scholarly journals Managing invasive species

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick C Tobin

Invasive species pose considerable harm to native ecosystems and biodiversity and frustrate and at times fascinate the invasive species management and scientific communities. Of the numerous non-native species established around the world, only a minority of them are invasive and noxious, whereas the majority are either benign or in fact beneficial. Agriculture in North America, for example, would look dramatically different if only native plants were grown as food crops and without the services of the European honey bee as a pollinator. Yet the minority of species that are invasive negatively alter ecosystems and reduce the services they provide, costing governments, industries, and private citizens billions of dollars annually. In this review, I briefly review the consequences of invasive species and the importance of remaining vigilant in the battle against them. I then focus on their management in an increasingly connected global community.

Author(s):  
Maria Balazova ◽  
Dana Blahutova ◽  
Terezia Valaskova

Biological invasions are recognised as a potentially major threat to biodiversity and may have considerable economic and social effects. Public, including pupils, attitudes may have large implications for invasive species management in terms of prevention, early warning and eradication success, but significant is the relations between the lay public’s visions of nature, their knowledge about non-native species and their perceptions of invasive species management. The more direct experience people have with the impact of invasive species, the more likely they will be able to understand the potential benefits of management programmes. The aim of our work was to prepare educational materials about invasive organisms for elementary schools. Some of them were subsequently applied directly in practice as part of an excursion in a schoolyard in west Slovakia, where up to six species of invasive plants were identified in the close proximity to the school. Keywords: Biological invasions, prevention, education, excursion.


2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana E. S. Ford-Thompson ◽  
Carolyn Snell ◽  
Glen Saunders ◽  
Piran C. L. White

Context Invasive species management is often a source of contention; therefore, understanding human dimensions is viewed increasingly as critical for management success. Aims Using invasive Javan rusa deer (Cervus timorensis) in the Royal National Park (RNP), Sydney, as a case study, we sought to identify key dimensions of local public attitudes towards deer and associated management interventions, to identify the most divisive issues, and to assess the influence of experiences on attitudes. Methods We used a mixed-methods approach, using a questionnaire targeted at residents closest to the border of the RNP (n = 406, 30% response rate). The potential for conflict index (PCI2) was used to analyse 32 framing statements, generated through in-depth interviews with 18 key stakeholders from a range of stakeholder groups (e.g. conservation, hunting, animal welfare). We also tested for significant differences in attitudes between those who had or had not experienced deer impacts or received information on deer management. We conducted qualitative analysis of open comments to identify emergent themes and develop an attitudes framework. Key results We identified three overarching dimensions to local attitudes, namely, stakeholder, wildlife and management dimensions, each consisting of key themes and issues, forming the attitudes framework. The most divisive issues based on PCI2 analysis related to deer remaining in the park (PCI2 = 0.626), the heritage value of deer (PCI2 = 0.626), the need to remove deer (PCI2 = 0.531) and the need to kill non-natives in national parks (PCI2 = 0.535). Experience of deer–vehicle collisions and property damage were associated with significantly more negative attitudes towards deer and non-native species and more trust in ecological evidence (P < 0.001), whereas positive experience of deer had the opposite effect (P < 0.001). These experiences were also associated with attitudes towards aerial shooting (P < 0.05) but not hunting. Receiving information improved trust in ecological evidence and decreased belief in heritage value of deer (P < 0.05). Conclusions Attitudes of the local public were varied and complex; however, a mixed-methods bottom-up approach allowed us to identify specific key issues of divisiveness and make management recommendations. Implications The framework and analysis have the potential to facilitate conflict mitigation and develop invasive species management strategies that are inclusive of the local community.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alistair S. Glen ◽  
Kazuaki Hoshino

Managing the impacts of invasive predators on islands is a priority for conserving global biodiversity. However, large islands and islands with substantial human settlement present particular challenges that can be broadly categorised as social and logistical. Around the world, managers concerned with island biodiversity are tackling increasingly ambitious projects, and some examples from Japan and New Zealand have been at the forefront. We used dialogues with managers, researchers, and community members, as well as our respective experience as wildlife researchers in Japan and New Zealand, to compare the challenges faced by wildlife managers in each country. We note similarities and differences between the two countries, and identify lessons from each that will help advance invasive species management on islands globally. Our observations from Japan and New Zealand show that considerable progress has been made in managing invasive predators on large, inhabited islands. Further progress will require more effective engagement with island residents to promote the goals of invasive species management, to find common ground, and to ensure that management is socially and culturally acceptable.


2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (11) ◽  
pp. 2258-2270
Author(s):  
Florian Pichlmueller ◽  
Elaine C. Murphy ◽  
Jamie W. B. MacKay ◽  
John Henderson ◽  
Rachel M. Fewster ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document