Abstract
Protected areas (PAs) are key for conserving biodiversity and can act as partial barriers against the regional spread of alien species. Yet, the number of invasive species and the magnitude of their impact on PAs are increasing globally, creating an urgent need to establish effective management actions. Increased public interest in biological invasions in PAs may lead to increased support for their management. To assess recent public interest, we extracted and analysed data from Twitter/X, which was one of the most popular microblogging social media platforms during the study period. Firstly, we extracted all tweets posted between 2010 and 2020 containing the scientific name of any plant species recorded as naturalised anywhere in the world, or the term ‘invasive species’, together with the name of any national park globally and the term ‘national park’. This approach allowed us to capture potential mentions of species across their native and non-native ranges. Mentions of species in their native ranges were identified and flagged in the dataset. Secondly, using Kruger National Park (i.e. one of the oldest and most widely known protected areas in the world) as a study case, we extracted all tweets posted in 2010–2020 containing the term ‘Kruger’ together with: (1) the scientific name of any of the 146 taxa recorded in the recently updated naturalised alien flora of the park, (2) the genus name of some of the most well-known naturalised plant species in the park, some of which also function as common names, and (3) the term ‘invasive species’. We found a very limited number of tweets. These results suggest that public engagement with the topic of invasive plant species in national parks on social media was limited during the study period.
Conservation implications: Public awareness campaigns are needed to support successful management of plant invasions in protected areas globally.
Keywords: invasion culturomics; invasive alien species; public awareness; public interest; social media; Twitter; X.
Introduction
As a result of globalisation, the rate at which species are being introduced to regions beyond their natural biogeographic boundaries is increasing rapidly (Seebens et al. 2021, 2023). A small proportion of introduced species become invasive (i.e. survive and spread over substantial distances; Blackburn et al. 2011) and have dramatic environmental (Kumschick et al. 2020) and socioeconomic (Bacher et al. 2018) impacts in the invaded areas. The rapid accumulation of invasive species has decreased the average abundance of native species by at least one-fifth across many ecosystems, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) listed biological invasions as one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss (Roy et al. 2024). Accordingly, target six of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework aims to ‘reduce the introduction of invasive alien species by 50% and minimise their impact’ (https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets).
Protected areas are, to some extent, effective at preventing alien species from entering – their boundaries act as partial barriers to invasions (Foxcroft et al. 2011; Gallardo et al. 2017; Pyšek et al. 2003). However, alien species still penetrate protected areas, jeopardising conservation efforts globally, and remain a major concern (eds. Foxcroft et al. 2013; Moodley et al. 2020). For example, in the emblematic Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park alone, alien plants comprised approximately 61% of the total flora already in the 1980s (Higashino et al. 1988).
Globally, in 31% of protected areas that were monitored as part of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) programme on biological invasions since 1980s, the numbers of invasive plants have increased despite the conservation measures adopted (Shackleton et al. 2020). As such, it is not surprising that managers of protected areas are highly concerned about the threats posed by biological invasions (Foxcroft et al. 2023).
However, managing biological invasions in protected areas is not an easy task (Sankaran et al. 2023). First of all, it is time- and resource-consuming, as indicated by the reported costs of managing alien plants in protected areas globally between 1975 and 2020, which amount to at least $680 million (Moodley et al. 2022). Other challenges include limited staff capacity, logistical constraints and competing conservation priorities, which further complicate effective management of alien species in protected areas. Additionally, protected areas in most countries have a limited capacity to respond effectively to biological invasions, and the required investments often exceed the available resources. Therefore, the limited budgets should be used as efficiently as possible.
Achieving workable management strategies for alien species depends, to a large extent, on public acceptance (Novoa et al. 2018). While conservation practitioners and scientists aware of the negative impacts of invasive alien species generally advocate for their control, the management of invasive alien species can be challenged by public opposition. For example, due to socioecological incompatibility derived through differing moralistic values (i.e. the notion that any creature has the right to live; Estévez et al. 2015) or charisma (Jarić et al. 2020), the management of invasive alien species can be perceived as negative by the public. Whether the public supports or opposes the management of invasive alien species depends on people’s awareness of the phenomenon of biological invasions and their values and perceptions of particular alien species (Shackleton et al. 2019).
Therefore, understanding public awareness and perceptions is important to allow for dialogue that may reduce conflicts and opposition to managing alien species (Novoa et al. 2018) and support management in prioritising approaches leading to maximum environmental and social benefits.
Despite the crucial role of the above issues in the management of invasive alien species, we often have little or no information on public awareness and perceptions of biological invasions (Shackleton et al. 2019). One reason is that conventional social science approaches to investigating the human and social aspects of biological invasions, such as public surveys, are of limited scope and difficult to implement. However, the age of big data and the digital revolution provide opportunities to account for the human and social dimensions of biological invasions. The emerging field of conservation culturomics (Ladle et al. 2016) aims to get novel insights into human–nature interactions, by analysing large volumes of online digital data stored digitally via webpages, social media and various other data platforms. The last decade has seen enormous advances in our ability to identify, access and analyse such online digital data with relatively low sampling costs (Correia et al. 2021; Jarić et al. 2021; Novoa et al. 2022). Here, we extracted and analysed data from Twitter/X, one of the most popular social media platforms globally, to assess the extent of public engagement with plant invasions and their impacts, and to explore whether these issues are perceived as threats to the conservation efforts of national parks.
Methods
Firstly, we derived a list of naturalised alien plants from the Global Naturalized Alien Flora (GloNAF) database (Pyšek et al. 2017; van Kleunen et al. 2019), which contained information on the identity and occurrence of 13 930 naturalised alien plant taxa (i.e. introduced alien plants occurring outside cultivation and forming self-sustaining populations in the wild) around the globe. Compared to the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS), which covers multiple taxonomic groups but provides only checklist-based presence data (Pagad et al. 2022), GloNAF offers a more comprehensive and spatially explicit dataset for plants, making it particularly suitable for our analysis. Secondly, we obtained a list of 2687 national parks from the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA; Bingham et al. 2019). Then, we downloaded all tweets posted between January 2010 and December 2020 (hereafter ‘the study period’) containing the scientific names of naturalised alien plants included in our list, the name of any national park from our list and the term ‘national park’. We did this using the ‘get_all_tweets’ function of the academictwitteR package and the then available free research Application Programming Interface (API).
We used scientific names rather than common names to ensure taxonomic accuracy and global comparability. Incorporating common names was not feasible because most species have multiple vernacular names that vary across languages and regions, and no standardised global list exists. Moreover, including all possible common names could have introduced ambiguity and substantial noise into the dataset. After downloading all tweets, we verified whether each species mentioned was native or naturalised in the region where the national park referred to in the tweet was located, in order to distinguish mentions of naturalised from native species.
Aiming to test whether people discussed the general threat that biological invasions pose to the conservation of national parks, rather than mentioning specific species names, we also downloaded all tweets posted in the study period containing the term ‘invasive species’ together with the name of any national park from our list and the term ‘national park’.
Aiming to have a closer look at the public’s awareness and perceptions of biological invasions in protected areas, we used Kruger National Park (i.e. the largest game reserve in South Africa and one of the oldest national parks in the world) as a model region. Conservation efforts in Kruger National Park are being increasingly threatened by the introduction, spread and impacts of alien plants (Hejda et al. 2023), and managing them is a priority. Recognising this, concerted efforts have been made to catalogue, monitor and manage these species. Nowadays, 411 alien plant taxa are recorded in the park, of which 146 occur in natural areas, and 21 have already become invasive (Foxcroft et al. 2023; Foxcroft et al. 2026). We downloaded all tweets posted during the study period containing the scientific names of naturalised alien plant species in Kruger National Park (sensu Foxcroft et al. 2023) and the term ‘Kruger’. Additionally, aiming to check whether searching by the genus name only would increase our results, we downloaded all tweets posted in the study period containing the terms Agave, Cylindropuntia, Datura, Jacaranda, Lantana, Opuntia, Parthenium or Xanthium, together with the term ‘Kruger’. We chose these genera because they correspond to well-known alien plants in South Africa and some are highly visible in Kruger (Foxcroft et al. 2023). Moreover, some of them, such as Agave, Jacaranda, Opuntia or Parthenium, are also used as common names. To test if, instead of mentioning specific species names, people discussed the general threat posed by biological invasions to the conservation of Kruger National Park, we downloaded all tweets posted during the study period containing the terms ‘invasive species’ and ‘Kruger’. Finally, we manually inspected all downloaded tweets to identify which of them discussed the invasion of alien species in protected areas and recorded the topics of these discussions.
Results
We obtained 1743 tweets mentioning the scientific name of any naturalised alien plant together with the name of any national park from our list and the term ‘national park’. Among them, 1207 were unique tweets (i.e. excluding retweets and duplicates). A total of 279 national parks were mentioned in these tweets (Figure 1). However, most of these tweets were not related to the invasion of alien plants in national parks. For example, of the 136 tweets mentioning Namadgi National Park (Australia), 134 reported the presence of native plants that are naturalised elsewhere, and only two reported information about the management of alien plants. The two latter tweets were posted by an Australian National Parks’ association (https://www.npaact.org.au). Similarly, of the 115 tweets mentioning Redwood National Park (California, United States of America), 114 mentioned native plants that are native in the park but naturalised elsewhere, and only one mentioned a plant species that is naturalised in the park (Digitalis purpurea). In the same line, among the 79 tweets mentioning Joshua Tree National Park (California, United States of America), only one mentioned the presence of a naturalised alien plant (i.e. Echinopsis spachiana). All remaining tweets discussed the presence of plants native to Joshua Tree National Park and naturalised elsewhere.
 |
FIGURE 1: Mentions of the name of any national park together with the name of any naturalised alien plant and the term ‘national park’. |
|
We obtained 240 tweets mentioning the names of 55 national parks together with the terms ‘invasive species’ and ‘national park’, of which 185 were unique tweets (Figure 2). Most of these tweets reported information on the invasion and impacts of invasive species in national parks and/or showed support for their management. The national park with most tweets was Crater Lake (Oregon, United States of America). Twitter/X users mentioning Crater Lake National Park together with the term ‘invasive species’ were supportive of the decision of the park officials to close the national park to scuba divers, with the aim of protecting it from the introduction of alien species. Four tweets were posted by users opposing the management of invasive species in national parks. One disagreed with the decision of Yosemite National Park (California, United States of America) to allocate funds to eradicate invasive species. The other three tweets shared a link to a https://www.change.org that claimed that management actions controlling invasive mammals in Haleakalā National Park (Hawai’i, United States of America) through shooting should be replaced by relocation actions.
 |
FIGURE 2: Number of tweets mentioning the name of any national park together with the terms ‘invasive species’ and ‘national park’. |
|
We obtained only nine tweets mentioning the term ‘Kruger’ together with the scientific name of a plant species recorded as naturalised in the park. Four of these tweets were unique, all of which were posted by researchers and research organisations informing about scientific results.
Additionally, we found 114 tweets mentioning the term ‘Kruger’ together with the term Agave, Xanthium, Jacaranda, Opuntia, Datura, Parthenium, Cylindropuntia or Lantana. Of these, 102 were unique tweets. However, most did not mention plants or Kruger National Park (e.g. there were tweets about the popular South African radio station Jacaranda FM or people with Kruger as their surname). Only 10 unique tweets discussed the invasion and management of alien plants in Kruger National Park, all of which were posts aiming to share scientific results. One of these posts mentioned Agave, three Opuntia and six Parthenium.
Finally, we obtained 194 tweets containing the terms ‘invasive species’ and ‘Kruger’. Of these, 70 were unique tweets. Among the 70 unique tweets, 40 talked about alien species in Kruger National Park. Of these, 29 shared research results, 8 were posted by news magazines or organisations aimed at public outreach, and 3 by citizens concerned about the invasion of alien plants in the park.
Discussion
Twitter/X has been previously used to assess the popularity of national parks (Ghermandi 2022) and the attitudes of the public towards their management (Bhatt & Pickering 2021; Mangachena & Pickering 2021). Here, we assess the mentions of invasive plants in national parks to explore public engagement with one of the major threats to biodiversity in protected areas (Moodley et al. 2020). Our results suggest that, despite the significant impact of plant invasions on protected areas, the topic is notably poorly represented on Twitter/X. This may be attributed to several factors related to tourist engagement, content preferences and awareness and education.
Previous research helps to contextualise this result. Although national parks are widely discussed on Twitter/X, most of the discourse focuses on charismatic wildlife, tourism and scenic attractions rather than on ecological threats or management issues. For instance, Mangachena and Pickering (2021) analysed over 10 000 tweets about seven South African national parks and found that 70% of the content related to topics such as biodiversity (primarily animals), tourism and natural attractions, while plants were rarely mentioned, and invasive species were not mentioned at all. In Kruger National Park alone, over 17 000 original tweets were posted during the study period, with discourse dominated by topics such as poaching and ethics. Importantly, plants were mentioned in only a small fraction of tweets (746 out of more than 10 000), and no tweets referred to invasive or alien plants. This pattern supports our finding that discussions of biological invasions are largely absent from this social media, even for well-known and heavily visited protected areas.
Recent large-scale analyses also confirm this trend. Canavan et al. (2025) examined over 500 000 tweets containing the term ‘invasive species’ posted between 2006 and 2021 and found that online discussions are dominated by a few charismatic taxa (mainly mammals and aquatic or urban pests) and a small number of regions, such as the Great Lakes or Florida.
These findings suggest that public engagement with invasive plants on social media is limited and unevenly distributed. Our results align with this broader pattern, revealing that, even within the context of national parks (where biodiversity conservation is a primary concern), plant invasions rarely feature in public discourse.
Regarding tourist engagement, public knowledge and interest in this topic may remain limited despite the high visitor numbers recorded in many protected areas. For example, Kruger National Park alone attracts between 1.4 and 1.9 million tourists annually, suggesting that there is enough scope for invasive species to become noticed in such a well-known and frequently visited park. The visibility of invasive species to visitors, however, likely depends on their familiarity with the site. Repeat visitors, who can compare current conditions with past experiences, may be more likely to notice ecological changes or the presence of unfamiliar species than first-time tourists. Nonetheless, even in parks such as Kruger, where a high proportion of visitors return regularly and invasions are conspicuous in places, our findings indicate that invasive plants are almost never mentioned on social media such as Twitter/X, suggesting that awareness with this issue remains limited overall. Moreover, national parks have been a popular topic on Twitter/X. Norman and Pickering (2023) searched tweets including the term ‘national park’ between 10 July 2018 and 09 January 2019 and found 2 million tweets posted by 750 000 different users. Here, we searched tweets including the term ‘national park’ together with the term ‘invasive species’ and the name of any national park in the world, and obtained 185 unique tweets. This suggests that there are many posts on Twitter/X about protected areas, but users prefer certain types of content, and biological invasions obviously do not fall into this group. Tweets centred around personal experiences, like encounters with charismatic animals, or current events within the park, such as anti-poaching efforts, are likely more prevalent than those acknowledging topics around biological invasions. For Kruger National Park specifically, the park staff makes a good effort in pointing to the problem by using information boards and desks in rest camps and picnic sites, but on the other hand, the most noticeable plant invasions are restricted to river beds (Hejda et al. 2023) that tourists, for most of the time, see from a distance (tourists can only leave their vehicles inside the camps or at a few designated sites). This may be one reason for the low interest in invasive plants; it can be speculated that even if people get the information and recognise the problem, invasions do not get tweeted too often because there are other, more attractive things to share in this national park (e.g. sightings of the big five).
The under-representation of discussions regarding biological invasions could also indicate a broader issue of awareness and education. While visitors to protected areas are often provided with a wealth of information through, for example, general visitor materials, these resources may not adequately address issues surrounding invasive plant species. Instead, the emphasis is often placed on the more charismatic aspects of the parks, such as their iconic wildlife. This trend is particularly concerning when considering the findings of Ballouard, Brischoux and Bonnet (2011), who revealed that online media heavily influence the younger generation’s understanding of biodiversity.
Children’s knowledge and willingness to protect nature are often confined to the charismatic species popularised on the internet, leading to a limited recognition of local flora and fauna. As a result, they may be more inclined to protect ‘virtual’ species they have never seen rather than the local species directly impacted by biological invasions.
While public awareness alone is not sufficient to reduce introductions or mitigate the impacts of invasive species, it represents a critical complementary component to broader management strategies. For example, it has been increasingly recognised that poor public knowledge is linked to low public support for managing invasive species (Klapwijk et al. 2016; Novoa et al. 2016). Moreover, informed citizens are more likely to adopt management actions (e.g. washing boots and fishing equipment when moving from one area to another) and to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species (Cordeiro et al. 2020). Therefore, the results of this study emphasise that if we aim to achieve Target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in protected areas (i.e. to reduce the introduction of invasive alien species by 50% and minimise their impact [https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets]), it is imperative to increase public knowledge on this serious environmental issue (Novoa et al. 2017). Various methods have been proposed to help enhance public knowledge of biological invasions. These include creating websites or printed materials, hosting forums, conducting public events, organising school presentations, producing educational films and disseminating popular science articles. For example, the project ‘Invasive Plants in Portugal’ (https://invasoras.pt) aimed to raise awareness about biological invasions in Portugal, enhanced, over a decade since its launch, public knowledge of biological invasions (Cordeiro et al. 2020).
It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of our study. Firstly, although additional analyses (e.g. incorporating broader terminology and more species’ common names, or testing alternative park-name formulations) could strengthen the study, re-analysis is not feasible. Following major changes in Twitter/X’s ownership and data policies, academic access to the historical data used in this study has been discontinued (Blakey 2024), and comparable or expanded datasets can no longer be retrieved, precluding the implementation of complementary analyses. Secondly, Twitter/X data represent only a fraction of online discourse. Moreover, we limited our searches to national parks and the scientific names of naturalised alien plants or the term ‘invasive species’. Future research should include additional social media platforms (given that the research API is provided) and expand the search to scientific names of naturalised alien fauna and common names, as the lay people typically might not post using scientific names. This limitation may have led to under-representation of certain species that are more commonly referred to by vernacular names. Furthermore, we explored only English-written discussions, which might have created biases in our conclusions (Angulo et al. 2021). For example, tweets retrieved from searches in English of the topic ‘national park’ on Twitter/X are mainly posted by North Americans and mostly discuss North American national parks (Norman & Pickering 2023). Consequently, our analysis does not capture the full spectrum of discussions on the invasion of alien species in protected areas globally.
Conclusion
Overall, our findings indicate that the topic of invasive plants in national parks receive remarkably little attention on Twitter/X, despite their well-documented impacts on biodiversity. This limited representation likely reflects a combination of low public awareness, the low visibility of plant invasions to visitors, and a preference for sharing more charismatic aspects of protected areas, such as wildlife and scenic experiences. Social media therefore appears to under-represent an important conservation issue, highlighting the need for more effective communication and public engagement strategies that increase awareness of invasive plant species and their impacts on protected areas.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Ana Novoa: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Pavel Pipek: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Susan Canavan: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. Llewellyn C. Foxcroft: Writing – review & editing. Petr Pyšek: Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
Petr Pyšek and Ana Novoa were supported by Grant No. 22- 23532S and Pavel Pipek by Grant No. 23-07278S (Czech Science Foundation). Petr Pyšek, Ana Novoa and Pavel Pipek were all supported also by long-term research development Project No. RVO 67985939 (Czech Academy of Sciences). Llewellyn C. Foxcroft is supported by South African National Parks and the Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University.
Data availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Angulo, E., Diagne, C., Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Adamjy, T., Ahmed, D.A., Akulov, E. et al., 2021, ‘Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: The example of economic costs of biological invasions’, Science of the Total Environment 775, 144441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144441
Bacher, S., Blackburn, T.M., Essl, F., Genovesi, P., Heikkilä, J., Jeschke, J.M. et al., 2018, ‘Socio-economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT)’, Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9, 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12844
Ballouard, J.M., Brischoux, F. & Bonnet, X., 2011, ‘Children prioritize virtual exotic biodiversity over local biodiversity’, PLoS One 6(8), e23152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023152
Bhatt, P. & Pickering, C.M., 2021, ‘Public perceptions about Nepalese national parks: A global Twitter discourse analysis’, Society & Natural Resources 34(6), 685–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2021.1876193
Bingham, H.C., Juffe Bignoli, D., Lewis, E., MacSharry, B., Burgess, N.D., Visconti, P. et al., 2019, ‘Sixty years of tracking conservation progress using the World Database on Protected Areas’, Nature Ecology & Evolution 3, 737–743. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0869-3
Blackburn, T.M., Pyšek, P., Bacher, S., Carlton, J.T., Duncan, R.P., Jarošík, V. et al., 2011, ‘A proposed unified framework for biological invasions’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26(7), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.023
Blakey, E., 2024, ‘The day data transparency died: How Twitter/X cut off access for social research’, Contexts 23(2), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/15365042241252125
Canavan, S., Pipek, P., Canavan, K., Jarić, I., Healy, K., Lieurance, D. et al., 2025, ‘From habitats to hashtags: Examining online discussions about invasive species’, Ecology and Society 30(4), 13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-16508-300413
Cordeiro, B., Marchante, H., Castro, P. & Marchante, E., 2020, ‘Does public awareness about invasive plants pays off? An analysis of knowledge and perceptions of environmentally aware citizens in Portugal’, Biological Invasions 22, 2267–2281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02247-z
Correia, R.A., Ladle, R., Jarić, I., Malhado, A.C.M., Mittermeier, J.C., Roll, U. et al., 2021, ‘Digital data sources and methods for conservation culturomics’, Conservation Biology 35(2), 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13706
Estévez, R.A., Anderson, C.B., Pizarro, J.C. & Burgman, M.A., 2015, ‘Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management’, Conservation Biology 29, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12359
Foxcroft, L.C., Nichols, G.R., Nkuna, K.V., Jele, Z. & Pyšek, P., 2026, A complete catalogue of the alien flora of Kruger National Park: naturalized, invasive, ornamental, extralimital species and non-invasive taxa. Version 1. Scientific Report S1/2026. Scientific Services, South African National Parks, Skukuza.
Foxcroft, L.C., Jarošík, V., Pyšek, P., Richardson, D.M. & Rouget, M., 2011, ‘Protected-area boundaries as filters of plant invasions’, Conservation Biology 25(2), 400–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01617.x
Foxcroft, L.C., Moodley, D., Nichols, G.R. & Pyšek, P., 2023, ‘Naturalized and invasive alien plants in the Kruger National Park, South Africa’, Biological Invasions 25, 3049–3064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03098-0
Foxcroft, L.C., Pyšek, P., Richardson, D.M. & Genovesi, P. (eds.), 2013, Plant invasions in protected areas, Springer, Dordrecht.
Gallardo, B., Aldridge, D.C., González-Moreno, P., Pergl, J., Pizarro, M., Pyšek, P. et al., 2017, ‘Protected areas offer refuge from invasive species spreading under climate change’, Global Change Biology 23(12), 5331–5343. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13798
Ghermandi, A., 2022, ‘Geolocated social media data counts as a proxy for recreational visits in natural areas: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Environmental Management 317, 115325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115325
Hejda, M., Čuda, Pyšková, K., Foxcroft, L.C., Nkuna, K.V., Novoa, A. et al., 2023, ‘Impacts of invasive alien species on riparian plant communities in South African savanna’, Journal of Tropical Ecology 39, e39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467423000299
Higashino, P.K., Cuddihy, L.W., Anderson, S.J. & Stone, C.P., 1988, Checklist of vascular plants of Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit Technical Report 64, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu.
Jarić, I., Bellard, C., Correia, R.A., Courchamp, F., Douda, K., Essl, F. et al., 2021, ‘Invasion culturomics and iEcology’, Conservation Biology 35(2), 447–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13707
Jarić, I., Courchamp, F., Correia, R.A., Crowley, S.L., Essl, F., Fischer, A. et al., 2020, ‘The role of species charisma in biological invasions’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18(6), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2195
Klapwijk, M.J., Hopkins, A.J., Eriksson, L., Pettersson, M., Schroeder, M. & Lindelöw, Å. et al., 2016, ‘Reducing the risk of invasive forest pests and pathogens: Combining legislation, targeted management and public awareness’, Ambio 45 (Suppl 2), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0748-3
Kumschick, S., Bacher, S., Bertolino, S., Blackburn, T.M., Evans, T., Roy, H.E. et al., 2020, ‘Appropriate uses of EICAT protocol, data and classifications’, NeoBiota 62, 193–212. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.62.51574
Ladle, R.J., Correia, R.A., Do, Y., Joo, G.J., Malhado, A.C., Proulx, R. et al., 2016, ‘Conservation culturomics’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(5), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1260
Mangachena, J.R. & Pickering, C.M., 2021, ‘Implications of social media discourse for managing national parks in South Africa’, Journal of Environmental Management 285, 112159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112159
Moodley, D., Angulo, E., Cuthbert, R.N., Leung, B., Turbelin, A., Novoa, A. et al., 2022, ‘Surprisingly high economic costs of biological invasions in protected areas’, Biological Invasions 24(7), 1995–2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02732-7
Moodley, D., Foxcroft, L.C., Novoa, A., Pyšková, K., Pergl, J. & Pyšek, P., 2020, ‘Invasive alien species add to the uncertain future of protected areas’, NeoBiota 57, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.57.52188
Norman, P. & Pickering, C.M., 2023, ‘Discourse about national parks on social media: Insights from Twitter’, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 44, 100682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2023.100682
Novoa, A., Canavan, S., Jarić, I., Pipek, P. & Pyšek, P., 2022, ‘Musk’s Twitter takeover jeopardizes culturomics’, Nature 612, 211. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04361-5
Novoa, A., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Fried, J. & Vimercati, G., 2017, ‘Does public awareness increase support for invasive species management? Promising evidence across taxa and landscape types’, Biological Invasions 19(12), 3691–3705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1592-0
Novoa, A., Kaplan, H., Wilson, J.R.U. & Richardson, D.M., 2016, ‘Resolving a prickly situation: Involving stakeholders in invasive cactus management in South Africa’, Environmental Management 57(5), 998–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0645-3
Novoa, A., Shackleton, R., Canavan, S., Cybèle, C., Davies, S.J., Dehnen-Schmutz, K. et al., 2018, ‘A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species’, Journal of Environmental Management 205, 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.059
Pagad, S., Bisset, S., Genovesi, P., Groom, Q., Hirsch, T., Jetz, W. et al., 2022, ‘Country compendium of the global register of introduced and invasive species’, Scientific Data 9(1), 391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01514-z
Pyšek, P., Jarošík, V. & Kučera, T., 2003, ‘Inclusion of native and alien species in temperate nature reserves: An historical study from Central Europe’, Conservation Biology 17(5), 1414–1424. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02248.x
Pyšek, P., Pergl, J., Essl, F., Lenzner, B., Dawson, W., Kreft, H. et al., 2017, ‘Naturalized alien flora of the world’, Preslia 89(3), 203–274. https://doi.org/10.23855/preslia.2017.203
Roy, H.E., Pauchard, A., Stoett, P.J. et al., 2024. ‘Curbing the major and growing threats from invasive alien species is urgent and achievable’, Nature Ecology and Evolution 8, 1216–1223. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02412-w
Sankaran, K.V., Schwindt, E., Sheppard, A.W., Foxcroft, L.C., Vanderhoeven, S., Egawa, C. et al., 2023, ‘Chapter 5: Management; challenges, opportunities and lessons learned’, in H.E. Roy, A. Pauchard, P. Stoett & T. Renard Truong (eds.), Thematic assessment report on invasive alien species and their control of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, IPBES Secretariat, Bonn.
Seebens, H., Bacher, S., Blackburn, T.M., Capinha, C., Dawson, W., Dullinger, S. et al., 2021, ‘Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050’, Global Change Biology 27(5), 970–982. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15333
Seebens, H., Meyerson, L.A., Rahlao, S.J., Lenzner, B., Tricarico, E., Aleksanyan, A. et al., 2023, ‘Chapter 2: Trends and status of alien and invasive alien species’, in H.E. Roy, A. Pauchard, P. Stoett & T. Renard Truong (eds.), Thematic assessment report on invasive alien species and their control, pp.76–259, IPBES Secretariat, Bonn.
Shackleton, R.T., Foxcroft, L.C., Pyšek, P., Wood, L.E. & Richardson, D.M., 2020, ‘Assessing biological invasions in protected areas after 30 years: Revisiting nature reserves targeted by the 1980s SCOPE programme’, Biological Conservation 243, 108424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108424
Shackleton, R.T., Richardson, D.M., Shackleton, C.M., Bennett, B., Crowley, S.L., Dehnen-Schmutz, K. et al., 2019, ‘Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework’, Journal of Environmental Management 229, 10–26.
Van Kleunen, M., Essl, F., Pergl, J., Brundu, G., Carboni, M., Dullinger, S. et al., 2018, ‘The changing role of ornamental horticulture in alien plant invasions’, Biological Reviews 93, 1421–1437. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12402
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
