The impacts of non-native species on UK biodiversity and the effectiveness of control.

By S. Manchester, J. Bullock. 2000

533 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Insect Science, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d32fde24fdc33442fd7fb71334e21cd797a888e2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Insect Science

1. Petr Pyšek
2. D. Richardson
3. Jan Pergl
4. V. Jarošı́k
5. P. Hulme
6. M. Hejda
7. S. Bacher
8. T. W. Culliney

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. Petr Pyšek
2. P. Hulme
3. L. Firbank
4. R. Fox
5. P. Stapp
6. T. W. Culliney
7. M. Hejda
8. D. Richardson

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Petr Pyšek
2. D. Richardson
3. P. Hulme
4. Jan Pergl
5. V. Jarošı́k
6. M. Hejda
7. S. Bacher
8. M. Fox

Citations in the corpus

• Assessing the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats: partitioning diversity components following species removal (2005, background): “Considerable concern exists regarding the potential for invasive plant species to threaten the species composition and community structure of native habitats (Cronk & Fuller 1995; Manchester & Bullock 2000; Weber 2003).”
• Managing invasive crayfish: is there a hope? (2011, background): “Although the fraction of the introduced species that become invasive is relatively small, the significant risks that these few organisms pose require the adoption of precautionary approaches that might, first, prevent the deliberate or accidental introduction of potential invaders and, second, desig”
• The biogeography of naturalization in alien plants (2006, background): “However, alien species differ considerably in their impacts on native biodiversity (Manchester & Bullock, 2000), ecosystem processes (Vitousek & Walker, 1989; Brooks et al., 2004) and also human well-being.”
• What is the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on species diversity of invaded riparian vegetation (2006, background): “Nevertheless, studying the community level impacts in situ is desirable as it can provide, by identifying the potential effects of an invading alien, valuable information for landscape management and nature conservation (Gordon, 1998; Manchester and Bullock, 2000).”
• Using ecological restoration to constrain biological invasion (2004, background): “1999; Manchester & Bullock 2000; Wilson 2002; Price & Weltzin 2003).”
• Impacts of Garlic Mustard Invasion on a Forest Understory Community (2007, background): “Other studies have focused on species richness (S) as an indicator of community-level response to invasion (Alvarez and Cushman 2002, Manchester and Bullock 2000, Meiners et al. 2002), and in some cases both, S and H' are negatively correlated with invader presence (Fairfax and Fensham 2000).”
• The decline of moths in Great Britain: a review of possible causes (2013, background): “Globally, non-native species are regarded as a principle driver of biodiversity decline and an ongoing threat to species and habitats (Mack et al., 2000;Manchester & Bullock, 2000; Gurevitch & Padilla, 2004; McGeoch et al., 2010).”
• Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities (2009, background): “Biological invasions affect biodiversity worldwide at various scales (Tilman 1999; Mack et al . 2000; Manchester & Bullock 2000; Davis 2003).”
• Growth and Reproduction of the Invasive Ligustrum sinense and Native Forestiera ligustrina (Oleaceae): Implications for the Invasion and Persistence of a Nonnative Shrub (2002, background): “…impact biodiversity through competition, by reducing resources available to native species, and through ecosystem effects, by altering fundamental properties such as geomorphological processes, nutrient cycles, and fire regimes (Gordon 1998; Dukes and Mooney 1999; Manchester and Bullock 2000).”
• When are eradication campaigns successful? A test of common assumptions (2012, background): “The outcomes of campaigns against related species can not be considered as independent, because they are likely to share similar characteristics (Manchester and Bullock 2000).”
• Benefits of Classical Biological Control for Managing Invasive Plants (2005, background): “The effectiveness of such legislation, however, has been questioned (Jenkins, 1996; Reichard, 1997; Schmitz and Simberloff, 1997; Manchester and Bullock, 2000; Reichard and White, 2001).”
• Sequence locally, think globally: The Darwin Tree of Life Project (2022, background): “Britain and Ireland are also subject to invasion, a process that is likely to be speeding up, and which has unpredictable effects on native taxa (8, 9).”
• Top 20 environmental weeds for classical biological control in Europe: a review of opportunities, regulations and other barriers to adoption. (2006, background): “…suggests that the main costs of invasive alien plants in Europe are largely economic, through such plants being a nuisance to human activities, health and aesthetic values, rather than through suppression of native plant biodiversity or damage to native ecosystems (e.g. Manchester & Bullock, 2000).”
• Novel strategies for assessing and managing the risks posed by invasive alien species to global crop production and biodiversity (2005, background): “Manchester & Bullock (2000) quote an estimate of 55 000 plant species or varieties planted in the UK, while the National Research Council (2002) states that 44 000 plant taxa are available for sale in the USA and Hayden & Whyte (2003) give a total of 19 100 for New Zealand.”
• The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK (2006, background): “In the UK a wide variety of introduced plants and animals has caused serious environmental problems (Manchester & Bullock 2000) and there are increasing concerns over the spread of alien pathogens and novel diseases (Aldhous & Tomlin 2005) together with genes from GM organisms (Gray 2004).”