NeoBiota 35
Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (4)
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Alien flora (1)
- Alien trees (1)
- Biodiversity (1)
- Biological control (1)
- Europe (1)
- Robinia pseudoacacia (1)
- Turkey (1)
- Working for Water (1)
- casual and naturalized alien plants (1)
- ecosystem services (1)
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).
Robinia pseudoacacia L. (black locust) is a North American tree, considered controversial because of the conflict between multiple uses by humans and negative environmental impacts, which have resulted in it being listed among the most invasive species in Europe. The current management of Robinia stands in Central Europe varies locally according to national legislation, preferring either socio-economic benefits or biodiversity impacts. We collected field data from our target region of Czechia, reviewed research articles including local grey literature mostly from Central and Southern Europe, unpublished results of local projects and inquired relevant specialists. Because Robinia grows in habitats ranging from urban to forest to natural grassland, neither unrestricted cultivation nor large-scale eradication is applicable as a universal practice. In this paper we suggest a complex management strategy for Robinia stands that takes into account habitat, this species’ local ability to spread, as well as economic, cultural and biodiversity aspects. We categorized Robinia stands growing in Europe into eight groups and proposed stratified approach to the management based on decisions that reflect local context. Depending on that, the management includes (i) establishment of new plantations, (ii) maintenance or utilization of existing stands, (iii) tolerance
and (iv) conversion to original vegetation. Our complex management strategy will provide a comprehensive guideline for the management of alien trees in Europe.
The paper provides an updated checklist of the alien flora of Turkey with information on its structure. The alien flora of Turkey comprises 340 taxa, among which there are 321 angiosperms, 17 gymnosperms and two ferns. Of the total number of taxa, 228 (68%) are naturalized and 112 (32%) are casual. There are 275 neophytes (172 naturalized and 103 casual) and 61 archaeophytes (52 naturalized and 9 casual); four species could not be classified with respect to the residence time. In addition, 47 frequently planted taxa with a potential to escape are also listed. The richest families are Asteraceae (38 taxa), Poaceae (30), Fabaceae (23) and Solanaceae (22). As for the naturalized alien plants, the highest species richness is found in Asteraceae (31 taxa), Poaceae (22), Amaranthaceae (18) and Solanaceae (15). The majority of alien taxa are perennial (63.8% of the total number of taxa with this life history assigned, including those with multiple life histories), annuals contribute 33.8% and 2.4% are biennial aliens. Among perennials the most common life forms are phanerophytes, of which 20.3% are trees and 12.6% shrubs; woody vines, stem succulents, and aquatic plants are comparatively less represented. Most of the 340 alien taxa introduced to Turkey have their native ranges in Americas (44.7%) and Asia (27.6%). Of other regions, 9.1% originated in Africa, 4.4% in Eurasia, 3.8% in Australia and Oceania and 3.5% in the Mediterranean. The majority of taxa (71.9%) were introduced intentionally, whereas the remaining (28.1%) were introduced accidentally. Among the taxa introduced intentionally, the vast majority are ornamental plants (55.2%), 10.0% taxa were introduced for forestry and 6.7% as crops. Casual alien plants are most commonly found in urban and ruderal habitats (40.1%) where naturalized taxa are also often recorded (27.3%). Plants that occur as agricultural weeds are typically naturalized rather than casual (16.0% vs 7.1%, respectively). However, (semi)natural habitats in Turkey are often invaded by alien taxa, especially by those that are able to naturalize.
Alien plants were first recorded in 1937 in the 2 million ha Kruger National Park (KNP, a savanna protected area in South Africa), and attempts to control them began in the mid-1950s. The invasive alien plant control program expanded substantially in the late 1990s, but its overall efficacy has not been determined. We present an assessment of invasive alien plant control operations over several decades in KNP. We based our assessment on available information from a range of control programs funded from various sources, including national public works programs, KNP operational funds, and foreign donor funds. Over ZAR 350 million (~ US$ 27 million) has been spent on control interventions between 1997 and 2016. We found evidence of good progress with the control of several species, notably Opuntia stricta, Sesbania punicea, Lantana camara and several aquatic weeds, often because of effective biological control. On the other hand, we found that over one third (40%) of the funding was spent on species that have subsequently been recognised as being of lower priority, most of which were alien annual weeds. The allocation of funds to non-priority species was sometimes driven by the need to meet additional objectives (such as employment creation), or by perceptions about relative impact in the absence of documented evidence. We also found that management goals were limited to inputs (funds disbursed, employment created, and area treated) rather than to ecological outcomes, and progress was consequently not adequately monitored. At a species level, four out of 36 species were considered to be under complete control, and a further five were under substantial control. Attempts to control five annual species were all considered to be ineffective. On the basis of our findings, we recommend that more studies be done to determine impacts associated with individual invasive alien species; that the criteria used to prioritise invasive alien species be documented based on such assessments, so that management can justify a focus on priority species; and that funding be re-directed to those species that clearly pose greater threats, and for which other solutions (such as biological control) are not an option.