ArticlePloS one2013
Understanding the threats posed by non-native species: public vs. conservation managers.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Invasive SpeciesFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Framing challenges and polarized issues in invasion science: toward an interdisciplinary agenda.Bioscience · 2024Review
- Mismatch between media coverage and research on invasive species: The case of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Argentina.PloS one · 2022Article
- People's Knowledge and Risk Perceptions of Invasive Plants in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Environmental management · 2020Article
- Are the ecological effects of the "worst" marine invasive species linked with scientific and media attention?PloS one · 2019Review
- Socio-economic drivers of specialist anglers targeting the non-native European catfish (Silurus glanis) in the UK.PloS one · 2017Article
- A tough egg to crack: recreational boats as vectors for invasive goby eggs and transdisciplinary management approaches.Ecology and evolution · 2016Article
- Article
- Evidence of threat to European economy and biodiversity following the introduction of an alien pathogen on the fungal-animal boundary.Emerging microbes & infections · 2015Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public perception is a key factor influencing current conservation policy. Therefore, it is important to determine the influence of the public, end-users and scientists on the prioritisation of conservation issues and the direct implications for policy makers. Here, we assessed public attitudes and the perception of conservation managers to five non-native species in the UK, with these supplemented by those of an ecosystem user, freshwater anglers. We found that threat perception was not influenced by the volume of scientific research or by the actual threats posed by the specific non-native species. Media interest also reflected public perception and vice versa. Anglers were most concerned with perceived threats to their recreational activities but their concerns did not correspond to the greatest demonstrated ecological threat. The perception of conservation managers was an amalgamation of public and angler opinions but was mismatched to quantified ecological risks of the species. As this suggests that invasive species management in the UK is vulnerable to a knowledge gap, researchers must consider the intrinsic characteristics of their study species to determine whether raising public perception will be effective. The case study of the topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva reveals that media pressure and political debate has greater capacity to ignite policy changes and impact studies on non-native species than scientific evidence alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.