Aim  To examine the different uses and perceptions of introduced Australian acacias (wattles; Acacia subgenus Phyllodineae) by rural households and communities. Location  Eighteen landscape‐scale case studies around the world, in Vietnam, India, Réunion, Madagascar, South Africa, Congo, Niger, Ethiopia, Israel, France, Portugal, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic and Hawai‘i. Methods  Qualitative comparison of case studies, based on questionnaire sent to network of acacia researchers. Information based on individual knowledge of local experts, published and unpublished sources. Results  We propose a conceptual model to explain current uses and perceptions of introduced acacias. It highlights historically and geographically contingent processes, including economic development, environmental discourses, political context, and local or regional needs. Four main groupings of case studies were united by similar patterns: (1) poor communities benefiting from targeted agroforestry projects; (2) places where residents, generally poor, take advantage of a valuable resource already present in their landscape via plantation and/or invasion; (3) regions of small and mid‐scale tree farmers participating in the forestry industry; and (4) a number of high‐income communities dealing with the legacies of former or niche use of introduced acacia in a context of increased concern over biodiversity and ecosystem services. Main conclusions  Economic conditions play a key role shaping acacia use. Poorer communities rely strongly on acacias (often in, or escaped from, formal plantations) for household needs and, sometimes, for income. Middle‐income regions more typically host private farm investments in acacia woodlots for commercialization. Efforts at control of invasive acacias must take care to not adversely impact poor dependent communities.

This dataset provides the Global Naturalized Alien Flora (GloNAF) database, version 1.2. GloNAF represents a data compendium on the occurrence and identity of naturalized alien vascular plant taxa across geographic regions (e.g. countries, states, provinces, districts, islands) around the globe. The dataset includes 13,939 taxa and covers 1,029 regions (including 381 islands). The dataset is based on 210 data sources. For each taxon‐by‐region combination, we provide information on whether the taxon is considered to be naturalized in the specific region (i.e. has established self‐sustaining populations in the wild). Non‐native taxa are marked as “alien”, when it is not clear whether they are naturalized. To facilitate alignment with other plant databases, we provide for each taxon the name as given in the original data source and the standardized taxon and family names used by The Plant List Version 1.1 (http://www.theplantlist.org/). We provide an ESRI shapefile including polygons for each region and information on whether it is an island or a mainland region, the country and the Taxonomic Databases Working Group (TDWG) regions it is part of (TDWG levels 1–4). We also provide several variables that can be used to filter the data according to quality and completeness of alien taxon lists, which vary among the combinations of regions and data sources. A previous version of the GloNAF dataset (version 1.1) has already been used in several studies on, for example, historical spatial flows of taxa between continents and geographical patterns and determinants of naturalization across different taxonomic groups. We intend the updated and expanded GloNAF version presented here to be a global resource useful for studying plant invasions and changes in biodiversity from regional to global scales. We release these data into the public domain under a Creative Commons Zero license waiver (https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/). When you use the data in your publication, we request that you cite this data paper. If GloNAF is a major part of the data analyzed in your study, you should consider inviting the GloNAF core team (see Metadata S1: Originators in the Overall project description) as collaborators. If you plan to use the GloNAF dataset, we encourage you to contact the GloNAF core team to check whether there have been recent updates of the dataset, and whether similar analyses are already ongoing.

Aim Many Australian Acacia species have been planted around the world, some are highly valued, some are invasive, and some are both highly valued and invasive. We review global efforts to minimize the risk and limit the impact of invasions in this widely used plant group.Location Global.Methods Using information from literature sources, knowledge and experience of the authors, and the responses from a questionnaire sent to experts around the world, we reviewed: (1) a generalized life cycle of Australian acacias and how to control each life stage, (2) different management approaches and (3) what is required to help limit or prevent invasions.Results Relatively few Australian acacias have been introduced in large numbers, but all species with a long and extensive history of planting have become invasive somewhere. Australian acacias, as a group, have a high risk of becoming invasive and causing significant impacts as determined by existing assessment schemes. Moreover, in most situations, long-lived seed banks mean it is very difficult to control established infestations. Control has focused almost exclusively on widespread invaders, and eradication has rarely been attempted. Classical biological control is being used in South Africa with increasing success.Main conclusions A greater emphasis on pro-active rather than reactive management is required given the difficulties managing established invasions of Australian acacias. Adverse effects of proposed new introductions can be minimized by conducting detailed risk assessments in advance, planning for on-going monitoring and management, and ensuring resources are in place for long-term mitigation. Benign alternatives (e.g. sterile hybrids) could be developed to replace existing utilized taxa. Eradication should be set as a management goal more often to reduce the invasion debt. Introducing classical biological control agents that have a successful track-record in South Africa to other regions and identifying new agents (notably vegetative feeders) can help mitigate existing widespread invasions. Trans-boundary sharing of information will assist efforts to limit future invasions, in particular, management strategies need to be better evaluated, monitored, published and publicised so that global best-practice procedures can be developed.

No abstract