australian weed risk assessment system across varied geographies. Divers Distrib 14:234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 1:178–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):56–74Google Scholar
  23. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 65–72Google Scholar
  25. Keller RP, Lodge DM, Finnoff DC (2007) Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. PNAS 104:203–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 15–38Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Les DH, Mehrhoff LJ (1999) Introduction of nonindigenous aquatic vascular plants in southern New England: a historical perspective. Biol Invasions 1:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mack RN (2000) Cultivation fosters plant naturalization by reducing environmental stochasticity. Biol Invasions 2:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maki K, Galatowitsch S (2004) Movement of invasive aquatic plants into Minnesota (USA) through horticultural trade. Biol Conserv 118:389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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: 4085–4098Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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.CGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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 259Google Scholar
  37. 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 173–194Google Scholar
  38. Smith CS, Lonsdale WM, Fortune J (1999) When to ignore advice: invasion predictions and decision theory. Biol Invasions 1:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Speichert G, Speichert S (2004) Encyclopedia of water garden plants. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, p 386Google Scholar
  40. Stodola J (1967) Encyclopedia of water plants. TFH Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey, p 368Google Scholar
  41. Stuckey RL, Salamon DP (1987) Typha angustifolia in North America: a foreigner masquerading as a native. Am J Bot 74:757Google Scholar
  42. Tricker W (1897) The water garden. AT De La Mare, New York, p 120Google Scholar
  43. Van TK, Wheeler GS, Center TD (1999) Competition between Hydrilla verticillata and Vallisneria americana as influenced by soil fertility. Aquat Bot 62:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Von Holle B, Simberloff D (2005) Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–3218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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 15:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 253Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Nature Conservancy and Department of BiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological Sciences University of Notre Dame Notre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations