Weed risk assessments are an effective component of invasion risk management

0464410 - BÚ 2017 RIV US eng J - Journal Article
Gordon, D. R. - Flory, S. L. - Lieurance, D. - Hulme, P. E. - Buddenhagen, C. - Caton, B. - Champion, P. D. - Culley, T. M. - Daehler, C. C. - Essl, F. - Hill, J. E. - Keller, R. P. - Kohl, L. - Koop, A. L. - Kumschick, S. - Lodge, D. M. - Mack, R. N. - Meyerson, L. A. - Pallipparambil, G. R. - Panetta, F. D. - Porter, R. - Pyšek, Petr - Quinn, L. D. - Richardson, D. M. - Simberloff, D. - Vila, M.
Weed risk assessments are an effective component of invasion risk management.
Invasive Plant Science and Management. Roč. 9, č. 1 (2016), s. 81-83. ISSN 1939-7291. E-ISSN 1939-747X
Grant - others:AV ČR(CZ) AP1002
Program: Akademická prémie - Praemium Academiae
Institutional support: RVO:67985939
Keywords : weed risk assessment * interspecific variation * invasions
Subject RIV: EH - Ecology, Behaviour
Impact factor: 0.952, year: 2016

In this rebuttal we argue that the conclusion of Smith et al. (2015) that weed risk assessments (WRAs) are ineffective is misleading because it relies on a circular argument about intraspecific variation, is confounded by an unclear definition of “weediness,” suggests that risk assessment tools are intended as the only component of invasion risk management, and applies WRA tools in ways that are inconsistent with current guidelines for their use. Their conclusions run contrary to the many other more rigorous evaluations of WRA in the scientific literature and the strong evidence that WRA has utility for practical applications.
Permanent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11104/0265557