Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T07:15:40.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Human Security Framework for the Management of Invasive Nonindigenous Plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew J. Tanentzap ,
Dawn R. Bazely ,
Peter A. Williams  and
Gunhild Hoogensen
Andrew J. Tanentzap*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EA, U.K.
Dawn R. Bazely
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada
Peter A. Williams
Affiliation:
Landcare Research, Private Bag 6, Nelson, New Zealand
Gunhild Hoogensen
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Few individuals or governments have suggested that invasions by nonindigenous species are relevant to the broader issue of human security, despite a growing awareness of the ecological, economic, and societal impacts associated with invasive nonindigenous species (INIS). We propose that by framing management actions in a human and environmental security context, the threats (and benefits) posed by INIS to individuals and communities can be explicitly articulated and debated. This framework allows multiple stakeholders to bring their concerns to bear upon specific policy, and attempts to integrate broad environmental concerns within its parameters. We use the case of ecosystem-based management of invasive nonindigenous plants as an example of the utility of a human security framework. The dominant management approach to these species remains focused on the individual species, despite increasing calls for the implementation of ecosystem-based management strategies. Ecosystem-based management is supported by generalized and widely accepted mechanisms of plant community dynamics, such as succession, disturbance, and interspecific competition, but these scientific arguments do not consistently carry weight at the policy level and with the broader public. A human security framework may provide an approach for overcoming this resistance by placing the debate over management within the social and political context of the wider community. Overall, human security can allow applied ecologists to be better positioned to meet the challenges of communicating the need for science-based management.

Keywords

Communicationecosystem-based managementpolicysingle-speciesstakeholder engagement
Type
Invited Review
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 99 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Arkema, K. K., Abramson, S. C., and Dewsbury, B. M. 2006. Marine ecosystem-based management: from characterization to implementation. Front. Ecol. Environ 4:525–532.Google Scholar
Atkinson, I. A. E. 2001. Introduced mammals and models for restoration. Biol. Conserv 99:81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baiser, B., Lockwood, J. L., La Puma, D., and Aronson, M. F. J. 2008. A perfect storm: two ecosystem engineers interact to degrade deciduous forests of New Jersey. Biol. Invasions 10:785–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bay, R. F. and Sher, A. A. 2008. Success of active revegetation after Tamarix removal in riparian ecosystems of the southwestern United States: a quantitative assessment of past restoration projects. Restor. Ecol 16:113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, T. G., Solan, M., Travis, J. M. J., and Sait, S. M. 2007. Microcosm experiments can inform global ecological problems. Trends Ecol. Evol 22:516–521.Google Scholar
Bessey, C. E. 1893. The Russian thistle in Nebraska. Bull. Agric. Exp. Stn. Nebraska 6:67–73.Google Scholar
Bessey, C. E. and Webber, H. J. 1890. Report of the Botanist on the Grasses and Forage Plants, and the Catalogue of Plants. Lincoln, NE State Journal Company. 162.Google Scholar
Blossey, B. and Notzold, R. 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive non-indigenous plants: a hypothesis. J. Ecol 83:887–889.Google Scholar
Brauch, H. G., Spring, ÚO., Mesjasz, C., Grin, J., Dunay, P., Behera, N. C., Chourou, B., Kameri-Mbote, P., and Liotta, P. H. 2008. Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualising Security in the 21st Century. Berlin Springer-Verlag. 1147.Google Scholar
Brauch, H. G., Spring, ÚO., Grin, J., Mesjasz, C., Kameri-Mbote, P., Behera, N. C., Chourou, B., and Krummenacher, H. 2009. Facing Global Environmental Change: Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concept. Berlin Springer-Verlag. 1592.Google Scholar
Bremner, A. and Park, K. 2007. Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol. Conserv 139:306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. E. and Minnich, R. A. 1986. Fire and creosote bush scrub of the western Sonoran Desert, California. Am. Midl. Nat 116:411–422.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H., Sax, D. F., Simberloff, D., and Sagoff, M. 2007. Aliens among us. Conserv. Mag 8:14–21.Google Scholar
Brown, L. R. 1977. Redefining National Security, Worldwatch Paper 14. Washington, DC Worldwatch Institute. 46.Google Scholar
Burgess, P. J. and Owen, T. 2004. Special section: what is human security? Secur. Dialogue 35:345–387.Google Scholar
Buzan, B., Wæver, O., and de Wilde, J. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. London Lynne Rienner Publishers. 239.Google Scholar
Caffrey, J. M. 1999. Phenology and long-term control of Heracleum mantegazzianum. Hydrobiologia 415:223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, R. M. and Ridenour, W. M. 2004. Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front. Ecol. Environ 2:436–443.Google Scholar
Champion, P. D. 2005. Evaluation Criteria for Assessment of Candidate Species for Inclusion in the National Pest Plant Accord. Report for Biosecurity New Zealand. Wellington National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research. 17.Google Scholar
Christensen, N. L., Bartuska, A. M., Brown, J. H., Carpenter, S., D'Antonio, C., Francis, R., Franklin, J. F., MacMahon, J. A., Noss, R. F., Parsons, D. J., Peterson, C. H., Turner, M. G., and Woodmansee, R. G. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol. Appl 6:665–691.Google Scholar
Clements, F. E. 1916. Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Washington, DC Carnegie Institute. 512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, F. E. 1928. Plant Succession and Indicators: A Definitive Edition of Plant Succession and Plant Indicators. New York H. W. Wilson. 453.Google Scholar
Coley, P. D. 1983. Herbivory and defensive characteristics of tree species in a lowland tropical forest. Ecol. Monogr 53:209–233.Google Scholar
Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P., and Chapin, F. S. 1985. Resource availability and plant anti-herbivore defense. Science 230:895–899.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. 1980. Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35:131–138.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. and Slatyer, R. O. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am. Nat 111:1119–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W. S. 1913. The climax forest of Isle Royale, Lake Superior and its development. Bot. Gaz 55:1–44.115–40.189–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, J. T. and McIntosh, R. P. 1951. An upland continuum in the prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32:476–496.Google Scholar
Dalby, S. 2002. Environmental Security. Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press. 239.Google Scholar
Davis, M. A., Grime, J. P., and Thompson, K. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J. Ecol 88:528–534.Google Scholar
Davis, M. A., Pergl, J., Truscott, A. M., Kollmann, J., Bakker, J. P., Domenech, R., Prach, K., Prieur-Richard, A. H., Veeneklaas, R. M., Pyšek, P., del Moral, R., Hobbs, R. J., Collins, S. L., Pickett, S. T. A., and Reich, P. B. 2005. Vegetation change: a reunifying concept in plant ecology. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst 7:69–76.Google Scholar
[DOC] Department of Conservation 2004. Weedbusters Strategic Direction 2003–2008. Wellington Department of Conservation. 20.Google Scholar
Derraik, J. G. B. 2007. Heracleum mantegazzianum and Toxicodendron succedaneum: plants of human health significance in New Zealand and the National Pest Plant Accord. N. Z. Med. J 120:U265.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1998. Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern United States. Weed Technol 12:326–336.Google Scholar
Dodds, F. and Pippard, T. 2005. Human and Environmental Security: An Agenda for Change. London Earthscan. 291.Google Scholar
Egler, F. E. 1954. Vegetation science concepts I. Initial floristic composition, a factor in old-field vegetation development. Vegetatio 4:412–417.Google Scholar
Elton, C. E. 1927. Animal Ecology. London Sidgwick and Jackson. 207.Google Scholar
Elton, C. E. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. London Wiley. 181.Google Scholar
Emery, S. M. and Gross, K. L. 2005. Effects of timing of prescribed fire on the demography of an invasive plant, spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa. J. Appl. Ecol 42:60–69.Google Scholar
Feeny, P. 1976. Plant apparency and chemical defenses. Recent Adv. Phytochem 10:1–41.Google Scholar
Fierke, K. M. 2007. Critical Approaches to International Security. Cambridge Polity. 245.Google Scholar
Foster, G. D. 2001. Environmental security: The search for strategic legitimacy. Armed Forces Soc 27:373–395.Google Scholar
Fridley, J. D., Stachowicz, J. J., Naeem, S., Sax, D. F., Seabloom, E. W., Smith, M. D., Stohlgren, T. J., Tilman, D., and Von Holle, B. 2007. The invasion paradox: reconciling patterns and process in species invasions. Ecology 88:3–17.Google Scholar
Galindo-Leal, C. and Bunnell, F. L. 1995. Ecosystem management: implications and opportunities of a new paradigm. For. Chron 71:601–606.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 53:1–20.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, N. P. 1997. Conflict and the Environment. Dordrecht Kluwer. 612.Google Scholar
Glenn, E., Tanner, R., Mendez, S., Kehret, T., Moore, D., Garcia, J., and Valdes, C. 1998. Growth rates, salt tolerance and water use characteristics of native and invasive riparian plants from the delta of the Colorado River, Mexico. J. Arid. Environ 40:281–294.Google Scholar
Glenn, H. C. and Gordon, T. J. 2007. 2007 State of the Future. Washington, DC World Federation of UN Associations. 98.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. R. 1998. Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecol. Appl 8:975–989.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1974. Vegetation classification by reference to strategies. Nature 250:26–31.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1977. Evidence for existence of 3 primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am. Nat 111:1169–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. Chichester Wiley. 222.Google Scholar
Grinnell, J. 1914. An account of the mammals and birds of the lower Colorado Valley with special reference to the distributional problems presented. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool 12:51–294.Google Scholar
Grinnell, J. 1917. The niche-relations of the California thrasher. Auk 34:427–433.Google Scholar
Grubb, P. J. 1977. The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol. Rev 52:107–114.Google Scholar
Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conserv. Biol 8:27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grumbine, R. E. 1997. Reflections on what is ecosystem management? Conserv. Biol 11:41–47.Google Scholar
Heher, A. D. 2006. Return on investment in innovation: implications for institutions and national agencies. J. Technol. Transfer 31:403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgs, E. S. 1997. What is good ecological restoration? Conserv. Biol 11:338–348.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Norton, D. A. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol 4:93–110.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J., Davis, M. A., Slobodkin, L. B., Lackey, R. T., Halvorson, W., and Throop, W. 2004. Restoration ecology: the challenge of social values and expectations. Front. Ecol. Environ 2:43–48.Google Scholar
Homer-Dixon, T. F. 1999. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. 272.Google Scholar
Hoogensen, G. 2008. Olje, gass, sikkerhet – og deg (Oil, Gas, Security – and you) Ottar. 4:22–27.Google Scholar
Hoogensen, G. 2009. Security in the Arctic and Antarctic. In Brauch, H. G., Spring, ÚO., Grin, J., Mesjasz, C., Kameri-Mbote, P., Behera, N. C., Chourou, B., and Krummenacher, H. Facing Global Environmental Change: Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concept. Berlin Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hoogensen, G. 2008. Identity, security and terrorism. Pages 439–448. In Brauch, H. G., Grin, J., Mesjasz, C., Behera, N. C., Chourou, B., Oswald Spring, U., Liotta, P. H., and Kameri-Mbote, P. Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualising Security in the 21st Century. Berlin Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hough, P. 2004. Understanding Global Security. London Routledge. 271.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. 1944. Limnological studies in Connecticut. VII. A critical examination of the supposed relation between phytoplankton periodicity and chemical changes in lake waters. Ecology 25:3–26.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol 22:415–427.Google Scholar
Jay, M., Morad, M., and Bell, A. 2003. Biosecurity, a policy dilemma for New Zealand. Land Use Policy 20:121–129.Google Scholar
Kerr, S. J., Brousseau, C. S., and Muschett, M. 2005. Invasive aquatic species in Ontario: a review and analysis of potential pathways for introduction. Fisheries 30:21–30.Google Scholar
King, G. and Murray, C. 2002. Rethinking human security. Polit. Sci. Q 116:585–610.Google Scholar
Lagey, K., Duinslaeger, L., and Vanderkelen, A. 1995. Burns induced by plants. Burns 21:542–543.Google Scholar
Lodge, D. M. and Shrader-Frechette, K. 2003. Nonindigenous species: ecological explanation, environmental ethics, and public policy. Conserv. Biol 17:31–37.Google Scholar
Lounibos, L. P. 2002. Invasions by insect vectors of human disease. Annu. Rev. Entomol 47:233–266.Google Scholar
Ludwig, D., Mangel, M., and Haddad, B. 2001. Ecology, conservation, and public policy. Annu. Rev Ecol. Syst 32:481–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. and Levins, R. 1967. The limiting similarity, convergence and divergence of coexisting species. Am. Nat 101:377–385.Google Scholar
Meyerson, L. A. and Reaser, J. K. 2002. Biosecurity: moving toward a comprehensive approach. Bioscience 52:593–600.Google Scholar
Mooney, H. A. and Hobbs, R. J. 2000. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Washington, DC Island Press. 457.Google Scholar
Myers, J. H. and Bazely, D. R. 2003. Ecology and Control of Introduced Plants. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 328.Google Scholar
Myers, N. 1986. The environmental dimension to security issues. Environmentalist 6:251–257.Google Scholar
[NISC] National Invasive Species Council 2005. Guidelines for Ranking Invasive Species Control Projects. Version 1. Washington, DC Department of the Interior. 13.Google Scholar
[NISC] National Invasive Species Council 2008. 2008–2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan. Washington, DC Department of the Interior. 36.Google Scholar
Owen, S. J. 1998. Department of Conservation Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Weeds. Wellington Department of Conservation. 102.Google Scholar
Page, N., Wall, R., Darbyshire, S., and Mulligan, G. 2006. The biology of invasive alien plants in Canada. 4. Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier and Levier. Can. J. Plant Sci 86:569–589.Google Scholar
Palmer, M. A., Ambrose, R. F., and Poff, N. L. 2003. Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol 5:291–300.Google Scholar
Paris, R. 2001. Human security: paradigm shift or hot air? Int. Security 26:87–102.Google Scholar
Parliament of New Zealand 1996. Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. Wellington, New Zealand New Zealand Government. 312.Google Scholar
Parliament of New Zealand 1993. Biosecurity Act 1993. Wellington, New Zealand New Zealand Government. 228.Google Scholar
Perrings, C., Williamson, M., Barbier, E. B., Delfino, D., Dalmazzone, S., Shogren, J., Simmons, P., and Watkinson, A. 2002. Biological invasion risks and the public good: an economic perspective. Conserv. Ecol 6:1.Google Scholar
Perrings, C., Williamson, M., and Dalmazzone, S. 2000. The Economics of Biological Invasions. Cheltenham, UK Edward Elgar. 249.Google Scholar
Petrosillo, I., Müller, F., Jones, K. B., Zurlini, G., Krauze, K., Victorov, S., Li, B. L., and Kepner, W. G. 2008. Use of Landscape Sciences for the Assessment of Environmental Security. Dordrecht, Netherlands Springer. 497.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pound, R. and Clements, F. C. 1898. Phytogeography of Nebraska. Lincoln, NE Botanical Seminar, University of Nebraska. 329.Google Scholar
Pyšek, P. and Pyšek, A. 1995. Invasion by Heracleum mantegazzianum in different habitats in the Czech Republic. J. Veg. Sci 6:711–718.Google Scholar
Pyšek, P., Jarosik, V., Mullerova, J., Pergl, J., and Wild, J. 2008. Comparing the rate of invasion by Heracleum mantegazzianum at continental, regional, and local scales. Divers. Distrib 14:355–363.Google Scholar
Reichard, S., Schmitz, D. C., Simberloff, D., Morrison, D., Lehtonen, P. P., Windle, P. N., Chavarria, G., and Mezitt, R. W. 2005. The tragedy of the commons revisited: invasive species. Front. Ecol. Environ 3:109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, F., Herle, M., Bastiansen, F., and Streit, B. 2003. Ökonomische Folgen der Ausbreitung von Neobiota. Berlin Umweltbundesamt. 248.Google Scholar
Rhoades, D. F. and Cates, R. G. 1976. Toward a general theory of plant antiherbivore chemistry. Recent Adv. Phytochem 10:168–213.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M., Tonye, J. C., Bedunah, D. J., and Carlson, C. E. 1997. Plant community diversity and growth form responses to herbicide applications for control of Centaurea maculosa. J. Appl. Ecol 34:1397–1412.Google Scholar
Rosenstrom, U. and Lyytimaki, J. 2006. The role of indicators in improving timeliness of international environmental reports. Eur. Environ 16:32–44.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Duncan, C. A., Halstvedt, M. B., and Jacobs, J. S. 2000. Spotted knapweed and grass response to herbicide treatments. J. Range Manag 53:176–182.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Carpinelli, M. F. 1998. Distribution, biology, and management of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). Weed Technol 12:353–362.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Krueger-Mangold, J. 2003. Principles for restoring invasive plant infested rangeland. Weed Sci 51:260–265.Google Scholar
Shellenberger, M. and Nordhaus, T. 2004. The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-environmental World. http://thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf. Accessed: October 27, 2008.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas and keystones: is single-species management passe in the landscape era? Biol. Conserv 83:247–257.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. 2004. A rising tide of species and literature: A review of some recent books on biological invasions. Bioscience 54:247–254.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D., Parker, I. M., and Windle, P. N. 2005. Introduced species policy, management, and future research needs. Front. Ecol. Environ 3:12–20.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. and Von Holle, B. 1999. Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol. Invasions 1:21–32.Google Scholar
Soule, M. E. 1990. The onslaught of alien species, and other challenges in the coming decades. Conserv. Biol 4:233–239.Google Scholar
Standish, R. J., Sparrow, A. D., Williams, P. A., and Hobbs, R. J. 2008. A state-and-transition model for the recovery of abandoned farmland in New Zealand. Pages 189–205. In Hobbs, R. J. and Suding, K. N. New Models for Ecosystem Dynamics and Restoration. Washington, DC Island Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, H. 2001. Declining biodiversity and unsustainable agricultural production: common cause, common solution? Research Paper No. 2 2001–02. Canberra, Australia Department of the Parliamentary Library. 50.Google Scholar
Symon, C., Arris, L., and Heal, B. 2005. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 1042.Google Scholar
Tadjbakhsh, S. and Chenoy, A. M. 2006. Human Security: Concepts and Implications. London Routledge. 272.Google Scholar
Thiele, J. and Otte, A. 2006. Analysis of habitats and communities invaded by Heracleum mantegazzianum Somm. et Lev. (Giant Hogweed) in Germany. Phytocoenologia 36:281–320.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1985. The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. Am. Nat 125:827–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[UNDP] United Nations Development Programme 1994. Human Development Report: Annual Report. New York Oxford University Press. 226.Google Scholar
Vandersande, M. W., Glenn, E. P., and Walworth, J. L. 2001. Tolerance of five riparian plants from the lower Colorado River to salinity drought and inundation. J. Arid Environ 49:147–159.Google Scholar
Walker, L. R. and Smith, S. D. 1997. Impacts of invasive plants on community and ecosystem properties. Pages 69–86. In Luken, J. O. and Thieret, J. W. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York Springer.Google Scholar
Walt, S. 1991. The renaissance of security studies. Int. Stud. Q 35:211–239.Google Scholar
Watt, A. S. 1924. On the ecology of British beechwoods with special reference to their regeneration. II. The development and structure of beech communities on the Sussex Downs. J. Ecol 12:145–204.Google Scholar
Westbrook, C., Ramos, K., and La, M. 2005. Under Siege: Invasive Species on Military Bases. Reston, VA National Wildlife Federation. 50.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1967. Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biol. Rev 42:207–264.Google Scholar
Williams, J. A. and West, C. J. 2000. Environmental weeds in Australia and New Zealand: issues and approaches to management. Aust. Ecol 25:425–444.Google Scholar
Williams, P. A. 1997. Ecology and Management of Invasive Weeds. Wellington Department of Conservation. 67.Google Scholar
Williamson, M. 1996. Biological Invasions. London Chapman and Hall. 244.Google Scholar
Zavaleta, E. S., Hobbs, R. J., and Mooney, H. A. 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in whole-ecosystem context. Trends Ecol. Evol 16:454–459.Google Scholar