Botanic garden benefits do not repudiate risks: A reply to Sharrock et al.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 26, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 434-435

  Hulme, Philip E ^a  

^a LINCOLN UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051473537     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.06.005     Document Type: Letter

References (10)

1. Hulme P.E., et al. Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework to better integrate pathways into policy. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45:403-414.
2. Sharrock S.L., et al. The biodiversity benefits of botanic gardens. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, 26:433.
3. Hulme P.E. Addressing the threat to biodiversity from botanic gardens. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, 26:168-174.
4. McCracken D. Gardens of Empire: Botanical Institutions of the Victorian British Empire 1997, Leicester University Press.
5. Aikio S., et al. Time lags in alien plant invasions: separating the facts from the artefacts. Oikos 2010, 119:370-378.
6. Davis K. A CBD Manual for Botanic Gardens 2008, Botanic Gardens Conservation International.
7. Hulme P.E., Weser C. Mixed messages from multiple information sources on invasive species: a case of too much of a good thing?. Divers. Distrib. 2011, 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00800.x.
8. Dawson W., et al. The suitability of weed risk assessment as a conservation tool to identify invasive plant threats in East African rainforests. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142:1018-1024.
9. Virtue J.G., et al. Australia's botanic gardens weed risk assessment procedure. Plant Prot. Q. 2008, 23:166-178.
10. Jefferson L., et al. Implementing invasive screening procedures: the Chicago Botanic Garden model. Weed Technol. 2004, 18:1434-1440.