Fil: Murray, Justine V.. Water for Healthy Country Flagship; AustraliaFil: Lehnhoff, Erik A.. Montana State University; Estados UnidosFil: Neve, Paul. University of Warwick; Reino UnidoFil: Poggio, Santiago Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía; ArgentinaFil: Webber, Bruce L.. CSIRO Ecosystems Sciences; Australia. The University of Western Australia; Australi

Bauer

Bruce L. Webber

Davis

Diez

Erik A. Lehnhoff

Justine V. Murray

Koella

Kriticos

Lindgren

MacDougall

Mortensen

Neve

Paul Neve

Pimentel

Pysek

Santiago L. Poggio

Stanley

Vanderhoeven

Walck

Webber

English

Crossref

New Phytologist

‘Raising the bar’: improving the standard and utility of weed and invasive plant research

Murray, Justine V.

Lehnhoff, Erik A.

Neve, Paul

Poggio, Santiago Luis

Webber, Bruce L.

CONICET Digital

Meetings‘Raising the bar’: improving thestandard and utility of weedand invasive plant researchA workshop held at B-Bar Ranch, Emigrant, Montana,USA, June 2012Weedy and invasive plants currently cause globally significantenvironmental and economic impacts in agricultural and naturalecosystems (e.g. Pimentel et al., 2005). The extent and impact ofinvasive plants will become increasingly variable with climatechange, while the evolution of herbicide resistance is increasinglythwarting current agricultural weed management approaches. Inshort, weedy and invasive plants need to be a major considerationin efforts to enhance global food security, maintain biodiversityand reduce environmental degradation. Recently, commentatorshave started to question if the substantial effort and investment in‘weed science’ and ‘invasion ecology’ is moving in the rightdirection (Davis et al., 2009; Vanderhoeven et al., 2010). Thismeeting was planned to ‘raise the bar’ in these important areas ofplant ecology by attempting to encourage active, critical debateabout current approaches and conceptual frameworks for research.In particular, there was a strong desire amongst participants tofacilitate a greater integration and cross-fertilization of ideasbetween weed science, invasion ecology, and other fields ofbiology. The meeting was organized around three major themes:plant invasions, herbicide resistance, and climate change impacts.‘. . .the usefulness of species distribution models invitedheated debate among participants.’The mountains of southern Montana provided an inspiringsetting to bring together an international cast of leading andemerging scientists in those disciplines to deliberate on the criticalchallenges and knowledge gaps within each theme. Below, wepresent some of themore broadly relevant topics of discussion fromthese themes and reflect on the future challenges for the fieldsinvolved.How do we advance invasion ecology?Invasive plants are a global concern, and the causes andconsequences of invasions continue to be intensely studied.Predicting invasions, understanding their drivers, and evaluatingimpacts were major issues spanning the expertise of researchersattending the workshop. Two key challenges with research on theseissues were identified as: the plausibility and efficacy of speciesdistribution models (SDMs); and identifying and measuring themultitude of ways invasive plants may cause impacts at differentscales.Invasion biology has been a prominent focus of recentpublications on the modelling of species’ potential distributions,and the usefulness of SDMs invited heated debate amongparticipants. As a tool for underpinning management decisions,policy change, and the allocation of financial resources, projectedmaps fromSDMswill continue to be an important tool for invasionbiologists (Lindgren, 2012). However, incorrectly applied model-ling methods with poor techniques remain common in theliterature. Moreover, many modelling techniques applied arecorrelative and, therefore, are not recommended for extrapolation.Participants discussed the need to overcome these shortcomings byusing appropriate modelling techniques, having a better appreci-ation of model limitations, and ensuring the publication of enoughinformation to allow for interrogation and method repeatability(Kriticos et al., 2012).Regarding invasive species impacts, the discussion focused onthe necessity of moving beyond simple impact measures such asreduced diversity. However, it was acknowledged that assessingimpacts was complicated by the difficulty of knowing invasivespecies’ roles in, and responses to, ecosystem change. That is, arethey drivers or passengers (MacDougall & Turkington, 2005), orperhaps even backseat drivers (Bauer, 2012)? Within this context,the approach of comparing invaded and noninvaded ecosystemswas discussed, as was the need for cross-disciplinary collaboration,such as with entomologists and soil ecologists, to address complexinteractions driving invasions (e.g. Stanley et al., 2012) andresulting in impacts.Resistance is futile?Current management of agricultural weeds is dominated byherbicide use despite calls for a more integrated approach (e.g.Mortensen et al., 2012). Inevitably, this has resulted in thewidespread and continuing evolution of herbicide resistance inweedy plants. A good deal of high-impact research has adoptedphysiological approaches to establish the molecular mechanismsthat underpin resistance evolution. However, there has beenrelatively little focus on the eco-evolutionary dynamics that driveselection for resistance and that will underpin managementinterventions (Neve et al., 2009). Workshop participants wereasked to identify critical challenges for herbicide resistance researchthat might enable the retardation or even prevention of herbicideresistance evolution. Broadly speaking, two (nonmutually678 New Phytologist (2012) 196: 678–680  2012 The Authorswww.newphytologist.com New Phytologist 2012 New Phytologist TrustForumexclusive) schools of thought emerged: greatest advances will arisefrom a better understanding of the eco-evolutionary dynamics ofresistance evolution; research needs to focus on the design andimplementation of cropping systems that minimize selection forresistance. Interestingly, a view was expressed amongst someparticipants that resistance is an inevitable consequence ofherbicide use and that there should be no publically-fundedresearch into herbicide resistance.Participants voted for their top three research challenges. Therewas strong support for efforts to design ‘evolution-free’ manage-ment systems (e.g. Koella et al., 2009) underpinned by research tobetter understand the ecological and evolutionary drivers ofselection for herbicide resistance (population, meta-populationand seed bank dynamics, fitness costs and trade-offs, modes ofinheritance). Designing diverse cropping systems and integratedweed management strategies that identify synergies betweencontrol tactics and may even exploit potential trade-offs betweenherbicide resistance and other weed life history traits were seen ascrucial to these efforts. The development of modelling frameworksand risk assessment tools for herbicide resistance was a unifyingtheme and concluding discussions focused on establishingmethodsand collaborations to integrate genetic, evolutionary, ecological,agronomic and socio-economic perspectives and considerationsinto these models.What changes with rapid climate change?Global climate change is recognized as a significant driver of speciesbiogeography and ecosystem change.Humans have ramped up thisrate of change via greenhouse gas emissions, which are combiningwith other aspects of global change (e.g. land-use change,urbanization) to fundamentally change the dynamics of plantinvasions and weed infestations. How we frame these changingdynamics was one of the core issues identified that sets climatechange apart from other aspects of research on weeds and invasiveplants. As climate change increases the likelihood of range shifts inall species, determining appropriate baselines against which toassess change is essential, particularly when these baselines areshifting at an unprecedented rate. For example, having a clearunderstanding of how to differentiate between range-shiftingnatives and invasive non-natives will become more complicated,particularly with adaptation options that include managed reloca-tion of species well beyond their known range (Webber & Scott,2011). It was noted that the increasing prevalence of novelenvironments, such as those created by land-use change, furthercomplicates the matter.Additional challenges were identified for integrating climatechange drivers into existing invasion ecology and weed relatedresearch. A hierarchy of processes operating at different spatial andtemporal scales (e.g. dispersal) control the population dynamics ofweeds and invasive plants (Pysek & Hulme, 2005). Most researchprojecting the effects of climate change with weed and invasiveplant models are based on climate averages, when it is often climateextremes that limit the range ofmany species.With greater climaticextremes forecasted across the globe, modelling that includes theseextremes is becoming increasingly important to gain a broaderunderstanding of climatic impacts across trophic levels (e.g. Diezet al., 2012). There has also been little focus on the ecologicalprocesses behind the observed and projected patterns, or on thepotentially significant changes to demography, phenology, andcommunity assembly (Walck et al., 2011). It was emphasized thatthese new insights must be used to update policy to provide astream-lined system of understanding and adoption for efficientadaptation to and mitigation for climate change.Conclusions and future challengesThe focus on three research themes engendered active debateamongst participants from weed science and invasion ecologybackgrounds. Inevitably, perspectives and challenges were some-what different between these sub-disciplines, but the overall sensewas of considerable overlap in research questions, approaches,underlying principles andmanagement options. However, to whatextent are these overlaps being recognized? There was an overallagreement between weed and invasion ecologists of the need forbetter framing of our research. This will primarily be achieved bybetter formulation of hypotheses to recognize the wider ecologicaland evolutionary context inwhichwe do our research.We ‘raise thebar’ by more clearly framing our research in the context of eco-evolutionary principles, not being too inward-looking and paro-chial (particularly in weed science) and seeking to collaborate morewidely with those working in related disciplines. We need tobecome better at communicating the fundamental and appliedimportance of our study system through recognizing the power ofthese economically important species to inform about the conse-quences of human-induced environmental change. In doing so,weed and invasion ecologywill contribute to fundamental advancesin plant ecology and evolution. There is an emerging literature ineco-evolutionary dynamics – weeds and invasive species can be atthe heart of this. Improved management follows from improvedscience. Tackling the knowledge gaps and challenges identified inthis workshop within an integrated and holistic approach willundoubtedly improve future research into the ecology andevolution of weedy and invasive plants.AcknowledgementsFunding support for the workshop was provided by the RuralIndustries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC),Australia (to Roger Cousens, University of Melbourne, Australia)and the Sustainable Agroecosystem Science LTAP (ProgrammeDirector: Dr Michael Bowers), Proposal 2009-03114, UnitedStates Department of Agriculture (USDA; to Bruce Maxwell,Montana State University, USA). The workshop was organized byRoger Cousens, Marie Jasieniuk (University of California, Davis,USA), Bruce Maxwell, and Paul Neve (University of Warwick,UK) and involved the following very active participants:Muthukumar Bagavathiannan, Jacob Barney, Hugh Beckie,Roberto Busi, Adam Davis, Joe DiTomaso, Jeff Dukes, FrankForcella, Rob Freckleton, Eric Gallandt, Claudio Ghersa, LindaHall, Amy Lawton-Rauh, Matt Liebman, Erik Lehnhoff, MohsenMesgaran, Justine Murray, Martin Nuñez, Anibal Pauchard, 2012 The Authors New Phytologist (2012) 196: 678–680New Phytologist 2012 New Phytologist Trust www.newphytologist.comNewPhytologist Meetings Forum 679Santiago Poggio, Simon Queenborough, Lisa Rew, Sarah Ward,and Bruce Webber. We especially thank Michael Williams forplaying the role of workshop facilitator, and to B-Bar Ranch(Emigrant, Montana, USA) for the kind hospitality.Justine V. Murray1*, Erik A. Lehnhoff2, Paul Neve3,Santiago L. Poggio4 and Bruce L. Webber5,61Water for Healthy Country Flagship, CSIRO EcosystemsSciences, GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, Qld, 4001, Australia;2Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences,Montana State University, 334 Leon Johnson Hall, Bozeman,MT 59717-3120, USA;3School of Life Sciences, University ofWarwick, GibbetHill Road,Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK;4IFEVA/CONICET-Departamento de Producción Vegetal,Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. SanMartín 4453, (C1417DSE) Buenos Aires, Argentina;5CSIRO Ecosystems Sciences, Private Bag 5, PO Wembley,WA 6913, Australia;6School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia(*Author for correspondence: tel +61 7 3833 5679;email justine.murray@csiro.au)ReferencesBauer JT. 2012. Invasive species: “back-seat drivers” of ecosystem change?BiologicalInvasions 14: 1295–1304.Davis AS, Hall JC, JasieniukM, LockeMA, Luschei EC,MortensenDA, RiechersDE, Smith RG, Sterling TM, Westwood JH. 2009.Weed science research andfunding: a call to action.Weed Science 57: 442–448.Diez JM, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grosholz ED, Olden JD, Sorte CJB, BradleyBA, Early R, Ibanez I, Jones SJ et al. 2012.Will extreme climatic events facilitatebiological invasions? Frontier Ecology Environment 10: 249–257.Koella JC, Lynch PA, Thomas MB, Read AF. 2009. Towards evolution-proofmalaria control with insecticides. Evolutionary Applications 2: 469–480.Kriticos DJ, Le Maitre DC, Webber BL. 2012. Essential elements of discourse foradvancing themodelling of species’ current and potential distributions. Journal ofBiogeography. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02791.xLindgren CJ. 2012. Biosecurity policy and the use of geospatial predictive tools toaddress invasive plants: updating the risk analysis toolbox. Risk Analysis 32: 9–15.MacDougall AS, TurkingtonR. 2005.Are invasive species the drivers or passengersof change in degraded ecosystems? Frontier Ecology Environment 86: 42–55.Mortensen DA, Egan JF, Maxwell BD, Ryan MR, Smith RG. 2012.Navigating acritical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62: 75–84.Neve P, Vila-Aiub M, Roux F. 2009. Evolutionary-thinking in agricultural weedmanagement. New Phytologist 184: 783–793.Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. 2005. Update on the environmental andeconomic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States.Ecological Economics 52: 273–288.Pysek P, Hulme PE. 2005. Spatio-temporal dynamics of plant invasions: linkingpattern to process. Ecoscience 12: 302–315.StanleyMC,NathanHW, Phillips LK, Knight SJ, Galbraith JA,Winks CJ,WardDF. 2012. Invasive interactions: can Argentine ants indirectly increase thereproductive output of a weed? Arthropod–Plant Interactions. doi: 10.1007/s11829-012-9215-2Vanderhoeven S, Brown CS, Tepolt CK, Tsutsui ND, Vanparys V, Atkinson S,Mahy G, Monty A. 2010. Linking concepts in the ecology and the evolution ofinvasive plants: network analysis shows what has been most studied and identifiesknowledge gaps. Evolutionary Applications 3: 193–202.Walck JL, Hidayati SN, Dixon KW, Thompson K, Poschlod P. 2011. Climatechange and plant regeneration from seed.Global Change Biology 17: 2145–2161.Webber BL, Scott JK. 2011.Rapid global change: implications for defining nativesand aliens. Global Ecology and Biogeography 21: 305–311.Key words: climate change, evolution, herbicide resistance, invasion ecology,invasive plants, non-native, weeds.New Phytologist is an electronic (online-only) journal owned by the New Phytologist Trust, a not-for-profit organization dedicatedto the promotion of plant science, facilitating projects from symposia to free access for our Tansley reviews. Regular papers, Letters, Research reviews, Rapid reports and both Modelling/Theory and Methods papers are encouraged. We are committed to rapid processing, from online submission through to publication ‘as ready’ via Early View – our average timeto decision is <25 days. There are no page or colour charges and a PDF version will be provided for each article. The journal is available online at Wiley Online Library. Visit www.newphytologist.com to search the articles and register for tableof contents email alerts.If you have any questions, do get in touch with Central Office (np-centraloffice@lancaster.ac.uk) or, if it is more convenient,our USA Office (np-usaoffice@ornl.gov)For submission instructions, subscription and all the latest information visit www.newphytologist.comNew Phytologist (2012) 196: 678–680  2012 The Authorswww.newphytologist.com New Phytologist 2012 New Phytologist TrustMeetingsForumNewPhytologist680

'Raising the bar': Improving the standard and utility of weed and invasive plant research

LAReferencia - Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas Latinoamericanas

Poggio, Santiago L.

Warwick Research Archives Portal Repository

http://go.warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications          Original citation: Murray, Justine V., Lehnhoff, Erik A., Neve, Paul, Poggio, Santiago L. and Webber, Bruce L.. (2012) ‘Raising the bar’: improving the standard and utility of weed and invasive plant research. New Phytologist, Vol. 196 (No. 3). pp. 678-680. ISSN 0028-646X Permanent WRAP url: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/52043   Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes the work of researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions.  Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners.  To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available.  Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.  Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way.  Publisher’s statement:  „The definitive version is available at www.newphytologist.com‟.  A note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version.  Please see the ‘permanent WRAP url’ above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.  For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: wrap@warwick.ac.uk  1  Meetings ‘Raising the bar’: improving the standard and utility of weed and invasive plant research A workshop held at B-Bar Ranch, Emigrant, Montana, USA, June 2012  Weedy and invasive plants currently cause globally significant environmental and economic impacts in agricultural and natural ecosystems (e.g. Pimentel et al., 2005). The extent and impact of invasive plants will become increasingly variable with climate change, while the evolution of herbicide resistance is increasingly thwarting current agricultural weed management approaches. In short, weedy and invasive plants need to be a major consideration in efforts to enhance global food security, maintain biodiversity and reduce environmental degradation. Recently, commentators have started to question if the substantial effort and investment in ‘weed science’ and ‘invasion ecology’ is moving in the right direction (Davis et al., 2009; Vanderhoeven et al., 2010). This meeting was planned to ‘raise the bar’ in these important areas of plant ecology by attempting to encourage active, critical debate about current approaches and conceptual frameworks for research. In particular, there was a strong desire amongst participants to facilitate a greater integration and cross-fertilization of ideas between weed science, invasion ecology, and other fields of biology. The meeting was organised around three major themes: plant invasions, herbicide resistance, and climate change impacts. The mountains of southern Montana provided an inspiring setting to bring together an international cast of leading and emerging scientists in those disciplines to deliberate on the critical challenges and knowledge gaps within each theme. Below, we present some of the more broadly relevant topics of discussion from these themes and reflect on the future challenges for the fields involved. ‘… the usefulness of species distribution models invited heated debate among participants.’ How do we advance invasion ecology? 2  Invasive plants are a global concern, and the causes and consequences of invasions continue to be intensely studied. Predicting invasions, understanding their drivers, and evaluating impacts were major issues spanning the expertise of researchers attending the workshop. Two key challenges with research on these issues were identified as: i) the plausibility and efficacy of species distribution models (SDMs), and ii) identifying and measuring the multitude of ways invasive plants may cause impacts at different scales. Invasion biology has been a prominent focus of recent publications on the modelling of species’ potential distributions, and the usefulness of SDMs invited heated debate among participants. As a tool for underpinning management decisions, policy change, and the allocation of financial resources, projected maps from SDMs will continue to be an important tool for invasion biologists (Lindgren, 2012). However, incorrectly applied modelling methods with poor techniques remain common in the literature. Moreover, many modelling techniques applied are correlative and, therefore, are not recommended for extrapolation. Participants discussed the need to overcome these shortcomings by using appropriate modelling techniques, having a better appreciation of model limitations, and ensuring the publication of enough information to allow for interrogation and method repeatability (Kriticos et al., 2012). Regarding invasive species impacts, the discussion focused on the necessity of moving beyond simple impact measures such as reduced diversity. However, it was acknowledged that assessing impacts was complicated by the difficulty of knowing invasive species’ roles in, and responses to, ecosystem change. That is, are they drivers or passengers (MacDougall & Turkington, 2005), or perhaps even backseat drivers (Bauer, 2012)? Within this context, the approach of comparing invaded and non-invaded ecosystems was discussed, as was the need for cross-discipinary collaboration, such as with entomologists and soil ecologists, to address complex interactions driving invasions (e.g. Stanley et al., 2012) and resulting in impacts. Resistance is futile? 3  Current management of agricultural weeds is dominated by herbicide use despite calls for a more integrated approach (e.g. Mortensen et al., 2011). Inevitably, this has resulted in the widespread and continuing evolution of herbicide resistance in weedy plants. A good deal of high-impact research has adopted physiological approaches to establish the molecular mechanisms that underpin resistance evolution. However, there has been relatively little focus on the eco-evolutionary dynamics that drive selection for resistance and that will underpin management interventions (Neve et al., 2009). Workshop participants were asked to identify critical challenges for herbicide resistance research that might enable the retardation or even prevention of herbicide resistance evolution. Broadly speaking, two (non-mutually exclusive) schools of thought emerged: greatest advances will arise from a better understanding of the eco-evolutionary dynamics of resistance evolution; research needs to focus on the design and implementation of cropping systems that minimise selection for resistance. Interestingly, a view was expressed amongst some participants that resistance is an inevitable consequence of herbicide use and that there should be no publically-funded research into herbicide resistance.  Participants voted for their top three research challenges. There was strong support for efforts to design ‘evolution-free’ management systems (e.g. Koella et al., 2009) underpinned by research to better understand the ecological and evolutionary drivers of selection for herbicide resistance (population, meta-population and seed bank dynamics, fitness costs and trade-offs, modes of inheritance). Designing diverse cropping systems and integrated weed management strategies that identify synergies between control tactics and may even exploit potential trade-offs between herbicide resistance and other weed life history traits were seen as crucial to these efforts. The development of modelling frameworks and risk assessment tools for herbicide resistance was a unifying theme and concluding discussions focused on establishing methods and collaborations to integrate genetic, evolutionary, ecological, agronomic and socio-economic perspectives and considerations into these models. 4   What changes with rapid climate change? Global climate change is recognised as a significant driver of species biogeography and ecosystem change. Humans have ramped up this rate of change via greenhouse gas emissions, which are combining with other aspects of global change (e.g. land use change, urbanisation) to fundamentally change the dynamics of plant invasions and weed infestations. How we frame these changing dynamics was one of the core issues identified that sets climate change apart from other aspects of research on weeds and invasive plants. As climate change increases the likelihood of range shifts in all species, determining appropriate baselines against which to assess change is essential, particularly when these baselines are shifting at an unprecedented rate. For example, having a clear understanding of how to differentiate between range-shifting natives and invasive non-natives will become more complicated, particularly with adaptation options that include managed relocation of species well beyond their known range (Webber & Scott, 2011). It was noted that the increasing prevalence of novel environments, such as those created by land use change, further complicates the matter. Additional challenges were identified for integrating climate change drivers into existing invasion ecology and weed related research. A hierarchy of processes operating at different spatial and temporal scales (e.g. dispersal) control the population dynamics of weeds and invasive plants (Pysek & Hulme, 2005). Most research projecting the effects of climate change with weed and invasive plant models are based on climate averages, when it is often climate extremes that limit the range of many species. With greater climatic extremes forecasted across the globe, modelling that includes these extremes is becoming increasingly important to gain a broader understanding of climatic impacts across trophic levels (e.g. Diez et al., 2012). There has also been little focus on the ecological processes behind the observed and projected patterns, or on the potentially significant changes to demography, phenology, and community assembly (Walck et al., 2011). It was 5  emphasised that these new insights must be used to update policy to provide a stream-lined system of understanding and adoption for efficient adaptation to and mitigation for climate change. Conclusions and future challenges The focus on three research themes engendered active debate amongst participants from weed science and invasion ecology backgrounds. Inevitably, perspectives and challenges were somewhat different between these sub-disciplines, but the overall sense was of considerable overlap in research questions, approaches, underlying principles and management options. However, to what extent are these overlaps being recognised? There was an overall agreement between weed and invasion ecologists of the need for better framing of our research. This will primarily be achieved by better formulation of hypotheses to recognise the wider ecological and evolutionary context in which we do our research. We ‘raise the bar’ by more clearly framing our research in the context of eco-evolutionary principles, not being too inward-looking and parochial (particularly in weed science) and seeking to collaborate more widely with those working in related disciplines. We need to become better at communicating the fundamental and applied importance of our study system through recognising the power of these economically important species to inform about the consequences of human-induced environmental change. In doing so, weed and invasion ecology will contribute to fundamental advances in plant ecology and evolution. There is an emerging literature in eco-evolutionary dynamics – weeds and invasive species can be at the heart of this. Improved management follows from improved science. Tackling the knowledge gaps and challenges identified in this workshop within an integrated and holistic approach will undoubtedly improve future research into the ecology and evolution of weedy and invasive plants.  Justine V. Murray1*, Erik A. Lehnhoff2, Paul Neve3, Santiago L. Poggio4, Bruce L. Webber5,6 1 Water for Healthy Country Flagship, CSIRO Ecosystems Sciences, GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, Queensland, 4001, Australia 6  2 Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, 334 Leon Johnson Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA 3 School of Life Sciences, Gibbet Hill Road, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK 4 CONICET/Ca´tedra de Produccio´n Vegetal, Departamento de Produccio´n Vegetal, Facultad de Agronomı´a, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martı´n 4453, C1417DSE Buenos Aires, Argentina 5 CSIRO Ecosystems Sciences, Private Bag 5, PO Wembley, WA 6913, Australia  6 School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia    * Corresponding author: E-mail: Justine.Murray@csiro.au   Acknowledgements Funding support for the workshop was provided by Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), Australia (to Roger Cousens, University of Melbourne, Australia) and the Sustainable Agroecosystem Science LTAP (Program Director: Dr. Michael Bowers), Proposal 2009-03114, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA; to Bruce Maxwell, Montana State University, USA). The workshop was organised by Roger Cousens, Marie Jasieniuk (University of California, Davis, USA), Bruce Maxwell, and Paul Neve (University of Warwick, UK) and involved the following very active participants: Muthukumar Bagavathiannan, Jacob Barney, Hugh Beckie, Roberto Busi, Adam Davis, Joe DiTomaso, Jeff Dukes, Frank Forcella, Rob Freckleton, Eric Gallandt, Claudio Ghersa, Linda Hall, Amy Lawton-Rauh, Matt Liebman, Erik Lehnhoff, Mohsen Mesgaran, Justine Murray, Martin Nuñez, Anibal Pauchard, Santiago Poggio, Simon Queenborough, Lisa Rew, Sarah Ward, and Bruce Webber. We especially thank Michael Williams for playing the role of workshop facilitator, and to B-Bar Ranch (Emigrant, Montana, USA) for the kind hospitality. References 7  Bauer JT. 2012. Invasive species: “back-seat drivers” of ecosystem change? Biological Invasions 14: 1295-1304. Davis AS, Hall JC, Jasieniuk M, Locke MA, Luschei EC, Mortensen DA, Riechers DE, Smith RG, Sterling TM, Westwood JH. 2009. Weed science research and funding: A call to action. Weed Science. 57: 442-448. Diez JM, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grosholz ED, Olden JD, Sorte CJB, Bradley BA, Early R, Ibanez I, Jones SJ et al. 2012. Will extreme climatic events facilitate biological invasions? Frontier Ecology Environment. 10: 249-257. Koella JC, Lynch PA, Thomas MB, Read AF. 2009. Towards evolution-proof malaria control with insecticides. Evolutionary Applications. 2: 469-480. Kriticos DJ, Le Maitre DC, Webber BL. 2012. Essential elements of discourse for advancing the modelling of species' current and potential distributions. Journal of Biogeography, (in press, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02791.x). Lindgren CJ. 2012. Biosecurity policy and the use of geospatial predictive tools to address invasive plants: updating the risk analysis toolbox. Risk Analysis, 32, 9-15. MacDougall AS, Turkinigton R. 2005. Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of changein degraded ecosystems? Frontier Ecology Environment. 86: 42-55. Mortensen DA, Egan JF, Maxwell BD, Ryan MR, Smith RG. 2012. Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience. 62: 75-84. Neve P, Vila-Aiub M, Roux F. 2009. Evolutionary-thinking in agricultural weed management. New Phytologist. 184: 783-793. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics. 52: 273-288. Pysek P, Hulme PE. 2005. Spatio-temporal dynamics of plant invasions: Linking pattern to process. Ecoscience. 12: 302-315. 8  Stanley MC, Nathan HW, Phillips LK, Knight SJ, Galbraith JA, Winks CJ, Ward DF. 2012. Invasive interactions: can Argentine ants indirectly increase the reproductive output of a weed? Arthropod-Plant Interactions, (online early,  doi: 10.1007/s11829-012-9215-2). Vanderhoeven, S, Brown CS, Tepolt CK, Tsutsui ND, Vanparys V, Atkinson S, Mahy G, Monty A. 2012. Linking concepts in the ecology and the evolution of invasive plants: network analysis shows what has been most studied and identifies knowledge gaps. Evolutionary Applications. 3: 193-202. Walck JL, Hidayati SN, Dixon KW, Thompson K, Poschlod P. 2011. Climate change and plant regeneration from seed. Global Change Biology. 17: 2145–2161. Webber BL, Scott JK. 2011. Rapid global change: implications for defining natives and aliens. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21: 305-311.  Key words: weeds; invasive plants; invasion ecology; climate change; herbicide resistance; evolution, non-native,     

'Raising the bar' : improving the standard and utility of weed and invasive plant research

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/52043/1/WRAP_Neve_0481080-lf-151112-murray_et_al._new_phyt._2012.pdf

'Raising the bar' : improving the standard and utility of weed and invasive plant research

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

CONICET Digital

LAReferencia - Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas Latinoamericanas

Warwick Research Archives Portal Repository