Header for this thread...

Hi All

To start off some discussion around existing cases, a special issue on "The human and social dimensions of invasion science and management" there has just been published in the Journal of Environmental Management vol 229, including 18 articles covering existing research and case studies from all over the world: Nepal, Chile, Guam, Madagascar, indigenous Australia, South Africa, La Reunion ... 

(see https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-environmental-management/vol/229/suppl/C)

This includes the following review paper:

Shackleton, R.T., Shackleton, C.M. and Kull, C.A., 2019. The role of invasive alien species in shaping local livelihoods and human well-being: A review. Journal of environmental management, 229, pp.145-157.

They state: "Invasive alien species are a well-recognised driver of social-ecological change globally. Much research has focused on ecological impacts, but the role of invasive species for livelihoods and human well-being is less well known. Understanding the effects (benefits and costs) of invasive species on livelihoods and human well-being is important for guiding policy formulation and management"

They found "slightly less than half (48%) of species studied had both substantial positive and negative impacts on local livelihoods (e.g. Australian Acacia spp. species; Camelus dromedaries; Lantana camara; Prosopis spp.), with 37% inducing mainly costs (Chromolaena odorata; Lissachatina fulica; Opuntia stricta) and 16% producing mainly benefits (Opuntia ficus-indica; Acacia spp.). Some species, such as Acacia dealbata, fell into different categories depending on the social-ecological context. Key benefits or services included the provision of fuelwood, fodder, timber and food products for local households communities and to a lesser extent supporting and regulating services such as soil improvement and shade. A number of species also provided cultural services such as recreation and spiritual values and provided many with an opportunity to earn a cash income. However, invasive species also harm livelihoods and increase vulnerability through encroaching on land and reducing mobility or access. They can also decrease the supply of natural resources used by households and reduce agricultural production (livestock and/or crops) which can result in losses of income and increased vulnerability. Furthermore, some invasive species were seen to have negative implications for human health and safety and reduce the cultural value of landscapes. Economic impacts on livelihoods as a result of invasive species were highly variable and very dependent on the social-ecological contexts. These negative implications can reduce resilience and adaptive capacity of households and communities thus increasing their vulnerability to change"

What other case histories do we know about that could add to this?

Andy

In Sweden the invasive alien species, for example Lupinus polyphyllus, Rosa rugosa,  Heracleum mantegazzianum eller Impatiens glandulifera have impact on meadows and pastures that have developed a special flora and fauna during often several hundred years of traditional agriculture that include mowing and grazing. These areas have very rich biodiversity and about half of the threatened species in Sweden are found in these biotopes. Even the biotopes itself are severely endangered because of the change in agricultural methods or abandonment.

However, these biotopes also have cultural value – they are even called “kulturlandskap” “cultural landscape”. They form the traditional Swedish countryside, the scenery that is considered homely and picturesque. Invasion of the remaining traditional meadows and pastures by strong invasive plants that form monocultures replacing the diversity of natural, less pretentious flora will totally change the scenery.

It is hard to say what would be an impact of such a change. Of course, there will be some socioeconomical impacts of the lost biodiversity when for example CWR-species can be lost and when the insect- and birdfauna changes and causes further changes in ecosystem. At least the honeyproducers get honey of less quality and the value of pastures decrease for those few ecological farmers who still try to use traditional measures. There might be some effect on tourism.  However, the general cultural impact of changing scenery on average person is hard to measure. Still, it seems that this kind of impact on the traditional landscape of a country is so profound that it somehow should be included in riskassesments – or should we only concentrate on directly measurable effects?

This fascinating video explains the social and cultural impacts of weeds on aboriginal land in central Australia. This provides a qualitative record of impacts on indigenous foods and other cultural values

Unwelcome Strangers: Weeds on Aboriginal Country

Description
This film was created during a collaborative project between CSIRO and Aboriginal rangers, organisations and community people from five locations in Queensland and the Northern Territory.

'Unwelcome Strangers' focuses on weed issues faced by Arrarnta people in central Australia. However, the video also shows how each group at the different locations is confronted by invading plants that threaten cultural, environmental, economic, and social values. It shows the commitment and approaches taken by Aboriginal people, especially the critical work of Aboriginal rangers.

https://ictv.com.au/video/item/1610

"Storylines" or even "Songlines" in indigenous culture (where knowledge is passed through generations by the telling and refining stories) are vital tools for maintaining cultural knowledge so as we try and build up understanding of the socio-economic impacts of IAS in local communities and indigenous livelihoods and culture it is important to think of and seek relevant Storylines from those cultures that help understand the issues.

Examples of this again from Australia are storylines on how the dingo (wild dog) spread through indigenous communittes thousands of years ago and modified their landscapes leading to to loss of some native species through to more modern examples around the arrival of feral cats their impacts but also their use as a novel food source similarly for pigs and water buffalo (and more recently feral cattle), which are both feral animals in Australia that are now very important to indigenous culture. It is vital to understand that IAS in indigenous culture have both negative and positive cultural importance and respect this as we try and manage biodiversity and ecosystem service impacts they cause.

Does anyone know of indigenous "storylines" in your local community and indigenous knowledge systems relating to IAS that you can share?

Thanks

Andy

Here are a few academic studies that have tried to record some Australian indigenous knowledge systems around IAS:

Trigger, D.S., 2008. Indigeneity, ferality, and what ‘belongs’ in the Australian bush: Aboriginal responses to ‘introduced’animals and plants in a settler‐descendant society. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 14(3), pp.628-646. Attached

Robinson, C. and Wallington, T., 2012. Boundary work: engaging knowledge systems in co-management of feral animals on Indigenous lands. Ecology and Society, 17(2). Attached

Urry, J., 1979. Beyond the frontier: European influence, aborigines and the concept of ‘traditional’culture. Journal of Australian Studies, 3(5), pp.2-16.(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14443057909386796?journalCode=rjau20)

Symanski, R., 1994. Contested realities: feral horses in outback Australia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 84(2), pp.251-269.(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1994.tb01737.x)

There was a also a fury of studies around a National feral camel culling program in central Australia focused on indigenous culture driven approach to IAS management:

Kaethner, B., See, P. and Pennington, A., 2016. Talking camels: a consultation strategy for consent to conduct feral camel management on Aboriginal-owned land in Australia. The Rangeland Journal, 38(2), pp.125-133.(http://www.publish.csiro.au/RJ/RJ15076)

Vaarzon‐Morel, P. and Edwards, G., 2012. Incorporating Aboriginal people’s perceptions of introduced animals in resource management: insights from the feral camel project. Ecological management & restoration, 13(1), pp.65-71. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00619.x)

Kaethner, B., See, P. and Pennington, A., 2016. Talking camels: a consultation strategy for consent to conduct feral camel management on Aboriginal-owned land in Australia. The Rangeland Journal, 38(2), pp.125-133.(http://www.publish.csiro.au/RJ/RJ15076)

Vaarzon-Morel, P., 2017. Alien relations: Ecological and Ontological Dilemmas Posed for Indigenous Australians in the Management of “Feral” Camels on their Lands. University of Toronto Press. (https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/20842)

Here is another important reference that has more broadly reviewed this issue across the world

Pfeiffer, J.M. and Voeks, R.A., 2008. Biological invasions and biocultural diversity: linking ecological and cultural systems. Environmental Conservation, 35(4), pp.281-293.

Dear all.

In South Africa, the constitution in section 24 states that everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being. The constitution provides the basis for socio-economic consideration noting that such impacts are associated mostly with human health and their well-being.

In addition, section 17(1)(d) of the National Environment Management Biodiversity Act- Alien Invasive Species Regulations states that the Risk assessment report  should include key economic, social and ecological consideration that will guide a decision whether or not to issue a permit. Unfortunately it doesn’t provide modalities for assessing the socio economic and cultural values.

Some studies on this topic has suggested that environmental and socioeconomic impacts are significantly correlated. This means that species with a high environmental impact have specific traits that are also associated with a high economic impact, for example, the aquatic invasive water hyacinth.

Some interesting studies on this topic:
Rumlerová, Z., Vilà, M., Pergl, J. Nentwig, W. and Pyšek, P. (2016) Scoring environmental and socioeconomic impacts of alien plants invasive in Europe. Biological Invasions.

Nentwig W, Bacher S, Pyšek P, Vilà M & Kumschick S (2016) The generic impact scoring system (GISS): A standardized tool to quantify the impacts of alien species. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 188:315

Regards
Ntakadzeni

Thanks Ntakadzeni

Excellent point and pointers. I would imagine that there may be even higher correlations between between environmental and social impacts

Scoring systems are of course also very valuable tools so this entry is also highly relevant for the 4b) discussions

Thanks

Andy

Bamboo (Bambusa vulgaris) has a long history in Jamaica, with Rashford (1995) indicating a likely first introduction from the 18th century. It was valued during colonial times primarily for its construction value and while this value is still present, its utilitarian value has changed over the centuries as Jamaican society has evolved.

B. vulgaris fast-growing and widespread nature in Jamaica has made it traditionally a relatively cheap and accessible material. Senior's (2003) mentions the value of bamboo in soil conservation. It is no coincidence that an observed landscape pattern across Jamaica is the bordering of river banks by stands of bamboo, as bamboo is sometimes planted in along riverbanks to stabilize the soil.  Senior also mentions bamboo a forming a main component of a traditional musical instrument called "Benta".

B. vulgaris  has interestingly found its way into Jamaican superstition. Bengry (1950) outlines that there is the belief that cutting bamboo for use on nights when the moon is waxing or waning will affect the vulnerability of the bamboo to pests.

The longstanding and common acceptance of bamboo as a part of the Jamaican cultural landscape has presented recent conservation challenges. B. vulgaris is hindering the regeneration of native wet montane vegetation in some parts of the Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park, as well as other forested areas across the island. There is now a young but thriving bamboo industry in Jamaica. Very limited risk assessment capacity in the island has added to the concerns about the impact of a growing bamboo industry on Jamaican biodiversity conservation.

Values matter in the biodiversity conservation discourse as there is strong resistance to evidence that B. vulgaris  is an invasive species in Jamaica. Tools or sharing of effective approaches in assessing the potential and actual impacts of invasive species on societal values are welcomed.

*Bengry, R. P. 1950. Moonshine and Science. Natural  History Notes , vol.IV, No.42, pp. 111
*Rashford, J. The Past and Present Uses of Bamboo in Jamaica. Economic Botany.
*Senior, O. 2003. Encyclopedia of Jamaican Heritage. Twin Guinep Publishers.
--
----------------------------
Suzanne Davis, Ph.D.
Senior Research Officer - Jamaica Clearing-House Mechanism
Natural History Museum of Jamaica
Institute of Jamaica
10-16 East Street
Kingston
Jamaica, W.I.
Tel.#: (876)922-0620 (last digit up to 6)
Fax #:(876)922-1147
Email: sdavis@nhmj-ioj.org.jm
URL: http://www.jamaicachm.org.jm

Thanks Suzanne

A classic case of a conflict species where there are strong environmental impacts but also provides significant socio-economic benefits. I don't know of any jurisdiction that has found a way to address these kinds of problems for how you get consensus around a response either locally or nationally.

In Australia too such conflict species are generally monocots, grasses brought in for grazing agriculture that provide agricultural benefits and ecological harm. A recent story on our ABC news network pointed out that Australia has spent $11M on Gamba grass from Africa without any noticeable reduction in impacts, because it is still widely used in tropical grazing systems  

Very challenging as these species are also often clear ecosystem transformers.        

Thanks

Andy

Dear all,

Plants make up 80 percent of the food we eat and produce 98 percent of the oxygen we breathe. The annual value of trade in agricultural products has grown almost three-fold over the past decade, largely in emerging economies and developing countries, reaching USD 1.7 trillion.

However, plants are at risk. Each year an estimated 10–16% of global harvest is lost to plant pests. Plant pests are responsible for the loss of up to 40 percent of global food crops, and for trade losses in agricultural products exceeding USD 220 billion annually.

More plant health pests are appearing earlier and in places where they were never seen before. More plant pests are appearing earlier and in places where they were never seen before due to climate change. Indeed, climate change is having a big impact on plant health. It threatens to reduce both the quality and quantity of crops, leading to lower yields. Rising temperatures are also exacerbating water scarcity, and changing the relationship between pests, plants and pathogens.

Attached to this post, a paper published in March 2019 “The global burden of pathogens and pests on
major food crops” by Serge Savary, Laetitia Willocquet, Sarah Jane Pethybridge, Paul Esker, Neil McRoberts and Andy Nelson (Nature Ecology & Evolution | VOL 434 3 | MARCH 2019 | 430–439 | http://www.nature.com/natecolevol) .


Some examples of the impact of pests and IPPC role:

1. ISPM 15: Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade:

Pests associated with wood packaging material are known to have negative impacts on forest health and biodiversity.  The billions of dollars associated with agricultural and forestry resources, pest eradication programs, and disruptions in trade are consequences of the pests spread internationally. The emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle native to Asia, has killed hundreds of millions of ash trees in 31 states since it was confirmed in Detroit, Michigan, in 2002. On the other hand, in South Korea, where pine trees are cultural, historical and ecological cornerstones, containing the pine wood nematode has cost over $600 million in 20 years. Despite the loss of forest and crop but there are so many indirect impacts of these pests too - the ecology, the social impact and the environment which are not easily estimated.

In recognition of the plant health risk associated with wood packaging material, the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) has adopted a wood packaging standard: International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures - ISPM 15: Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade. This standard aims to significantly minimize the risk of unprocessed raw wood being used as a pathway for the introduction and the spread of most quarantine pests and diseases through international trade.

Implementation of this standard is considered to reduce significantly the spread of pests and subsequently their negative impacts. In the absence of alternative treatments being available for certain situations or to all countries, or the availability of other appropriate packaging materials, methyl bromide treatment is included in this standard. Methyl bromide is known to deplete the ozone layer. An IPPC / CPM recommendation on the replacement or reduction of the use of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary measure has been adopted in relation to this issue (https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/84230/).


2. Fruit fly standards

Fruit flies are considered one of the most destructive agricultural pests, and keeping exotic fruit flies out is a major concern for many countries. Losses to fruits and vegetables caused by fruit flies (family Tephritidae) are substantial and maybe broken into two categories: Firstly, direct losses to the fruits and vegetables; secondly, quarantine restrictions imposed by importing countries result in losses in overseas or, in some cases, within country markets. Invariably, these restrictions result in a cost to governments and horticultural industries for quarantine surveillance and regulatory inspections as part of guaranteeing quarantine security. 

For example, if melon fly (Bactrocera   cucurbitae) became established in Tonga, the export market of squash/pumpkin to Japan would immediately cease until the outbreak was eradicated or a satisfactory quarantine treatment was developed. The monetary loss would be in excess of US$8–10 million. The outbreak of Mediterranean fruit fly in Auckland has already cost the New Zealand Government about NZ$ 6.0 million. Dowell and Wange (1986) listed eight fruit flies of greatest threat to California and estimated that the state wide establishment of these would cost US$ 910 million to eradicate and US$ 290 million to control.

Another example is the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis, has been found in at least 65 countries including parts of Oceania and most of continental Africa (in particular sub-Saharan countries). In the African region, it was detected in 2003 and represents a great phytosanitary challenge because of the threat the pest poses to the region’s exports, particularly of avocado, banana, guava and mango. It is thought that import trade bans to the region alone are causing around US$ 2 billion losses annually.  After introduction, B. dorsalis can easily spread as it has a high reproductive potential, high biotic potential (short life cycle; up to 10 generations of offspring per year depending on temperature), a rapid dispersal ability, high competitiveness with native fruit flies, and a broad host range.

To limit the international spread of fruit flies, the IPPC develops international standards to prevent their introduction into new areas and the fruit flies spread. As of October 2018, the IPPC has over 23 international standards that provide guidance to establish areas pest free of fruit flies, guidance to determine if a fruit or a vegetable is a true host of fruit flies, to standards that provides true operational technical guidance on how to apply a range of treatments for the food commodities: since irradiation to cold treatments. It is known that these international standards helped to promote international trade while safeguarding countries crops’ productions and reduced not only the direct losses into the commodities traded but also considerably provided costs cuts to governments and horticultural industries.

3. Avocados in Mexico

The annual value to Mexico from exports of fresh avocados to the USA exceeds $1 billion. From the initial application of fruit flies pest free areas in 5,000 ha in 1997, to the subsequent establishment of a systems approach program in over 125,000 ha today, 23,000 owners of orchards (80 percent with average of 5 ha) have overcome the poverty endured by generations.

The development of phytosanitary measures to minimize the risk of international movement of three weevils and a moth, which were later adopted as international standards, is credited with removing an import barrier in place for 82 years and providing growers and packers with a decent living at home – significantly reducing the migratory flow to the US.

4. Fall Armyworm

Fall Armyworm (FAW), or Spodoptera frugiperda, is an insect that is native to tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas. In its larva stage, it can cause significant damage to crops, if not well managed. It prefers maize, but can feed on more than 80 additional species of plants, including rice, sorghum, millet, sugarcane, vegetable crops and cotton. FAW was first detected in Central and Western Africa in early 2016 and has quickly spread across virtually all of Sub-Saharan Africa. Because of trade and the moth’s strong flying ability, it has the potential to spread further. Farmers will need great support through Integrated Pest Management to sustainably manage FAW in their cropping systems.

FAO has proposed a five-year programme of action to help smallholder farmers, their organizations, their public institutions, national governments and development partners quickly respond to the challenges of FAW infestation across Africa. FAO is taking an active role in coordinating partners’ activities, plans and approaches to provide sustainable solutions to the FAW challenge.

5. Success of FAO and IPPC to address Xylella fastidiosa

Xylella fastidiosa is a plant pathogenic bacterium that has more than 500 host plants among them important cash crops in many countries such as citrus, grapes, stone fruits, and olive. The outbreak of Olive Quick Decline Syndrome (OQDS) caused by X. fastidiosa in Italian Apulia region in 2013, serious and significant losses in olive production sector were estimated by USD 1 billion. With so many challenges on the NENA region such the lack of enforcement of phytosanitary measures, and inadequate capacities and the fragile situation on some conflicts areas, X. fastidiosa is considered a real threat to olive production in all NENA region countries and to the entire Mediterranean Basin.

The FAO interventions started in 2015 in responding to this threat concern risk communications, early warning messages, technical seminars, workshops, and technical support. Many technical workshops were held in different areas to raise the stakeholder’s awareness of this dangerous of pest. The largest meeting was the International Workshop on the Olive Trees Quick Decline Disease, Xylella fastidiosa that took place on 19 – 22 April 2016 in Bari, Italy, organized by FAO, in partnership with IPPC, NEPPO, and CIHEAM. On August 2016, FAO-RNE lunched a regional TCP project (TCP/RAB/3601), (duration: 22 months, budget: USD 499,000). The project supported seven countries (Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine and Tunisia) in their efforts to enforce preventive measures for the introduction and spread of X. fastidiosa and Olive Quick Decline Syndrome in their territories. The project activities focused on raising awareness, developing human and institutional capacities, strengthen and update phytosanitary regulations/measures to prevent the introduction of the disease and assisting countries to put in place effective surveillance and monitoring programmes.

Furthermore, contribution of FAO the IPPC to globally regulate this disease, an International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM 27) about the diagnostic protocol for Xylella fastidiosa as regulated pest and  Guidelines for the prevention, eradication and containment of Xylella fastidiosa in olive-growing areas have been developed. Further training programmes have been carried out in cooperation with IPPC partners for the staff of different NPPOs in the world about the implementation of the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs), taking Xylella fastidiosa as a case study significantly raised the awareness on this disease.


Best regards,

Adriana G. Moreira
Standard Setting Officer (Programme Specialist)
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Secretariat
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO/UN)
E-mail / Skype:  adriana.moreira@fao.org
Websites: http://www.fao.org | http://www.ippc.int

Hi All

Here are some studies on invasive alien plants in Africa (Kenya and Ethiopia) and India that have not only had major socio-economic impacts on rural indigenous communities but had also led to adaptation in these communities in the use of these plants to create new industries. This shows how local communities will find ways themselves of finding value in intractable IAS, but this can lead to greater IAS environmental impacts and ecosystem degradation in the longer term. For understanding how best to manage IAS it is important to understand these local community adaptations. The two main systems appear to be around Prosopis and Acacia:

Fagg, C.W. and Stewart, J.L., 1994. The value of Acacia and Prosopis in arid and semi-arid environments. Journal of Arid Environments, 27(1), pp.3-25.

Berhanu, A. and Tesfaye, G., 2006. The Prosopis dilemma, impacts on dryland biodiversity and some controlling methods. Journal of the Drylands, 1(2), pp.158-164.

Cunningham, P., Nicholson, C., Yaou, S., Rinaudo, T., Australia, N. and Harwood, C., 2008, March. Utilization of Australian acacias for improving food security and environmental sustainability in the Sahel, West Africa. In Proceedings of the international symposium on ‘underutilized plants for food, nutrition, income and sustainable development

Maundu, P., Kibet, S., Morimoto, Y., Imbumi, M. and Adeka, R., 2009. Impact of Prosopis juliflora on Kenya's semi-arid and arid ecosystems and local livelihoods. Biodiversity, 10(2-3), pp.33-50

Baka, J., 2014. What wastelands? A critique of biofuel policy discourse in South India. Geoforum, 54, pp.315-323.

Sato, T., 2013. Beyond water-intensive agriculture: Expansion of Prosopis juliflora and its growing economic use in Tamil Nadu, India. Land use policy, 35, pp.283-292

Bekele, K., Haji, J., Legesse, B. and Schaffner, U., 2018. Economic impacts of Prosopis spp. invasions on dryland ecosystem services in Ethiopia and Kenya: Evidence from choice experimental data. Journal of arid environments, 158, pp.9-18.

Along the line with Andy's post, the impact of IAS in Nigeria (and perhaps other West African countries) is not different from what has been reported so far.

Water hyacinth heavily impacts water navigation for local fishermen and reduces local fish harvests and hence food insecurity for the already financially-stressed families. Typha grass (Typha latifolia) causes similar effects in northern Nigeria waterways. The government use of heavy machinery to control its growth was counterproductive and interviewed community leaders complained they were not involved. Now, the Nigeria Conservation Foundation (a non-profit) is spearheading projects to encourage harvesting the plants and its use in making charcoal, an alternative income source and control method.

A Nigerian, Achenyo Idachaba, established a local company that harvests water hyacinth and uses the dried stalks to make local crafts, which have been displayed in international galleries. She also won the 2014 Carter Women's initiative global prize for her work. You can read more about her work here: https://www.cartierwomensinitiative.com/candidate/achenyo-idachaba

I have outlined the local impacts of some IAS and the potentials for local harvest/use in the referenced paper below. More references can be extracted from the citation list in the paper:
Borokini T.I and Babalola F.D. (2012). Management of invasive plant species in Nigeria through economic exploitation: lessons from other countries. Management of Biological Invasions 3(1): 45-55.

There is an interesting case in China on Procambarus clarkii. Procambarus clarkii is a popular food in eastern China which formed an industry in many places. Taking Jiangsu Province in eastern China as an example, in 2017, Procambarus clarkii farming area was more than 92, 000 hm2, the output was more than 110, 000 tons, the annual total output value was 45 billion Yuan, and the employees related to Procambarus clarkii industry reached 500, 000. In these areas, there were no reports of the damage of Procambarus clarkii to agriculture and ecological environment. However, in Yunnan Province in southwestern China, Procambarus clarkii have caused damage to the Honghe Hani Rice Terraces, a world cultural heritage. The Procambarus clarkii has the habit of drilling holes in the ridge, which makes the terrace unable to store water. I think there are two reasons for the harm of Procambarus clarkii in the rice terraces. One is those rice terraces provides a suitable habitat for Procambarus clarkii and is vulnerable to damage by Procambarus clarkii. The other is that the local people do not like to eat Procambarus clarkii and have no effective means to reduce the population density of Procambarus clarkii in the rice terraces. Therefore, I believe that assessing the potential economic, environmental and cultural risks of invasive alien species should take into account the special local production and lifestyle.

Yaping HU