Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Assessment of Stakeholder Perceptions and Management of Noxious Alien Plants in Spain

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite biological invasions being a worldwide phenomenon causing significant ecological, economic, and human welfare impacts, there is limited understanding regarding how environmental managers perceive the problem and subsequently manage alien species. Spanish environmental managers were surveyed using questionnaires to (1) analyze the extent to which they perceive plant invasions as a problem; (2) identify the status, occurrence, and impacts of noxious alien plant species; (3) assess current effort and expenditure targeting alien plant management; and, finally, (4) identify the criteria they use to set priorities for management. In comparison to other environmental concerns, plant invasions are perceived as only moderately problematic and mechanical control is the most valued and frequently used strategy to cope with plant invasions in Spain. Based on 70 questionnaires received, 193 species are considered noxious, 109 of which have been the subject of management activities. More than 90% of species are found in at least one protected area. According to respondents, the most frequently managed species are the most widespread across administrative regions and the ones perceived as causing the highest impacts. The perception of impact seems to be independent of their invasion status, since only half of the species identified as noxious are believed to be invasive in Spain, while 43% of species thought to only be casual aliens are causing a high impact. Records of management costs are poor and the few data indicate that the total actual expenditure amounted to 50,492,437 € in the last decade. The majority of respondents stated that management measures are insufficient to control alien plants due to limited economic resources, lack of public awareness and support, and an absence of coordination among different public administrations. Managers also expressed their concern about the fact that much scientific research is concerned with the ecology of alien plants rather than with specific cost-efficient strategies to manage alien species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bardsley D, Edwards-Jones G (2006) Stakeholders’ perceptions of the impacts of invasive exotic plant species in the Mediterranean region. GeoJournal 65:199–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardsley D, Edwards-Jones G (2007) Invasive species policy and climate change: social perceptions of environmental change in the Mediterranean. Environmental Science & Policy 10:230–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binimelis R, Born W, Monterroso I, Rodríguez-Labajos B (2007) Socio-economic impact and assessment of biological invasions. In: Nentwig W (ed) Biological invasions. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 9–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Born W, Rauschmayer F, Bräuer I (2005) Economic evaluation of biological invasions—a survey. Ecological Economics 55:321–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brauer I (2003) Money as an indicator: to make use of economic evaluation for biodiversity conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98(1–3):483–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capdevila-Argüelles L, Iglesias A, Orueta JF, Zelletti B (2006) Especies exóticas invasoras: diagnóstico y bases para la prevención y el manejo. Organismo Autónomo de Parques Nacionales, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Child LE, Wade M, Wagner M (1998) Cost effective control of Fallopia japonica using combination treatments. In: Starfinger U, Edwards K, Kowarik I, Williamson M (eds) Plant invasions: ecological mechanisms and human responses. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 143–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Naeem S, Limburg K, Paruelo J, O’Neill RV, Raskin R, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daehler CC (2008) Invasive plant problems in the Hawaiian Islands and beyond: insights from history and psychology. In: Tokarska-Guzik B, Brock JH, Brundu G, Child L, Daehler CC, Pyšek P (eds) Plant invasions: human perception, ecological impacts and management. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 3–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Dana ED, Sanz-Elorza M, Sobrino E (2003) New alien species in Almería province (south-eastern Spain). Lagascalia 23:166–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehnen-Schumutz K, Perrings C, Williamson M (2004) Controlling Rhododendron ponticum in the British Isles: an economic analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 70:323–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Poorter M (2001) Perception and “human nature” as factors in invasive alien species issues: a workshop wrap-up on problems and solutions. In: McNeely JA (ed) The great reshuffling. Human dimensions of invasive alien species. IUCN, Cambridge, UK, pp 209–213

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, González JA, Alcorlo P, Montes C (2008) Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: implications for management. Biological Conservation 141:2969–2983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE (2003) Biological invasions: Winning the science battles but losing the conservation war? Oryx 37:178–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE (2006) Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:835–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE (2007) Biological invasions in Europe: drivers, pressures, states, impacts and responses. In: Hester R, Harrison RM (eds) Biodiversity under threat. Issues in environmental science and technology. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK, pp 56–80

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE, Bremner ET (2006) Assessing the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats: partitioning diversity components following species removal. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme PE, Brundu G, Camarda I, Dalias P, Lambdon P, Lloret F, Medail F, Moragues E, Suehs C, Traveset A, Troumbis A, Vilà M (2008) Assessing the risks to Mediterranean islands ecosystems from alien plant introductions. In: Tokarska-Guzik B, Brock JH, Brundu G, Child L, Daehler CC, Pyšek P (eds) Plant invasions: human perception, ecological impacts and management. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 39–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowarik I, Schepker H (1998) Plant invasions in northern Germany: human perception and response. In: Starfinger U, Edwards K, Kowarik I, Williamson M (eds) Plant invasions: ecological mechanisms and human responses. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 109–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Křivánek M (2006) Biologické invaze a možnosti jejich předpovědi (Predikční modely pro stanovení invazního potenciálu vyšších rostlin). Acta Pruhoniciana 84:83–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambdon PW, Lloret F, Hulme PE (2008a) Do non-native species invasions lead to biotic homogenization at small-scales? Similarity and functional diversity of habitats compared for the alien and native components of Mediterranean floras. Diversity and Distributions 14:774–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambdon PW, Lloret F, Hulme PE (2008b) Do alien plants on Mediterranean islands tend to invade different niches from native species? Biological Invasions 10:703–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson BMH (2007) An alien approach to invasive species: objectivity and society in invasion biology. Biological invasions 9:947–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Ecological Applications 16(6):2035–2054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions:causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecological Applications 10:689–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín B (2001) Marc institucional i legal de la introducció d’espècies exòtiques. Bachelor in Environmental Science. Final Project by Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (unpublished)

  • McConnachie AJ, de Wit MP, Hill MP, Byrne MJ (2003) Economic evaluation of the successful biological control of Azolla filiculoides in South Africa. Biological Control 28:25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeely J (2001) Invasive species: a costly catastrophe for native biodiversity. Land Use and Water Resources Research 1(2):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody M, Mack R (1988) Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1009–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen C, Ravn HP, Nentwig W, Wade M (2005) The giant hogweed best practice manual. Guidelines for the management and control of invasive weeds in Europe forest and landscape. Hørsholm, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Goodell K, Wonham M, Kareiva PM, Williamsom MH, Von Holle B, Moyle PB, Byers JE, Goldwasser L (1999) Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biological Invasions 1:3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrins J, Williamson M, Fitter A (1992) A survey of differing views of weed classification: implications for regulation of introductions. Biological Conservation 60:47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52:273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Rejmánek M, Webster GL, Williamson M, Kirschner J (2004) Alien plants in checklists and floras: towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon 53:131–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Jarosik V (2006) Who cites who in the invasion zoo: insights from an analysis of the most highly cited papers in invasion ecology. Preslia 78(4):437–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt F, Herle M, Bastiansen F, Streit B (2003) Ökonomische Folgen der Ausbreitung von gebietsfremden Organismen in Deutschland. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi A, Cohen J (2007) The invasiveness of an introduced species does not predict its impact. Biological Invasions 9:309–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanz-Elorza M, Dana ED, Sobrino E (2004) Atlas de las Plantas Alóctonas Invasoras en España. Dirección General para la Biodiversidad, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanz-Elorza M, Sobrino E (2002) Plantes vasculars del quadrat UTM 31TCF34 Cambrils. In: ORCA: Catàlegs florístics locals. Institut d’ Estudis Catalans, Barcelona, pp 13

  • Settele J, Hammen V, Hulme P, Karlson U, Klotz S, Kotarac M, Kunin W, Marion G, O’Connor M, Petanidou T, Peterson K, Potts S, Pritchard H, Pyšek P, Rounsevell M, Spangenberg J, Steffan–Dewenter I, Sykes M, Vighi M, Zobel M, Kühn I (2005) ALARM—Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods. GAIA—Ecological Perspectives in Science, Humanities and Economics 14(1):69–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw RH (2003) Biological control of invasive weeds in the UK: opportunities and challenges. In: Child LE, Brock JH, Brundu G, Prach K, Pyšek P, Wade PM, Williamson M (eds) Plant invasions: ecological threats and management solutions. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 337–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2003) Eradication—preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Science 51(2):247–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RG, Maxwell BD, Menalled FD, Rew LJ (2006) Lessons from agriculture may improve the management of invasive plants in wildland systems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(8):428–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StatSoft, Inc. (2001) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6.0. Available at: www.statsoft.com

  • Taylor CM, Hastings A (2004) Finding optimal control strategies for invasive species: a density-structured model for Spartina alterniflora. Journal of Applied Ecology 41(6):1049–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilà M, Basnou C, Pyšek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Nentwig W, Olenin S, Roques A, Roy D, Hulme PE, DAISIE partners (2008a) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (in press)

  • Vilà M, Siamantziouras A, Brundu G, Camarda I, Lambdon P, Médail F, Moragues E, Suehs CM, Traveset A, Troumbis AY, Hulme PE (2008b) Widespread resistance of Mediterranean island ecosystems to the establishment of three alien species. Diversity and Distributions 14:839–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitousek PM, D’Antonio CM, Loope LL, Rejmanek M, Westerbrooks R (1997) Introduced species: a significant component of human-caused global change. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 21(1):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadsworth RA, Collingham YC, Willis SG, Huntley B, Hulme PE (2000) Simulating the spread and management of alien riparian weeds: Are they out of control? Journal of Applied Ecology 37:28–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westman WE (1990) Park management of exotic plant species: problems and issues. Conservation Biology 4(3):251–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson M (1998) Measuring the impact of plant invaders in Britain. In: Starfinger U, Kowarik I, Williamson M (eds) Plant invasions: ecological mechanisms and human responses. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 57–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson M (2002) Alien plants in the British Isles. In: Pimentel D (ed) Biological invasions. Economic and environmental costs of alien plant, animal and microbe species. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 91–112

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zavaleta E (2000) The economic value of controlling an invasive shrub. Ambio 29(8):462–467

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all respondents to the inquiry (http://www.creaf.uab.es/propies/jara/Apendice artículo Ecosistemas.pdf), too many to name here, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous version of the manuscript. This study was partially funded by the projects ALARM (Assessing Large-Scale Environmental Risks for Biodiversity with Tested Methods; GOCE-CT-2003-506675; http://www.alarmproject.net, Settele and others 2005), DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe; SSPI-CT-2003-511202; http://www.europe-aliens.org), of the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission, RINVE (Determinantes Biológicos del Riesgo de Invasiones Vegetales), of the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia and the CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 project: Spanish woodlands and global change: threats and opportunities (MONTES-CSD2008-00040).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, E-08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

    Jara Andreu

  2. Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC), Avda/ Américo Vespucio s/n, 41092, Sevilla, Spain

    Montserrat Vilà

  3. The Bio-Protection Research Centre, Lincoln University, PO Box 84, Canterbury, New Zealand

    Philip E. Hulme

Authors
  1. Jara Andreu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Montserrat Vilà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philip E. Hulme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Montserrat Vilà.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire on Alien Plants Sent to Environmental Managers

Part 1: General Questions on Perception and Identity of Alien Species of Concern

  1. 1.

    Which priority would you assign to the problem of biological invasions in relation to the other environmental problems of your area of responsibility?

    1. i.

      High priority

    2. ii.

      Medium priority

    3. iii.

      Low priority

  2. 2.

    Could you assign a number from 1 to 5 to the following environmental problems according to their priority or importance? (1 = low importance, 2 = moderate importance, 3 = important, 4 = high importance, 5 = extremely important)?

    Natural habitat loss

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Habitat fragmentation

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Wildfire

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Biological invasions

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Climate change

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Pollution

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Urbanization

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Land use change

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Other (specify which ones)

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

  3. 3.

    Which priority would you assign to the following management strategies against invasions? (ranking from 1 to 4: 1 = low priority and 4 = maximum priority)

    1. i.

      Legislation reinforcement

    2. ii.

      Education and outreach

    3. iii.

      Entry prevention

    4. iv.

      Direct population control

  4. 4.

    Which are the main limitations or difficulties for an effective management of alien species in your area of responsibility?

  5. 5.

    Which alien species are causing problems (i.e., noxious alien plants) in your area of responsibility?

Part 2: Questions for Each Alien Species of Concern

Species 1: Species Name

  1. 1.

    Which kind of impacts is it causing?

    1. i.

      Ecological

    2. ii.

      Economic

    3. iii.

      Social

    4. iv.

      Human health

  2. 2.

    Could you specify the impact type caused by this species?

  3. 3.

    Could you specify the magnitude of the impact caused by this species?

    1. i.

      High

    2. ii.

      Intermediate

    3. iii.

      Low

  4. 4.

    Could you mention any direct impact of this plant, which associated costs are easily quantified? (i.e., infrastructure damage)?

  5. 5.

    Is there any management strategy over this alien species in your area of responsibility? Yes/No

  6. 6.

    Which kinds of management activities do you carry out?

    1. i.

      Prevention–outreach

      1. 1.

        Regional legislation

      2. 2.

        Education and information activities

      3. 3.

        other (specify)

    2. ii.

      Eradication

    3. iii.

      Containment (i.e., population control)

    4. iv.

      Restoration (i.e., habitat improvement, reforestation with native species)

  7. 7.

    How long have the management strategies been functioning?

  8. 8.

    Which method has been used to control or eradicate the alien species?

    1. i.

      Physical (mechanical, manual,…)

    2. ii.

      Chemical

    3. iii.

      Physical + chemical

    4. iv.

      Biological control

  9. 9.

    With which frequency have the treatments been carried out?

  10. 10.

    Are the treatments carried out by technicians or volunteers?

  11. 11.

    Do you monitor the success of the management measures over the time?

  12. 12.

    How often do you monitor the state of the invasion?

  13. 13.

    Have you carried out a restoration of the locations previously invaded by the alien plant?

  14. 14.

    Could you estimate the total economic cost of the management measures?

    1. i.

      Prevention costs (three-page leaflets, workshops, conferences…) = €.

    2. ii.

      Eradication or control costs (herbicides, salary, material, machinery, etc.) = €.

    3. iii.

      Habitat restoration costs (native species plantation) = €.

  15. 15.

    Could you indicate which has been the result of the management measures?

    1. i.

      The species has been eliminated

    2. ii.

      The species has decreased considerably

    3. iii.

      The species has decreased very little

    4. iv.

      The species has not decreased

    5. v.

      The species continues to expand

  16. 16.

    Do you think that the management strategies have been successful?

    1. i.

      Very successful

    2. ii.

      Moderately successful

    3. iii.

      Not very successful

    4. iv.

      No successful at all

Appendix 2

List and status of the most noxious species according to respondents and the number of autonomous communities (ACs) and protected areas where noxious and managed (status: I = invasive, N = naturalized, C = casual)

Species (family)

Status

No. of ACs where noxious

No. of ACs where managed

No. of ACs where presenta

No. of protected areas where noxious

No. of protected areas where managed

Carpobrotus spp. (Aizoaceae)

I

11

8

10

21

13

Eucalyptus spp. (Myrtaceae)

I

11

8

13

14

13

Ailanthus altissima (Simaroubaceae)

I

11

6

12

10

4

Robinia pseudoacacia (Fabaceae)

I

11

3

17

2

1

Acacia spp. (Fabaceae)

I

9

7

12

9

8

Cortaderia selloana (Poaceae)

I

8

7

11

2

2

Agave americana (Agavaceae)

I

7

3

12

14

2

Arundo donax (Poaceae)

I

7

1

15

1

0

Opuntia spp. (Cactaceae)

I

7

4

13

9

3

Oxalis pes-caprae (Oxalidaceae)

I

7

2

11

4

2

Senecio spp. (Asteraceae)

I

6

3

11

4

2

Arctotheca calendula (Asteraceae)

I

5

3

10

2

2

Ipomoea spp. (Convolvulaceae)

I

5

3

14

1

1

Myoporum spp. (Myoporaceae)

N

5

4

3

1

1

Nicotiana glauca (Solanaceae)

I

5

2

8

5

2

Oenothera glazioviana (Onagraceae)

I

5

3

14

0

0

Paspalum spp. (Poaceae)

I

5

0

17

1

0

Ricinus communis (Euphorbiaceae)

I

5

1

8

2

2

Tradescantia fluminensis (Commelinaceae)

I

5

3

8

2

2

Aptenia cordifolia (Aizoaceae)

N

4

1

7

2

0

Aster squamatus (Asteraceae)

I

4

0

16

1

1

Baccharis halimifolia (Asteraceae)

I

4

4

3

0

0

Conyza spp. (Asteraceae)

I

4

0

17

0

0

Eichhornia crassipes (Pontederiaceae)

I

4

4

3

1

1

Xanthium strumarium (Asteraceae)

I

4

2

13

1

1

Aloe spp. (Liliaceae)

C

3

1

4

1

0

Amaranthus spp. (Amaranthaceae)

I

3

0

17

0

0

Azolla filiculoides (Azollaceae)

I

3

2

8

2

1

Buddleja davidii (Buddlejaceae)

I

3

2

7

1

1

Fallopia japonica (Polygonaceae)

I

3

2

6

0

0

Lantana spp. (Verbenaceae)

I

3

0

5

0

0

Oenothera biennis (Onagraceae)

I

3

2

14

0

0

Pennisetum setaceum (Poaceae)

I

3

1

3

2

2

Tropaeolum majus (Tropaeolaceae)

I

3

1

10

0

0

Yucca spp. (Agavaceae)

C

3

3

–

3

2

Araujia sericifera (Asclepiadaceae)

I

2

0

8

0

0

Artemisia spp. (Asteraceae)

I

2

0

13

1

0

Datura stramonium (Solanaceae)

I

2

2

16

3

2

Disphyma crassifolium (Aizoaceae)

N

2

0

4

1

0

Egeria densa (Hydrocharitaceae)

N

2

1

2

1

0

Kalanchoe spp. (Crassulaceae)

C

2

1

–

0

0

Ludwigia spp. (Onagraceae)

N

2

2

2

2

0

Oenothera drummondii (Onagraceae)

N

2

1

2

1

1

Pittosporum tobira (Pittosporaceae)

C

2

1

1

0

0

Platanus hybrida (Platanaceae)

N

2

2

8

0

0

Solanum bonariense (Solanaceae)

I

2

0

9

0

0

Sorghum halepense (Poaceae)

I

2

0

15

0

0

Spartina patens (Poaceae)

I

2

0

9

0

0

Xanthium spinosum (Asteraceae)

N

2

0

16

0

0

  1. aAccording to Sanz-Elorza and others (2004)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andreu, J., Vilà, M. & Hulme, P.E. An Assessment of Stakeholder Perceptions and Management of Noxious Alien Plants in Spain. Environmental Management 43, 1244–1255 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9280-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9280-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation