Subjectivity and flexibility in invasion terminology: too much of a good thing?

Colautti, Robert I.; Richardson, David M.

doi:10.1007/s10530-008-9333-z

Cited by 69 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While we expected a rather high diversity of perspectives in the heterogeneous group of landscape experts, we were surprised by the lack of consistency in the use of basic concepts amongst invasion biologists, since the research field is well defined, and its leaders have invested much effort in standardizing key concepts (e.g., Colautti and McIsaac 2004, Valéry et al 2008, Colautti and Richardson 2009. In fact, the diversity of perceptions within both experts groups was so large that for most issues we examined there was no clear difference between the groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Several authors in the invasion literature have expressed confidence that the problem of conceptual pluralism in research on biological invasions can be overcome by defining key notions more precisely (Colautti and McIsaac 2004, Pysek et al 2004, Valéry et al 2008, Colautti and Richardson 2009, Webber and Scott 2012. However, experience in invasion biology and other fields of ecological research indicate that it is difficult to establish precise definitions that all experts can share (e.g., Shrader-Frechette 2001, Haila 2002, Sagoff 2005, Hodges 2008, Moore et al 2009).…”

Section: The Notion Of a Non-native Invasive Species As A Boundary Omentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments

Humair¹,

Edwards²,

Siegrist³

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the diverging opinions of academic experts, stakeholders and the public is important for effective conservation management. This is especially so when a consensus is needed for action to minimize future risks but the knowledge upon which to base this action is uncertain or missing. How to manage non-native, invasive species (NIS) is an interesting case in point: the issue has long been controversial among stakeholders, but publicly visible, major disagreement among experts is recent.To characterize the multitude of experts' understanding and valuation of non-native, NIS we performed structured qualitative interviews with 26 academic experts, 13 of whom were invasion biologists and 13 landscape experts. Within both groups, thinking varied widely, not only about basic concepts (e.g., non-native, invasive) but also about their valuation of effects of NIS. The divergent opinions among experts, regarding both the overall severity of the problem in Europe and its importance for ecosystem services, contrasted strongly with the apparent consensus that emerges from scientific synthesis articles and policy documents. We postulate that the observed heterogeneity of expert judgments is related to three major factors: (1) diverging conceptual understandings, (2) lack of empirical information and high scientific uncertainties due to complexities and contingencies of invasion processes, and (3) missing deliberation of values. Based on theory from science studies, we interpret the notion of an NIS as a boundary object, i.e., concepts that have a similar but not identical meaning to different groups of experts and stakeholders. This interpretative flexibility of a concept can facilitate interaction across diverse groups but bears the risk of introducing misunderstandings. An alternative to seeking consensus on exact definitions and risk assessments would be for invasive species experts to acknowledge uncertainties and engage transparently with stakeholders and the public in deliberations about conflicting opinions, taking the role of honest brokers of policy alternatives rather than of issue advocates. NeoBiotaFranziska Humair et al. / NeoBiota 20: 1-30 (2014) 2

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: The Notion Of a Non-native Invasive Species As A Boundary Omentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments

Humair¹,

Edwards²,

Siegrist³

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas 'change' is objective and neutral, up to a certain point, the term damage entails an assessment and may depend on value judgements. A proposal to make subjective value judgments in ecological assessments more explicit has been made by Colautti and Richardson (2009). they argue that we should distinguish between motivational and methodological questions.…”

Section: Complexities In Ecological Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is much less constrained by established scientific methods than methodological subjectivity and therefore allows for much more flexibility among experts. Colautti and Richardson (2009) argue that, in order to clarify the confusion, both types of subjectivity should be clearly distinguished but, in practice, risk assessment procedures will involve both. Scientists will have to deal with 'methodological subjectivity, ' but they also have to make value judgments based on the available data and within the boundaries set by the risk analysis framework.…”

Section: Complexities In Ecological Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metaphors in Invasion Biology: Implications for Risk Assessment and Management of Non-Native Species

Verbrugge

Leuven

Zwart

2016

Ethics, Policy & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metaphors for describing the introduction, impacts, and management of non-native species are numerous and often quite outspoken (e.g. invasional meltdown and explosive growth). Policy-makers have adopted increasingly disputed metaphorical terms from scientific discourse. We performed a critical analysis of the use of strong metaphors in reporting scientific findings to policy-makers. Our analysis shows that perceptions of harm, invasiveness or nativeness are dynamic and inevitably display multiple narratives in science, policy or management. Improving our awareness of multiple expert and stakeholder narratives that exist in the context of non-native species management, as well as metaphorical alternatives, is critical.

show abstract

“…Weed definitions vary, but in general weeds are considered to be any plants that are undesirable, interfere with human activities, or displace desirable plants (9)(10)(11). On roadsides, this would include plants that cause safety or aesthetic concerns, as well as any noxious weeds that federal and state governments deem a priority to control (1).…”

Section: Roadside Weedsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) for INDOT Roadsides

Herold¹,

Lowe²,

Dukes³

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAMThe Joint Transportation Research Program serves as a vehicle for INDOT collaboration with higher education institutions and industry in Indiana to facilitate innovation that results in continuous improvement in the planning, design, construction, operation, management and economic efficiency of the Indiana transportation infrastructure. https://engineering.purdue.edu/JTRP/index_html Published reports of the Joint Transportation Research Program are available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp/ NOTICEThe contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Indiana Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. The report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. AbstractWith over 90,000 miles of road in Indiana, it is important that adjoining vegetation be maintained for safety concerns, road structure maintenance and aesthetics. Mowing is currently the main form of vegetation management on INDOT (Indiana Department of Transportation) roadside. Ever-increasing fuel costs and the high labor demand associated with mowing leads to millions of dollars spent on in-house and contract mowing cycles each year. Drastic cost reductions can be achieved by reducing mowing cycles through the incorporation of other management tools including herbicide and native plantings. This study provides data on six herbicide tank mixtures (Milestone/Escort; Milestone/Escort/Plateau; Perspective; Perspective/Plateau; Viewpoint/Streamline; and 2,4-D/Escort/Plateau) and two mowing cycles (one-cycle and two-cycle) at six sites across the state. All herbicide treatments decreased broadleaf cover better than mowing treatments. Herbicide treatments containing Plateau, a plant growth regulator that retards coolseason grass growth, had the shortest grass height. Herbicide mixtures without Plateau were still shorter than mowing plots due to the seedhead suppression qualities found in the selective broadleaf herbicides. A cost savings of over 40% is achieved with one application of herbicide in lieu of one cycle of mowing. Further cost savings can be achieved through the planting of native vegetation, which was the focus of the second portion of this project. Four native seed mixes (western wheat, short grass, tall grass and short grass with forbs)were analyzed for use on right-of-ways. Successful native plantings have reduced maintenance costs for many DOTs across the country by eliminating mowing and herbicide needs. Drought and persistent weeds at study sites resulted in a sparse covering of native species during the year after planting. This is not uncommon for native roadside planting studies since many native grass species require two to three growing seasons to establish. The first portion of this study examines the use of herbicide and mowing at six sites throughout the state of Indiana. Two mowing t...

show abstract

Subjectivity and flexibility in invasion terminology: too much of a good thing?

Cited by 69 publications

References 17 publications

Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments

Understanding misunderstandings in invasion science: why experts don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments

Metaphors in Invasion Biology: Implications for Risk Assessment and Management of Non-Native Species

Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) for INDOT Roadsides

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About