Testing the Australian Post-Border Weed Risk Management (WRM) system for invasive plants in Iran

Sohrabi, Sima; Downey, Paul; Gherekhloo, Javid; Hassanpour-bourkheili, Saeid

doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125780

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dominant native species can also cause demographic issues as a result of humaninduced changes to the environment (Valéry et al 2009;Simberloff 2011;Méndez et al 2014;Sohrabi et al 2020;Jan et al 2022) thereby posing management challenges under current scenarios of global change (Simberloff 2011;Méndez et al 2014). Nevertheless, P. australis (the native species with the highest risk score in this study) has also socioeconomic aspects on the country's trade and local people in the Sultan Marsh Nature Park, which is included in the List of Class A Wetlands in accordance to the second and third articles of the International Ramsar Convention in Turkey (Ramsar site no.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hejda 2013). It is therefore argued that dominant expanding species should be evaluated in a similar way to non-native species by risk analysis in order to understand the threats they may pose to the ecosystem (Sohrabi et al 2020;Jan et al 2022). Importantly, identifying potential invasion/expansion of these species by risk analysis will play an important role in preventing/mitigating environmental and socioeconomic impacts, especially in terms of biodiversity loss.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey

Yazlık¹,

Ambarlı²

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most risk analysis studies in invasion biology have focused on the invasiveness of non-native species, even though some native species also can pose a high risk to the environment and human well-being. This is especially true under current global change, which may cause dominant native species to expand their range of distribution and have substantial effects on the ecosystem. In this study, the risk of invasiveness of five non-native and five native plant species in Turkey was evaluated using a standard risk screening protocol. All ten species selected for screening are known to be invasive in several parts of the world, i.e. non-native Ailanthus altissima, Cuscuta campestris, Phytolacca americana, Robinia pseudoacacia and Sicyos angulatus, and native Cirsium arvense, Hedera helix, Onopordum acanthium, Phragmites australis and Sorghum halepense. The Australian Weed Risk Assessment decision-support tool adapted to Turkey’s geographical and climatic conditions was used for screening the study species based on their biological traits, ecology and management approaches. All species were classified as high-risk, with R. pseudoacacia among non-natives and P. australis among natives achieving the highest scores followed by S. halepense, C. campestris, C. arvense, O. acanthium, P. americana, S. angulatus, A. altissima and H. helix. Based on their risk scores, all non-native species were classified as invasive and all native species as ‘expanding’ for Turkey. An ordination based on the risk scores showed similarities between invasive and expanding species. The outcomes of this study indicate that species can have several risk-related traits resulting in high risk scores irrespective of their origin. Such species can modify their environment and interact with other species with severe consequences for biodiversity. It is argued that dominant species with highly negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts in their habitats should be included in priority lists for management measures irrespective of their origin (i.e. native or non-native). More studies are needed to evaluate the magnitude and prevalence of the present findings for other regions worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey

Yazlık¹,

Ambarlı²

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Weed risk management (WRM) Matrix developed for DNP species within the WRM framework and it does not differentiate generally between alien and native species. In fact, the native species are seldom addressed, with the exception of Johnson (2009) and Sohrabi et al (2020). Despite the overwhelming awareness of native spreading species' significance (Buist et al, 2000), there appears to be no justification not to address the potential threats emanating from these species while developing weed management choices.…”

Section: Ta B L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Risk analysis of fast spreading species in a Kashmir Himalayan National Park (Dachigam) for better monitoring and management

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Huge economic costs and ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) in the protected areas (PAs) worldwide make their timely prediction and potential risk assessment of central importance for effective management. While the preborder weed risk assessment framework has been extensively evaluated and implemented, the postborder species risk assessment framework has not been subjected to the same degree of scrutiny. Here we used a rather more realistic modified version of the Australian Weed Risk framework (AWRM) for Dachigam National Park (DNP) in Kashmir Himalaya against 84 plant species, including 55 alien species and 29 fast spreading native species, for risk analysis. We found two very high‐risk species, three high‐risk species, 10 medium‐risk species, 29 low‐risk species, and 40 negligible‐risk species in the DNP. The containment scores accordingly ranged from 14.4 to 293.5 comprising of 27 species that can be contained with very high feasibility, 23 species with high feasibility, 14 species with medium feasibility, and 12 species which cannot be contained easily thereby having low feasibility of containment (FOC) score. However, eight species which have a negligible FOC score are difficult to contain within their infestation sites. Our results demonstrate the merit of the AWRM with a caution that the necessary region‐specific modifications may help in its better implementation. Overall, these results provide quite a promising tool in the hands of protected area managers to timely and effectively deal with the problem of plant invasions.

show abstract

“…Invasions of non-native species, or biological invasions, cause significant ecological and economic impacts worldwide, affecting both managed and native ecosystems [ 15 ] as well as human health [ 16 , 17 ]. With the increasing number of invasive species, the risks associated with non-native plants are becoming widely recognized [ 18 , 19 ]. Kentucky bluegrass ( Poa pratensis L.) is one of the most aggressive non-native grasses spreading across the Great Plains [ 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dislocation and replacement of native species by specific invasive species often transform a highly diverse ecosystem into a homogenized emerging or novel ecosystem [ 28 , 29 ]. Traditional management practices that are used to control Kentucky bluegrass include prescribed fire, grazing, application of herbicides, and a combination of these tactics [ 19 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. As Kentucky bluegrass morphological and physiological traits resemble those of many surrounding native cool-season grasses, controlling this species with traditional management practices also can impair the growth and spread of those native species [ 6 , 30 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kentucky Bluegrass Invasion in the Northern Great Plains and Prospective Management Approaches to Mitigate Its Spread

Palit

Gramig

DeKeyser

2021

Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) is one of the most aggressive grasses invading Northern Great Plains (NGP) grasslands, resulting in substantial native species losses. Highly diverse grasslands dominated by native species are gradually transforming into rangelands largely dominated by non-native Kentucky bluegrass. Several factors potentially associated with Kentucky bluegrass invasions, including high propagule pressure, thatch formation, climate change, and increasing nitrogen deposition, could determine the future dominance and spread of Kentucky bluegrass in the NGP. Because atmospheric CO2 is amplifying rapidly, a C3 grass like Kentucky bluegrass might be photosynthetically more efficient than native C4 grasses. As this exotic species shares similar morphological and phenological traits with many native cool-season grasses, controlling it with traditional management practices such as prescribed fire, grazing, herbicides, or combinations of these practices may also impair the growth of native species. Thus, developing effective management practices to combat Kentucky bluegrass spread while facilitating the native species cover is essential. Modifying traditional techniques and embracing science-based adaptive management tools that focus on the ecological interactions of Kentucky bluegrass with the surrounding native species could achieve these desired management goals. Enhancement of the competitiveness of surrounding native species could also be an important consideration for controlling this invasive species.

show abstract

Testing the Australian Post-Border Weed Risk Management (WRM) system for invasive plants in Iran

Cited by 13 publications

References 36 publications

Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey

Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey

Risk analysis of fast spreading species in a Kashmir Himalayan National Park (Dachigam) for better monitoring and management

Kentucky Bluegrass Invasion in the Northern Great Plains and Prospective Management Approaches to Mitigate Its Spread

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Testing the Australian Post-Border Weed Risk Management (WRM) system for invasive plants in Iran

Cited by 13 publications

References 36 publications

﻿Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey

﻿Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey

Risk analysis of fast spreading species in a Kashmir Himalayan National Park (Dachigam) for better monitoring and management

Kentucky Bluegrass Invasion in the Northern Great Plains and Prospective Management Approaches to Mitigate Its Spread

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey

Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey