Cited by 369Marine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits

Open access
Keller, Reuben P., Lodge, David M., Finnoff, David C.·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

International commerce in live organisms presents a policy challenge for trade globalization; sales of live organisms create wealth, but some nonindigenous species cause harm. To reduce damage, some countries have implemented species screening to limit the introduction of damaging species. Adoption of new risk assessment (RA) technologies has been slowed, however, by concerns that RA accuracy remains insufficient to produce positive net economic benefits. This concern arises because only a small proportion of all introduced species escape, spread, and cause harm (i.e., become invasive), so a RA will exclude many noninvasive species (which provide a net economic benefit) for every invasive species correctly identified. Here, we develop a simple cost:benefit bioeconomic framework to quantify the net benefits from applying species prescreening. Because invasive species are rarely eradicated, and their damages must therefore be borne for long periods, we have projected the value of RA over a suitable range of policy time horizons (10–500 years). We apply the model to the Australian plant quarantine program and show that this RA program produces positive net economic benefits over the range of reasonable assumptions. Because we use low estimates of the financial damage caused by invasive species and high estimates of the value of species in the ornamental trade, our results underestimate the net benefit of the Australian plant quarantine program. In addition, because plants have relatively low rates of invasion, applying screening protocols to animals would likely demonstrate even greater benefits.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0605787104

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Emerging evidence shows that even expensive interventions, especially related to prevention, generally result in net benefits.

    “Managing invasions is difficult and often expensive, but emerging evidence shows that even expensive interventions, especially related to prevention, generally result in net benefits (Zavaleta, 2000; Keller, Lodge, & Finnoff, 2007).”

    From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Keller, Lodge, & Finnoff, 2007

    The Abstract reports that Australia's preventive plant-screening program produces positive net economic benefits under a range of reasonable assumptions. The Results and Discussion also project benefits for proposed screening policies. The paper does not establish that expensive invasion-management interventions generally yield net benefits; its analysis concerns species screening under specified conditions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06596.x · DOI
  2. 10.1023/A:1010091918466 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1999.tb00449.x · DOI
  4. 10.1017/CBO9780511614279 · DOI
  5. 10.1073/pnas.0501271102 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1126/science.1075753 · DOI
  7. 10.1890/02-5301 · DOI
  8. PC Pheloung Determining the Weed Potential of New Plant Introductions to Australia (Agriculture Protection Board, Perth, Australia, 1995).
  9. PD Champion, JS Clayton Border Control for Potential Aquatic Weeds (Department of Conservation, Wellington, Australia, 2000).
  10. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95473.x · DOI
  11. 10.1023/A:1010002005024 · DOI
  12. 10.1086/285865 · DOI
  13. 10.1126/science.272.5259.221 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.019 · DOI
  15. 10.2307/1313438 · DOI
  16. T Low Feral Future (Penguin, Melbourne, 2001).
  17. 10.1016/0095-0696(85)90014-2 · DOI
  18. 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0689:BICEGC]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  19. 10.1257/aer.91.1.260 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/S0921-8009(96)80002-4 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/1467-8276.00397 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.020 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02864.x · DOI
  24. 10.1056/NEJMoa032299 · DOI
  25. I Kowarik Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems, eds P Pyšek, K Prach, M Rejmánek, PM Wade (SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam), pp. 15–38 (1995).
  26. 10.3201/eid1104.041167 · DOI
  27. 10.1007/s10530-004-6703-z · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.011 · DOI
  29. 10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0513:IPIWEM]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  30. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (World Trade Organization, Geneva, 2005).
  31. J Thorp Report 1997–2002 (National Weeds Strategy Executive Committee, Launceston, Australia), pp. 1997–2002 (2002).
  32. JG Virtue SJ Bennett RP Randall eds BM Sindel SB Johnson (Weed Society of New South Wales Sydney) pp. 42–48 (2004).
  33. J Sinden, R Jones, S Hester, D Odom, C Kalisch, R James, O Cacho The Economic Impact of Weeds in Australia (CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide, Australia, 2004).
  34. New Report Shows Latest Trends in the Australian Garden Market (Nursery and Garden Industry Australia, Sydney, 2004).
  35. How Important Are Australian Natives in the Trade? (Nursery Industry Association of Australia, Sydney, 1999).
  36. 10.2307/2845589 · DOI
  37. PC Pheloung Determining the Weed Potential of New Plant Introductions to Australia (Agriculture Protection Board, Perth, Australia, 1995).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Keller, R. P., Lodge, D. M., & Finnoff, D. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • University of Wyoming (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-01-02
Volume
104
Issue
1
Pages
203-207
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2100987405
Cited by
369
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 23
FWCI
21.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0213698)
  • University of Notre Dame
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine Ecology and Invasive Species
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Biological Control of Invasive Species
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
invasive species, risk assessment, bioeconomic analysis, species screening, plant quarantine, ornamental plant trade, introduced species, trade globalization, cost-benefit analysis
MeSH terms
Commerce, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Plants, Quarantine, Models, Econometric, Ecosystem, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review