Impact of alien plants in Turkey assessed by the Generic Impact Scoring System

Abstract

In this paper, we present the impact categorizations of 51 alien plant species in Turkey, which were determined using the Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS). The evidence on environmental and socioeconomic impacts of these alien species was searched in literature. Impacts were classified into 12 categories (six for environmental and six for socioeconomic) and, within each category, the impact was assessed on a six degree scale. Environmental impacts were recorded for 80% of the species and mostly concern ecosystem processes (changes in nutrient or water availability and disturbance regimes), while socioeconomic impacts, identified for 78% of the species assessed, are typically associated with agricultural production or human health. Summed scores of individual species across categories of environmental and socioeconomic impacts were not significantly correlated. By taking into account the actual distribution of the assessed species, we evaluated the regional distribution of (potential) impacts in Turkey. The Black Sea region harbours the highest number of species with impacts (34 species, i.e. 67% of the total assessed for the whole country), 28 species were recorded in the Marmara, 21 in the Mediterranean, 17 in the Aegean and 12 in each of the South East Anatolia, Central Anatolia and East Anatolia regions. The species that have negative impact on forestry are only found in three regions. Altogether 21 species are agricultural weeds, but we only found evidence of a minor socioeconomic impact for some of them. Determining the impacts based on specific criteria (i) provides basis for objective risk assessment of plant invasions in Turkey, (ii) can be taken as early warning to combat these plants and (iii) contributes to the growing body of evidence of the impacts of alien plant species.

Arrhenatherum elatius subsp. bulbosum (Poaceae): A New Alien Record for the Flora of Turkey

“…The soil conditions have no fundamental effect but merely modify the degree of corm development (Tanphiphat, 1990). Furthermore, Yazlık et al (2018) underlined that within the total pool of alien species in Turkey, 23% occur in agricultural areas, amongst them 16% as naturalized and 7% as casual. So, the presence of this taxon in tea and hazelnut plantations in NE Anatolia is not surprising.…”

Yaşayan Alan: Prusias ad Hypium Antik Kentinde Yabani Ot Türleri

“…Bitki türlerinin bulundukları alanlarda çevresel ve sosyoekonomik etkileri mevcuttur (Yazlık ve ark. 2018 [15]). Örneğin; çevresel etkiler kapsamında değerlendirilen (Yazlık ve ark.…”

“…Örneğin; çevresel etkiler kapsamında değerlendirilen (Yazlık ve ark. 2018 [15]) bitki türlerinin güçlü üreme ve yayılma özelliği ile bulundukları alanlarda yoğun popülasyon oluşturmaları olumsuz etki olarak değerlendirilirken, toprak koruma (erozyon veya N fiksasyonu) ile antik kent alan dokusuna etkiler olumlu etki olarak değerlendirilebilir. Benzer şekilde sosyoekonomik etkiler kapsamında; insan sağlığı (alerjen polen veya toksik) ve ekonomik kayıp (işçilik masraflarını yükseltmek gibi) olumsuz bir etki sergilerken, tozlaştırıcı böceklere konukçuluk (arılar, kelebekler..vb.)…”

“…ve etnobotanik kullanım olumlu etki olarak verilebilir (Yazlık ve ark. 2018 [15]). Bu bağlamda antik kent alanında tespit edilen türlerin ilgili alanda oluşturabileceği olumlu veya olumsuz etkiler genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde, rekabet etkisi yüksek olan, güçlü üreme ve yayılma yeteneği sergileyen türler tarihi alanların dokusunu bozma, kalıntıları kaplama gibi etkilerinin yanında mücadele çalışmalarında zorluklara da neden olabilir.…”

An impact assessment of alien invasive plants in South Africa generally dispersed by native avian species

“…The two widely used ones are the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT), developed by Blackburn et al (2014) to quantify environmental impacts and the Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS), developed to assess environmental and economic impacts (Turbé et al 2017). The GISS has been used for various taxa, including birds (Turbé et al 2017;Shivambu et al 2020), mammals (Hagen and Kumschick 2018), amphibians (Measey et al 2016), fish (Orfinger and Goodding 2018), arthropods (Laverty et al 2015) and selected plants (Novoa et al 2016;Yazlik et al 2018). Using impact quantifying approaches like the GISS gives insights into which species are detrimental so that management prioritises those species with major impacts (Rumlerová et al 2016) and provides information for decisions relating to the introduction of species (Bartz and Kowarik 2019).…”