Breaking down barriers to consistent, climate‐smart regulation of invasive plants: A case study of US Northeast states

Abstract

Efforts to prevent the introduction and spread of new invasive plants are most effective when regulated species are consistent across jurisdictional boundaries and proactively prohibit species before they arrive or in the earliest stages of invasion. Consistent and proactive regulation is particularly important in the northeastern United States, which is susceptible to many new invasive plants due to climate change. Unfortunately, recent analyses of state regulated plant lists show that regulated species are neither consistent nor proactive. To understand why, we focus on two steps leading to invasive plant regulation across six northeastern states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont): which sets of species are evaluated and how risk is assessed. Our analysis confirms previous findings that invasive plant regulations are inconsistent and reactive. Of the 128 plants regulated by one or more states, 54 were regulated by a single state and only 16 were regulated by all six states; regulated species tended to be widespread across the region (not proactive). These outcomes are largely driven by different sets of evaluated species. For example, neighboring states Vermont and New Hampshire evaluated 92 species in total, but only 26 overlapped. In addition, states rarely evaluated species that were absent from the state. Risk assessment protocols varied considerably across states, but consistently included criteria related to ecological impact, potential to establish, dispersal mechanisms, and life history traits. While none of the assessments explicitly consider climate change, they also did not contain language that would preclude regulating species that have not yet arrived in the state. To increase consistency and proactivity, states would benefit from (1) evaluating species identified as high risk by neighboring states and high‐risk, range‐shifting invasive species, both of which we compiled here, and (2) explicitly considering climate change when assessing “potential distribution” or “potential impact” of target species. Additionally, a mechanism for sharing knowledge and risk assessments regionally would benefit states with fewer resources to address invasive species threats. Presenting a unified defense against current and future threats is critical for reducing impacts from invasive species and is achievable with better state‐to‐state coordination.

Threat of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) on socio-economic and environmental sustainability of Koka and Ziway lakes, Ethiopia

“…Commonly, many East African fresh water habitats, and their wetland areas are fragile in Environmental management practice (60). Watershed management practice and the related environmental rehabilitation works to prevent WH expansion in many parts of the world (73,74). However, in the study locality vast majority of the community, 185(94.4%) households, at the Lake Koka community had been involved in watershed management practice to prevent WH expansion (Table 12).…”

Phylogenetic relationships of invasive plants are useful criteria for weed risk assessments

“…WRAs would optimally differentiate between invasive and noninvasive plants using a few, easy‐to‐collect criteria for rapid and accurate screening. Unfortunately, WRA criteria vary widely (Bradley et al., 2022; Buerger et al., 2016), which may make WRAs ineffective (Hulme, 2012) and lead to inconsistent invasive species regulations (Beaury et al., 2021). Improving the overall effectiveness of WRAs begins with evaluating the effectiveness of individual WRA criteria.…”

High-impact invasive plants expanding into mid-Atlantic states: identifying priority range-shifting species for monitoring in light of climate change

“…Preventing ecological and socioeconomic impacts is the primary reason for managing biological invasions. The potential to cause negative impacts is consistently used in the U.S. federal (Koop et al, 2012) and state (Buerger et al 2016;Bradley et al 2022) risk assessments that inform regulation and management. Although other state risk-assessment criteria often differ (e.g., Buerger et al 2016;Bradley et al 2022), information about impacts is universally useful for prioritization.…”

“…The potential to cause negative impacts is consistently used in the U.S. federal (Koop et al, 2012) and state (Buerger et al 2016;Bradley et al 2022) risk assessments that inform regulation and management. Although other state risk-assessment criteria often differ (e.g., Buerger et al 2016;Bradley et al 2022), information about impacts is universally useful for prioritization. Thus, by assessing potential impacts, we provide an important first step toward identifying species that states should assess further as well as information about impacts needed for state risk assessments (Kumschick et al 2020).…”