Climate change and invasive species are often treated as important, but independent, issues. Nevertheless, they have strong connections: changes in climate and societal responses to climate change may exacerbate the impacts of invasive species, whereas invasive species may affect the magnitude, rate, and impact of climate change. We argue that the design and implementation of climate-change policy in the United States should specifically consider the implications for invasive species; conversely, invasive-species policy should address consequences for climate change. The development of such policies should be based on (1) characterization of interactions between invasive species and climate change, (2) identification of areas where climate-change policies could negatively affect invasive-species management, and (3) identification of areas where policies could benefit from synergies between climate change and invasive-species management.
Smith et al. (2015) recently proposed that weed risk assessment (WRA) systems "are unable to accurately address broad, intraspecific variation and that species introduced for agronomic purposes pose special limitations." This conclusion is drawn from their application of the Australian (A-WRA) and U.S. (US-WRA) weed risk assessment (WRA) systems to evaluate proposed bioenergy crops, cultivated crops, and known invasive nonnative plants. We do not believe that this conclusion is robust and question the approach and outcome of their comparative study. Our view is that this study misrepresents the utility of WRA tools and, more broadly, might potentially hinder efforts to
Abstract. Biofuels are being pursued for their potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions benefits, among other reasons. In order to maximize productivity, avoid food-fuel conflicts, and minimize GHG emissions, many advanced biofuel feedstock crops, such as those desired by the aviation community, are under consideration based on traits, such as high biomass and/ or seed production, tolerance of marginal cultivation conditions, and short generation times, that may also be predictors of potential invasiveness risk. Biofuel-related invasion risks can be mitigated through careful feedstock crop selection and cultivation techniques developed from the invasion science literature. Existing voluntary best practices and some state and federal regulatory requirements in the United States recommend and/or require the use of such risk mitigation strategies. However, other policies and programs allow or provide incentives for biofuel production without conditions requiring the use of these strategies. We have synthesized information on the scientific knowledge of invasive species predictors and their use (or absence) in voluntary codes and U.S. regulatory frameworks and incentive programs. We highlight the existing tools and approaches for assessing invasion risk and avoiding the introduction and spread of invasive species as a result of biofuel feedstock cultivation. A wellcoordinated combination of species restrictions, biosecurity requirements, and incentives for selection of less risky biofuel crops may effectively balance the desire for increased biofuel production while minimizing invasion risk.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.