Harmonising the fields of invasion science and forest pathology

Paap, T.; Wingfield, Michael J.; Burgess, Treena I.; Hulbert, Joseph M.; Santini, Alberto

doi:10.3897/neobiota.62.52991

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 137 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The framework has already been put into practice and so, this would be the simplest way to move forward. As a start, the adjustments and recommendations proposed by Harrower et al (2018) and Pergl et al (2020) could be widely tested and adopted and the terminologies could be better aligned with those used in related fields (see Paap et al 2020). The effort that would be required to implement any changes (i.e.…”

Section: A Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classifying the introduction pathways of alien species: are we moving in the right direction?

Faulkner¹,

Hulme²,

Pagad³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alien species are introduced to new regions in many different ways and for different purposes. A number of frameworks have been developed to group such pathways of introduction into discrete categories in order to improve our understanding of biological invasions, provide information for interventions that aim to prevent introductions, enable reporting to national and international organisations and facilitate the prediction of threats. The introduction pathway classification framework proposed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as a global standard is comprised of six main categories and 44 sub-categories. However, issues have arisen with its implementation. In this position paper, we outline five desirable properties of an introduction pathway classification framework – it should be compatible (i.e. the level of detail of the categories is similar to that of the available data), actionable (i.e. categories link to specific interventions), general (i.e. categories are applicable across the contexts that are of interest (e.g. taxa, habitats and regions)), equivalent (i.e. categories are equivalent in their level of detail) and distinct (i.e. categories are discrete and easily distinguished) – termed the CAGED properties. The six main categories of the CBD framework have all of the CAGED properties, but the detailed sub-categories have few. Therefore, while the framework has been proposed by the CBD as a global standard and efforts have been made to put it into practice, we argue that there is room for improvement. We conclude by presenting scenarios for how the issues identified could be addressed, noting that a hybrid model might be most appropriate.

show abstract

Section: A Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classifying the introduction pathways of alien species: are we moving in the right direction?

Faulkner¹,

Hulme²,

Pagad³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13 Paap et al (2020) • EICAT 2, 6 • Invasion frameworks are not widely applied in the study of forest pathology as historically the focus of the field has been on controlling the resulting disease problems rather than understanding how invasions arise.…”

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frameworks used in invasion science: progress and prospects

Wilson¹,

Bacher²,

Daehler³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our understanding and management of biological invasions relies on our ability to classify and conceptualise the phenomenon. This need has stimulated the development of a plethora of frameworks, ranging in nature from conceptual to applied. However, most of these frameworks have not been widely tested and their general applicability is unknown. In order to critically evaluate frameworks in invasion science, we held a workshop on ‘Frameworks used in Invasion Science’ hosted by the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology in Stellenbosch, South Africa, in November 2019, which led to this special issue. For the purpose of the workshop we defined a framework as “a way of organising things that can be easily communicated to allow for shared understanding or that can be implemented to allow for generalisations useful for research, policy or management”. Further, we developed the Stellenbosch Challenge for Invasion Science: “Can invasion science develop and improve frameworks that are useful for research, policy or management, and that are clear as to the contexts in which the frameworks do and do not apply?”. Particular considerations identified among meeting participants included the need to identify the limitations of a framework, specify how frameworks link to each other and broader issues, and to improve how frameworks can facilitate communication. We believe that the 24 papers in this special issue do much to meet this challenge. The papers apply existing frameworks to new data and contexts, review how the frameworks have been adopted and used, develop useable protocols and guidelines for applying frameworks to different contexts, refine the frameworks in light of experience, integrate frameworks for new purposes, identify gaps, and develop new frameworks to address issues that are currently not adequately dealt with. Frameworks in invasion science must continue to be developed, tested as broadly as possible, revised, and retired as contexts and needs change. However, frameworks dealing with pathways of introduction, progress along the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and the assessment of impacts are being increasingly formalised and set as standards. This, we argue, is an important step as invasion science starts to mature as a discipline.

show abstract

“…Faulkner et al (2020) highlight one such case, where the trade in traditional medicines is a potentially important introduction pathway in Africa, but is not considered explicitly in the current (arguably Eurocentric) Pathway Classification. Similarly, the Unified Framework originated from combing zoological and botanical frameworks, and there are several practical issues applying both it and the Pathway Classification to fungi and microbes (Paap et al 2020).…”

Section: Framework Are Temporary Concepts Are Permanent But Where mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

Wilson¹,

Datta²,

Hirsch³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need to understand and manage biological invasions has driven the development of frameworks to circumscribe, classify, and elucidate aspects of the phenomenon. But how influential have these frameworks really been? To test this, we evaluated the impact of a pathway classification framework, a framework focussing on the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and two papers that outline an impact classification framework. We analysed how these framework papers are cited and by whom, conducted a survey to determine why people have cited the frameworks, and explored the degree to which the frameworks are implemented. The four papers outlining these frameworks are amongst the most-cited in their respective journals, are highly regarded in the field, and are already seen as citation classics (although citations are overwhelmingly within the field of invasion science). The number of citations to the frameworks has increased over time, and, while a significant proportion of these are self-citations (20–40%), this rate is decreasing. The frameworks were cited by studies conducted and authored by researchers from across the world. However, relative to a previous citation analysis of invasion science as a whole, the frameworks are particularly used in Europe and South Africa and less so in North America. There is an increasing number of examples of uptake into invasion policy and management (e.g., the pathway classification framework has been adapted and adopted into EU legislation and CBD targets, and the impact classification framework has been adopted by the IUCN). However, we found that few of the citing papers (6–8%) specifically implemented or interrogated the frameworks; roughly half of all citations might be viewed as frivolous (“citation fluff”); there were several clear cases of erroneous citation; and some survey respondents felt that they have not been rigorously tested yet. Although our analyses suggest that invasion science is moving towards a more systematic and standardised approach to recording invasions and their impacts, it appears that the proposed standards are still not applied consistently. For this to be achieved, we argue that frameworks in invasion science need to be revised or adapted to particular contexts in response to the needs and experiences of users (e.g., so they are relevant to pathologists, plant ecologists, and practitioners), the standards should be easier to apply in practice (e.g., through the development of guidelines for management), and there should be incentives for their usage (e.g., recognition for completing an EICAT assessment).

show abstract

Harmonising the fields of invasion science and forest pathology

Cited by 18 publications

References 137 publications

Classifying the introduction pathways of alien species: are we moving in the right direction?

Classifying the introduction pathways of alien species: are we moving in the right direction?

Frameworks used in invasion science: progress and prospects

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About