Risk Analysis, Vol. 24, No.

4, 2004

Risk Assessment for Invasive Species

Mark C. Andersen,1 ∗ Heather Adams,1 Bruce Hope,2 and Mark Powell3

Although estimates vary, there is a broad agreement that invasive species impose major costs
on the U.S. economy, as well as posing risks to nonmarket environmental goods and services
and to public health. The domestic effort to manage risks associated with invasive species is
coordinated by the National Invasive Species Council (NISC), which is charged with devel-
oping a science-based process to evaluate risks associated with the introduction and spread of
invasive species. Various international agreements have also elevated invasive species issues
onto the international policy agenda. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Sanitary and
Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement establishes rights and obligations to adhere to the discipline
of scientific risk assessment to ensure that SPS measures are applied only to the extent required
to protect human, animal, and plant health, and do not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable
technical barriers to trade. Currently, however, the field of risk assessment for invasive species
is in its infancy. Therefore, there is a pressing need to formulate scientifically sound methods
and approaches in this emerging field, while acknowledging that the demand for situation-
specific empirical evidence is likely to persistently outstrip supply. To begin addressing this
need, the Society for Risk Analysis Ecological Risk Assessment Specialty Group and the Eco-
logical Society of America Theoretical Ecology Section convened a joint workshop to provide
independent scientific input into the formulation of methods and processes for risk assessment
of invasive species to ensure that the analytic processes used domestically and internationally
will be firmly rooted in sound scientific principles.

KEY WORDS: Invasive species; risk assessment; theoretical ecology

1. BACKGROUND tal and therefore invasive. In many cases, the classi-

The entry, establishment, and spread of non-
indigenous species in new environments can cause
major economic damage, irreversible ecological
changes, and significant public health impacts. While
many nonindigenous species provide benefits in their
new environment (e.g., the major crop plants), or are
considered benign, others are regarded as detrimen-
1 Department of Fishery and Wildlife Sciences, New Mexico State
University, Las Cruces, NM 88003-003, USA.
2 Oregon Dept of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR 97215-
2654, USA.
3 USDA Office of Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis,
Washington, DC 20250, USA.
∗ Address correspondence to Mark C. Andersen, Department of
Fishery and Wildlife Sciences, New Mexico State University,
Las Cruces, NM 88003-003, USA; manderse@nmsu.edu.
fication of nonindigenous species is complicated by
offsetting benefits from damages.
Invasive species such as the zebra mussel (Dreis-
sena polymorpha), which can clog water pipes for
electric power plants and municipal and irrigation
water supplies, cause tangible economic damages. In-
vasive species also may diminish the provision of non-
market environmental goods and services (e.g., water
quality). Nonindigenous invasive species can impact
native ecological communities directly (through pre-
dation, grazing, parasitism, infection, competition, or
hybridization). Their impacts also may be brought
about indirectly through modification of ecosystem
functions (e.g., by altering fire regimes, hydrology, nu-
trient cycles, and energy flows). The introduction of
nonindigenous infectious agents (e.g., West Nile virus)

787 0272-4332/04/0100-0787$22.00/1 
C 2004 Society for Risk Analysis
788
and/or exotic disease vectors present risks to public
health and to the health of domestic and wild animal
and plant populations.
Taken alone, the estimated economic damages
resulting from individual invasive species can be
significant. For example, since its introduction, the un-
palatable weed, leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), has
spread to more than 5 million acres of rangeland in the
northern Great Plains, causing estimated production
losses, control expenses, and other economic damages
in excess of $100 million per year. The total cost of the
eradication program for citrus canker (Xanthomonas
campestris pv. citri) is expected to exceed $200 million.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture 2001 fiscal year
budget for invasive species activities alone exceeded
$580 million. Recent studies that have attempted to
estimate the total national impact of invasive species
also suggest that the overall magnitude of annual eco-
nomic change exceeds the federally-defined threshold
of $100 million per year for “major” economic im-
pacts.(1–4)
Invasive species may cause irreversible changes
to ecological communities by altering the composition
and abundance of native species, in some cases, to the
point of extinction. The Office of Technology Assess-
ment(2) provides a discussion of the evidence impli-
cating invasive species in the extinction or endanger-
ment of species native to the United States. One of
the few accepted generalizations about the ecological
effects of biological invasions is that the greatest im-
pacts occur when a nonindigenous species performs
an entirely novel function in the recipient community.
Examples include invasions of oceanic island commu-
nities by mammalian predators and the invasion of
nitrogen-fixing plants in regions with nitrogen-poor
soils.(5) In addition to many of the problems beset-
ting economic impact assessments, ecological impact
assessment of invasive species is further hindered by
the lack of a common currency for measuring and
expressing changes, by uncertainty or disagreement
about what constitutes an adverse ecological impact,
and by the difficulties of predicting the nature and
amounts of impacts.
2. INVASIVE SPECIES ON THE
POLICY AGENDA
The National Invasive Species Council (NISC)
coordinates the U.S. domestic effort to manage risks
associated with invasive species. The NISC, estab-
lished in 1999 by Executive Order 13112, consists of
eight federal departments with leadership roles for
Andersen, Hope, and Powell
invasive species issues and is co-chaired by the Secre-
taries of Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce. E.O.
13112 requires a science-based process to evaluate
risks associated with the introduction and spread of in-
vasive species, and a coordinated and systematic risk-
based process to identify, monitor, and interdict path-
ways that may be involved in the introduction of in-
vasive species. The NISC 2001 National Management
Plan calls for development of a risk analysis system
for nonnative species by 2003.(1)
The issue of invasive species has been elevated
onto the international trade and environmental pol-
icy agendas through a variety of international agree-
ments and by conspicuous incursions of nonindige-
nous pests. An obvious example of such a pest is
the Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabri-
pennis), which has infested hardwood trees in U.S.
metropolitan areas. Under the World Trade Organi-
zation (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement
(SPS Agreement), members of the international trad-
ing community have agreed to adhere to the disci-
pline of scientific risk assessment. This is to ensure
that the SPS measures are applied only to the extent
required to protect human, animal, and plant health,
and do not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable tech-
nical barriers to trade (http://www.wto.org/english/
tratop e/sps e/sps e.htm). The SPS Agreement rec-
ognizes the World Organization for Animal Health
(Office International des Epizooties, or OIE) and
the international and regional organizations operat-
ing within the framework of the International Plant
Protection Convention (IPPC) as the international
standard-setting bodies for animal health and phy-
tosanitary measures, respectively. The scope of OIE
guidelines for terrestrial and aquatic animal health
risk assessment includes the potential public health
and environmental consequences of pathogenic
agents (http://www.oie.int/eng/en index.htm). The
IPPC Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Mea-
sures recently initiated efforts to develop standards
for conducting plant pest risk analysis for environ-
mental hazards, to explicitly address risks to nonagro-
nomic ecosystems, where plant pests include plants,
animals, or pathogenic agents directly or indirectly
injurious to plants or plant products (http://www.fao.
org/WAICENT/FaoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ).
Invasive species issues are also being elevated
onto the international agenda via the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD), which urges coun-
tries to prevent the introduction of and to control or
eradicate nonnative species that threaten ecosystems,
habitats, or species (http://www.biodiv.org). The CBD
Risk Assessment for Invasive Species
Biosafety Protocol (known familiarly as the Carte-
gena Protocol) requires decisions regarding the inter-
national movement of living modified organisms to
be subject to risk assessment (http://www.biodiv.org/
biosafety). Article 196 of the United Nations Conven-
tion on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) calls for mea-
sures to prevent, reduce, and control the intentional or
accidental introduction of species, alien or new, which
could cause significant and harmful changes to the
marine environment (http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/
opor/Treaties/unclos.html). Although the CBD and
UNCLOS took effect in 1993 and 1994, respectively,
the United States has not ratified either agreement.
In addition, the introduction of invasive species
from ballast water is being addressed at state, federal,
and international levels. There is some debate as to
whether the invasive species introduced through bal-
last water constitute a form of “biological pollution,”
in which case the Clean Water Act would be applica-
ble and the EPA would be required to treat invasive
species in the same way as any other pollutant.
3. RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
INVASIVE SPECIES
Risk assessment and risk management are inter-
acting, but functionally separate, risk analysis activi-
ties. Risk assessment characterizes the likelihood and
severity of potential adverse effects of exposure to
hazardous agents or activities (i.e., stressors). Risk
management is the process of identifying, evaluating,
selecting, and implementing actions to reduce risk.(6)
There may be no sharp boundary between risk assess-
ment and risk management in some analytic elements,
e.g., the identification and evaluation of risk reduction
measures. Risk managers are distinguished, however,
as those with authority to make decisions and take
actions to lessen or eliminate risk.(7) Risk assessment
for invasive species is generally conducted to inform
two classes of risk management decisions: (1) those re-
garding the introduction of potentially invasive non-
indigenous species, their vectors, or conveyances prior
to establishment (leading to decisions to authorize,
prohibit, or permit activities under specified condi-
tions), and (2) decisions regarding the allocation of
scarce resources for the control of established invasive
species, including rapid response to emerging threats.
Because invasive species can include organisms
that generate both public health and environmental
concerns, risk assessments for these species provide
opportunities to integrate human health and ecolog-
ical risk issues. Although the EPA risk assessment
789
framework is the dominant paradigm in ecological
risk assessment, it is specifically intended to deal with
chemical and physical stressors; its applicability to bi-
ological stressors, such as invasive species, is unclear.
The OIE and IPPC risk assessment frameworks offer
specific guidance for risk assessments for biological
stressors.
The EPA risk paradigm includes three principal
elements: (1) problem formulation, (2) analysis of ex-
posure and effects, and (3) risk characterization.(9)
For invasive species, exposure analysis involves es-
timating the likelihood of the introduction, establish-
ment, and/or spread of one or more potentially inva-
sive species. Invasive species exposure analysis may
consider the quantity, timing, frequency, duration, and
routes of exposure as well as the numbers, species, and
other characteristics (e.g., susceptibility) of the popu-
lations exposed. Effects analysis for invasive species
would involve estimating the probability and sever-
ity of economic, public health, or environmental con-
sequences of an “exposure” to the invasive species.
As with risk assessments of other stressors, risk char-
acterization integrates information from the prob-
lem formulation, exposure, and effects components to
synthesize an overall conclusion about risk that is
complete, informative, and useful for decision mak-
ers.(11) For example, Bartell and Nair (elsewhere in
this Special Section) illustrate the development of
“exposure-response” functions that integrate the eco-
logical risk analytic components to obtain a risk
characterization for the entry and establishment
of a viable plant pest population under different
scenarios.
Complex spatial and temporal relationships
present an important challenge to those responsible
for assessing and managing risks associated with in-
vasive species across multiple geographic and time
zones. Furthermore, effective management of the
risks posed by the invasive species requires acknowl-
edging that: (a) although biological invasions are pos-
sible from numerous sources, nonindigenous species
differ in the likelihood and consequences of estab-
lishment of spread, (b) recipient ecological commu-
nities likewise differ in their vulnerability to invasion
and the values society attaches to them, (c) biologi-
cal invasions differ in their susceptibility to preven-
tion and control, and (d) scarce resources must be
allocated among current and potential biological in-
vasions through a process of balancing disparate risks,
costs, and benefits that are nonuniformly distributed
under conditions of scientific uncertainty. In this con-
text, risk assessment provides a deliberate, analytical
790
means for identifying how a resource could be vulner-
able to a given threat and for ascertaining the prob-
ability that a threat will harm a resource with some
predictable severity of consequences.(7,9) While the
true value of a risk assessment can only be gauged by
the extent to which it is used by risk managers to im-
prove the quality of their management decisions, this
may be difficult to discern and evaluate.
Furthermore, public land managers take an active
role in invasive species prevention and control. Con-
sequently, in the context of invasive species, the autho-
rized risk managers are commonly government offi-
cials. Therefore, most risk-based decisions concerning
invasive species are, ultimately, public policy choices.
Such choices cannot be made on the basis of science
alone.(7) In formulating reasoned and balanced pub-
lic policy decisions, risk managers must weigh legal,
economic, administrative, social, and cultural values
(e.g., equity and heritage), and other legitimate fac-
tors outside the realm of science. Ideally, however,
by synthesizing and summarizing the best-available
science about a potentially harmful situation, a risk
assessment can provide risk managers with a dispas-
sionate and rational basis for their decisions and ac-
tions. Thus, a risk assessment forms the link between
basic and applied scientific research activities and the
public policy choices of risk managers. These choices,
in turn, need to be responsive to the interests and
concerns of affected parties. In responding to the in-
formation needs of decision makers, however, risk as-
sessors typically need to extrapolate beyond the avail-
able scientific data to link risk assessment endpoints
to management objectives and policy goals.(6) There-
fore, in order to be relevant to risk management deci-
sions, a risk assessment must strike a balance between
addressing public policy concerns and satisfying sci-
entific criteria.
Although risk assessment of invasive species has
been thrust into the spotlight, relevant domestic and
international guidelines and standards are at an early
stage of development. Currently, the scientific disci-
pline of risk assessment for invasive species is in its in-
fancy. While scientists have criticized the responsible
regulatory agencies for accepting “staggeringly prim-
itive” theories and methods for evaluating the risks
of introduced organisms, and find the current level of
risk assessment “totally unacceptable,” they acknowl-
edge that “it is hard to find better approaches” than
those currently in use.(12) Therefore, there is a pressing
need to identify, evaluate, adapt, and develop scientif-
ically sound methods and approaches in this emerging
field.
Andersen, Hope, and Powell
Traditional approaches to risk assessment of in-
vasive species have focused primarily on problem
formulation. Considerable effort has been directed
to developing classification schemes to predict in-
vasiveness (e.g., identifying species attributes that
correlate with invasiveness), identifying pathways of
introduction (e.g., listing host materials, infested re-
gions, and commodities or conveyances that may har-
bor pests), characterizing susceptible resources (e.g.,
identifying attributes of recipient populations or eco-
logical communities that correlate with vulnerability
to invasion), and potential biological consequences
of spread. When quantitative risk assessments have
been undertaken, the assessment endpoint has gen-
erally been limited to the likelihood of entry. Conse-
quently, there is generally a gap between risk assess-
ment and the evaluation of potential biological and
economic impacts, which is dependent on assessing
the likelihood of establishment, intensity of prolifer-
ation, extent and rate of spread, and efficacy of post-
introduction risk management measures.
4. SPS AGREEMENT RAISES THE BAR
The gap between the information provided by
current risk assessment procedures and the informa-
tion needs of decision makers is particularly glaring in
the context of the SPS Agreement. In effect, the SPS
Agreement has raised the bar as to what qualifies as
an adequate risk assessment, at least for SPS mea-
sures that might be disputed as unnecessarily trade
restrictive under the Agreement. Article 5.3 states:
“In assessing risks and determining sanitary or phy-
tosanitary measures to achieve protection from such
risks, Members must take into account the potential
damage in the event of the entry, establishment, or
spread of a pest or disease; the costs of control or
eradication; and the relative cost-effectiveness of al-
ternative approaches to limiting risks.” In settling a
dispute over Australia’s ban on imports of fresh and
frozen salmon from Canada in order to prevent entry
of 24 fishborne diseases, the WTO Appellate Body es-
tablished a three-pronged test for what would qualify
as an adequate risk assessment under the SPS Agree-
ment: (1) identification of the hazards (i.e., diseases)
and possible biological and economic consequences
of their entry or spreading, (2) evaluation of the
likelihood of entry, establishment, or spreading, and
(3) evaluation of the impact of SPS measures on the
likelihood of entry, establishment, or spreading of the
hazards.(13)
Risk Assessment for Invasive Species
5. A ROLE FOR THEORETICAL ECOLOGY
In striving to meet this challenge, however, anal-
ysts and scientists need to be candid in acknowledging
the limitations of the available scientific data and
models to inform regulatory and natural resource
management decisions concerning invasive species.
This problem area is chronically confronted by a
paucity of directly relevant empirical evidence. Fur-
thermore, the demand for situation-specific data is
likely to persistently outstrip supply into the foresee-
able future. In addition, the complexity of biological
systems (e.g., reproduction, dispersal, interspecific in-
teractions) frequently renders verbal models and bi-
ological intuition inadequate. In this data-poor en-
vironment, it is intuitively appealing to look to the
field of theoretical ecology for insights that might be
incorporated into a risk analytic framework to sup-
port policy and management decisions regarding the
intentional or accidental introduction of nonindige-
nous species. Many theoretical results and modeling
approaches that have proved useful in conservation
biology (population viability analysis, gap analysis)
may be able to be adapted to the specific needs of risk
analysis for invasive species.
The process of biological invasion can be broken
into the four phases of entry, establishment, spread,
and impact. The entry phase consists of the arrival (or
multiple arrivals) of a nonindigenous species at one or
more points of entry into a new environment. In the
establishment phase, one or more of these arriving
populations begins to reproduce in situ and escapes
immediate danger of local extinction. In the spread
phase, the species disperses from its initial site(s) of
establishment and occupies available habitat (or in-
fects susceptible hosts) within its new environment. In
the impact phase, an established species persists and
competes in its new geographic range. There is strong
filtering of species between these phases, so that only
a small fraction of species pass from the entry phase
to the establishment phase, only a small proportion
of those pass on to the spread phase, and a majority
of species that become naturalized exert no demon-
strable impact in their new range. Because successful
invasion by a harmful nonindigenous species is such
a rare event, this filtering process can have profound
implications for our ability to detect and manage in-
vasive species.(14,15)
Applications of theoretical ecology to other en-
vironmental resource management problems suggest
some potential for contributions in the context of in-
vasive species risk assessment. In particular, many
791
of the crucial questions to be considered in studying
the four phases of invasion are in some sense the in-
verse of some classic questions in conservation biol-
ogy. For example, conservation biologists frequently
ask: “What aspects of a species’ demography might
make it prone to extinction, and how might manage-
ment mitigate those factors?” For invasive species,
management efforts are often directed at causing,
rather than preventing, extinction in the new locale.
A conservation biologist might ask: “What influence
does the arrangement of landscape elements have on
a species’ ability to persist?” In the context of inva-
sive species, we might want to know whether the land-
scape could be manipulated in such a way as to slow or
halt the spread of an invader. Finally, whereas under-
standing the ecosystem role of an endangered species
might help us to manage for that species’ survival,
understanding the ecosystem impacts of an invasive
species may suggest ways to prevent or mitigate those
impacts.
Of these four phases, entry has been the most
convenient focus of risk assessment efforts, through a
process of documenting potential invaders that may
be brought in as “hitchhikers” with some imported
commodity.(16,17) Due to the prevalent effects of de-
mographic and environmental stochasticity on small
populations, there is an especially strong filtering of
species at this stage. This filtering implies that it is
easier to identify potential invaders among species
in the establishment phase rather than at the entry
phase.(14) The fact that it is easier to assess the inva-
sive potential of established species, however, poses
severe problems for predictive risk assessment and
risk management due to the difficulty of eradicat-
ing or controlling nonindigenous populations after
establishment.
Applicable ecological theory is considerably
more well developed for the remaining three phases
of the species invasion process. There is a well-
developed body of theory on extinction, most of which
is applicable to establishment,(18–21) as well as some
direct applications of theory to the problem of es-
tablishment.(22) Much of this theory has found direct
applications already in the field of conservation biol-
ogy. Due to the recent advances in our ability to ana-
lyze integrodifference-equation models, there is also
a growing body of theory applicable to the spread
phase.(23,24) Finally, ecologists have amassed a great
deal of empirical information on the ecological im-
pacts of invasive species.(5,15) We may think of the
ecological impact of an invasive species as includ-
ing three components: the invader’s geographic and
792
habitat range, its abundance, and its per-capita or per-
unit-biomass effect on the ecosystem.(5)
A few potentially useful predictions and guide-
lines have resulted from the study of biological
invasions. These predictions fall into two primary
categories. On the one hand, there has been consider-
able research on biological characteristics of species
that are most likely to become invasive pests.(25–29)
As Smith et al.(14) point out, however, the accuracy of
such predictions (the proportion of a group of clas-
sified pest species that would be correctly identified
as pests) needs to be distinguished from their relia-
bility (the rate of false positives and false negatives).
On the other hand, there has been somewhat less re-
search on types of habitats that are most susceptible
to invasion.(30) Predicting susceptible locales for the
future invasions has proven even more problematic
than identifying general attributes of future invasive
species.(15)
6. DISCUSSION
In general, the study of invasive species is a field
with a great need for synthesis, with great oppor-
tunities for theoretical development, and for direct
contribution of those developments to management
methodology. Disagreements over interpretation of
available data(31,32) may result from lack of recogni-
tion that different ecological processes may influence
different phases of the invasion process, and that dif-
ferent traits of both species and habitats may deter-
mine success at different phases. As Parker et al.(5)
observe, there can be a considerable disagreement
over the magnitude of ecological impacts caused by
even notorious biological invasions, such as that of
Cryphonectria parasitica, the blight fungus that dev-
astated the American chestnut (Castanea dentata)
populations that were formerly a dominant compo-
nent of the U.S. eastern deciduous forest. Similarly,
purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is generally re-
garded as an aggressive invader that displaces native
wetlands vegetation and may adversely impact wa-
terfowl habitat by forming dense, nearly monotypic
stands; however, Hager and McCoy(33) found little sci-
entific evidence that the plant has deleterious effects
on North American wetlands. The use of different
metrics (e.g., changes in ecosystem function versus
changes in species composition) can lead to differ-
ent conclusions about the importance, magnitude, or
even direction of the ecological impacts of introduced
species. In addition, seemingly narrow disagreements
over scientific interpretation may serve as proxies for
Andersen, Hope, and Powell
broader disagreements over policy and values. That
is, although the terms of the debate may be scien-
tific, the root of the dispute may be social. Therefore,
progress in risk assessment for invasive species will
depend on clarification of terminology, adherence to
agreed-upon definitions of concepts, synthesis of em-
pirical results, and induction of theoretical principles
from those syntheses that leads to a greater under-
standing of the ecology of biological invasions. All this
discussion illustrates the need for clear agreement on
appropriate risk assessment endpoints, ensuring clear
and defensible communication and implementation
of risk assessments.
7. PAPERS IN THIS SPECIAL SECTION
To begin addressing some of the many challenges
facing the field of risk assessment for invasive species,
on October 21–23, 2001, New Mexico State Univer-
sity convened a joint workshop of the Society for
Risk Analysis Ecological Risk Assessment Specialty
Group and the Ecological Society of America Theo-
retical Ecology Section conducted under a coopera-
tive agreement between the University and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Office of Risk Assess-
ment and Cost-Benefit Analysis. This special section
of Risk Analysis is based upon several papers origi-
nally developed for and presented at the workshop.
With applies grid-based neutral landscape models to
explore the impact of landscape fragmentation on the
risk of invasive spread. Neubert presents the use of
integrodifference-equation (IDE) models, originally
formulated to describe the advantageous alleles in ge-
netic studies, to project rates of spread for invading
species. Bartell et al. present a quantitative frame-
work for evaluating reductions in the risk of plant pest
introduction and establishment afforded by treating
solid wood packing material before its import into the
United States. Landis highlights the importance of in-
corporating spatial and temporal relationships within
a landscape for ecological risk assessment of invasive
species. Maguire suggests how a multi-attribute utility
analysis may contribute to invasive species manage-
ment. Marvier et al. discuss the role that cost-benefit
analysis plays in framing the questions addressed
by risk assessment of invasive species and highlight
aspects of ecological theory that could produce prag-
matic guidance for efficient control of invasive species.
Sharov provides an example of the integration of bi-
ological and economic information to optimize man-
agement actions—eradication, suppression, or doing
nothing—along the front of an expanding invasive
Risk Assessment for Invasive Species
population. It is our hope that these papers will
provide guidance for defensible risk analyses, and
impetus for further research and development of risk
analysis tools based on theoretical ecology.
REFERENCES
1. National Invasive Species Council. (NISC). (2001). National
Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge.
Washington, DC: NISC.
2. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (OTA).
(1993). Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States.
Washington, DC: OTA.
3. Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., & Morrison, D. (2000).
Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species
in the United States. Bioscience, 50, 53–65.
4. Westbrooks, R. (1998). Invasive Plants, Changing the Land-
scape of America: Fact Book. Washington, DC: Federal Intera-
gency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic
Weeds.
5. Parker, I. M., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., et al. (1999).
Impact: Toward a framework for understanding the ecological
effects of invaders. Biological Invasions, 1, 3–19.
6. The Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk As-
sessment and Risk Management. (1997). Risk Assessment
and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making.
Washington, DC: Author.
7. National Research Council. (1996). Understanding Risk: In-
forming Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
8. Suter, G. W. (1997). Integration of human health and eco-
logical risk assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives,
105(12), 1–3.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Guidelines
for Ecological Risk Assessment (Report No. EPA/630/R-95/
002F). Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum.
10. Moore, D. R. J., & Biddinger, G. R. (1995). The interaction
between risk assessors and risk managers during the problem
formulation phase. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
14, 2013–2014.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Risk Char-
acterization Handbook (Report No. EPA/100-B-00-002).
Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development.
12. Kareiva, P., Parker, I., Lewis, M., & Pascual, M. (1995). Can
ecological theory help us to evaluate the invasiveness of genet-
ically engineered organisms? What can theoretical ecology do
for applied ecology? Snow Bird, Utah: Theoretical Ecology
Symposium, 1995 Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society
of America.
13. Victor, D. G. (2000). Risk management and the world trad-
ing system: Regulating international trade distortions caused
by national sanitary and phytosanitary policies. In Incorporat-
ing Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceed-
ings of a Conference (pp. 118–169). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
14. Smith, C. S., Lonsdale, W. M., & Fortune, J. (1999). When
to ignore advice: Invasion predictions and decision theory.
Biological Invasions, 1, 89–96.
793
15. Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H.,
Clout, M., & Bazzaz, F. (2000). Biotic invasions: Causes,
epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Issues in
Ecology, 5.
16. Tkacz, B. M., Burdsall, Jr., H. H., DeNitto, G. A., et al. (1998).
Report No. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-104. Madison, WI: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory.
17. Kliejunas, J. T., Tkacz, B. M., Burdsall, Jr., H. H., et al. (2001).
Report No. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-124. Madison, WI: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory.
18. Tuljapurkar, S. (1990). Population Dynamics in Variable En-
vironments (Lecture Notes in Biomathematics No. 85). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
19. Andersen, M. C. (1994). Stochastic models of age-structured
populations. Comments on Theoretical Biology, 3(5), 365–
395.
20. Foley, P. (2000). Problems in extinction model selection and
parameter estimation. Environmental Management, 26(S1),
S55–S73.
21. Wisdom, M. J., Mills, L. S., & Doak, D. F. (2000). Life
stage simulation analysis: Estimating vital-rate effects on
population growth for conservation. Ecology, 81(3), 628–
641.
22. Haccou, P., & Iwasa, Y. (1996). Establishment probability in
fluctuating environments: A branching process model. Theo-
retical Population Ecology, 50(3), 254–280.
23. Neubert, M. G., & Caswell, H. (2000). Demography and
dispersal: Calculation and sensitivity analysis of invasion
speed for structured populations. Ecology, 81(6), 1613–
1628.
24. Neubert, M. G., Kot, M., & Lewis, M. A. (2000). Invasion
speeds in fluctuating environments. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London, B267, 1603–1610.
25. Perrins, J., Williamson, M., & Fitter, A. (1992). Do annual
weeds have predictable characters? Acta Oecologica, 13, 517–
533.
26. Lodge, D. M. (1993). Biological invasions: Lessons for ecol-
ogy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8(4), 133–137.
27. Reichard, S. H., & Hamilton, C. W. (1997). Predicting in-
vasions of woody plants introduced into North America.
Conservation Biology, 11, 193–203.
28. Goodwin, B. F., McAllister, A. J., & Fahrig, L. (1999). Predict-
ing invasiveness of plant species based on biological informa-
tion. Conservation Biology, 13(2), 422–426.
29. Kolar, C. S., & Lodge, D. M. (2001). Progress in invasion bi-
ology: Predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
16(4), 199–205.
30. Stohlgren, T. J., Binkley, D., Chong, G. W., et al. (1999). Ex-
otic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity.
Ecological Monographs, 69, 25–46.
31. Daehler, C. C., & Strong, Jr., D. R. (1993). Prediction and
biological invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8(10),
379.
32. Lodge, D. M. (1993). Reply from David Lodge. Trends in Ecol-
ogy and Evolution, 8(10), 379–380.
33. Hager, H. A., & McCoy, K. D. (1998). The implications of ac-
cepting untested hypotheses: A review of the effects of purple
loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America. Biodiversity
and Conservation, 7(8), 1069–1079.