Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- ecosystem services (3) (remove)
Institute
Thirty-seven alien plant species, pre-identified by horizon scanning exercises were prioritised for pest risk analysis (PRA) using a modified version of the EPPO Prioritisation Process designed to be compliant with the EU Regulation 1143/2014. In Stage 1, species were categorised into one of four lists – a Residual List, EU List of Minor Concern, EU Observation List and the EU List of Invasive Alien Plants. Only those species included in the latter proceeded to the risk management stage where their priority for PRA was assessed. Due to medium or high spread potential coupled with high impacts twenty-two species were included in the EU List of Invasive Alien Plants and proceeded to Stage 2. Four species (Ambrosia trifida, Egeria densa, Fallopia baldschuanica and Oxalis pes-caprae) were assigned to the EU Observation List due to moderate or low impacts. Albizia lebbeck, Clematis terniflora, Euonymus japonicus, Lonicera morrowii, Prunus campanulata and Rubus rosifolius were assigned to the residual list due to a current lack of information on impacts. Similarly, Cornus sericea and Hydrilla verticillata were assigned to the Residual List due to unclear taxonomy and uncertainty in native status, respectively. Chromolaena odorata, Cryptostegia grandiflora and Sphagneticola trilobata were assigned to the Residual List as it is unlikely they will establish in the Union under current climatic conditions. In the risk management stage, Euonymus fortunei, Ligustrum sinense and Lonicera maackii were considered a low priority for PRA as they do not exhibit invasive tendencies despite being widely cultivated in the EU over several decades. Nineteen species were identified as having a high priority for a PRA (Acacia dealbata, Ambrosia confertiflora, Andropogon virginicus, Cardiospermum grandiflorum, Celastrus orbiculatus, Cinnamomum camphora, Cortaderia jubata, Ehrharta calycina, Gymnocoronis spilanthoides, Hakea sericea, Humulus scandens, Hygrophila polysperma, Lespedeza cuneata, Lygodium japonicum, Pennisetum setaceum, Prosopis juliflora, Sapium sebiferum, Pistia stratiotes and Salvinia molesta).
The flora in the Caucasus Ecoregion is rich in economically important plants. While its value in terms of food crops and medicinal plants has recently been subject to scientific research, the ornamental value of many Caucasian plant species has not yet been fully recognized. In order to assess the ornamental value of the Caucasian flora, vegetation data from two mountainous study regions in Georgia (n = 958 species, mostly grassland vegetation) was compared with the product range of ornamental plants in Germany using an online plant shopping guide. Characterization of the 150 plant species listed in both databases revealed that 121 species are present in central Europe and 117 species are natives or archaeophytes in Germany. Thus, only few species are Caucasian endemics. Furthermore, a list of 79 potential ornamentals endemic to the Caucasus was compiled from the literature. In order to place them in context of the horticultural market, the species characteristics were examined. Following this, a critical discussion of the potentials and risks arising from trade with ornamental plants was carried out with regard to nature conservation, biological invasion control, genetic resource maintenance and socioeconomic significance.
Despite various policy and management responses, biodiversity continues to decline worldwide. We must redouble our efforts to halt biodiversity loss. The current lack of policy action can be partly linked to an insufficient knowledge base regarding the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Biodiversity research needs to incorporate both social and ecological factors to gain a deeper understanding of the interrelations between society and nature that affect biodiversity. A transdisciplinary research approach is crucial to fulfilling these requirements. It aims to produce new insights by integrating scientific and nonscientific knowledge. Several measures need to be taken to strengthen transdisciplinary social-ecological biodiversity research: Within the science community: firstly, scientists themselves must promote transdisciplinarity; secondly, the reward system for scientists must be brought into line with transdisciplinary research processes; and thirdly, academic training needs to advocate transdisciplinarity. As for research policies, research funding priorities need to be linked to large scale biodiversity policy frameworks, and funding for transdisciplinary social-ecological research on biodiversity must be increased significantly.