head	1.4;
access;
symbols;
locks; strict;
comment	@# @;


1.4
date	2006.03.24.02.23.07;	author JenniferForman;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.3;

1.3
date	2006.03.24.01.48.30;	author MichaelBrowne;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	2006.03.21.21.01.42;	author MichaelBrowne;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	2006.03.20.14.15.13;	author JenniferForman;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@none
@


1.4
log
@none
@
text
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="JenniferForman" date="1143166987" format="1.0" version="1.4"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="TerminologyWorkingGroup"}%
If you feel something is missing from the definitions matrix above, discuss it here.

---

	1. "Biologic Potential" - The definitions matrix does not seem to address any *biological aspects* of an organism, such as rapid reproduction rate, ability to outcompete natives etc., that may be used to judge a taxon as having the *potential* to invade. This is important for two reasons: a) Preventing invasions is an extremely important part of invasive species policy and b) Ranked lists of non-native species already exist that have categories for species that have not yet invaded that region (see, for example, pages 5-6 of the [[http://www.mnla.com/pdf/invasive/MIPAG_final_050325_rev.pdf Massachusetts risk assessment for non-native plants]] (.pdf)).
	1. It is unclear how the matrix would work for a definition such as the "likely invasive" from the Massachusetts risk assessment linked above. I ran the Massachusetts categories (invasive, likely invasive, potential invasive) through the six sections of the table, and "invasive" and "likely invasive" are identical, except that "likely invasive" has a "yes" for *all* choices in Impact, Geographic Range, and Ecological Range. This is due to the way the risk assessment is set up, in that to be a "likely invasive" a taxon has to meet any 1 of 3 different criteria. *How will the definition matrix handle this "either/or" situation?*

-- Main.JenniferForman - 20 Mar 2006

---

The Massachusetts Criteria for Evaluating Non-Native Plant Species for Invasiveness [ http://www.mnla.com/pdf/invasive/MIPAG_final_050325_rev.pdf] offers rich raw material that can be used to improve the definitions matrix. It would be helpful if we could find something similar for animals, fungi, and protista (like Plasmodium relictum).

---
FYI: Terms used in the (MNCR) Marine Nature Conservation Review (http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2684) SACFOR abundance scale for organisms in the marine environment are: 
 S = Superabundant, A = Abundant, C = Common, F = Frequent, O = Occasional, R = Rare. The terms are derived from %cover and density data.

@


1.3
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="MichaelBrowne" date="1143164910" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
d7 1
a7 1
	1. "Biologic Potential" - The definitions matrix does not seem to address any *biological aspects* of an organism, such as rapid reproduction rate, ability to outcompete natives etc., that may be used to judge a taxon as having the *potential* to invade. This is important for two reasons: a) Preventing invasions is an extremely important part of invasive species policy and b) Ranked lists of non-native species already exist that have categories for species that have not yet invaded that region (see, for example, pages 5-6 of the [ http://www.mnla.com/pdf/invasive/MIPAG_final_050325_rev.pdf Massachusetts risk assessment for non-native plants] (.pdf)).
@


1.2
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="MichaelBrowne" date="1142974902" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
d16 4
@


1.1
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="JenniferForman" date="1142864113" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
d12 4
@