Biological Invasions

, Volume 19, Issue 8, pp 2375–2384 | Cite as

Predicted versus actual invasiveness of climbing vines in Florida

  • Doria R. Gordon
  • Deah Lieurance
  • S. Luke Flory
Original Paper


Climbing vines cause substantial ecological and economic harm, and are disproportionately represented among invasive plant species. Thus, the ability to identify likely vine invaders would enhance the effectiveness of both prevention and management. We tested whether the Weed Risk Assessment (WRA) accurately predicted the current invasion status of 84 non-native climbing vines in Florida. Seventeen percent of the species require further evaluation before risk of invasion can be determined. Of the remaining 70 species, the WRA predicted that 70% were at high risk for invasion, but only 50% of the 84 species are currently invasive in Florida. The status and risk prediction were inconsistent for 27% of the species: 15 non-invaders were predicted to be of high risk for invasion (i.e., false positive) and 4 invaders were predicted to be of low risk (i.e., false negative). Longer residence time in the flora was significantly correlated with higher invasion risk. Further investigation is necessary to identify whether residence time explains inconsistencies between risk and status conclusions, or whether the WRA over-predicts invasion risk. Nevertheless, the effects of invasive vines on native systems coupled with the influence of time on invasion status, suggest a precautionary approach is warranted when considering the introduction and management of non-native vines.


Invasion Liana Prediction Prevention Status assessment Weed Risk Assessment 



We thank Austin Young and Christina Wiley for conducting WRA assessments and two reviewers for helpful comments. DRG was supported by gifts to the Environmental Defense Fund from the Kravis Scientific Research Fund and Robertson Foundation. Funding for the UF/IFAS Assessment of Non-native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas is provided in part by the UF/IFAS Deans for Research and Extension and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.


  1. Batianoff GN, Butler DW (2003) Impact assessment and analysis of sixty-six priority invasive weeds in south-east Queensland. Plant Prot Q 18:11–17Google Scholar
  2. Caley P, Kuhnert PM (2006) Application and evaluation of classification trees for screening unwanted plants. Austral Ecol 31:647–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castro SA, Figueroa JA, Muñoz-Schick M, Jaksic F (2005) Minimum residence time, biogeographical origin, and life cycle as determinants of the geographical extent of naturalized plants in continental Chile. Divers Distrib 11:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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, pp 194–202Google Scholar
  5. Chong KY, Corlett RT, Yeo DCJ, Tan HTW (2011) Towards a global database of weed risk assessments: a test of transferability for the tropics. Biol Invasions 13:1571–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colunga-Garcia M, Haack R, Magarey R, Borchert D (2013) Understanding trade pathways to target biosecurity surveillance. NeoBiota 18:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daehler CC (1998) The taxonomic distribution of invasive angiosperm plants: ecological insights and comparison to agricultural weeds. Biol Conser 84:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daehler CC, Denslow JL, Ansari S, Kuo H (2004) A risk assessment system for screening out harmful invasive pest plants from Hawaii’s and other Pacific islands. Conserv Biol 18:360–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dlugosch KM, Parker IM (2008) Founding events in species invasions: genetic variation, adaptive evolution, and the role of multiple introductions. Mol Ecol 7:431–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ewel JJ (1986) Invasibility: lessons from South Florida. In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer, New York, pp 214–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Genton BJ, Shykoff JA, Giraud T (2005) High genetic diversity in French invasive populations of common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, as a result of multiple sources of introduction. Mol Ecol 14:4275–4285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon DR (1998) Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species in ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecol Appl 8:975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordon DR, Onderdonk DA, Fox AM, Stocker RK (2008a) Consistent accuracy of the Australian Weed Risk Assessment system across varied geographies. Divers Distrib 14:234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 Manage 1:178–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Gordon DR, Gantz CA, Jerde CL, Chadderton WL, Keller RP, Champion PD (2012) Weed risk assessment for aquatic plants: modification of a New Zealand system for the United States. PLoS ONE 7(7):e40031. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040031 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris CJ, Murray BR, Hose GC, Hamilton MA (2007) Introduction history and invasion success in exotic vines introduced to Australia. Divers Distrib 13:467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hellmann JJ, Byers JE, Bierwagen G, Dukes JS (2008) Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conserv Biol 22:534–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Horvitz CC, Pascarella JB, McMann S, Freedman A, Hofstetter RH (1998) Functional roles of invasive non-indigenous plants in hurricane-affected subtropical hardwood forests. Ecol Appl 8:947–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kearns SK (2008) Nonnative terrestrial species invasions. In: Waller DM, Rooney TP (eds) The Vanishing Present: Wisconsin’s changing lands, waters, and wildlife. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 439–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lieurance D, Flory SL, Cooper AL, Gordon DR, Fox AM, Dusky J, Tyson L (2013) The UF/IFAS assessment of nonnative plants in Florida’s natural areas: History, purpose, and use. University of Florida IFAS Extension SS-AGR-371Google Scholar
  24. Lockwood JL, Cassey P, Blackburn T (2005) The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 20:223–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lonsdale WM (1999) Global patterns of plant invasion and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Novy A, Flory SL, Hartman JM (2013) Evidence for rapid evolution of phenology in an invasive grass. J Evol Biol 26:443–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pemberton RW, Liu H (2009) Marketing time predicts naturalization of horticultural plants. Ecology 90:69–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Perrings C, Williamson M, Barbier EB, Delfino D, Dalmazzone S, Shogren J, Simmons P, Watkinson A (2002) Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic perspective. Conserv Ecol (1):1 Accessed 6 June 2016
  29. Pheloung 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
  30. 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
  31. Plant Health Program (2005) Plant protection and quarantine strategic plan FY005-2009. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Riverdale, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  32. Pyšek P, Křivánek M, Jarošík V (2009) Planting intensity, residence time, and species traits determine invasion success of alien woody species. Ecology 90:2734–2744CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rejmánek M, Pitcairn MJ (2002) When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? In: Veitch CR, Clout MN (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN Gland, Cambridge, pp 249–253Google Scholar
  34. Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2006) Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. Prog Phys Geog 30:409–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schnitzer SA, Bongers F (2011) Increasing liana abundance and biomass in tropical forests: emerging patterns and putative mechanisms. Ecol Lett 14:397–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Simberloff D (1997) The biology of invasions. In: Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC (eds) Strangers in paradise: impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, pp 3–17Google Scholar
  37. US Congress (1993) Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. Washington, DC: US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-F-565Google Scholar
  38. Wilson JRU, Richardson DM, Rouget M, Proches S, Amis MA, Henderson L, Thuiller W (2007) Residence time and potential range: crucial considerations in modelling plant invasions. Divers Distrib 13:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doria R. Gordon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Deah Lieurance
    • 3
  • S. Luke Flory
    • 4
  1. 1.Environmental Defense FundWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Center for Aquatic and Invasive PlantsUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  4. 4.Agronomy DepartmentUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations