Literature DB >> 19432643

Economic impacts of invasive species in forests: past, present, and future.

Thomas P Holmes1, Juliann E Aukema, Betsy Von Holle, Andrew Liebhold, Erin Sills.   

Abstract

Biological invasions by nonnative species are a by-product of economic activities, with the vast majority of nonnative species introduced by trade and transport of products and people. Although most introduced species are relatively innocuous, a few species ultimately cause irreversible economic and ecological impacts, such as the chestnut blight that functionally eradicated the American chestnut across eastern North America. Assessments of the economic costs and losses induced by nonnative forest pests are required for policy development and need to adequately account for all of the economic impacts induced by rare, highly damaging pests. To date, countrywide economic evaluations of forest-invasive species have proceeded by multiplying a unit value (price) by a physical quantity (volume of forest products damaged) to arrive at aggregate estimates of economic impacts. This approach is inadequate for policy development because (1) it ignores the dynamic impacts of biological invasions on the evolution of prices, quantities, and market behavior, and (2) it fails to account for the loss in the economic value of nonmarket ecosystem services, such as landscape aesthetics, outdoor recreation, and the knowledge that healthy forest ecosystems exist. A review of the literature leads one to anticipate that the greatest economic impacts of invasive species in forests are due to the loss of nonmarket values. We proposed that new methods for evaluating aggregate economic damages from forest-invasive species need to be developed that quantify market and nonmarket impacts at microscales that are then extended using spatially explicit models to provide aggregate estimates of impacts. Finally, policies that shift the burden of economic impacts from taxpayers and forest landowners onto parties responsible for introducing or spreading invasives, whether through the imposition of tariffs on products suspected of imposing unacceptable risks on native forest ecosystems or by requiring standards on the processing of trade products before they cross international boundaries, may be most effective at reducing their impacts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19432643     DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04446.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci        ISSN: 0077-8923            Impact factor:   5.691


  21 in total

1.  Invasive Alien Species in Switzerland: Awareness and Preferences of Experts and the Public.

Authors:  Xenia Junge; Marcel Hunziker; Nicole Bauer; Arne Arnberger; Roland Olschewski
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Comparisons of ectomycorrhizal colonization of transgenic american chestnut with those of the wild type, a conventionally bred hybrid, and related fagaceae species.

Authors:  Katherine M D'Amico; Thomas R Horton; Charles A Maynard; Stephen V Stehman; Allison D Oakes; William A Powell
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Aerial application of pheromones for mating disruption of an invasive moth as a potential eradication tool.

Authors:  Eckehard G Brockerhoff; David M Suckling; Mark Kimberley; Brian Richardson; Graham Coker; Stefan Gous; Jessica L Kerr; David M Cowan; David R Lance; Tara Strand; Aijun Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States.

Authors:  Juliann E Aukema; Brian Leung; Kent Kovacs; Corey Chivers; Kerry O Britton; Jeffrey Englin; Susan J Frankel; Robert G Haight; Thomas P Holmes; Andrew M Liebhold; Deborah G McCullough; Betsy Von Holle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-09-09       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Integrating spread dynamics and economics of timber production to manage Chinese tallow invasions in southern U.S. forestlands.

Authors:  Hsiao-Hsuan Wang; William E Grant; Jianbang Gan; William E Rogers; Todd M Swannack; Tomasz E Koralewski; James H Miller; John W Taylor
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-19       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Invasive stink bug favors naïve plants: Testing the role of plant geographic origin in diverse, managed environments.

Authors:  Holly M Martinson; Erik J Bergmann; P Dilip Venugopal; Christopher B Riley; Paula M Shrewsbury; Michael J Raupp
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Allelopathic Potential of Invasive Plantago virginica on Four Lawn Species.

Authors:  Huatian Wang; Yumei Zhou; Yang Chen; Quanxi Wang; Lifen Jiang; Yiqi Luo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Effectiveness of the International Phytosanitary Standard ISPM No. 15 on reducing wood borer infestation rates in wood packaging material entering the United States.

Authors:  Robert A Haack; Kerry O Britton; Eckehard G Brockerhoff; Joseph F Cavey; Lynn J Garrett; Mark Kimberley; Frank Lowenstein; Amelia Nuding; Lars J Olson; James Turner; Kathryn N Vasilaky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Bark and Ambrosia Beetles Show Different Invasion Patterns in the USA.

Authors:  Davide Rassati; Massimo Faccoli; Robert A Haack; Robert J Rabaglia; Edoardo Petrucco Toffolo; Andrea Battisti; Lorenzo Marini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Possibility to implement invasive species control in Swedish forests.

Authors:  Maria Pettersson; Caroline Strömberg; E Carina H Keskitalo
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 5.129

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.