ArticlePDF Available

D. Rotherham and R. A. Lambert (eds): Invasive and introduced plants and animals: human perceptions, attitudes and approaches to management

Authors:

Abstract

People have different perspectives about exotic inva-sive species, ranging from love to hate. Even thescientific literature has contrasting ideas on basicpremises, such as whether we need to worry about thegeographic origin of species or not (Davis et al. 2011;Simberloff et al. 2011). A book exploring humanperceptions of the issue must therefore be welcomed.The basic goal of this book—to analyze how societiesperceive exotic species, invasions, and methods ofcontrol—is clearly important and timely. However,two aspects of this book are unfulfilling and disap-pointing. First, the authors at times manifest a strongbias in favor of people who do not perceive invasivespecies as problematic. Second, the book focuses onissues related to exotic species in Europe (especiallyinthe UK), which makes it hard to extrapolate to otherregions.The book comprises four parts and 24 articleswritten by 25 authors. Most articles are in parts twoand three, which have 8 and 13 articles respectively.Part two explains attitudes and perceptions aboutexotic, native, and invasive species, and part threepresents case studies. Part one introduces the mainproblems and questions addressed in the book, andpart four is the editors’ opinion of what should be donenext, with perhaps not enough synthesis of theprevious parts of the book. There is great variabilityin the quality and depth of the different articles in thebook. Some chapters are remarkably interesting andwell researched, while others are not as educational orthought-provoking. The compilation lacks articlesfrom South and Central America and Asia, and thereis almost no mention of these regions, despite thepresence of many research groups working withinvasive species and management plans in all three.There is also a dearth of case studies from areasoutside Europe. There are no articles on the currentperception of invasions in Australia, New Zealand, orSouth Africa, three countries that have historically ledand continue to lead inresearch on andmanagement ofinvasions. For example, there is a notable absence of afull chapter on current perceptions and treatment ofinvasive species in South Africa (e.g., the Working forWater Program), and chapters with detailed informa-tion on perceptions and management strategies outsideEurope.Remarkably, of the 25 authors 14 (56%) are basedin Europe, and 8 (one-third) in the British islands. Thisproduces a clear bias towards European perceptions,and more specifically towards species problematic inGreat Britain. Examples of this bias are several
BOOK REVIEW
D. Rotherham and R. A. Lambert (eds): Invasive
and introduced plants and animals: human perceptions,
attitudes and approaches to management
Earthscan, London, UK, 2011, 375 pp, Hardcover, US$ 99.95,
ISBN 978-1-84971-071-8
Martin A. Nun
˜ez Paula G. Nun
˜ez
Received: 16 October 2011 / Accepted: 19 November 2011
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
People have different perspectives about exotic inva-
sive species, ranging from love to hate. Even the
scientific literature has contrasting ideas on basic
premises, such as whether we need to worry about the
geographic origin of species or not (Davis et al. 2011;
Simberloff et al. 2011). A book exploring human
perceptions of the issue must therefore be welcomed.
The basic goal of this book—to analyze how societies
perceive exotic species, invasions, and methods of
control—is clearly important and timely. However,
two aspects of this book are unfulfilling and disap-
pointing. First, the authors at times manifest a strong
bias in favor of people who do not perceive invasive
species as problematic. Second, the book focuses on
issues related to exotic species in Europe (especially in
the UK), which makes it hard to extrapolate to other
regions.
The book comprises four parts and 24 articles
written by 25 authors. Most articles are in parts two
and three, which have 8 and 13 articles respectively.
Part two explains attitudes and perceptions about
exotic, native, and invasive species, and part three
presents case studies. Part one introduces the main
problems and questions addressed in the book, and
part four is the editors’ opinion of what should be done
next, with perhaps not enough synthesis of the
previous parts of the book. There is great variability
in the quality and depth of the different articles in the
book. Some chapters are remarkably interesting and
well researched, while others are not as educational or
thought-provoking. The compilation lacks articles
from South and Central America and Asia, and there
is almost no mention of these regions, despite the
presence of many research groups working with
invasive species and management plans in all three.
There is also a dearth of case studies from areas
outside Europe. There are no articles on the current
perception of invasions in Australia, New Zealand, or
South Africa, three countries that have historically led
and continue to lead in research on and management of
invasions. For example, there is a notable absence of a
full chapter on current perceptions and treatment of
invasive species in South Africa (e.g., the Working for
Water Program), and chapters with detailed informa-
tion on perceptions and management strategies outside
Europe.
Remarkably, of the 25 authors 14 (56%) are based
in Europe, and 8 (one-third) in the British islands. This
produces a clear bias towards European perceptions,
and more specifically towards species problematic in
Great Britain. Examples of this bias are several
M. A. Nun
˜ez (&)
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
University of Tennessee, 569 Dabney Hall, Knoxville,
TN 37996-1610, USA
e-mail: nunezm@gmail.com
P. G. Nun
˜ez
Instituto de Investigaciones en Diversidad Cultural y
Procesos de Cambio, CONICET, Universidad Nacional de
´o Negro, Mitre 485 5to piso, R8400BNH San Carlos de
Bariloche, Argentina
123
Biol Invasions
DOI 10.1007/s10530-011-0143-3
chapters that detail the problems related to the grey
squirrel invasion or those that explore issues associ-
ated with the recent reintroduction of wild boar and
osprey to Britain and the debate surrounding their
native-alien status. In the British Isles in the 14th
century and later inhabitants destroyed large portions
of their natural ecosystems, so the area is now
strikingly anthropogenically altered. Furthermore,
the British Isles received large numbers of exotics
species for centuries owing to intercontinental
exchanges (like some other parts of Europe). These
factors produce a unique relationship with nature,
probably not found elsewhere. Defining which species
are native and which are exotic is sometimes a
challenge, but not nearly as complicated as various
chapters in this book suggest. The book has several
examples in which the origin of a given species is
unclear, but this too is another instance where the
British bias makes this so insufficient as a global
contribution. Also, for a book so focused on invasion
in the British Isles, the lack of mention of the
historical, political, and economic processes associ-
ated with species introductions is surprising. Many
cases analyzed in the book are introductions from the
19th century, during the splendor of the British
Empire. However, almost no mention is made of the
political and economic circumstances during the
period when England was a global empire. A deep
discussion of this context might have helped to further
understanding of how those circumstances related to
the past events, such as how having colonies through-
out the world and massive import and export of species
may have shaped their society and ecosystems.
This is one of the first texts to address this
problematic issue of perceptions, and it thus deserves
credit. There is a growing awareness that the problem
of invasive species is tightly connected to human
activities (Lin et al. 2007; Nun
˜ez and Pauchard 2010).
However, it is interesting that this volume presents
little quantitative analysis on any of the topics
mentioned above (including public perception of the
problem, with chapter 12 as an exception). Do people
treasure invasive species? Do people care about the
geographic origin of their surrounding species? Do
people appreciate their native diversity? None of this
is clear after reading the book. We get only the
opinions of rather opinionated people. This may not be
an issue, and can be a plus for some readers, but for
readers looking for a summary of our current
understanding of this topic, this may not be an
appropriate book.
This book is exciting in its presentation of the
diversity of issues associated with invasion biology,
but there is perhaps too much emphasis on claims that
we should not worry about exotic species and on
problems associated with management of invasives.
Words like xenophobia, racism, pseudoscience, and
eco-fascism arise many times throughout the book in
reference to researchers or managers working with
invasive species. More data supporting those strong
claims would have been useful, as it is unclear that
these claims are anything more than opinion of the
authors.
Section four (conclusion and challenges) is not as
enriching as one might expect, and it does not
synthesize the content of the different chapters. The
authors (the editors of the book) seem perhaps to align
with the arguments of Davis et al. (2011) (i.e., they do
not seem to worry too much about the geographic
origin of species) when arguing we need to focus on
‘problem species’’ not on ‘‘exotic species’’, and they
rail about eradication and other management practices
in a section entitled ‘‘Realism and conservation
management, not blind eradication.’’ They seem to
forget that eradication is a feasible option in many
instances and that early detection is key to preventing
large ecological and economic losses. How to manage
a species when it is part of the culture is very different
than when a species is not yet part of the culture, and
this issue is unexplored. This is again an example of
the British focus of the book, as most British examples
given are about well-known species with many
decades or centuries in the country. Throughout the
world it is common to find species that have arrived in
the last few decades, owing to the recent increase in
global trade. For a number of these species eradication
and similar practices, such as plans for early detection,
are valid options and have proven to be effective.
However, this fact is not discussed in the section.
Despite the inclusion of articles on a number of
perspectives about exotic invasive species, the main
message seems to be that we need to make a stronger
effort to learn to live with invaders. This is because of
the social complexities surrounding them (e.g., some
people love them, some species are beneficial, some
have an unclear geographic origin, some are difficult
or expensive to control), and in democracies we need
to achieve compromises that acknowledge the
M. A. Nun
˜ez, P. G. Nun
˜ez
123
viewpoints of everyone, including lovers of invasive
species. The editors suggest that we should learn to
discriminate between ‘‘genuine’’ and ‘‘perceived’
problems. However, this may not be so clear, since a
genuine problem for someone may be an ideal
situation for someone else. This seems a naı
¨ve
perspective for book dedicated to the complexities of
human perception of a problem. One is left to wonder
if we may need to wait for a ‘‘perceived problem’’ to
become a ‘‘genuine problem’’ before we do something
about it.
Who should buy this book? A number of interesting
articles cover important topics (note: some of these
articles are already published elsewhere, so check first
before buying the book for one or two chapters, e.g.,
Sagoff 2009), though it may be worthwhile to buy it
just for some chapters. Also, this is clearly a provoc-
ative work that may be ideal for a scientist curious
about the controversy over whether exotic invasive
species are actually problematic. Also if the correct
chapters are chosen it may be a good book to discuss in
a reading group. Even though we disagree with some
aspects, the topic is too interesting to ignore and is
becoming more important for research and manage-
ment of invasives. The social aspect of biological
invasions has not attracted enough attention thus far,
so this book may trigger more research in this area,
which has important implications for the management
of exotic invasive species.
References
Davis M, Chew MK, Hobbs RJ, Lugo AE et al (2011) Don’t
judge species on their origins. Nature 474:153–154
Lin W, Zhou G, Cheng X, Xu R (2007) Fast economic devel-
opment accelerates biological invasions in China. PLoS
ONE 2:e1208
Nun
˜ez MA, Pauchard A (2010) Biological invasions in devel-
oping and developed countries: does one model fit all? Biol
Invasions 12:707–714
Sagoff M (2009) Who is the invader? Alien species, property
rights, and the police power. Social Philos Policy 26:26–52
Simberloff D et al (2011) Non-natives: 141 scientists object.
Nature 475:36
Human perceptions, attitudes and approaches to management
123
... A growing community of researchers has recognized that managing invasive species is as much a social issue involving various human factors as it is an ecological or technical issue (Bremner and Park 2007;Epanchin-Niell et al. 2010;Gobster 2011;Kueffer 2010;Reaser 2001). Invasive species impose huge conservation or economic costs on society (Pimentel et al. 2005;Wilcove et al. 1998). ...
... Understanding these general issues and the ways they are often discussed, which differ significantly from the ways scientists talk about invasive species, is important for scientists, managers, and policymakers, and can help them avoid major pitfalls, understand why stakeholders may hold different ideas and desires about invasive species and their management, identify mutually acceptable solutions, and determine how to encourage stakeholders to get more involved in control and prevention. dominant native coastal scrub and dune ecosystems are open and treeless, but fire suppression and afforestation have made non-native eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) trees familiar components of the landscape (Coates 2006;Gobster 2011). ...
... The use of human dimensions research to evaluate a broader range of invasive species policies and programs will provide important insights that can be used in the development of future policies and programs to incentivize the public (including private landowners) to engage in invasive species management actions individually or collectively. It can also help policymakers and resource managers to anticipate and minimize conflicts over invasive species management rooted in diverse stakeholder values (Buckley and Han 2014;Estévez et al. 2015;Gobster 2011;Larson et al. 2011). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Invasive species and their management represent a complex issue spanning social and ecological systems. Invasive species present existing and potential threats to the nature of ecosystems and the products and services that people receive from them. Humans can both cause and address problems through their complex interactions with ecosystems. Yet, public awareness of invasive species and their impact is highly uneven, and public support for management and control of invasive species can be variable. Public perceptions often differ markedly from the perspectives of concerned scientists, and perceptions and support for management are influenced by a wide range of social and ecological values. In this chapter, we present a broad survey of social science research across a diversity of ecosystems and stakeholders in order to provide a foundation for understanding the social and cultural dimensions of invasive species and plan more effective management approaches. This chapter also addresses tribal perspectives on invasive species, including traditional ecological knowledge, unique cultural dimensions for tribes, and issues critical to engaging tribes as partners and leaders in invasive species management. Recognizing that natural resource managers often seek to change people’s perceptions and behaviors, we present and discuss some promising approaches that are being used to engage human communities in ways that empower and enlist stakeholders as partners in management.
... Although the definition of species charisma is elusive, some animal traits are known to contribute to charisma, including body size, distinctive coloration, furry coat, peculiar appearance, neotenic (juvenile) features, and sentience (Gobster 2011;Shackleton et al. 2019;Beever et al. 2019). Feral populations of domestic animals (eg feral cats and dogs, wild horses) are especially likely to be charismatic (Veitch and Clout 2001). ...
... Perceptions of the natural state of the environment are to a large extent socially constructed and context-dependent (Backstrom et al. 2018). Public attitudes toward a species can be influenced by its origin but other factors are usually more important, such as economic value and impact (van der Wal et al. 2015) or charisma (Gobster 2011; WebTables 1-3); for instance, large trees are often valued by the public regardless of their origin (Gobster 2011). Public acceptance of an alien species likely increases with the perceived charisma of the species, especially if it is associated with cultural practices or perceptions of the local environment (Nuñez and Simberloff 2005;Verbrugge et al. 2013). ...
Article
Commonly used in the literature to refer to the “attractiveness”, “appeal”, or “beauty” of a species, charisma can be defined as a set of characteristics – and the perception thereof – that affect people’s attitudes and behaviors toward a species. It is a highly relevant concept for invasion science, with implications across all stages of the invasion process. However, the concept of invasive alien species (IAS) charisma has not yet been systematically investigated. We discuss this concept in detail, provide a set of recommendations for further research, and highlight management implications. We review how charisma affects the processes associated with biological invasions and IAS management, including species introductions and spread, media portrayals, public perceptions of species management, research attention, and active public involvement in research and management. Explicit consideration of IAS charisma is critical for understanding the factors that shape people’s attitudes toward particular species, planning management measures and strategies, and implementing a combination of education programs, awareness raising, and public involvement campaigns.
... The human-mediated introduction of invasive non-native species (INNS, see Box 1) beyond their natural range is one of the leading causes of biodiversity loss globally (Simberloff et al., 2013). With human dimensions being a feature of all aspects of the invasion process (García-Llorente, Martín-López, González, Alcorlo, & Montes, 2008;Tassin & Kull, 2015), several studies have sought to explore variation and discord amongst stakeholder opinion with regard to INNS to assess implications for support of management practices (Bremner & Park, 2007;Fischer, Selge, van der Wal, & Larson, 2014;Gobster, 2011). Species attributes, level of knowledge, perceptions of threat, attitudes towards intervention and nature values have all been found to be subjective influences on stakeholder opinion (Ford-Thompson, Snell, Saunders, & White, 2015;García-Llorente et al., 2008;Gozlan, Burnard, Andreou, & Britton, 2013;Shackleton & Shackleton, 2016;Verbrugge, Van den Born, & Lenders, 2013). ...
... Our findings are in concordance with higher levels of knowledge (of biological invasions, ecological principles) being associated with increased support for NNS management options (Bremner & Park, 2007;García-Llorente et al., 2008)-in this case adoption of either the precautionary ('Innocent until proven guilty', 'Precautionary, informed concern') as opposed to the 'hands off' ('More the merrier') approach. Perceptions of risk, abundance and detrimental impacts have also been seen to strongly inform participants' attitudes towards management of NNS , with some authors suggesting that these factors, rather than non-nativeness, have the greatest influence on judgment (Estévez et al., 2015;Gobster, 2011;Van Der Wal et al., 2015). In our analysis, the origins of the wall lizards per se certainly appear to be of less concern in this overall discourse compared to perceived risks and impacts. ...
Article
Full-text available
Analysis of discourse between stakeholders is becoming increasingly recognised for its importance in resolving conflicts of opinion regarding complex environmental issues such as the human‐mediated spread of invasive non‐native species—one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss world‐wide. Species’ attributes, stakeholders’ level of knowledge, perceptions of threat, attitudes towards intervention and nature values all have subjective influence on opinion, often creating highly opposed interests and perspectives that can create barriers preventing effective management. Using a Q method approach towards analysis of subjective opinion among stakeholders, this study aimed to identify emerging viewpoints regarding the presence of Common Wall Lizards (Podarcis muralis) in the UK—an introduced, non‐native species with which there are high levels of human interaction but low levels of knowledge regarding potential negative ecological impacts. It explores the ways in which different stakeholder groups (i.e., public, land managers, conservationists) might share views and the reasoning behind shared or opposing discourse between groups. Three clearly defined viewpoints on the species’ introduction emerge from the analysis of Q sorts: ‘Innocent until proven guilty’, ‘Precautionary informed concern’ and ‘The more the merrier’. These perspectives reflect both stark differences and commonalities in stakeholder perceptions and opinion towards the species’ introduction. Whereas the ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ and ‘Precautionary, informed concern’ views are defined by differences in levels of ecological knowledge and impact uncertainty between them, the divergence of the ‘More the merrier’ view from both other viewpoints appears to be more reflective of pronounced variation between the groups deeper beliefs, perceptions and values about ‘naturalness and balance’, and overall relationship with nature. These findings will be useful in identifying discordant attitudes and areas of potential contention between stakeholders that may arise in consideration of management decisions regarding non‐native species more widely. The holistic method of interpreting the analysis gives insight into how and why stakeholders may have formulated certain viewpoints. This in turn could help conservation managers identify ways in which to appreciate and work with subjective influences on stakeholder perceptions in order to best communicate the complex challenges and opportunities presented by non‐native species. A plain language summary is available for this article. Plain Language Summary
... Previous research on attitudes towards biodiversity management has identified several beliefs that are likely to be relevant to the management of invasive species, and that form a useful basis to study differences between professionals and the public [33,39,40]. Here, we examine the relationships between beliefs and attitudes in a quantitative manner, and hypothesise that species believed to be non-native will be seen in greater need of management than those perceived to be native. ...
... We thus explicitly distinguish between four different aspects (nativeness, abundance, harm caused to nature, and harm caused to the economy) of the complex of notions associated to non-nativeness and invasiveness. Finally, we hypothesise that there will be strong support for management of species that are regarded as unattractive [29,40,41] or easy to control [13]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Despite continued critique of the idea of clear boundaries between scientific and lay knowledge, the 'deficit-model' of public understanding of ecological issues still seems prevalent in discourses of biodiversity management. Prominent invasion biologists, for example, still argue that citizens need to be educated so that they accept scientists' views on the management of non-native invasive species. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey with members of the public and professionals in invasive species management (n = 732) in Canada and the UK to investigate commonalities and differences in their perceptions of species and, more importantly, how these perceptions were connected to attitudes towards species management. Both native and non-native mammal and tree species were included. Professionals tended to have more extreme views than the public, especially in relation to nativeness and abundance of a species. In both groups, species that were perceived to be more abundant, non-native, unattractive or harmful to nature and the economy were more likely to be regarded as in need of management. While perceptions of species and attitudes towards management thus often differed between public and professionals, these perceptions were linked to attitudes in very similar ways across the two groups. This suggests that ways of reasoning about invasive species employed by professionals and the public might be more compatible with each other than commonly thought. We recommend that managers and local people engage in open discussion about each other's beliefs and attitudes prior to an invasive species control programme. This could ultimately reduce conflict over invasive species control.
... However, such research focused on invasive non-native species has rarely been undertaken. Gobster (2011) suggests in his conceptual considerations that public responses to invasive species are a function of how people perceive a species' aesthetic and cultural value and its impacts and threats on other species and ecosystems. Notably, a species' non-nativeness does not appear in his model as a factor influencing people's responses to invasive species. ...
... Notably, a species' non-nativeness does not appear in his model as a factor influencing people's responses to invasive species. Gobster's (2011) model, derived through introspection, is supported by previous research on people's attitudes towards biodiversity, identifying a similar set of species attributes relevant to attitudes towards species in general. For example, a species' perceived ecological importance and rarity (Czech et al., 1998), utility and attractiveness (Schlegel and Rupf, 2010), and harmlessness, value and previous population change , have all been shown relevant attributes that informed respondents' attitudes towards biodiversity management. ...
Article
Full-text available
The potential of invasive non-native species to modify ecosystems is well established. Yet, the resulting visibility of the field of invasion biology and its growing influence on policy decisions has led to the development of persistent critique. In addition, public opposition to the removal of non-native species has repeatedly delayed interventions, sometimes to the point where eradication has become impossible. Understanding the views of the lay-public is thus of crucial importance. Our study investigated views on invasive non-native species as held by both the general public and ecologists. We chose an in-depth qualitative social scientific approach to identify species attributes that people draw on to evaluate biological invasions and potential management options. Interviews and focus group discussions (n=79 participants) were conducted in the North-east of Scotland, and included members of the public from a wide range of backgrounds, as well as research ecologists and professionals dealing with invasive non-native species. Two key arguments, namely (i) harmfulness of a species and (ii) human responsibility for its spread, shaped both ecologists’ and lay-people’s discussions. Non-nativeness was understood by our participants in various ways and did not necessarily raise concerns about a species. Our results indicate that for information campaigns on species management to be effective, values inherent to the debate about invasive non-native species need addressing in a more explicit and transparent manner. Arguments such as human responsibility that are currently neglected in the scientific discourse, but that were important criteria for a wide range of participants, should be made explicit.
... Despite holding a rather negative opinion by the policymakers and scientists, the rural communities at times embrace completely the opposite perception on biological invaders (Shackleton et al. 2007;García-Llorente et al. 2008). The lack of studies on social, economic and cultural perspectives of biological invaders has been highlighted as a serious hindrance in introducing management interventions to mitigate their potential negative impacts (Gobster 2005(Gobster , 2011Gozlan et al. 2013;Abrahams et al. 2019). Therefore, the information on social and economic impacts of biological invaders is imperative to introduce effective management strategies to lessen impacts caused by problematic species. ...
Article
Full-text available
Bambusa bambos (L.) Voss. expands rapidly in native forests in the dry and intermediate climatic zones in Sri Lanka, raising concerns among environmentalists in recent years. No studies have been undertaken so far to evaluate ecological and socio-economic perceptions of the local communities on this issue. In landsenses ecology, physical senses of the community play a critical role in land-use planning and sustainable management. Thus, a survey was conducted using 78 villagers live in three hamlets bordering native forests where B. bambos shown a high prevalence. The study community is a typical rural population with an agriculture-centered existence. Despite low income, their commercial dependence on forest resources was minimal. The villagers are well aware of the bamboo spread and its ecological consequences, though their overall perception on the issue was highly divided. However, their perceptions changed depending on the distance to nearby forests from their abodes. Higher the distance from where they live to bamboo-rich forests, their perception on B. bambos become positive and vice versa. The heightened fire incidences and increased presence of elephants following the bamboo spread have contributed decisively on their negative perception, suggesting the importance of physical senses in planning land-use interventions. The study concludes that any future management interventions to mitigate some of the ecological and social impacts caused by the B. Bambos spread need to consider the community’s perceptions and views as well as their active partnership to reap successful outcomes.
... An example is the perception of invasive species by the general public. The general public has only limited knowledge of the phenomenon of biological invasions (Gellis Communications 2008), and perception as well as evaluation of invasions are not at all homogeneous across societal groups (Fischer and van der Wal 2007; Gherardi 2011; Lambert and Rotherham 2011) (A3 in Table 1). Especially in case of deliberate introductions related to agriculture, forestry, fisheries , and biological control, species can cause benefits as well as costs (Gozlan 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
Invasion ecology has much advanced since its early beginnings. Nevertheless, explanation, prediction, and management of biological invasions remain difficult. We argue that progress in invasion research can be accelerated by, first, pointing out difficulties this field is currently facing and, second, looking for measures to overcome them. We see basic and applied research in invasion ecology confronted with difficulties arising from (A) societal issues, e.g., disparate perceptions of invasive species; (B) the peculiarity of the invasion process, e.g., its complexity and context dependency; and (C) the scientific methodology, e.g., imprecise hypotheses. To overcome these difficulties, we propose three key measures: (1) a checklist for definitions to encourage explicit definitions; (2) implementation of a hierarchy of hypotheses (HoH), where general hypotheses branch into specific and precisely testable hypotheses; and (3) platforms for improved communication. These measures may significantly increase conceptual clarity and enhance communication, thus advancing invasion ecology.
Article
As the product of not always rational human thought, emotions are either excluded from or considered to be barriers to effective invasive species management. In a context where fish are still disregarded, in this paper I consider the affective and emotional geographies of the world's most broadly distributed freshwater fish, carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Australia, in emerging sites of management that involve killing. Invasive species management is yet to reconcile emotion and the affective politics of killing invasive animals as a normative and ongoing practice of care for the environment. This paper advances animal geographies by developing a conceptual understanding of the biopolitics of invasive life and invasive species management by thinking through carp as affective and emotional subjects. To do this I look to feminist approaches that conceptualise emotion as relational, including Ahmed's analysis of emotion as movement, and visceral geographies’ extension of embodied meaning‐making beyond the human. Drawing on original empirical analysis of managing carp, I identify how carp are performed as collectively disgusting or monstrous objects and how emotions are submerged and people can become indifferent to, or “pull away” from, ethical deliberation. However, attending to affect and emotion beyond the human subject also allows carp to emerge as different kinds of “spooky” subjects who, through conflicting, constantly changing, and more‐than‐invasive relationships, resist singular and hegemonic understandings. Taking a feminist approach allows me to consider how carp have affective biopolitical agency, in life and death, across these multiple subjectivities with power to transform human relationships with nature by situating and re‐engaging people in the problems of the world. Indeed, I argue that it is through the affective and emotional practices of managing carp that people might also begin to apprehend their responsibilities and limitations in the Anthropocene. As invasive fish, carp are excluded from efficacy and ethical concerns regarding their management. Looking to feminist and relational approaches, this paper considers embodied and emotional responses to carp in emerging sites of management that involve killing. Although emotion is often thought of as a barrier or obstacle to efficient and effective management, I argue emotion provides both transformative and situated opportunities for thinking about future relationships with invasive species and with the environment more broadly.
Article
Full-text available
Invasive rodents threaten global island biodiversity and have been eradicated from hundreds of islands. Eradication efforts can be contentious due to animal welfare concerns and risk to non-target species. The news media plays a critical role by providing context for eradications. To better understand how the news media frame invasive rodent eradications, we conducted a thematic content analysis of 462 newspaper articles published in newspapers from 13 countries between 1993 and 2014. Although the media typically frames environmental stories as conflicts between stakeholders, the media tended to use “conquest frames” for rodent eradications. Articles often emphasized key elements of the conquest frame, including recast rules and norms, being on frontiers, positioning heroes against nature, creating drama by questioning the success of heroes, orienting towards the future, and positioning the audience as an awestruck witness. We detected international differences for some themes. Articles from Canada and Australia often included costs of eradication, articles from New Zealand were less likely to include endemic species, and articles from the United States were most likely to include conflict. Our results suggest that unique aspects of rodent eradications may encourage conquest framing, and cultural contexts of place shape framing between countries. We conclude that conquest framing by the media has largely supported rodent eradication efforts on islands, but that may change when new eradication methods are developed or when eradications are planned for islands with human populations.
Article
Full-text available
Woody plants have increased in density and extent in rangelands worldwide since the 1800s, and land managers increasingly remove woodland plants in hopes of restoring pre-settlement conditions and/or improved forage for grazing livestock. Because such efforts can be controversial, especially on publicly owned lands, managers often attempt to frame issues in ways they believe can improve public acceptance of proposed actions. Frequently these framing efforts employ conflict metaphors drawn from military or legal lexicons. We surveyed citizens in the Rocky Mountains region, USA, about their beliefs concerning tree-removal as a management strategy. Plants targeted for removal in the region include such iconic tree species as Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine as well as other less-valued species, such as Rocky Mountain juniper, that are common targets for removal nationwide. To test the influence of issue frame on acceptance, recipients were randomly assigned surveys in which the reason for conifer removal was described using one of three terms often employed by invasive biologists and land managers: "invasion", "expansion", and "encroachment". Framing in this instance had little effect on responses. We conclude the use of single-word frames by scientists and managers use to contextualize an issue may not resonate with the public.
Article
Full-text available
There is a strong bias concerning the regions of the globe where research on biological invasions is conducted, with notably lower representation of developing countries. However, in developing countries, effective management strategies to control invasions could be more beneficial in conserving global biodiversity since these countries tend to have larger, highly diverse natural habitats. Lower levels of development are seen as an obstacle to tackling biological invasions, but little thought is given to the advantages of developing countries in dealing with invasive species. We analyzed differences between developed and developing countries regarding the problem of invasive species and their historical and current patterns of international trade, disturbance levels and land use, research and monitoring, control and mitigation, and social awareness. Developed nations have some advantages, especially in levels of social awareness and means for controlling and studying exotics, but developing nations also enjoy important advantages given their lower levels of international trade and the availability of low-cost labor. Also, there is evidence that the process of economic development, which results in more efficient ways to transform landscapes and increases international trade, is strongly associated with increasing rates of biological invasion. Differences in data quality and availability between developed and developing countries make comparative analyses of biological invasions a difficult task. Thus, these differences creates a challenge in forming global strategies to deal with invasions. There have been calls for creating international plans to deal with invasive species, but we believe that it is important first to acknowledge the challenges and understand both the advantages and disadvantages of developing countries. KeywordsAnthropogenic disturbance-Control of invasions-Development-International trade-Management
Article
Full-text available
Supplementary information to: Non-natives: 141 scientists object Full list of co-signatories to a Correspondence published in Nature 475, 36 (2011); doi: 10.1038/475036a. Daniel Simberloff University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. dsimberloff@utk.edu Jake Alexander Institute of Integrative Biology, Zurich, Switzerland. Fred Allendorf University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA. James Aronson CEFE/CNRS, Montpellier, France. Pedro M. Antunes Algoma University, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada. Sven Bacher University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland. Richard Bardgett Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Sandro Bertolino University of Turin, Grugliasco, Italy. Melanie Bishop Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Tim M. Blackburn Zoological Society of London, London, UK. April Blakeslee Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Dana Blumenthal USDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Alejandro Bortolus Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET, Puerto Madryn, Argentina. Ralf Buckley Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia. Yvonne Buckley CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and The University of Queensland, ARC Centre of Excellence in Environmental Decisions, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. Jeb Byers The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA. Ragan M. Callaway University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA. Faith Campbell The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA. Karl Campbell Island Conservation, Santa Cruz, California, USA. Marnie Campbell Central Queensland University, Queensland, Australia. James T. CarltonWilliams College — Mystic Seaport, Mystic, Connecticut, USA. Phillip Cassey University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Jane Catford The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Laura Celesti-Grapow Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. John Chapman Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University, Newport, Oregon, USA. Paul Clark Natural History Museum, London, UK. Andre Clewell Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida USA. João Canning Clode Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland USA Andrew Chang Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Milan Chytrý Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. Mick Clout University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Andrew Cohen Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions, Richmond, California, USA. Phil Cowan Landcare Research, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Robert H. Cowie University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Alycia W. Crall Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Jeff Crooks Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, Imperial Beach, California, USA. Marty Deveney South Australian Aquatic Sciences Centre,West Beach, Australia. Kingsley Dixon Kings Park and Botanic Garden,West Perth, Australia. Fred C. Dobbs Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA. David Cameron Duffy University of Hawaii Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Richard Duncan Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand. Paul R. Ehrlich Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. Lucius Eldredge Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Neal Evenhuis Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Kurt D. Fausch Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Heike Feldhaar University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany. Jennifer Firn Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Amy Fowler Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Bella Galil National Institute of Oceanography, Haifa, Israel. Emili Garcia-Berthou Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain. Jonathan Geller Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Moss Landing, California, USA. Piero Genovesi Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Rome, Italy. Esther Gerber CABI Europe, Delemont, Switzerland. Francesca Gherardi Universita’ di Firenze, Firenze, Italy. Stephan Gollasch Hamburg, Germany. Doria Gordon University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Jim Graham Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Paul Gribben University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. Blaine Griffen Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Edwin D. Grosholz University of California, Davis, California, USA. Chad Hewitt Central Queensland University, Queensland, Australia. José L. Hierro CONICET-Universidad Nacional de La Pampa, La Pampa, Argentina. Philip Hulme Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand. Pat Hutchings Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia. Vojtěch Jarošík Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Jonathan M. Jeschke Technische Universität München, Freising- Weihenstephan, Germany. Chris Johnson University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Ladd Johnson Université Laval, Ville de Québec, Quebec, Canada. Emma L. Johnston University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Carl G. Jones Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Jersey, Channel Islands, UK. Reuben Keller University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Carolyn M. King University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Bart G. J. Knols Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; K&S Consulting, Dodewaard, the Netherlands. Johannes Kollmann Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany. Thomas Kompas The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Peter M. Kotanen University of Toronto at Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Ingo Kowarik Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Ingolf Kühn Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Halle, Germany. Sabrina Kumschick Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Brian Leung McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Andrew Liebhold USDA Forest Service, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. Hugh MacIsaac University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Richard Mack Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA. Deborah G. McCullough Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. Robbie McDonald The Food and Environmental Research Agency, Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, Stonehouse, UK. David M. Merritt United States Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Laura Meyerson University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA. Dan Minchin Marine Organism Investigations, Killaloe, Ireland. Harold A. Mooney Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. Jeffrey T. Morisette United States Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Peter Moyle University of California, Davis, California, USA. Heinz Müller-Schärer Université de Fribourg/Pérolles, Fribourg, Switzerland. Brad R. Murray University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Stefan Nehring Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Germany. Wendy Nelson National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand. Wolfgang Nentwig University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. Stephen J. Novak Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, USA. Anna Occhipinti Universita di Pavia, Pavia, Italy. Henn Ojaveer University of Tartu, Pärnu, Estonia. Bruce Osborne University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Richard S. Ostfeld Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York, USA. John Parker Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Judith Pederson Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. Jan Pergl Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Pruhonice, Czech Republic. Megan L. Phillips University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Petr Pyšek Academy of Sciences, Průhonice, Czech Republic. Marcel Rejmánek University of California, Davis, California, USA. Anthony Ricciardi McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Carlo Ricotta University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, Italy. David Richardson Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South Africa. Gil Rilov National Institute of Oceanography, Haifa, Israel. Euan Ritchie Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia. Peter A. Robertson Food and Environment Research Agency, York, UK. Joe Roman University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA. Gregory Ruiz Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA. Hanno Schaefer Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Britta Schaffelke Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. Kristina A. Schierenbeck California State University, Chico, California, USA. Don C. Schmitz Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. Evangelina Schwindt Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET, Puerto Madryn, Argentina. Jim Seeb University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. L. David Smith Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA. Gideon F. Smith University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. Thomas Stohlgren Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. David L. Strayer Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York, USA. Donald Strong University of California, Davis, California,USA. William J. Sutherland University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK. Thomas Therriault Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. Wilfried Thuiller Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France. Mark Torchin Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama. Wim van der Putten Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Montserrat Vilà Estación Biológica de Doñana, Sevilla, Spain. Betsy Von Holle University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA. Inger Wallentinus University of Gothenburg, Goteborg, Sweden. David Wardle Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden. Mark Williamson University of York, York, UK. John Wilson Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South Africa. Marten Winter Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Halle, Germany. Lorne M. Wolfe Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA. Jeff Wright The University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia. Marjorie Wonham Quest University, Squamish, British Columbia, Canada. Chela Zabin Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Article
Full-text available
Simberloff, Daniel Alexander, Jake Allendorf, Fred Aronson, James Antunes, Pedro M. Bacher, Sven Bardgett, Richard Bertolino, Sandro Bishop, Melanie Blackburn, Tim M. Blakeslee, April Blumenthal, Dana Bortolus, Alejandro Buckley, Ralf Buckley, Yvonne Byers, Jeb Callaway, Ragan M. Campbell, Faith Campbell, Karl Campbell, Marnie Carlton, James T. Cassey, Phillip Catford, Jane Celesti-Grapow, Laura Chapman, John Clark, Paul Clewell, Andre Clode, Joao Canning Chang, Andrew Chytry, Milan Clout, Mick Cohen, Andrew Cowan, Phil Cowie, Robert H. Crall, Alycia W. Crooks, Jeff Deveney, Marty Dixon, Kingsley Dobbs, Fred C. Duffy, David Cameron Duncan, Richard Ehrlich, Paul R. Eldredge, Lucius Evenhuis, Neal Fausch, Kurt D. Feldhaar, Heike Firn, Jennifer Fowler, Amy Galil, Bella Garcia-Berthou, Emili Geller, Jonathan Genovesi, Piero Gerber, Esther Gherardi, Francesca Gollasch, Stephan Gordon, Doria Graham, Jim Gribben, Paul Griffen, Blaine Grosholz, Edwin D. Hewitt, Chad Hierro, Jose L. Hulme, Philip Hutchings, Pat Jarosik, Vojtech Jeschke, Jonathan M. Johnson, Chris Johnson, Ladd Johnston, Emma L. Jones, Carl G. Keller, Reuben King, Carolyn M. Knols, Bart G. J. Kollmann, Johannes Kompas, Thomas Kotanen, Peter M. Kowarik, Ingo Kuehn, Ingolf Kumschick, Sabrina Leung, Brian Liebhold, Andrew MacIsaac, Hugh Mack, Richard McCullough, Deborah G. McDonald, Robbie Merritt, David M. Meyerson, Laura Minchin, Dan Mooney, Harold A. Morisette, Jeffrey T. Moyle, Peter Heinz, Mueller-Schaerer Murray, Brad R. Nehring, Stefan Nelson, Wendy Nentwig, Wolfgang Novak, Stephen J. Occhipinti, Anna Ojaveer, Henn Osborne, Bruce Ostfeld, Richard S. Parker, John Pederson, Judith Pergl, Jan Phillips, Megan L. Pysek, Petr Rejmanek, Marcel Ricciardi, Anthony Ricotta, Carlo Richardson, David Rilov, Gil Ritchie, Euan Robertson, Peter A. Roman, Joe Ruiz, Gregory Schaefer, Hanno Schaffelke, Britta Schierenbeck, Kristina A. Schmitz, Don C. Schwindt, Evangelina Seeb, Jim Smith, L. David Smith, Gideon F. Stohlgren, Thomas Strayer, David L. Strong, Donald Sutherland, William J. Therriault, Thomas Thuiller, Wilfried Torchin, Mark van der Putten, Wim H. Vila, Montserrat Von Holle, Betsy Wallentinus, Inger Wardle, David Williamson, Mark Wilson, John Winter, Marten Wolfe, Lorne M. Wright, Jeff Wonham, Marjorie Zabin, Chela
Article
Full-text available
Increasing levels of global trade and intercontinental travel have been cited as the major causes of biological invasion. However, indirect factors such as economic development that affect the intensity of invasion have not been quantitatively explored. Herein, using principal factor analysis, we investigated the relationship between biological invasion and economic development together with climatic information for China from the 1970s to present. We demonstrate that the increase in biological invasion is coincident with the rapid economic development that has occurred in China over the past three decades. The results indicate that the geographic prevalence of invasive species varies substantially on the provincial scale, but can be surprisingly well predicted using the combination of economic development (R(2) = 0.378) and climatic factors (R(2) = 0.347). Economic factors are proven to be at least equal to if not more determinant of the occurrence of invasive species than climatic factors. International travel and trade are shown to have played a less significant role in accounting for the intensity of biological invasion in China. Our results demonstrate that more attention should be paid to economic factors to improve the understanding, prediction and management of biological invasions.
Article
This paper argues that the occurrence of a non-native species, such as purple loosestrife, on one's property does not constitute a nuisance in the context of background principles of common law. No one is injured by it. The control of non-native species, such as purple loosestrife, does not constitute a compelling public interest, moreover, but represents primarily the concern of an epistemic community of conservation biologists and ecologists. This paper describes a history of cases in agricultural law that establish that a public authority may enter private property to destroy a tree or other species but only to protect a compelling public interest, such as the apple industry in Virginia or the citrus industry in Florida, and only if it pays all the costs including just compensation. The paper argues a fortiori that if a public authority enters private property to control non-native or “invasive” species it must pay all the costs and indemnify the owner—contrary to what many state laws contemplate and the Environmental Law Institute recommends.