Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:56:00.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Assessments for Invasive Plants: A Midwestern U.S. Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Amanda Buerger ,
Katherine Howe ,
Ellen Jacquart ,
Monika Chandler ,
Theresa Culley ,
Christopher Evans ,
Kelly Kearns ,
Robert Schutzki  and
Laura Van Riper
Amanda Buerger
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN, 46556
Katherine Howe
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907
Ellen Jacquart*
Affiliation:
Northern Indiana Stewardship, The Nature Conservancy, Efroymson Conservation Center, 620 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202
Monika Chandler
Affiliation:
Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 625 Robert Street N, St. Paul, MN 55155
Theresa Culley
Affiliation:
Biological Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Department of Biological Sciences, 614 Reiveschl Hall, Cincinnati, OH, 45221
Christopher Evans
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 11731 State Hwy 37, Benton, IL 62812
Kelly Kearns
Affiliation:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 101 S Webster Street, Madison, WI 53707
Robert Schutzki
Affiliation:
Horticulture, Michigan State University, Department of Horticulture, 1066 Bogue Street, East Lansing, MI 48824
Laura Van Riper
Affiliation:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several states in the Midwestern United States are using risk assessment to determine the invasiveness of introduced plant species, and each assessment process is different. This may lead to differences in results for the same species between states, creating concern about credibility by those using the assessments. In this study, risk assessments for six Midwestern states were compared, examining format, content, and assessment committee membership. Case studies were conducted for four species for which at least five of the six states in the study completed a risk assessment; results were compared in the context of general differences in assessment content and those specific to each species. Furthermore, 14 species for which only four of the six states completed assessments were briefly examined for outcome differences only, and possible reasons for these inconsistencies. Overall, differences in assessments did not result in incompatible conclusions for the species compared, suggesting that unique assessments in each state can provide consistent and credible results. We propose that these Midwestern states share species resources with each other to further improve consistency between the assessments.

Keywords

cutleaf teasel, Dipsacus laciniatus L.Japanese barberry, Berberis thunbergii DC.Amur honeysuckle, Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) HerderOriental bittersweet, Celastrus orbiculatus ThunbInvasive speciesMidwestrisk assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 41 - 54
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

Colautti, RI, MacIsaac, HJ (2004) A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species. Divers Distrib 10:135–141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colautti, RI, Richardson, DM (2009) Subjectivity and flexibility in invasion terminology: too much of a good thing? Biol Invasions 11:1225–1229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daehler, CC (2001) Two ways to be an invader, but one is more suitable for ecology. Bull Ecol Soc Am 82:101–102 Google Scholar
Davis, MA, Thompson, K (2000) Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader. Bull Ecol Soc Am 81:226–230 Google Scholar
Davis, MA, Thompson, K (2001) Invasion terminology: should ecologists define their terms differently than others? No, not if we want to be of any help! Bull Ecol Soc Am 82:206 Google Scholar
EDDMapS. 2015. Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System. The University of Georgia–Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. http://www.eddmaps.org/. Accessed October 16, 2015Google Scholar
Elton, CS (1958) The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. London Methuen. 18 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federal Executive Order (1999) No, E.O., 13112. Fed Register 64. p 6183 Google Scholar
Gordon, DR, Gantz, CA (2008) Screening new plant introductions for potential invasiveness: a test of impacts for the United States. Conserv Lett 1:227–235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indiana Invasive Species Council (2015) Official IISC Invasive Plant List. http://www.entm.purdue.edu/iisc/invasiveplants.php. Accessed January 19, 2016Google Scholar
Koop, AL, Fowler, L, Newton, LP, Caton, BP (2012) Development and validation of a weed screening tool for the United States. Biol Invasions 14:273–294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, RN, Simberloff, D, Lonsdale, WM, Evans, H, Clout, M, Bazzaz, FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minnesota Department of Agriculture (2015) Minnesota Invasive Species Advisory Council. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/misac/. Accessed January 19, 2016Google Scholar
Ohio Invasive Plants Council (2015) Homepage. http://www.oipc.info/. Accessed January 19, 2016Google Scholar
Valery, L, Lefeuvre, J-C, Fritz, H, Simberloff, D (2008) In search of a real definition of the biological invasion phenomenon itself. Biol Invasions 10:1345–1351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2015) Terrestrial Invasive Species. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Invasives/species.asp?filterBy=Terrestrial&filterVal=Y. Accessed January 19, 2016Google Scholar