Browsing by Author "Nkuna, Khensani V."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemGlobal environmental and socio-economic impacts of selected alien grasses as a basis for ranking threats to South Africa(Pensoft Publishers, 2018-12-21) Nkuna, Khensani V.; Visser, Vernon; Wilson, John R. U.; Kumschick, SabrinaENGLISH ABSTRACT: Decisions to allocate management resources should be underpinned by estimates of the impacts of biological invasions that are comparable across species and locations. For the same reason, it is important to assess what type of impacts are likely to occur where, and if such patterns can be generalised. In this paper, we aim to understand factors shaping patterns in the type and magnitude of impacts of a subset of alien grasses. We used the Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS) to review and quantify published impact records of 58 grass species that are alien to South Africa and to at least one other biogeographical realm. Based on the GISS scores, we investigated how impact magnitudes varied across habitats, regions and impact mechanisms using multiple regression. We found impact records for 48 species. Cortaderia selloana had the highest overall impact score, although in contrast to five other species (Glyceria maxima, Nassella trichotoma, Phalaris aquatica, Polypogon monspeliensis, and Sorghum halepense) it did not score the highest possible impact score for any specific impact mechanism. Consistent with other studies, we found that the most frequent environmental impact was through competition with native plant species (with 75% of cases). Socio-economic impacts were recorded more often and tended to be greater in magnitude than environmental impacts, with impacts recorded particularly often on agricultural and animal production (57% and 51% of cases respectively). There was variation across different regions and habitats in impact magnitude, but the differences were not statistically significant. In conclusion, alien grasses present in South Africa have caused a wide range of negative impacts across most habitats and regions of the world. Reviewing impacts from around the world has provided important information for the management of alien grasses in South Africa, and, we believe, is an important component of management prioritisation processes in general.
- ItemIs invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks(Pensoft, 2020-10-15) Wilson, John R. U.; Datta, Arunava; Hirsch, Heidi; Keet, Jan-Hendrik; Mbobo, Tumeka; Nkuna, Khensani V.; Nsikani, Mlungele M.; Pysek, Petr; Richardson, David M.; Zengeya, T. A.; Kumschick, SabrinaENGLISH ABSTRACT: The need to understand and manage biological invasions has driven the development of frameworks to circumscribe, classify, and elucidate aspects of the phenomenon. But how influential have these frameworks really been? To test this, we evaluated the impact of a pathway classification framework, a framework focussing on the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and two papers that outline an impact classification framework. We analysed how these framework papers are cited and by whom, conducted a survey to determine why people have cited the frameworks, and explored the degree to which the frameworks are implemented. The four papers outlining these frameworks are amongst the most-cited in their respective journals, are highly regarded in the field, and are already seen as citation classics (although citations are overwhelmingly within the field of invasion science). The number of citations to the frameworks has increased over time, and, while a significant proportion of these are self-citations (20–40%), this rate is decreasing. The frameworks were cited by studies conducted and authored by researchers from across the world. However, relative to a previous citation analysis of invasion science as a whole, the frameworks are particularly used in Europe and South Africa and less so in North America. There is an increasing number of examples of uptake into invasion policy and management (e.g., the pathway classification framework has been adapted and adopted into EU legislation and CBD targets, and the impact classification framework has been adopted by the IUCN). However, we found that few of the citing papers (6–8%) specifically implemented or interrogated the frameworks; roughly half of all citations might be viewed as frivolous (“citation fluff”); there were several clear cases of erroneous citation; and some survey respondents felt that they have not been rigorously tested yet. Although our analyses suggest that invasion science is moving towards a more systematic and standardised approach to recording invasions and their impacts, it appears that the proposed standards are still not applied consistently. For this to be achieved, we argue that frameworks in invasion science need to be revised or adapted to particular contexts in response to the needs and experiences of users (e.g., so they are relevant to pathologists, plant ecologists, and practitioners), the standards should be easier to apply in practice (e.g., through the development of guidelines for management), and there should be incentives for their usage (e.g., recognition for completing an EICAT assessment).