MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311499701 · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116896

Knowledge and perceptions of invasive plant biocontrol in Europe versus the rest of the world

2022· article· en· W4311499701 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hélia Marchante, Elizabete Marchante, Laura Verbrugge, Suzanne T. E. Lommen, Richard Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020Fundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDirektion für Entwicklung und ZusammenarbeitForeign, Commonwealth and Development OfficeEuropean CommissionMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino SuperiorMinistry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of ChinaCAB International
KeywordsPerceptionSustainabilityIntegrated pest managementGeographyRisk perceptionRelevance (law)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningSocioeconomicsEcologyPsychologyPolitical scienceBiologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological control (BC) of invasive alien plants (IAP) can be an effective environmental management approach. It has only very recently been adopted in Europe and is underutilized compared to other continents where this method has been successfully implemented for over a century. This is in sharp contrast to the BC of invertebrate pests, which has been taken up widely within Europe. It has been suggested that this is related to the risk-adverse attitude of Europeans towards weed BC. Scientific and public perception have a major influence on environmental policy actions. Public perception and knowledge regarding BC is an understudied subject despite its relevance for the application of this management alternative. We aimed to assess the knowledge and perception of BC of IAP among European professionals compared with their peers from other continents. To this end we conducted an online survey including multiple choice and open questions among over 700 people professionally engaged with managing the natural environment, of which approximately half were from Europe (EU) and the others from outside (non-EU). We assessed relationships between the geographical location of the respondents and their knowledge, and perceptions of BC of weeds versus BC of invertebrate pests. We found that respondents' location influenced both perceptions and knowledge of BC for weeds. Compared to non-EU respondents, EU professionals showed less appreciation for BC (e.g., regarding safety, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness), and perceived it as a riskier method, particularly in the case of practitioners and researchers. More profoundly insect pest BC tended to be considered less safe than weed BC for non-EU respondents. Confidence in weed BC as a method, as well as in the validity of the associated pre-release risk assessments, strongly increased with the level of expertise in weed BC. While a much higher proportion of non-EU respondents were correctly aware of the presence/absence of BC in their own countries and identified successful examples of BC accurately, both groups of respondents were similarly aware of unsuccessful BC examples, including BC agents against animals, stressing the bias of EU respondents towards examples of BC failure. The appreciation of weed BC in Europe could be elevated by a combination of increasing knowledge of the technique and pre-release risk assessment and promoting successful examples of weed BC, which may bring major benefits for the management of IAP across the region.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental ManagementSame topicBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207