An analysis of assessment outcomes from eight years’ operation of the Australian border weed risk assessment system

Weber, Jason; Panetta, F. D.; Virtue, J. G.; Pheloung, P. C.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.012

Cited by 44 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, the pasture research program was responsible for five of the seven high impact species naturalising since 1932, all first imported prior by 1940. The border protection system was first tightened in the 1990s, with the institution of the Weed Risk Assessment system at the Australian border in 1997 (Pheloung 2001;Weber et al 2009). This was too late for its effect on naturalisation rates to be tested.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The low naturalisation rate of new pasture species after WW2 is also reflected in the overall decline in naturalisation rates as a proportion of total new CPI-listed introductions, from 10 to \5 %, between 1929 and 1972, and pre-dates any expected effects of tightening border protection. Concerns regarding negative environmental impacts of grasses were first raised in the 1980s (Hazard 1988;Lonsdale 1994;Cook and Dias 2006) and only formally addressed in the 1990s (Weber et al 2009). Low establishment rates after WW2 also do not reflect a decline in effort directed at finding and establishing new pasture species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Learning from the past to predict the future: an historical analysis of grass invasions in northern Australia

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important focus of biosecurity is anticipating future risks, but time lags between introduction, naturalisation, and (ultimately) impact mean that future risks can be strongly influenced by history. We conduct a comprehensive historical analysis of tropical grasses (n = 155) that have naturalised in Australia since European settlement (1788) to determine what factors shaped historical patterns of naturalisation and future risks, including for the 21 species that cause serious negative impacts. Most naturalised species were from the Old World (78 %), were introduced for use in pasture (64.5 %), were first recorded prior to 1940 (84.5 %) and naturalised before 1980 (90.3 %). Patterns for high-impact species were similar, with all being first recorded in Australia by 1940, and only seven naturalised since then-five intentionally introduced as pasture species. Counter to expectations, we found no evidence for increased naturalisation with increasing trade, including for species introduced unintentionally for which the link was expected to be strongest. New pathways have not emerged since the 1930s despite substantial shifts in trading patterns. Furthermore, introduction and naturalisation rates are now at or approaching historically low levels. Three reasons were identified: (1) the often long lag phase between introduction and reported naturalisation means naturalisation rates reflect historical trends in introduction rates; (2) important introduction pathways are not directly related to trade volume and globalisation; and (3) that species pools may become depleted. The last of these appears to be the case for the most important pathway for tropical grasses, i.e. the intentional introduction of useful pasture species. Assuming that new pathways don't arise that might result in increased naturalisation rates, and that current at-border biosecurity practices remain in place, we conclude that most future high-impact tropical grass species are already present in Australia. Our results highlight the need to continually test underlying assumptions regarding future naturalisation rates of high-impact invasive species, as 123Biol Invasions (2015( ) 17:565-579 DOI 10.1007 conclusions have important implications for how best to manage future biosecurity risks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from the past to predict the future: an historical analysis of grass invasions in northern Australia

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Risk-assessment models also could fail to classify a plant or require information that is difficult to find or unavailable in the scientific literature (Fox and Gordon 2009;Jefferson et al 2004;Parker et al 2007). Although risk-assessment models have limitations, they show promise for reducing introductions of new invasive plants, and some are already in use in Australia (Weber et al 2008) and the United States (Jefferson et al 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Stakeholder Perspectives on Invasive Plants to Inform Risk Analysis

Kapler

Thompson

Widrlechner

2012

Invasive plant sci. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation and land management decisions often are based primarily on natural science, but could be more successful if human influences were effectively integrated into decision making. This is especially true for efforts to manage invasive plants, whose arrival is usually the product of deliberate human introduction. Risk-assessment models that predict the probability that a nonnative plant will naturalize or invade are useful tools for managing invasive plants. However, decisions based on such models could affect stakeholders differently. Careful assessment of risk-analysis methodologies should consider the importance of stakeholder participation. We surveyed the perceptions of four stakeholder groups (conservation professionals, master gardeners, professional horticulturists, and woodland landowners) in Iowa about invasive plants, general management approaches, and risk-assessment models. We also examined whether or not a stakeholder's nature relatedness plays a role in shaping his or her responses. Stakeholder perceptions varied less than expected across all four groups. Eighty-seven percent of respondents agreed invasive plants are a problem, and 88.4% agreed that we have a responsibility to manage them to protect natural areas. Support for the use of risk-assessment models also was high, with 78.7% of respondents agreeing that their use has potential to prevent plant invasions. Nature relatedness scores for all groups were correlated with respondent perspectives on invasive plants. Respondents believed biologically significant error rates (errors that might introduce a new invasive plant) should not exceed 5 to 10%. Respondents were more tolerant of horticulturally limiting errors (errors that restrict sale/use of a plant that would not have become invasive), reporting rates of 10 to 20% as acceptable. Researchers developing risk-assessment models might wish to aim for error rates within these bounds. General agreement among these stakeholder groups suggests potential support for future risk-management efforts related to invasive plants.

show abstract

“…The benefits of properly constructed prioritisation models are likely to reside in their structured, holistic and transparent mechanisms as well as their ease of application. The Australian WRA, for instance, is in official use in Australia and New Zealand, and has been used to rate over 2800 species in Australia (Weber et al 2009) as well as been applied widely elsewhere in academic studies. Cook and Proctor (2007) found that the list produced by their prioritisation model ended up with a very different distribution of resource use than what the existing funding priorities were.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They point out that since surveillance systems have developed over time, new diseases have been added to the lists without any old ones being removed (WHO 2006). Australia and New Zealand have officially been using a prioritisation tool for weed risk assessment since the late 1990s (Gordon et al 2008a;Weber et al 2009) and Canada has undertaken systematic prioritisation of human diseases for surveillance over about the same period. In Great Britain human diseases were prioritised by Public Health Laboratory Service (ìn 1995, 1997 and 1999), but the Health Protection Agency, which replaced it in 2003, discontinued the practice (DEFRA 2006).…”

Section: Introduction To Prioritisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of risk prioritisation schemes of pathogens, pests and weeds: principles and practices

Heikkilä¹

2008

AFSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Society's resources are scarce, and biosecurity actions need to be targeted and prioritised. Various models have been developed that prioritise and rank pests and diseases according to the risks they represent. A prioritisation model allows utilisation of scientific, ecological and economic information in decision-making related to biological hazards. This study discusses such models and the properties associated with them based on a review of 78 prioritisation studies. The scope of the models includes all aspects of biosecurity (human, animal and plant diseases, and invasive alien species), but with an emphasis on plant health. The geographical locations of the studies are primarily North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Half of the studies were conducted during the past five years. The review finds that there generally seems to be several prioritisation models, especially in the case of invasive plants, but only a select few models are used extensively. Impacts are often accounted for in the model, but the extent and economic sophistication of their inclusion varies. Treatment of uncertainty and feasibility of control was lacking from many studies.

show abstract

An analysis of assessment outcomes from eight years’ operation of the Australian border weed risk assessment system

Cited by 44 publications

References 29 publications

Learning from the past to predict the future: an historical analysis of grass invasions in northern Australia

Learning from the past to predict the future: an historical analysis of grass invasions in northern Australia

Assessing Stakeholder Perspectives on Invasive Plants to Inform Risk Analysis

A review of risk prioritisation schemes of pathogens, pests and weeds: principles and practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About