Search

New alien plant species are constantly introduced across borders or landscapes, and some are likely to become problematic invasive weeds from experiences elsewhere. Initially, weed population growth and spread is typically slow. This ‘invasion lag’ often presents the only window of opportunity where containment and eradication can be achieved, and long-term negative impacts avoided. We developed a weed risk mapping tool that allows land managers to identify priority areas for monitoring and management relatively quickly and with limited data. The tool considers both habitat suitability (where weeds are likely to grow well and reproduce) and susceptibility (where weed propagules are likely to arrive from known source plants). ‘Risk factors’ that reflect the environmental conditions a weed needs to grow, reproduce and spread (like rainfall, land use, soil type or road networks) are identified and linked to spatial data. A collection of open-source web apps called ‘riskmapr’ allow land managers and researchers to plug in their own spatial data and generate weed risk maps. These maps may be used to direct on-ground resources, along with other operational considerations. Risk models can also help structure our understanding of the factors and processes driving weed invasions. Here, we showcase an application of riskmapr to support surveillance planning for Miconia calvescens in the National Tropical Weeds Eradication Program. Previously, surveillance effort was evenly allocated to forested areas within concentric buffer zones surrounding known mature infestations. Using riskmapr and spatial analysis to gain a more nuanced understanding of invasion risk allowed the operations team to focus on-ground effort. At one site, high risk areas subject to frequent surveillance were reduced by 24% (from 613ha within buffer zones to 467ha using riskmapr outputs); medium risk areas were reduced by 27% from 833ha to 612ha; but less frequently surveyed low risk areas increased from 236

New alien plant species are constantly introduced across borders or landscapes, and some are likely to become problematic invasive weeds from experiences elsewhere. Initially, weed population growth and spread is typically slow. This ‘invasion lag’ often presents the only window of opportunity where containment and eradication can be achieved, and long-term negative impacts avoided. We developed a weed risk mapping tool that allows land managers to identify priority areas for monitoring and management relatively quickly and with limited data. The tool considers both habitat suitability (where weeds are likely to grow well and reproduce) and susceptibility (where weed propagules are likely to arrive from known source plants). ‘Risk factors’ that reflect the environmental conditions a weed needs to grow, reproduce and spread (like rainfall, land use, soil type or road networks) are identified and linked to spatial data. A collection of open-source web apps called ‘riskmapr’ allow land managers and researchers to plug in their own spatial data and generate weed risk maps. These maps may be used to direct on-ground resources, along with other operational considerations. Risk models can also help structure our understanding of the factors and processes driving weed invasions. Here, we showcase an application of riskmapr to support surveillance planning for Miconia calvescens in the National Tropical Weeds Eradication Program. Previously, surveillance effort was evenly allocated to forested areas within concentric buffer zones surrounding known mature infestations. Using riskmapr and spatial analysis to gain a more nuanced understanding of invasion risk allowed the operations team to focus on-ground effort. At one site, high risk areas subject to frequent surveillance were reduced by 24% (from 613ha within buffer zones to 467ha using riskmapr outputs); medium risk areas were reduced by 27% from 833ha to 612ha; but less frequently surveyed low risk areas increased from 236

New alien plant species are constantly introduced across borders or landscapes, and some are likely to become problematic invasive weeds from experiences elsewhere. Initially, weed population growth and spread is typically slow. This ‘invasion lag’ often presents the only window of opportunity where containment and eradication can be achieved, and long-term negative impacts avoided. We developed a weed risk mapping tool that allows land managers to identify priority areas for monitoring and management relatively quickly and with limited data. The tool considers both habitat suitability (where weeds are likely to grow well and reproduce) and susceptibility (where weed propagules are likely to arrive from known source plants). ‘Risk factors’ that reflect the environmental conditions a weed needs to grow, reproduce and spread (like rainfall, land use, soil type or road networks) are identified and linked to spatial data. A collection of open-source web apps called ‘riskmapr’ allow land managers and researchers to plug in their own spatial data and generate weed risk maps. These maps may be used to direct on-ground resources, along with other operational considerations. Risk models can also help structure our understanding of the factors and processes driving weed invasions. Here, we showcase an application of riskmapr to support surveillance planning for Miconia calvescens in the National Tropical Weeds Eradication Program. Previously, surveillance effort was evenly allocated to forested areas within concentric buffer zones surrounding known mature infestations. Using riskmapr and spatial analysis to gain a more nuanced understanding of invasion risk allowed the operations team to focus on-ground effort. At one site, high risk areas subject to frequent surveillance were reduced by 24% (from 613ha within buffer zones to 467ha using riskmapr outputs); medium risk areas were reduced by 27% from 833ha to 612ha; but less frequently surveyed low risk areas increased from 236

New alien plant species are constantly introduced across borders or landscapes, and some are likely to become problematic invasive weeds from experiences elsewhere. Initially, weed population growth and spread is typically slow. This ‘invasion lag’ often presents the only window of opportunity where containment and eradication can be achieved, and long-term negative impacts avoided. We developed a weed risk mapping tool that allows land managers to identify priority areas for monitoring and management relatively quickly and with limited data. The tool considers both habitat suitability (where weeds are likely to grow well and reproduce) and susceptibility (where weed propagules are likely to arrive from known source plants). ‘Risk factors’ that reflect the environmental conditions a weed needs to grow, reproduce and spread (like rainfall, land use, soil type or road networks) are identified and linked to spatial data. A collection of open-source web apps called ‘riskmapr’ allow land managers and researchers to plug in their own spatial data and generate weed risk maps. These maps may be used to direct on-ground resources, along with other operational considerations. Risk models can also help structure our understanding of the factors and processes driving weed invasions. Here, we showcase an application of riskmapr to support surveillance planning for Miconia calvescens in the National Tropical Weeds Eradication Program. Previously, surveillance effort was evenly allocated to forested areas within concentric buffer zones surrounding known mature infestations. Using riskmapr and spatial analysis to gain a more nuanced understanding of invasion risk allowed the operations team to focus on-ground effort. At one site, high risk areas subject to frequent surveillance were reduced by 24% (from 613ha within buffer zones to 467ha using riskmapr outputs); medium risk areas were reduced by 27% from 833ha to 612ha; but less frequently surveyed low risk areas increased from 236

New alien plant species are constantly introduced across borders or landscapes, and some are likely to become problematic invasive weeds from experiences elsewhere. Initially, weed population growth and spread is typically slow. This ‘invasion lag’ often presents the only window of opportunity where containment and eradication can be achieved, and long-term negative impacts avoided. We developed a weed risk mapping tool that allows land managers to identify priority areas for monitoring and management relatively quickly and with limited data. The tool considers both habitat suitability (where weeds are likely to grow well and reproduce) and susceptibility (where weed propagules are likely to arrive from known source plants). ‘Risk factors’ that reflect the environmental conditions a weed needs to grow, reproduce and spread (like rainfall, land use, soil type or road networks) are identified and linked to spatial data. A collection of open-source web apps called ‘riskmapr’ allow land managers and researchers to plug in their own spatial data and generate weed risk maps. These maps may be used to direct on-ground resources, along with other operational considerations. Risk models can also help structure our understanding of the factors and processes driving weed invasions. Here, we showcase an application of riskmapr to support surveillance planning for Miconia calvescens in the National Tropical Weeds Eradication Program. Previously, surveillance effort was evenly allocated to forested areas within concentric buffer zones surrounding known mature infestations. Using riskmapr and spatial analysis to gain a more nuanced understanding of invasion risk allowed the operations team to focus on-ground effort. At one site, high risk areas subject to frequent surveillance were reduced by 24% (from 613ha within buffer zones to 467ha using riskmapr outputs); medium risk areas were reduced by 27% from 833ha to 612ha; but less frequently surveyed low risk areas increased from 236

New alien plant species are constantly introduced across borders or landscapes, and some are likely to become problematic invasive weeds from experiences elsewhere. Initially, weed population growth and spread is typically slow. This ‘invasion lag’ often presents the only window of opportunity where containment and eradication can be achieved, and long-term negative impacts avoided. We developed a weed risk mapping tool that allows land managers to identify priority areas for monitoring and management relatively quickly and with limited data. The tool considers both habitat suitability (where weeds are likely to grow well and reproduce) and susceptibility (where weed propagules are likely to arrive from known source plants). ‘Risk factors’ that reflect the environmental conditions a weed needs to grow, reproduce and spread (like rainfall, land use, soil type or road networks) are identified and linked to spatial data. A collection of open-source web apps called ‘riskmapr’ allow land managers and researchers to plug in their own spatial data and generate weed risk maps. These maps may be used to direct on-ground resources, along with other operational considerations. Risk models can also help structure our understanding of the factors and processes driving weed invasions. Here, we showcase an application of riskmapr to support surveillance planning for Miconia calvescens in the National Tropical Weeds Eradication Program. Previously, surveillance effort was evenly allocated to forested areas within concentric buffer zones surrounding known mature infestations. Using riskmapr and spatial analysis to gain a more nuanced understanding of invasion risk allowed the operations team to focus on-ground effort. At one site, high risk areas subject to frequent surveillance were reduced by 24% (from 613ha within buffer zones to 467ha using riskmapr outputs); medium risk areas were reduced by 27% from 833ha to 612ha; but less frequently surveyed low risk areas increased from 236

New alien plant species are constantly introduced across borders or landscapes, and some are likely to become problematic invasive weeds from experiences elsewhere. Initially, weed population growth and spread is typically slow. This ‘invasion lag’ often presents the only window of opportunity where containment and eradication can be achieved, and long-term negative impacts avoided. We developed a weed risk mapping tool that allows land managers to identify priority areas for monitoring and management relatively quickly and with limited data. The tool considers both habitat suitability (where weeds are likely to grow well and reproduce) and susceptibility (where weed propagules are likely to arrive from known source plants). ‘Risk factors’ that reflect the environmental conditions a weed needs to grow, reproduce and spread (like rainfall, land use, soil type or road networks) are identified and linked to spatial data. A collection of open-source web apps called ‘riskmapr’ allow land managers and researchers to plug in their own spatial data and generate weed risk maps. These maps may be used to direct on-ground resources, along with other operational considerations. Risk models can also help structure our understanding of the factors and processes driving weed invasions. Here, we showcase an application of riskmapr to support surveillance planning for Miconia calvescens in the National Tropical Weeds Eradication Program. Previously, surveillance effort was evenly allocated to forested areas within concentric buffer zones surrounding known mature infestations. Using riskmapr and spatial analysis to gain a more nuanced understanding of invasion risk allowed the operations team to focus on-ground effort. At one site, high risk areas subject to frequent surveillance were reduced by 24% (from 613ha within buffer zones to 467ha using riskmapr outputs); medium risk areas were reduced by 27% from 833ha to 612ha; but less frequently surveyed low risk areas increased from 236

New alien plant species are constantly introduced across borders or landscapes, and some are likely to become problematic invasive weeds from experiences elsewhere. Initially, weed population growth and spread is typically slow. This ‘invasion lag’ often presents the only window of opportunity where containment and eradication can be achieved, and long-term negative impacts avoided. We developed a weed risk mapping tool that allows land managers to identify priority areas for monitoring and management relatively quickly and with limited data. The tool considers both habitat suitability (where weeds are likely to grow well and reproduce) and susceptibility (where weed propagules are likely to arrive from known source plants). ‘Risk factors’ that reflect the environmental conditions a weed needs to grow, reproduce and spread (like rainfall, land use, soil type or road networks) are identified and linked to spatial data. A collection of open-source web apps called ‘riskmapr’ allow land managers and researchers to plug in their own spatial data and generate weed risk maps. These maps may be used to direct on-ground resources, along with other operational considerations. Risk models can also help structure our understanding of the factors and processes driving weed invasions. Here, we showcase an application of riskmapr to support surveillance planning for Miconia calvescens in the National Tropical Weeds Eradication Program. Previously, surveillance effort was evenly allocated to forested areas within concentric buffer zones surrounding known mature infestations. Using riskmapr and spatial analysis to gain a more nuanced understanding of invasion risk allowed the operations team to focus on-ground effort. At one site, high risk areas subject to frequent surveillance were reduced by 24% (from 613ha within buffer zones to 467ha using riskmapr outputs); medium risk areas were reduced by 27% from 833ha to 612ha; but less frequently surveyed low risk areas increased from 236

New alien plant species are constantly introduced across borders or landscapes, and some are likely to become problematic invasive weeds from experiences elsewhere. Initially, weed population growth and spread is typically slow. This ‘invasion lag’ often presents the only window of opportunity where containment and eradication can be achieved, and long-term negative impacts avoided. We developed a weed risk mapping tool that allows land managers to identify priority areas for monitoring and management relatively quickly and with limited data. The tool considers both habitat suitability (where weeds are likely to grow well and reproduce) and susceptibility (where weed propagules are likely to arrive from known source plants). ‘Risk factors’ that reflect the environmental conditions a weed needs to grow, reproduce and spread (like rainfall, land use, soil type or road networks) are identified and linked to spatial data. A collection of open-source web apps called ‘riskmapr’ allow land managers and researchers to plug in their own spatial data and generate weed risk maps. These maps may be used to direct on-ground resources, along with other operational considerations. Risk models can also help structure our understanding of the factors and processes driving weed invasions. Here, we showcase an application of riskmapr to support surveillance planning for Miconia calvescens in the National Tropical Weeds Eradication Program. Previously, surveillance effort was evenly allocated to forested areas within concentric buffer zones surrounding known mature infestations. Using riskmapr and spatial analysis to gain a more nuanced understanding of invasion risk allowed the operations team to focus on-ground effort. At one site, high risk areas subject to frequent surveillance were reduced by 24% (from 613ha within buffer zones to 467ha using riskmapr outputs); medium risk areas were reduced by 27% from 833ha to 612ha; but less frequently surveyed low risk areas increased from 236

Invasive alien plant species threaten agriculture and biodiversity globally and require ongoing management to minimise impacts. However, the large number of invasive species means that a risk-based approach to prioritisation is needed, taking into account the spatial scale of management decisions and myriad of available information. Here, we developed a risk-based inventory of invasive plants in Queensland, Australia, using both current species distribution/abundance and the severity of their impacts. Our assessment followed a comprehensive data collection process including a scoping of local government pest management plans, herbarium records, the published literature and structured elicitation of expert knowledge during a series of regional stakeholder workshops. From ~300 plant species that were identified as established and/or emerging invaders in the State, only one-third were considered by practitioners to pose significant risks across regions to be considered management priorities. We aggregated regional species lists into a statewide priority list and analysed the data set (107 species) for historical, geographical, floristic and ecological patterns. Regions on the mainland eastern seaboard of the State share similar invasive plant communities, suggesting that these regions may form a single management unit, unlike the western/inland and the extreme far north (Torres Strait Islands) regions, which share fewer invasive plant species. Positive correlations were detected between invasiveness and time since introduction for some but not all plant life forms. Stakeholders identified research and management priorities for the invasive plant list, including biological control options, public awareness/education, effective herbicide use, ecology/taxonomy and risk analysis. In the course of the exercise, a statewide invasive plant priority list of high-, medium- and low-impact scores for policy, research and management was compiled. Finally, our approach to invasive

Invasive alien plant species threaten agriculture and biodiversity globally and require ongoing management to minimise impacts. However, the large number of invasive species means that a risk-based approach to prioritisation is needed, taking into account the spatial scale of management decisions and myriad of available information. Here, we developed a risk-based inventory of invasive plants in Queensland, Australia, using both current species distribution/abundance and the severity of their impacts. Our assessment followed a comprehensive data collection process including a scoping of local government pest management plans, herbarium records, the published literature and structured elicitation of expert knowledge during a series of regional stakeholder workshops. From ~300 plant species that were identified as established and/or emerging invaders in the State, only one-third were considered by practitioners to pose significant risks across regions to be considered management priorities. We aggregated regional species lists into a statewide priority list and analysed the data set (107 species) for historical, geographical, floristic and ecological patterns. Regions on the mainland eastern seaboard of the State share similar invasive plant communities, suggesting that these regions may form a single management unit, unlike the western/inland and the extreme far north (Torres Strait Islands) regions, which share fewer invasive plant species. Positive correlations were detected between invasiveness and time since introduction for some but not all plant life forms. Stakeholders identified research and management priorities for the invasive plant list, including biological control options, public awareness/education, effective herbicide use, ecology/taxonomy and risk analysis. In the course of the exercise, a statewide invasive plant priority list of high-, medium- and low-impact scores for policy, research and management was compiled. Finally, our approach to invasive

Invasive alien plant species threaten agriculture and biodiversity globally and require ongoing management to minimise impacts. However, the large number of invasive species means that a risk-based approach to prioritisation is needed, taking into account the spatial scale of management decisions and myriad of available information. Here, we developed a risk-based inventory of invasive plants in Queensland, Australia, using both current species distribution/abundance and the severity of their impacts. Our assessment followed a comprehensive data collection process including a scoping of local government pest management plans, herbarium records, the published literature and structured elicitation of expert knowledge during a series of regional stakeholder workshops. From ~300 plant species that were identified as established and/or emerging invaders in the State, only one-third were considered by practitioners to pose significant risks across regions to be considered management priorities. We aggregated regional species lists into a statewide priority list and analysed the data set (107 species) for historical, geographical, floristic and ecological patterns. Regions on the mainland eastern seaboard of the State share similar invasive plant communities, suggesting that these regions may form a single management unit, unlike the western/inland and the extreme far north (Torres Strait Islands) regions, which share fewer invasive plant species. Positive correlations were detected between invasiveness and time since introduction for some but not all plant life forms. Stakeholders identified research and management priorities for the invasive plant list, including biological control options, public awareness/education, effective herbicide use, ecology/taxonomy and risk analysis. In the course of the exercise, a statewide invasive plant priority list of high-, medium- and low-impact scores for policy, research and management was compiled. Finally, our approach to invasive

Invasive alien plant species threaten agriculture and biodiversity globally and require ongoing management to minimise impacts. However, the large number of invasive species means that a risk-based approach to prioritisation is needed, taking into account the spatial scale of management decisions and myriad of available information. Here, we developed a risk-based inventory of invasive plants in Queensland, Australia, using both current species distribution/abundance and the severity of their impacts. Our assessment followed a comprehensive data collection process including a scoping of local government pest management plans, herbarium records, the published literature and structured elicitation of expert knowledge during a series of regional stakeholder workshops. From ~300 plant species that were identified as established and/or emerging invaders in the State, only one-third were considered by practitioners to pose significant risks across regions to be considered management priorities. We aggregated regional species lists into a statewide priority list and analysed the data set (107 species) for historical, geographical, floristic and ecological patterns. Regions on the mainland eastern seaboard of the State share similar invasive plant communities, suggesting that these regions may form a single management unit, unlike the western/inland and the extreme far north (Torres Strait Islands) regions, which share fewer invasive plant species. Positive correlations were detected between invasiveness and time since introduction for some but not all plant life forms. Stakeholders identified research and management priorities for the invasive plant list, including biological control options, public awareness/education, effective herbicide use, ecology/taxonomy and risk analysis. In the course of the exercise, a statewide invasive plant priority list of high-, medium- and low-impact scores for policy, research and management was compiled. Finally, our approach to invasive

Invasive alien plant species threaten agriculture and biodiversity globally and require ongoing management to minimise impacts. However, the large number of invasive species means that a risk-based approach to prioritisation is needed, taking into account the spatial scale of management decisions and myriad of available information. Here, we developed a risk-based inventory of invasive plants in Queensland, Australia, using both current species distribution/abundance and the severity of their impacts. Our assessment followed a comprehensive data collection process including a scoping of local government pest management plans, herbarium records, the published literature and structured elicitation of expert knowledge during a series of regional stakeholder workshops. From ~300 plant species that were identified as established and/or emerging invaders in the State, only one-third were considered by practitioners to pose significant risks across regions to be considered management priorities. We aggregated regional species lists into a statewide priority list and analysed the data set (107 species) for historical, geographical, floristic and ecological patterns. Regions on the mainland eastern seaboard of the State share similar invasive plant communities, suggesting that these regions may form a single management unit, unlike the western/inland and the extreme far north (Torres Strait Islands) regions, which share fewer invasive plant species. Positive correlations were detected between invasiveness and time since introduction for some but not all plant life forms. Stakeholders identified research and management priorities for the invasive plant list, including biological control options, public awareness/education, effective herbicide use, ecology/taxonomy and risk analysis. In the course of the exercise, a statewide invasive plant priority list of high-, medium- and low-impact scores for policy, research and management was compiled. Finally, our approach to invasive

Managing and monitoring invasive alien species (IAS) is costly, and because resources are limited, prioritization decisions are required for planning and management. We present findings on plant pest prioritization for 63 established invader species of natural and grazing ecosystems of Queensland, Australia. We used an expert elicitation approach to assess risk (species occurrence, spread, and impact) and feasibility of control for each IAS. We elicit semi-quantitative responses from diverse expert stakeholders to score IAS on three management approaches (biocontrol, chemical and mechanical) in relation to cost, effectiveness and practicality, and incorporate uncertainty in expert inputs and model outputs. In the process, we look for promising management opportunities as well as seek general trends across species' ecological groups and management methods. Stakeholders were cautiously optimistic about the feasibility of managing IAS. Taking into consideration all factors, the overall feasibility of control was uncorrelated with the stakeholders’ level of confidence. However, within individual management criterion, positive trend was observed for the same bivariate traits for chemical control, and negative trends for biocontrol and mechanical controls. Utility and confidence in IAS management options were in the order: chemical > biocontrol = mechanical, with practicality and effectiveness being the main driver components. Management feasibility differed significantly between IAS life forms but not between habitats invaded. Lastly, we combined IAS risk assessment and management feasibility scores to create a risk matrix to guide policy goals (i.e. eradication, spread containment, protection of sensitive sites, targeted control, site management, monitoring, and limited action). The matrix identifies promising species to target for each of these policy outcomes. Overall, our general approach illustrates (i) the importance of understanding the feasibility of IAS control