Cited by 133Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementBotany and Plant Ecology Studies

Protected‐Area Boundaries as Filters of Plant Invasions

Open access
FOXCROFT, LLEWELLYN C., JAROŠÍK, VOJTĚCH, PYŠEK, PETR, RICHARDSON, DAVID M., ROUGET, MATHIEU·2011·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Human land uses surrounding protected areas provide propagules for colonization of these areas by non‐native species, and corridors between protected‐area networks and drainage systems of rivers provide pathways for long‐distance dispersal of non‐native species. Nevertheless, the influence of protected‐area boundaries on colonization of protected areas by invasive non‐native species is unknown. We drew on a spatially explicit data set of more than 27,000 non‐native plant presence records for South Africa's Kruger National Park to examine the role of boundaries in preventing colonization of protected areas by non‐native species. The number of records of non‐native invasive plants declined rapidly beyond 1500 m inside the park; thus, we believe that the park boundary limited the spread of non‐native plants. The number of non‐native invasive plants inside the park was a function of the amount of water runoff, density of major roads, and the presence of natural vegetation outside the park. Of the types of human‐induced disturbance, only the density of major roads outside the protected area significantly increased the number of non‐native plant records. Our findings suggest that the probability of incursion of invasive plants into protected areas can be quantified reliably.

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 · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01617.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Protected area boundaries provide some resistance to colonization by alien plants.

    “several studies have shown that protected area boundaries provide some resistance to colonization by alien plants (Lonsdale, 1999; Pyšek, Jarošík, & Kučera, 2003; Foxcroft et al., 2011).”

    From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Foxcroft et al., 2011

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Cleveland WS Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots Journal of American Statistical Association 1979 74 829 836
  2. Foxcroft LC McNeely JA A case study of human dimensions in invasion and control of alien plants in the personnel villages of Kruger National Park The great reshuffling: human dimensions of invasive alien species 2001 Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom International Union for Conservation of Nature Pages 127–134
  3. Foxcroft LC Downey PO Tokarska-Guzik B Brock JH Brundu G Child L Daehler CC Pyšek P Protecting biodiversity by managing alien plants in national parks: perspectives from South Africa and Australia Plant Invasions: human perception, ecological impacts and management 2008 Leiden, The Netherlands Backhuys Publishers Pages 387–403
  4. Foxcroft LC Richardson DM Wilson JRU Ornamental plants as invasive aliens: problems and solutions in Kruger National Park, South Africa Environmental Management 2008 41 32 51 17943344
  5. Foxcroft LC Rouget M Richardson DM Risk assessment of riparian plant invasions into protected areas Conservation Biology 2007 21 412 421 17391191
  6. Gaston KJ Jackson SF Cantú-Salazar L Cruz-Piñón G The ecological performance of protected areas Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2008 39 93 113
  7. Hulme P Pyšek P Nentwig W Vilà M Will threat of biological invasions unite the European Union? Science 2009 324 40 41 19342572
  8. Koenig R Unleashing an army to repair alien-ravaged ecosystems Science 2009 325 562 563 19644106
  9. Legendre P Legendre L Numerical ecology 1998 Amsterdam Elsevier
  10. Margules CR Sarkar S Systematic conservation planning 2007 Cambridge, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press
  11. Pyšek P Prach K Plant invasions and the role of riparian habitats: a comparison of four species alien to central Europe Journal of Biogeography 1993 20 413 420
  12. von der Lippe M Kowarik I Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver of plant invasions Conservation Biology 2007 21 986 996 17650249

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
FOXCROFT, L. C., JAROŠÍK, V., PYŠEK, P., RICHARDSON, D. M., & ROUGET, M.
Affiliations
  • South African National Parks (ZA)
  • Czech Academy of Sciences (CZ)
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
  • University of Pretoria (ZA)
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12-16
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
400-405
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2171462727
Cited by
133
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conservation Biology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
  • ASEP (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Akademie Věd České Republiky
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Botany and Plant Ecology Studies
Keywords
protected area boundaries, invasive plants, introduced species, plant colonization, Kruger National Park, anthropogenic land use, roads, runoff, natural vegetation, long-distance dispersal, protected area network, South Africa
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Plants, Population Dynamics, South Africa, Biodiversity, Introduced Species

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