Suchergebnisse

Agricultural intensification is critical to meet global food demand, but intensification threatens native species and degrades ecosystems. Sustainable intensification (SI) is heralded as a new approach for enabling growth in agriculture while minimizing environmental impacts. However, the SI literature has overlooked a major environmental risk. Using data from eight countries on six continents, we show that few governments regulate conventionally bred pasture taxa to limit threats to natural areas, even though most agribusinesses promote taxa with substantial weed risk. New pasture taxa (including species, subspecies, varieties, cultivars, and plant-endophyte combinations) are bred with characteristics typical of invasive species and environmental weeds. By introducing novel genetic and endophyte variation, pasture taxa are imbued with additional capacity for invasion and environmental impact. New strategies to prevent future problems are urgently needed. We highlight opportunities for researchers, agribusiness, and consumers to reduce environmental risks associated with new pasture taxa. We also emphasize four main approaches that governments could consider as they build new policies to limit weed risks, including (i) national lists of taxa that are prohibited based on environmental risk; (ii) a weed risk assessment for all new taxa; (iii) a program to rapidly detect and control new taxa that invade natural areas; and (iv) the polluter-pays principle, so that if a taxon becomes an environmental weed, industry pays for its management. There is mounting pressure to increase livestock production. With foresight and planning, growth in agriculture can be achieved sustainably provided that the scope of SI expands to encompass environmental weed risks.

Agricultural intensification is critical to meet global food demand, but intensification threatens native species and degrades ecosystems. Sustainable intensification (SI) is heralded as a new approach for enabling growth in agriculture while minimizing environmental impacts. However, the SI literature has overlooked a major environmental risk. Using data from eight countries on six continents, we show that few governments regulate conventionally bred pasture taxa to limit threats to natural areas, even though most agribusinesses promote taxa with substantial weed risk. New pasture taxa (including species, subspecies, varieties, cultivars, and plant-endophyte combinations) are bred with characteristics typical of invasive species and environmental weeds. By introducing novel genetic and endophyte variation, pasture taxa are imbued with additional capacity for invasion and environmental impact. New strategies to prevent future problems are urgently needed. We highlight opportunities for researchers, agribusiness, and consumers to reduce environmental risks associated with new pasture taxa. We also emphasize four main approaches that governments could consider as they build new policies to limit weed risks, including (i) national lists of taxa that are prohibited based on environmental risk; (ii) a weed risk assessment for all new taxa; (iii) a program to rapidly detect and control new taxa that invade natural areas; and (iv) the polluter-pays principle, so that if a taxon becomes an environmental weed, industry pays for its management. There is mounting pressure to increase livestock production. With foresight and planning, growth in agriculture can be achieved sustainably provided that the scope of SI expands to encompass environmental weed risks.

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 ...