Geographic profiling as a novel spatial tool for targeting the control of invasive species

Ecography

Volumn 35, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 704-715

  Stevenson, Mark D ^a   Rossmo, D Kim ^b   Knell, Robert J ^a   Le Comber, Steven C ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL; BIOLOGICAL INVASION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HABITAT TYPE; IDENTIFICATION METHOD; INVASIVE SPECIES; INVERTEBRATE; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; SHRUB; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; WEED CONTROL;

UNITED KINGDOM;

HERACLEUM; HERACLEUM MANTEGAZZIANUM; INVERTEBRATA;

EID: 84861334221     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.07292.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Canter D. et al. 2000. Predicting serial killers' home base using a decision support system. - J. Quant. Criminol. 16: 457-478.
2. Crooks J. and Soulé M. E. 1999. Lag times in population explosions of invasive species: causes and implications. - In: Sandlund O. T. et al. (eds), Invasive species and biodiversity management. Kluwer, pp. 103-125.
3. Davies C. E. et al. 2004. EUNIS habitat classification revised. - European Environment Agency report, < >.
4. Doney R. H. 1990. The aftermath of the Yorkshire Ripper: the response of the United Kingdom police service. - In: Egger S. (ed.), Serial murder: an elusive phenomenon. Praeger Publishing, pp. 95-112.
5. Drake J. M. and Lodge D. M. 2004. Effects of environmental variation on extinction and establishment. - Ecol. Lett. 7: 26-30.
6. Dramstad W. 1996. Do bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) really forage close to their nests? - J. Insect Behav. 9: 163-182.
7. Hill M. et al. 2005. Audit of non-native species in England. - English Nature Report, < >.
8. Hulme P. E. 2006. Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. - J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 835-847.
9. Keller R. P. et al. 2008. Preventing the spread of invasive species: economic benefits of intervention guided by ecological predictions. - Conserv. Biol. 22: 80-88.
10. Kuhn H. W. and Kuenne R. E. 1962. An efficient algorithm for the numerical solution of the generalized Weber problem in spatial economics. - J. Regional Sci. 4: 21-33.
11. Le Comber S. C. et al. 2006. Geographic profiling and animal foraging. - J. Theor. Biol. 240: 233-240.
12. Le Comber S. C. et al. 2011. Geographic profiling as a novel spatial tool for targeting infectious disease control. - Int. J. Health Geogr. 10: 35.
13. Leung B. et al. 2002. An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. - Proc. R. Soc. B 269: 2407-2413.
14. Leung B. et al. 2004. Predicting invasions: propagule pressure and the gravity of Allee effects. - Ecology 85: 1651-1660.
15. Levine N. 2009. CrimeStat: a spatial statistics program for the analysis of crime incident locations. - Ned Levine and Associates, Annandale, VA and the National Inst. of Justice, Washington, DC, < >.
16. Lodge D. M. 1993. Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 133-137.
17. MacIsaac H. J. et al. 2004. Backcasting and forecasting biological invasions of inland lakes. - Ecol. Appl. 14: 773-783.
18. Martin R. A. et al. 2009. Hunting patterns and geographic profiling of white shark predation. - J. Zool. 279: 111-118.
19. Mooney H. A. and Drake J. A. (eds) 1986. Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. - Springer.
20. Nocedal J. and Wright S. J. 1999. Numerical optimization. - Springer.
21. O'Leary M. 2009. The mathematics of geographic profiling. - J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 6: 253-265.
22. Peterson A. T. 2003. Predicting the geography of species invasions via ecological niche modelling. - Q. Rev. Biol. 78: 419-433.
23. Pimentel D. S. et al. 2000. Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. - Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 84: 1-20.
24. Puth L. M. and Post D. M. 2005. Studying invasion: have we missed the boat? - Ecol. Lett. 8: 715-721.
25. Raine N. E. et al. 2009. Geographic profiling applied to testing models of bumble-bee foraging. - J. R. Soc. Interface 6: 307-319.
26. Ricciardi A. and Cohen J. 2007. The invasiveness of an introduced species does not predict its impact. - Biol. Invasions 9: 309-315.
27. Rossmo D. K. 1993. A methodological model. - Am. J. Crimin. Just. 172: 1-21.
28. Rossmo D. K. 2000. Geographic profiling. - CRC Press.
29. Sakai A. K. et al. 2001. The population biology of invasive species. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32: 305-332.
30. Saville N. M. et al. 1997. Bumblebee movement in a fragmented agricultural landscape. - Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 61: 145-154.
31. Singh H. P. et al. 2001. Allelopathy in agroecosystems. - J. Crop Prod. 4: 1-41.
32. Stevenson M. D. 2011. gp: geographic profiling. - R package ver. 1.0.
33. Strayer D. L. et al. 2006. Understanding the long-term effects of species invasions. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 645-651.
34. Thuiller W. et al. 2005. Niche-based modelling as a tool for predicting the risk of alien plant invasions at a global scale. - Global Change Biol. 11: 2234-2250.
35. Vitousek P. M. et al. 1996. Biological invasions as global environmental change. - Am. Sci. 84: 468-478.
36. Vitousek P. M. et al. 1997. Human domination of earth's ecosystems. - Science 277: 494.
37. Weiszfeld E. 1936. Sur le point pour lequel la somme des distances de n points donnes est minimum. - Tôhoku Math. J. 43: 355-386.
38. Wilcove D. S. et al. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperilled species in the United States. - Bioscience 48: 607-615.
39. Williamson M. and Fitter A. 1996a. The varying success of invaders. - Ecology 77: 1661-1666.
40. Williamson M. and Fitter A. 1996b. The characters of successful invaders. - Biol. Conserv. 78: 163-170.
41. Worton B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home range studies. - Ecology 70: 164: 168.