Abstract

ABSTRACTTo assess the validity of previously developed risk assessment schemes in the conditions of Central Europe, we tested (1) Australian weed risk assessment scheme (WRA; Pheloung et al. 1999); (2) WRA with additional analysis by Daehler et al. (2004); and (3) decision tree scheme of Reichard and Hamilton (1997) developed in North America, on a data set of 180 alien woody species commonly planted in the Czech Republic. This list included 17 invasive species, 9 naturalized but non‐invasive, 31 casual aliens, and 123 species not reported to escape from cultivation. The WRA model with additional analysis provided best results, rejecting 100% of invasive species, accepting 83.8% of non‐invasive, and recommending further 13.0% for additional analysis. Overall accuracy of the WRA model with additional analysis was 85.5%, higher than that of the basic WRA scheme (67.9%) and the Reichard–Hamilton model (61.6%). Only the Reichard–Hamilton scheme accepted some invaders. The probability that an accepted species will become an invader was zero for both WRA models and 3.2% for the Reichard–Hamilton model. The probability that a rejected species would have been an invader was 77.3% for both WRA models and 24.0% for the Reichard–Hamilton model. It is concluded that the WRA model, especially with additional analysis, appears to be a promising template for building a widely applicable system for screening out invasive plant introductions.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.