Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLeung, B.
dc.contributor.authorRoura-Pascual, N.
dc.contributor.authorBacher, S.
dc.contributor.authorHeikkila, J.
dc.contributor.authorBrotons, L.
dc.contributor.authorBurgman, M.A.
dc.contributor.authorDehnen-Schmutz, K.
dc.contributor.authorEssl, F.
dc.contributor.authorHulme, P.E.
dc.contributor.authorRichardson, D.M.
dc.contributor.authorSol, D.
dc.contributor.authorVila, M.
dc.date.accessioned2014-06-03T11:10:53Z
dc.date.available2014-06-03T11:10:53Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationLeung, B., Roura-Pascual, N., Bacher, S., Heikkilae, J., Brotons, L., Burgman, M.A., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Essl, F., Hulme, P.E., Richardson, D.M., Sol, D. and Vila, M. (2013). Addressing a critique of the TEASI framework for invasive species risk assessment. Ecology Letters 16, 1415-e6.en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1421
dc.description.abstractWe 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.en
dc.format.extent108993 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd/CNRSen
dc.subjectColonisationen
dc.subjectexoticen
dc.subjecthabitat suitabilityen
dc.subjectlife history traiten
dc.subjectnon-indigenousen
dc.subjectpolicyen
dc.subjectpropagule pressureen
dc.subjectrisk analysisen
dc.subjectspecies distributionen
dc.subjectuncertaintyen
dc.titleAddressing a critique of the TEASI framework for invasive species risk assessmenten
dc.typeJournalArticlesen
dc.cibjournalEcology Lettersen
dc.cibprojectNAen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record