Browsing by Author "Kumschick, S."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A conceptual framework for prioritization of invasive alien species for management according to their impact
    (Pensoft, 2012-12-14) Kumschick, S.; Bacher, S.; Dawson, W.; Heikkila, J.; Sendek, A.; Pluess, T.; Robinson, T. B.; Kuhn, I.
    The number of invasive alien species is increasing and so are the impacts these species cause to the environment and economies. Nevertheless, resources for management are limited, which makes prioritization unavoidable. We present a prioritization framework which can be useful for decision makers as it includes both a scientific impact assessment and the evaluation of impact importance by affected stakeholders. The framework is divided into five steps, namely 1) stakeholder selection and weighting of stakeholder importance by the decision maker, 2) factual description and scoring of changes by scientists, 3) evaluation of the importance of impact categories by stakeholders, 4) calculation of weighted impact categories and 5) calculation of final impact score and decision making. The framework could be used at different scales and by different authorities. Furthermore, it would make the decision making process transparent and retraceable for all stakeholders and the general public.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Does origin determine environmental impacts? Not for bamboos
    (New Phytologist Trust, 2019) Canavan, S.; Kumschick, S.; Le Roux, J. J.; Richardson, D. M.; Wilson, J. R. U.
    Societal Impact Statement: Non‐native species can cause considerable negative impacts in natural ecosystems. Such impacts often are directly due to the fact that these species occur in habitats where they did not evolve. We explored this for bamboos and found that, contrary to the situation in many other plant groups, biogeographic origin was not a strong predictor of the type and severity of environmental impacts caused. We argue that impacts from bamboos are a response to land transformation and disturbance of forest habitats by humans. Therefore, the threats posed by bamboos to highly disturbed forest systems should be the same wherever bamboos are present or planted, and management should adopt similar approaches. Summary • Negative environmental impacts can result from the human‐mediated breakdown of biogeographic boundaries that historically shaped species distributions leading to rapid population expansions, that is, from biological invasions. However, the alteration of natural ecosystems by humans has created opportunities for both native and non‐native species to become weedy. We assessed whether origin status (native or non‐native) matters for the type and magnitude of environmental impacts caused by bamboos (Poaceae: Bambusoideae). • We used a systematic global literature search and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT) scheme as the basis for scoring impacts of bamboo species. • We found that the type and severity of recorded impacts were similar in the native and non‐native ranges of weedy bamboos, and that the habitats in which impacts are most often reported (i.e., temperate and tropical forests) were also the same. • Origin was not a strong predictor of environmental impacts for bamboos. Rather, impacts are likely to be a response to human‐mediated land transformation and disturbance of forests. Further research on the mechanisms whereby bamboos impact other species is needed to guide management strategies in their native ranges and as input to risk assessments for new introductions and plantings.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A four-component classification of uncertainties in biological invasions : implications for management
    (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2019) Latombe, G.; Canavan, S.; Hirsch, H.; Hui, C.; Kumschick, S.; Nsikani, M. N.; Potgieter, L. J.; Robinson, T. B.; Saul, W.-C.; Turner, S. C.; Wilson, J. R. U.; Yannelli, F. A.; Richardson, D. M.
    Although uncertainty is an integral part of any science, it raises doubts in public perception about scientific evidence, is exploited by denialists, and therefore potentially hinders the implementation of management actions. As a relatively young field of study, invasion science contains many uncertainties. This may explain why, despite international policies aimed at mitigating biological invasions, the implementation of national- and regional-scale measures to prevent or control alien species has done little to slow the increase in extent of invasions and the magnitude of impacts. Uncertainty is therefore a critical aspect of invasion science that should be addressed to enable the field to progress further. To improve how uncertainties in invasion science are captured and characterized, we propose a framework, which is also applicable to other applied research fields such as climate and conservation science, divided into four components: the need (1) to clearly circumscribe the phenomenon, (2) to measure and provide evidence for the phenomenon (i.e., confirmation), (3) to understand the mechanisms that cause the phenomenon, and (4) to understand the mechanisms through which the phenomenon results in consequences. We link these issues to three major types of uncertainty: linguistic, psychological, and epistemic. The application of this framework shows that the four components tend to be characterized by different types of uncertainty in invasion science.We explain how these uncertainties can be detrimental to the implementation of management measures and propose ways to reduce them. Since biological invasions are increasingly tightly embedded in complex socio-ecological systems, many problems associated with these uncertainties have convoluted solutions. They demand the consensus of many stakeholders to define and frame the dimensions of the phenomenon, and to decide on appropriate actions. While many of the uncertainties cannot be eliminated completely, we believe that using this framework to explicitly identify and communicate them will help to improve collaboration between researchers and managers, increase scientific, political, and public support for invasion research, and provide a stronger foundation for sustainable management strategies.