Addressing a critique of the TEASI framework for invasive species risk assessment

Brian Leung; Nuria Roura-Pascual; Sven Bacher; Jaakko Heikkilä; Lluis Brotons; Mark A. Burgman; Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz; Franz Essl; Philip E. Hulme; David M. Richardson; Daniel Sol; Montserrat Vilà

doi:10.1111/ele.12172

Addressing a critique of the TEASI framework for invasive species risk assessment

Brian Leung
, Nuria Roura-Pascual
, Sven Bacher
, Jaakko Heikkilä
, Lluis Brotons
, Mark A. Burgman
, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz
, Franz Essl
, Philip E. Hulme
, David M. Richardson
, Daniel Sol
, Montserrat Vilà

McGill University
Universitat de Girona
Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya
University of Fribourg
MTT Economic Research
University of Melbourne
University of Warwick
University of Vienna
Lincoln University
Stellenbosch University
Autonomous University of Barcelona
Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We address criticism that the Transport, Establishment, Abundance, Spread, Impact (TEASI) framework does not facilitate objective mapping of risk assessment methods nor defines best practice. We explain why TEASI is appropriate for mapping, despite inherent challenges, and how TEASI offers considerations for best practices, rather than suggesting one best practice.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1415-e6
Journal	Ecology Letters
Volume	16
Issue number	11
Early online date	23 Aug 2013
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12172
Publication status	Published - Nov 2013

Keywords

Colonisation
Exotic
Habitat suitability
Life history trait
Non-indigenous
Policy
Propagule pressure
Risk analysis
Species distribution
Uncertainty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Access to Document

10.1111/ele.12172

Cite this

@article{d0721a3e7c25451c9eaa63d2d8f51c7f,

title = "Addressing a critique of the TEASI framework for invasive species risk assessment",

abstract = "We address criticism that the Transport, Establishment, Abundance, Spread, Impact (TEASI) framework does not facilitate objective mapping of risk assessment methods nor defines best practice. We explain why TEASI is appropriate for mapping, despite inherent challenges, and how TEASI offers considerations for best practices, rather than suggesting one best practice.",

keywords = "Colonisation, Exotic, Habitat suitability, Life history trait, Non-indigenous, Policy, Propagule pressure, Risk analysis, Species distribution, Uncertainty",

author = "Brian Leung and Nuria Roura-Pascual and Sven Bacher and Jaakko Heikkil{\"a} and Lluis Brotons and Burgman, \{Mark A.\} and Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz and Franz Essl and Hulme, \{Philip E.\} and Richardson, \{David M.\} and Daniel Sol and Montserrat Vil{\`a}",

year = "2013",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1111/ele.12172",

language = "English",

volume = "16",

pages = "1415--e6",

journal = "Ecology Letters",

issn = "1461-023X",

publisher = "Wiley",

number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Addressing a critique of the TEASI framework for invasive species risk assessment

AU - Leung, Brian

AU - Roura-Pascual, Nuria

AU - Bacher, Sven

AU - Heikkilä, Jaakko

AU - Brotons, Lluis

AU - Burgman, Mark A.

AU - Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina

AU - Essl, Franz

AU - Hulme, Philip E.

AU - Richardson, David M.

AU - Sol, Daniel

AU - Vilà, Montserrat

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - We address criticism that the Transport, Establishment, Abundance, Spread, Impact (TEASI) framework does not facilitate objective mapping of risk assessment methods nor defines best practice. We explain why TEASI is appropriate for mapping, despite inherent challenges, and how TEASI offers considerations for best practices, rather than suggesting one best practice.

AB - We address criticism that the Transport, Establishment, Abundance, Spread, Impact (TEASI) framework does not facilitate objective mapping of risk assessment methods nor defines best practice. We explain why TEASI is appropriate for mapping, despite inherent challenges, and how TEASI offers considerations for best practices, rather than suggesting one best practice.

KW - Colonisation

KW - Exotic

KW - Habitat suitability

KW - Life history trait

KW - Non-indigenous

KW - Policy

KW - Propagule pressure

KW - Risk analysis

KW - Species distribution

KW - Uncertainty

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84885953369

U2 - 10.1111/ele.12172

DO - 10.1111/ele.12172

M3 - Article

C2 - 24034578

AN - SCOPUS:84885953369

SN - 1461-023X

VL - 16

SP - 1415-e6

JO - Ecology Letters

JF - Ecology Letters

IS - 11

ER -

Addressing a critique of the TEASI framework for invasive species risk assessment

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this