Next Article in Journal
Seismic Spectral Parameters Fitting Analysis of Reservoir Area in Western China
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Mangrove Ecosystem Importance for Local Livelihoods in Different Landscapes: A Case Study of the Hau and Hoang Mai River Estuaries in Nghe An, North-Central Vietnam
Previous Article in Journal
Type I Social Life Cycle Assessments: Methodological Challenges in the Study of a Plant in the Context of Circular Economy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/su142215032
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Harnessing Ecosystem Services from Invasive Alien Grass and Rush Species to Suppress their Aggressive Expansion in South Africa

by
Luambo Jeffrey Ramarumo
Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Makhanda 6140, South Africa
Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 15032; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215032
Submission received: 2 September 2022 / Revised: 7 November 2022 / Accepted: 9 November 2022 / Published: 14 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Landscape Management Impact on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Invasive alien species are regarded as one of the major driving forces of species extinction worldwide. To counteract the invasion’s spread and minimize species extinction risk, countries like South Africa are devoted to halting human-induced invasion using various means. The failed efforts to halt the invasion spread have forced South African scientists to start considering social controlling mechanisms, including utilization of these species without propagation as one of the alternatives. It is within this context that this review was aimed at making an inventory of invasive grass species that provide ecosystem services in South Africa. The required data were gathered through rigorous literature surveys and analysis. A total of 19 invasive alien grass and rush species, from 15 genera and two families that are associated with provision of ecosystems services, were documented. The reported species are associated with the provision of nine ecosystem services. The current study argued that although these species are associated with some ecosystem services, they can also threaten the ecological integrity of the ecosystems if not properly managed. Insights about ecosystem services associated with invasive alien grass and rush species are significant in balancing the complex environmental issues and livelihood requirements in rural South Africa.

1. Introduction

Invasive alien species are deemed to be one of the major driving forces in the extinction of native species worldwide [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Human beings are considered one of the main drivers of the rapid invasion’s spread [7,8,9,10]; therefore, to counteract this, countries such as South Africa are devoted to halting human-induced invasion [11,12] through various management strategies, such as biological, mechanical, and chemical control [13,14,15,16]. Governments throughout the world have invested billions of dollars in efforts towards winning the fight against invasion [17,18]. However, despite these concerted efforts, the literature shows that invasive alien species are still spreading at a rapid pace [19,20]. According to van Wilgen et al. [21], the spread of invasive alien plants in South Africa is increasing, with the appearance of an estimated number of 50 new species since 1980. Scientific knowledge remains the cornerstone in winning the fight against the invasion’s spread; however, Sinthumule and Mashau [22] have argued that using scientific knowledge is not the only strategy in obtaining a sustainable society. In addition, the failed efforts to halt the invasion’s spread have forced South African scientists to start considering social controlling mechanisms, such as utilization without propagation as one of the various efforts that has potential to suppress the spread of the invasion [17,23,24,25,26].
Invasive alien plants are defined as non-native (alien) species that are introduced to ecosystems and tend to spread rapidly, causing damage to the environment, human’s socio-economy, and human health [21,27,28,29]; for example, the introduction of Australian Acacias in South Africa has been associated with serve negative environmental effects such as the displacement of native species, changes to soil nutrients, and water loss [21]. There are regulations in place to manage and control invasive alien plant species in South Africa [21]; however, the spread is dramatically increasing countrywide [30]. In South Africa, invasive alien plants are regulated under the Alien and Invasive Species (A&IS) Regulations of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA; Act 10 of 2004), although various other sector-specific Acts are applicable [31,32,33].
In South Africa, local people have been using various invasive alien grass species for various purposes since time immemorial [27,34,35,36,37,38]; however, the use of invasive alien grass species for livelihoods has not been well comprehended and factored into the invasion management plans [23,39,40]. Recent scientific evidence shows that invasive alien plant species play a key role in human livelihoods [36,37,38,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. Consistent with other plants that provide ecosystem services, some invasive alien species provide fundamental cultural value to humankind [49]. Shackleton and Shackleton [23] emphasize the need to appraise and comprehend both the benefits and losses associated with invasive alien species. Amores-Salvadó et al. [50] and Ekblom et al. [51] reiterated that factors influencing the benefits and losses of ecosystem services interlink together, and they should be both evaluated, whereas Heinrich et al. [52] suggested that the conversations about invasive alien plant species management regularly disregard the potential values that local people associate with these species.
The over-exploitation of natural resources is also referred to by natural science researchers as another cause of species extinction risk [53,54,55,56,57,58,59]. Having this in mind, in a study done by McGaw et al. [60], it was argued that invasive botanical resources, including invasive grass species, could subsidize or serve as an alternative to highly exploited useful native plants, particularly species with similar phytochemical constituents, in South Africa. Nevertheless, Vitule et al. [61] and Tassin and Kull [62] reported that the utilization of invasive botanical resources is part of today’s sociocultural transformation; similarly, Maroyi [63] reported that some invasive botanical resources offer intrinsic benefits. Moreover, McGaw et al. [60] contend that the utilization of invasive plants without propagation could suppress the invasion’s spread. In this context, this review not only serves as a fundamental step towards the crafting of better invasive alien species management policies in South Africa, but it could also provide insights to better understand the dynamics pertaining to the transition to a sustainable society.
Nsikani et al. [33] maintain that invasive alien species are an ecosystem service disrupter, whereas Jetz et al. [64] and Milanović et al. [65] argued that invasive alien species are part of biodiversity, and in some cases are of significant socio-economic value to communities. The above studies reaffirm the inherent conflicts not only between the lay-people and mandatory authorities, as articulated in various scientific studies [66,67,68], but also between scientific scholars themselves. Mugwedi [26] hypothesized that utilization of some invasive botanical resources could suppress the invasion spread. This hypothesis was reaffirmed by Ruwanza and Thondhlana [68], who asset that utilization could limit the expansion of some invasive alien species, particularly those that are of economic benefit to society. It is within this context that the current review aimed at establishing an inventory of invasive alien grass and rush species that are associated with the provision of ecosystem services in South Africa. This study forms part of multidisciplinary efforts to suppress the expansion of invasion in South Africa using various means, including utilization without propagation, as one of the alternatives. Furthermore, the current review is aligned with South Africa’s National Development Plan, particularly those aspects related to inclusive economic growth, and the sustainable use of natural resources for human upliftment.

2. Materials and Methods

The literature about invasive alien grass species that provide ecosystem services was sourced from electronic databases including Google Scholar, Research-Gate, Springer, Sabinet, Google, Wiley Online Library, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science databases, without being restricted by the publication date. The current review, however, only focused on invasive alien grass and rush species that are categorized as per section 70 of the South African’s National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act No. 10 of 2004 (NEMBA) and did not include those that are naturalized and still under review. In other words, the current review excluded naturalized and other grasses that are still to be categorized as invasive aliens in South Africa. All the databases were utilized to increase the possibilities of obtaining relevant comprehensive literature that incorporates the utilization of invasive alien grass and rush species in South Africa. The process enabled the creation of a database of published studies on the provision of ecosystem services by invasive alien grass and rush species; this was generated for the purpose of critically reviewing and analyzing information to be included in the current study. The International Plant Name Index (IPNI) database was also utilized to authentically validate the authority of the reported invasive alien grass and rush species. The following keywords were used during the literature searching: “ecosystem service benefits”, “invasive plant species”, “invasive grass species” and “problem weeds”. The literature-searching keywords were supplemented or used along with other words including: “Invasion management strategy”, “socio-cultural benefits”, “socio-economic benefits”, “socio-ecological benefits”, “traditional uses”, ‘livelihood benefits”, “utilization of invasive grass species”, “human well-being”, “indigenous knowledge systems”, “provision of ecosystem services”, “art crafting and making”, and “medicinal uses”. The literature search included the screening of relevant scientific reports, review papers, research papers, books, conference proceedings and theses published in the English language. A total of 433 articles were identified; amongst them, 247 articles were found to be relevant. After the analysis it was, however, discovered that only 23 out of 247 articles incorporated invasive grass and rush species that contain NEMBA Invasion Categories, and these were utilized. Invasive grass and rush plant species were grouped according to the ecosystem services they provide in the table and graph. Some qualitative and gathered literature was grouped according to its similarities, converted to the quantitative format, and then analyzed using percentages and presented in the form of a pie chart graph and table.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Taxonomic Nomenclature and Origin of Species

The current review documents 19 invasive alien grass and rush species, from 15 genera and two families, that are linked to the provision of ecosystem services that enhance human livelihood in the Republic of South Africa, as illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 1A. The number of invasive alien grass and rush species recorded in the current study does not necessarily represent all the utilized invasive alien grass and rush species in South Africa; however, those that were previously reported upon in various published scientific literature were included. The documented invasive alien grass and rush species include Agrostis castellana, Agrostis gigantean, Agrostis stolonifera, Ammophila arenaria, Arundo donax, Cortaderia jubata, Cortaderia selloana, Elymus repens, Festuca rubra, Glyceria maxima, Luzula multiflora, Paspalum quadrifarium, Pennisetum clandestinum, Pennisetum purpureum, Pennisetum setaceum, Pennisetum villosum, Poa pratensis, Sasa palmata and Sorghum halepense. The Poaceae family was found to be the most important botanical family with 94.7% (n = 18) useful invasive grass species, whereas Juncaceae contains only 5.3% (n = 1) rush species. High species richness within the family Poaceae demonstrates species diversity within this family [48,69,70,71,72,73]. The findings of this review are not unique, but serve as confirmation of similar findings in studies done by Schubert et al. [74] and Díaz and Jorquera [75]. The invasive alien grass and rush species presented in the current review originated from various regions and countries, including Asia, South and West Asia, Europe, Tropical Africa, North and West Africa, South America, North America (USA), Brazil, and Argentina (Table 1).

3.2. Ecosystem Service Benefits, Invasion Status and Legal Categories

Table 1 presents an inventory of all the reported invasive alien grass species known to provide ecosystem service benefits in South Africa. Out of the 247 studies that were thought to be relevant for the current study, 93 of them incorporated the provision of ecosystems service benefits by the invasive alien grass for human wellbeing and livelihood. Out of the 93 studies that incorporated the benefits of invasive alien grass species, only 23 studies highlighted their ecosystem services in South Africa, whereas 70 of these studies highlighted the provision of the same ecosystem services elsewhere. The limited number of studies reporting on ecosystem services associated with invasive alien grass species is influenced by the limited quantity of research about the value of invasive grass and rush species to human development in Southern Africa, as emphasized in studies by Jauro et al. [76] and Shayanowako et al. [77]. This point has also been affirmed in studies done by Constant and Taylor [78] and Arabi and Nahman [79].
Figure 1 classifies the ecosystem services that individuals of the invasive alien grass and rush species provide to humankind, their invasion statuses and their legal standing or categories in South Africa. The current review reveals that the reported invasive alien grass species are associated with the provision of nine ecosystem service benefits in South Africa. These ecosystem services range from being utilized as pasture, ornaments, musical flutes, mine dump stabilizers, medicines, lawns, flood attenuators, erosion controllers and construction materials (Figure 1A). The results of the current review reveal that some individual species contribute more than one ecosystem service. Therefore, A. donax (n = 5) was the most utilized invasive alien rush in South Africa, as measured by the number of ecosystem service benefits that it provides, followed by A. gigantea (n = 4) (Figure 1A). The provision of diverse ecosystem services by A. donax resembles its socio-economic and socio-cultural value to many communities in South Africa and worldwide [27,37,164]; however, its widespread invasion confirms that this species does disrupt the functionality of ecosystems through habitat transformation [165,166]. The legal standing of A. donax implies that this species should be controlled through invasive alien species control programs [38,98]. As like many invasive plant species that cause conflicts [66,67,68], the results of this review have clearly revealed that A. donax is also a conflict-making invasive alien grass. This classification is the result of analyzing its contributions in terms of the number of ecosystems services that it provides, its invasion status and its legal standing in South Africa. The four invasive alien plant species contributing equal ecosystem services included A. stolonifera (n = 3), E. repens (n = 3), P. clandestinum (n = 3) and P. pratensis (n = 3). Seven invasive alien species were reported to be contributing two ecosystems services each; these are A. castellana (n = 2), C. jubata (n = 2), C. selloana (n = 2), F. rubra (n = 2), P. purpureum (n = 2), P. setaceum (n = 2) and S. palmata (n = 2). The invasive species contributing the fewest ecosystem services are A. arenaria (n = 1), G. maxima (n = 1), L. multiflora (n = 1) and S. halepense (n = 2). Many of the recorded invasive alien grass and rush species differ morphologically, although the ecosystem services that they provide are more or less the same. This is not unusual, since the study performed by Mbambala et al. [103] has reaffirmed that various invasive alien plant species could be utilized for similar purpose. The invasion statuses of almost all of the reported invasive alien grass and rush species were found to be transformer (T) (48%) or potential transformer (Pt) (42%), while a small portion (10%) were special effect weeds (S) (5%) and ruderal and agrestal (R) (5%) (Figure 1B). The invasion statuses of these invasive alien grasses and rush prove that, although these species are associated with some livelihood benefits, they can also threaten the functionality of the ecosystems if not properly managed. The invasive status of the plant species demonstrates its aggressiveness towards native species, and the habitats where invasive alien species are likely to invade [38]. The results of the current review highlight that more than 42% of all the reported invasive alien grass and rush species fall under Category 1a of the Alien and Invasive Species (A&IS) Regulations of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA Act 10 of 2004), followed by Category 1b (31.6%), then Category 2 (21.0%) and lastly by Category 3 (5.3%) (Figure 1C). According to Cronin et al. [167], Moshobane et al. [168] and Moshobane et al. [169], Category 1a includes species that require immediate and compulsory eradication, whereas Category 1b species are considered widespread, and must be controlled and eradicated wherever possible.
Arundo donax is a well-known useful invasive alien grass species, as indicated by the number of studies (n = 7) that cited it uses countrywide and elsewhere (Figure 2). The least useful of all known invasive grass species, as measured by the number of citations in South Africa, is S. palmata (n = 1). This is because A. donax has a wide distribution range countrywide and worldwide [35,170,171]. Furthermore, although limited studies have cited the uses of some species including P. purpureum and P. villosum in South Africa, more studies (n = 7) have cited their uses elsewhere. The low number of citation records for the invasive alien grass species P. villosum in South Africa corresponds with its use-value, as illustrated on Table 1 and Figure 1A. According to Atyosi et al. [27], the use-value is considered one of the pivotal components in determining the popularity of invasive alien plant species.

4. Conclusions

The current review is a comprehensive summary of the compiled information associated with the provision of ecosystem services by invasive alien grass and rush species in South Africa. The derived insights about ecosystem services associated with invasive alien grasses and rush are significant, not only in seeking to balance the complex environmental issues and livelihood needs in rural South Africa, but also in understanding the dynamics of the transition towards a sustainable society. The current study contributes to the multi-disciplinary effort to suppress the expansion of invasive alien species in South Africa, through various means, including utilization. Although studies have proven that some invasive alien grass and rush species do provide various ecosystem services, including being used as pasture, ornaments, mine dump stabilizers, medicines, lawns, flood attenuators, erosion controllers and construction materials in South Africa, more research studies examining the effectiveness of utilization without propagation as an alternative method for invasion management are required. It is worth noting that the invasion statuses of the invasive alien grass and rush species reported as useful prove that these species can also threaten the ecological integrity of ecosystems, if not properly managed. Documenting detailed information about how these species provide ecosystem services in South Africa is a substantial step towards crafting appropriate management plans and informed policy directions, which would help to maintain a balance between livelihoods and environmental well-being. It is within this context that the current study supports the scientifically accepted notion that the value of invasive alien species is interlinked with their uses. Furthermore, the hypothesis that the utilization of invasive plant species could suppress their spread should not be ignored. This means there is still room for further investigatory studies that focus on utilization without propagation as an alternative to the suppression of the invasion. This study argues that improved coordination between local communities that utilize invasive alien grass and rush species and mandated authorities, on issues pertaining to invasion management, policy directions and science, could help resolve and calm the conflicts highlighted in some studies. A study on the indigenous knowledge associated with invasive alien grass species could provide baseline information required for incorporating stakeholder values that will inform deliberative management plans and policy directions in South African biosphere reserves.

Funding

This research was funded by the Directorate of Research and the Department of Environmental Science at Rhodes University, South Africa.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Sheunesu Ruwanza and Gladman Thondhlana for reviewing the manuscript draft.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cassini, M.H. A review of the critics of invasion biology. Biol. Rev. 2020, 95, 1467–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sayol, F.; Cooke, R.S.; Pigot, A.L.; Blackburn, T.M.; Tobias, J.A.; Steinbauer, M.J.; Antonelli, A.; Faurby, S. Loss of functional diversity through anthropogenic extinctions of island birds is not offset by biotic invasions. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabj5790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pouteau, R.; Brunel, C.; Dawson, W.; Essl, F.; Kreft, H.; Lenzner, B.; Meyer, C.; Pergl, J.; Pyšek, P.; Seebens, H.; et al. Environmental and socioeconomic correlates of extinction risk in endemic species. Div. Distrib. 2022, 28, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Latombe, G.; Catford, J.A.; Essl, F.; Lenzner, B.; Richardson, D.M.; Wilson, J.R.; McGeoch, M.A. GIRAE: A generalised approach for linking the total impact of invasion to species’ range, abundance and per-unit effects. Biol. Invasions 2022, 24, 3147–3167. Available online: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10530-022-02836-0.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2022). [CrossRef]
  5. Mantintsilili, A.; Shivambu, N.; Shivambu, T.C.; Downs, C.T. Online and pet stores as sources of trade for reptiles in South Africa. J. Nat. Conserv. 2022, 67, 126154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chakona, A.; Jordaan, M.S.; Raimondo, D.C.; Bills, R.I.; Skelton, P.H.; van Der Colff, D. Diversity, distribution and extinction risk of native freshwater fishes of South Africa. J. Fish Biol. 2022, 100, 1044–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sagoff, M. Invasive species denialism: A reply to Ricciardi and Ryan. Biol. Invasions 2018, 20, 2723–2729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Howard, P.L. Human adaptation to invasive species: A conceptual framework based on a case study metasynthesis. Ambio 2019, 48, 1401–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Van Riper, C.J.; Browning, M.H.; Becker, D.; Stewart, W.; Suski, C.D.; Browning, L.; Golebie, E. Human-nature relationships and normative beliefs influence behaviors that reduce the spread of aquatic invasive species. Environ. Manag. 2019, 63, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ravhuhali, K.E.; Mudau, H.S.; Moyo, B.; Hawu, O.; Msiza, N.H. Prosopis Species—An Invasive Species and a Potential Source of Browse for Livestock in Semi-Arid Areas of South Africa. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shrestha, B.B.; Shrestha, U.B.; Sharma, K.P.; Thapa-Parajuli, R.B.; Devkota, A.; Siwakoti, M. Community perception and prioritization of invasive alien plants in Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape, Nepal. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Graham, S.; Metcalf, A.L.; Gill, N.; Niemiec, R.; Moreno, C.; Bach, T.; Ikutegbe, V.; Hallstrom, L.; Ma, Z.; Lubeck, A. Opportunities for better use of collective action theory in research and governance for invasive species management. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Reitz, S.R.; Gao, Y.; Kirk, W.D.; Hoddle, M.S.; Leiss, K.A.; Funderburk, J.E. Invasion biology, ecology, and management of western flower thrips. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 2020, 65, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Holmes, P.M.; Esler, K.J.; Gaertner, M.; Geerts, S.; Hall, S.A.; Nsikani, M.M.; Richardson, D.M.; Ruwanza, S. Biological invasions and ecological restoration in South Africa. Biol. Invasions S. Afr. 2020, 14, 665–700. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jubase, N.; Shackleton, R.T.; Measey, J. Motivations and contributions of volunteer groups in the management of invasive alien plants in South Africa’s Western Cape province. Bothalia-Afr. Bio. Conserv. 2021, 51, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yang, X.; Wyckhuys, K.A.; Jia, X.; Nie, F.; Wu, K. Fall armyworm invasion heightens pesticide expenditure among Chinese smallholder farmers. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 282, 111949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abrahams, B.; Sitas, N.; Esler, K.J. Exploring the dynamics of research collaborations by mapping social networks in invasion science. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moran, V.C.; Zachariades, C.; Hoffmann, J.H. Implementing a system in South Africa for categorizing the outcomes of weed biological control. Biol. Control 2021, 153, 104431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lamsal, P.; Kumar, L.; Aryal, A.; Atreya, K. Invasive alien plant species dynamics in the Himalayan region under climate change. Ambio 2018, 47, 697–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Van Wilgen, B.W.; Raghu, S.; Sheppard, A.W.; Schaffner, U. Quantifying the social and economic benefits of the biological control of invasive alien plants in natural ecosystems. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2020, 38, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Van Wilgen, B.W.; Measey, J.; Richardson, D.M.; Wilson, J.R.; Zengeya, T.A. Biological Invasions in South Africa: An Overview. In Biological Invasions in South Africa; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 14, p. 975. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sinthumule, N.I.; Mashau, M.L. Traditional ecological knowledge and practices for forest conservation in Thathe Vondo in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Global Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 22, e00910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shackleton, S.E.; Shackleton, R.T. Local knowledge regarding ecosystem services and disservices from invasive alien plants in the arid Kalahari, South Africa. J. Arid Environ. 2018, 159, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Potgieter, L.J.; Gaertner, M.; O’Farrell, P.J.; Richardson, D.M. Perceptions of impact: Invasive alien plants in the urban environment. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Shackleton, R.T.; Larson, B.M.; Novoa, A.; Richardson, D.M.; Kull, C.A. The human and social dimensions of invasion science and management. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Mugwedi, L. Harnessing opportunities provided by the invasive Chromolaena odorata to keep it under control. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Atyosi, Z.; Ramarumo, L.J.; Maroyi, A. Alien plants in the Eastern Cape province in South Africa: Perceptions of their contributions to livelihoods of local communities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Kariyawasam, C.S.; Kumar, L.; Ratnayake, S.S. Invasive plant species establishment and range dynamics in Sri Lanka under climate change. Entropy 2019, 21, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Weidlich, E.W.; Flórido, F.G.; Sorrini, T.B.; Brancalion, P.H. Controlling invasive plant species in ecological restoration: A global review. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 1806–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bennett, B.M.; van Sittert, L. Historicising perceptions and the national management framework for invasive alien plants in South Africa. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dzerefos, C.M.; Witkowski, E.T.; Kremer-Köhne, S. Aiming for the biodiversity target with the social welfare arrow: Medicinal and other useful plants from a Critically Endangered grassland ecosystem in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2017, 24, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kraaij, T.; Baard, J.A. Use of a rapid roadside survey to detect potentially invasive plant species along the Garden Route, South Africa. Koedoe 2019, 61, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  33. Nsikani, M.M.; Geerts, S.; Ruwanza, S.; Richardson, D.M. Secondary invasion and weedy native species dominance after clearing invasive alien plants in South Africa: Status quo and prognosis. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 132, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Visser, V.; Maitre, D.; Wilson, J.R.; Nänni, I.; Canavan, K.; Canavan, S.; Fish, L.; Mashau, C.; O’Connor, T.G.; Ivey, P.; et al. Grasses as invasive plants in South Africa revisited: Patterns, pathways and management. Bothalia-Afr. Bio. Conserv. 2017, 47, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Canavan, K.; Paterson, I.D.; Hill, M.P.; Dudley, T.L. Testing the Enemy Release Hypothesis on tall-statured grasses in South Africa, using Arundo donax, Phragmites australis, and Phragmites mauritianus as models. Bulletin Entomol. Res. 2019, 109, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Nkuna, K.V.; Visser, V.; Wilson, J.R.U.; Kumschick, S. Global environmental and socio-economic impacts of selected alien grasses as a basis for ranking threats to South Africa. NeoBiota 2018, 41, 19–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Magwede, K.; van Wyk, B.E.; van Wyk, A.E. An inventory of Vhavenda useful plants. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 122, 57–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Henderson, L. Invasive Alien Plants in South Africa; Novus Print: Cape Town, South Africa, 2020; pp. 1–384. [Google Scholar]
  39. Novoa, A.; Shackleton, R.; Canavan, S.; Cybele, C.; Davies, S.J.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Fried, J.; Gaertner, M.; Geerts, S.; Griffiths, C.L.; et al. A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 205, 286–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Shackleton, R.T.; Shackleton, C.M.; Kull, C.A. The role of invasive alien species in shaping local livelihoods and human well-being: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Al-Snafi, A.E. The constituents and biological effects of Arundo donax—A review. Int. J. Phytopharm. Res. 2015, 6, 34–40. [Google Scholar]
  42. Webster, R.J.; Driever, S.M.; Kromdijk, J.; McGrath, J.; Leakey, A.D.; Siebke, K.; Demetriades-Shah, T.; Bonnage, S.; Peloe, T.; Lawson, T.; et al. High C3 photosynthetic capacity and high intrinsic water use efficiency underlies the high productivity of the bioenergy grass Arundo donax. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 20694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Dilley, B.J.; Schramm, M.; Ryan, P.G. Modest increases in densities of burrow-nesting petrels following the removal of cats (Felis catus) from Marion Island. Polar Biol. 2017, 40, 625–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rabêlo, F.H.; Borgo, L.; Lavres, J. The Use of Forage Grasses for the Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals: Plant Tolerance Mechanisms, Classifications, and New Prospects. In Phytoremediation: Methods, Management and Assessment; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 59–103. [Google Scholar]
  45. Aarts, N.; Drenthen, M. Socio-Ecological Interactions and Sustainable Development—Introduction to a Special Issue. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Reynolds, C.; Venter, N.; Cowie, B.W.; Marlin, D.; Mayonde, S.; Tocco, C.; Byrne, M.J. Mapping the socio-ecological impacts of invasive plants in South Africa: Are poorer households with high ecosystem service use most at risk? Eco. Serv. 2020, 42, 101075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sintayehu, D.W.; Dalle, G.; Bobasa, A.F. Impacts of climate change on current and future invasion of Prosopis juliflora in Ethiopia: Environmental and socio-economic implications. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Sylvester, S.P.; Soreng, R.J.; Sylvester, M.D.; Mapaura, A.; Clark, V.R. New records of alien and potentially invasive grass (Poaceae) species for southern Africa. Bothalia-Afr. Bio. Conserv. 2021, 51, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dos Santos, L.L.; do Nascimento, A.L.B.; Vieira, F.J.; da Silva, V.A.; Voeks, R.; Albuquerque, U.P. The cultural value of invasive species: A case study from semi–arid northeastern Brazil. Econ. Bot. 2014, 68, 283–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Amores-Salvadó, J.; Martin-de Castro, G.; Navas-López, J.E. The importance of the complementarity between environmental management systems and environmental innovation capabilities: A firm level approach to environmental and business performance benefits. Tech. Forecasting Soc. Change 2015, 96, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ekblom, A.; Shoemaker, A.; Gillson, L.; Lane, P.; Lindholm, K.J. Conservation through biocultural heritage—Examples from sub-Saharan Africa. Land 2019, 8, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Heinrich, M.; Kufer, J.; Leonti, M.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M. Ethnobotany and ethnopharmacology—Interdisciplinary links with the historical sciences. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2006, 107, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ogunkunle, T.J.; Adewumi, A.; Adepoju, A.O. Biodiversity: Overexploited but underutilized natural resource for human existence and economic development. Environ. Eco. Sci. 2019, 3, 26–34. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mustafa, M.O. Implications of environmental and natural resources education among rural stakeholders of forestry and wildlife administration: A review. Nigeria Agric. J. 2019, 50, 135–138. [Google Scholar]
  55. Verma, A.K. Sustainable development and environmental ethics. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2019, 10, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  56. Volenzo, T.; Odiyo, J. Integrating endemic medicinal plants into the global value chains: The ecological degradation challenges and opportunities. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Maja, M.M.; Ayano, S.F. The impact of population growth on natural resources and farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change in low-income countries. Earth Systems Environ. 2021, 5, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vuorinen, K.E.; Oksanen, T.; Oksanen, L.; Vuorisalo, T.; Speed, J.D. Why don’t all species overexploit? Oikos 2021, 130, 1835–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rull, V. Biodiversity crisis or sixth mass extinction? Does the current anthropogenic biodiversity crisis really qualify as a mass extinction? EMBO Rep. 2022, 23, e54193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. McGaw, L.J.; Omokhua-Uyi, A.G.; Finnie, J.F.; van Staden, J. Invasive alien plants and weeds in South Africa: A review of their applications in traditional medicine and potential pharmaceutical properties. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2022, 283, 114564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Vitule, J.R.S.; Freire, C.A.; Vazquez, D.P.; Nuñez, M.A.; Simberloffs, D. Revisiting the potential conservation value of non-native species. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26, 1153–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tassin, J.; Kull, C.A. Facing the broader dimensions of biological invasions. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Maroyi, A. Traditional uses of wild and tended plants in maintaining ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes of the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2022, 18, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Jetz, W.; McGeoch, M.A.; Guralnick, R.; Ferrier, S.; Beck, J.; Costello, M.J.; Fernandez, M.; Geller, G.N.; Keil, P.; Merow, C.; et al. Essential biodiversity variables for mapping and monitoring species populations. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 539–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Milanović, M.; Knapp, S.; Pyšek, P.; Kühn, I. Linking traits of invasive plants with ecosystem services and disservices. Eco. Serv. 2020, 42, 101072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Crowley, S.L.; Hinchliffe, S.; McDonald, R.A. Conflict in invasive species management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Sardeshpande, M.; Shackleton, C. Urban foraging: Land management policy, perspectives, and potential. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ruwanza, S.; Thondhlana, G. People’s perceptions and uses of invasive plant Psidium guajava in Vhembe Biosphere Reserve, Limpopo Province of South Africa. Eco. People 2022, 18, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Trytsman, M.; Müller, F.L.; van Wyk, A.E. Diversity of grasses (Poaceae) in southern Africa, with emphasis on the conservation of pasture genetic resources. Gen. Res. Crop Evol. 2020, 67, 875–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Muller, M.; Siebert, S.J.; Ntloko, B.R.; Siebert, F. A floristic assessment of grassland diversity loss in South Africa. Bothalia-Afr. Bio. Conserv. 2021, 51, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Trytsman, M.; Muller, F.L.; Morris, C.D.; van Wyk, A.E. Biogeographical patterns of grasses (Poaceae) indigenous to South Africa, Lesotho and Eswatini. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2021, 38, S73–S89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mashau, A.C.; Hempson, G.P.; Lehmann, C.E.; Vorontsova, M.S.; Visser, V.; Archibald, S. Plant height and lifespan predict range size in southern African grasses. J. Biogeogr. 2012, 48, 3047–3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gallaher, T.J.; Peterson, P.M.; Soreng, R.J.; Zuloaga, F.O.; Li, D.Z.; Clark, L.G.; Tyrrell, C.D.; Welker, C.A.; Kellogg, E.A.; Teisher, J.K. Grasses through space and time: An overview of the biogeographical and macroevolutionary history of Poaceae. J. System. Evol. 2022, 60, 522–569. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jse.12857 (accessed on 20 June 2022). [CrossRef]
  74. Schubert, M.; Humphreys, A.M.; Lindberg, C.L.; Preston, J.C.; Fjellheim, S. To coldly go where no grass has gone before: A multidisciplinary review of cold adaptation in Poaceae. Ann. Plant Rev. Online 2020, 3, 523–562. [Google Scholar]
  75. Díaz, E.D.; Jorquera, P.S. Naturalized and introduced plants of the Magallanes Region Associated with Agricultural and forestry activity and Protected Areas: Life attributes, Distribution, and Invasion Status. Chloris Chil. 2021, 24, 21–47. [Google Scholar]
  76. Jauro, T.I.; Tesfamichael, S.G.; Rampedi, I.T. Tracking conservation effectiveness in the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve in South Africa using Landsat imagery. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020, 192, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Shayanowako, A.I.T.; Morrissey, O.; Tanzi, A.; Muchuweti, M.; Mendiondo, G.M.; Mayes, S.; Modi, A.T.; Mabhaudhi, T. African leafy vegetables for improved human nutrition and food system resilience in Southern Africa: A scoping review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Constant, N.L.; Taylor, P.J. Restoring the forest revives our culture: Ecosystem services and values for ecological restoration across the rural-urban nexus in South Africa. Forest Policy Econ. 2020, 118, 102222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Arabi, S.; Nahman, A. Impacts of marine plastic on ecosystem services and economy: State of South African research. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2020, 116, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Radonjic, D.; Djordjevic, N.; Markovic, B.; Markovic, M.; Stesevic, D.; Dajic-Stevanovic, Z. Effect of phenological phase of dry grazing pasture on fatty acid composition of cows’ milk. Chil. J. Agri. Res. 2019, 79, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Bergstrom, D.M.; Smith, V.R. Alien vascular flora of Marion and Prince Edward Islands: New species, present distribution and status. Antarct. Sci. 1990, 2, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gremmen, N.J.; Smith, V.R. New records of alien vascular plants from Marion and Prince Edward Islands, sub-Antarctic. Polar Biol. 1999, 21, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Van den Berg, J.; Rebe, M.; de Bruyn, J.; van Hamburg, H. Developing habitat management systems for gramineous stemborers in South Africa. Int. J. Tropical Insect Sci. 2001, 21, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Błońska, A.; Kompała-Bąba, A.; Sierka, E.; Bierza, W.; Magurno, F.; Besenyei, L.; Ryś, K.; Woźniak, G. Diversity of Vegetation Dominated by Selected Grass Species on Coal-Mine Spoil Heaps in Terms of Reclamation of Post-Industrial Areas. J. Ecol. Engine. 2019, 20, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Tasset, E.; Boulanger, T.; Diquélou, S.; Laîné, P.; Lemauviel-Lavenant, S. Plant trait to fodder quality relationships at both species and community levels in wet grasslands. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 97, 389–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Burges, A.; Oustriere, N.; Galende, M.; Marchand, L.; Bes, C.M.; Paidjan, E.; Puschenreiter, M.; Becerril, J.M.; Mench, M. Phytomanagement with grassy species, compost and dolomitic limestone rehabilitates a meadow at a wood preservation site. Ecol. Engine. 2021, 160, 106132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vickery, J. Ecological Services of Weeds. 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345820849_Ecological_Services_of_Weeds (accessed on 2 September 2022).
  88. Dostatny, D.F.; Żurek, G.; Kapler, A.; Podyma, W. The Ex-Situ Conservation and Potential Usage of Crop Wild Relatives in Poland on the Example of Grasses. Agronomy 2021, 11, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Biró, M.; Molnár, Z.; Öllerer, K.; Lengyel, A.; Ulicsni, V.; Szabados, K.; Kiš, A.; Perić, R.; Demeter, L.; Babai, D. Conservation and herding co-benefit from traditional extensive wetland grazing. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 300, 106983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Liu, H.; Kong, F.; Yin, H.; Middel, A.; Zheng, X.; Huang, J.; Xu, H.; Wang, D.; Wen, Z. Impacts of green roofs on water, temperature, and air quality: A bibliometric review. Building Environ. 2021, 196, 107794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hertling, U.M.; Lubke, R.A. Use of Ammophila arenaria for dune stabilization in South Africa and its current distribution—Perceptions and problems. Environ. Manag. 1999, 24, 467–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hertling, U.M.; Lubke, R.A. Assessing the potential for biological invasion—The case of Ammophila arenaria in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2000, 96, 520–527. [Google Scholar]
  93. Milton, S.J. Grasses as invasive alien plants in South Africa: Working for water. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2004, 100, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  94. Gadgil, R.L. Marram grass (Ammophila arenaria) and coastal sand stability in New Zealand. N. Z. J. Forest. Sci. 2002, 32, 165–180. [Google Scholar]
  95. Knevel, I.C.; Lans, T.; Menting, F.B.; Hertling, U.M.; van der Putten, W.H. Release from native root herbivores and biotic resistance by soil pathogens in a new habitat both affect the alien Ammophila arenaria in South Africa. Oecologia 2004, 141, 502–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Van der Putten, W.H.; Yeates, G.W.; Duyts, H.; Reis, C.S.; Karssen, G. Invasive plants and their escape from root herbivory: A worldwide comparison of the root-feeding nematode communities of the dune grass Ammophila arenaria in natural and introduced ranges. Biol. Invasions 2005, 7, 733–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Hayes, M.; Kirkpatrick, J.B. Influence of Ammophila arenaria on half a century of vegetation change in eastern Tasmanian sand dune systems. Aust. J. Bot. 2012, 60, 450–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Canavan, K.; Paterson, I.D.; Hill, M.P. Exploring the origin and genetic diversity of the giant reed, Arundo donax in South Africa. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2017, 10, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Lambert, A.M.; Dudley, T.L.; Robbins, J. Nutrient enrichment and soil conditions drive productivity in the large-statured invasive grass Arundo donax. Aquatic Bot. 2014, 112, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lambert, A.M.; Dudley, T.L.; Saltonstall, K. Ecology and impacts of the large-statured invasive grasses Arundo donax and Phragmites australis in North America. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2010, 3, 489–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Goolsby, J.A.; Hathcock, C.R.; Vacek, A.T.; Kariyat, R.R.; Moran, P.J.; Martinez Jimenez, M. No evidence of non-target use of native or economic grasses and broadleaf plants by Arundo donax biological control agents. Biocontrol Sci. Tech. 2020, 30, 795–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Da Costa, R.M.; Winters, A.; Hauck, B.; Martín, D.; Bosch, M.; Simister, R.; Gomez, L.D.; Batista de Carvalho, L.A.; Canhoto, J.M. Biorefining potential of wild-grown Arundo donax, Cortaderia selloana and Phragmites australis and the feasibility of white-rot fungi-mediated pretreatments. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 679966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Mbambala, S.G.; Tshisikhawe, M.P.; Masevhe, N.A. Invasive alien plants used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS-related symptoms by traditional healers of Vhembe municipality, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Afr. J. Tradit. Complement. Alt. Med. 2017, 14, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Okada, M.; Lyle, M.; Jasieniuk, M. Inferring the introduction history of the invasive apomictic grass Cortaderia jubata using microsatellite markers. Div. Distrib. 2009, 15, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sorensen, D.G. The Invasion Risk in the Pacific Northwest of Two Closely Related Grass Species in the Genus Cortaderia. Master’s Thesis, University of Washington, Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  106. Houliston, G.J.; Goeke, D.F. Cortaderia spp. in New Zealand: Patterns of genetic variation in two widespread invasive species. N. Z. J. Ecol. 2017, 41, 107–112. [Google Scholar]
  107. Almeida, M.R.; Marchante, E.; Marchante, H. Public Perceptions about the Invasive Plant Pampas Grass, Cortaderia selloana. Research Square. 2022. Available online: https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1343268/v1/cc4cf774-820e-480e-b049-0e06f340826f.pdf?c=1646671684 (accessed on 24 June 2022).
  108. Marais, D.; Rethman, N.; Annandale, J. Dry matter yield and water use efficiency of five perennial subtropical grasses at four levels of water availability. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2006, 23, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Al-Snafi, A.E. Chemical constituents and pharmacological importance of Agropyron repens—A review. Res. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2015, 1, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  110. Gupta, A.; Ranjan, R. December. Grasses as an Immense Source of Pharmacologically Active Medicinal Properties: An Overview. In. Proc. Indian Nat. Sci. Acad. 2020, 86, 1323–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kotanen, P.M.; Abraham, K.F. Geese and grazing lawns: Responses of the grass Festuca rubra to defoliation in a subarctic coastal marsh. Canadian. J. Bot. 2007, 84, 1732–1739. [Google Scholar]
  112. Stewart, G.H.; Ignatieva, M.E.; Meurk, C.D.; Buckley, H.; Horne, B.; Braddick, T. URban Biotopes of Aotearoa New Zealand (URBANZ)(I): Composition and diversity of temperate urban lawns in Christchurch. Urban Eco. 2009, 12, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. De, L.C. Lawn grasses-a review. Int. J. Hortic. 2017, 7, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Mugwedi, L.F. Invasion Ecology of Glyceria maxima in KZN Rivers and Wetlands. Master’s Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  115. Mugwedi, L.F.; Goodall, J.M.; Witkowski, E.T.F.; Byrne, M.J. Effect of temperature on seed production in the invasive grass Glyceria maxima (Hartm.) Holmb. (Poaceae) in South Africa. Afr. J. Aquatic Sci. 2018, 43, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Mugwedi, L.F.; Goodall, J.M.; Witkowski, E.T.F.; Byrne, M.J. Post-fire vegetative recruitment of the alien grass Glyceria maxima at a KwaZulu-Natal Midlands dam, South Africa. Afr. J. Aquatic Sci. 2015, 40, 443–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Gilson, E. Biogas Production Potential and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Harvesting Wetland Plants (Phragmites australis and Glyceria maxima). Master’s Thesis, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  118. Roj-Rojewski, S.; Wysocka-Czubaszek, A.; Czubaszek, R.; Kamocki, A.; Banaszuk, P. Anaerobic digestion of wetland biomass from conservation management for biogas production. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 122, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Liu, D.; Zou, C.; Xu, M. Environmental, ecological, and economic benefits of biofuel production using a constructed wetland: A case study in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  120. Tomaskin, J.; Tomaskinova, J. evaluation of assortment of ornamental grasses and their environmental importance in the urban landscape. J. Environ. Protect. Ecol. 2020, 21, 1673–1682. [Google Scholar]
  121. Banaszuk, P.; Kamocki, A.K.; Wysocka-Czubaszek, A.; Czubaszek, R.; Roj-Rojewski, S. Closing the loop-Recovery of nutrients and energy from wetland biomass. Ecol. Engine. 2020, 143, 105643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Biro, A.S.; Ivaşcu, C.; Ciobotă, A.; Arsene, G. Assessment of ecosystem services through habitat diversity within a Peri-Urban River Area-Bega River in the eastern part of Timișoara. Res. J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 53, 21–36. [Google Scholar]
  123. le Roux, P.C.; Ramaswiela, T.; Kalwij, J.M.; Shaw, J.D.; Ryan, P.G.; Treasure, A.M.; McClelland, G.T.; McGeoch, M.A.; Chown, S.L. Human activities, propagule pressure and alien plants in the sub-Antarctic: Tests of generalities and evidence in support of management. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 161, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Belonovskaya, E.; Gracheva, R.; Shorkunov, I.; Vinogradova, V. Grasslands of intermontane basins of Central Caucasus: Land use legacies and present-day state. Hacquetia 2016, 15, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Drake, P.; Grimshaw-Surette, H.; Heim, A.; Lundholm, J. Mosses inhibit germination of vascular plants on an extensive green roof. Ecol. Engine. 2018, 117, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Dubljević, R.; Marković, B.; Radonjić, D.; Stešević, D.; Marković, M. Influence of changes in botanical diversity and quality of wet grasslands through phenological phases on cow milk fatty acid composition. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Momose, T.; Lundholm, J. Use of a thermo-module as a soil heat flux sensor: Applications in the evaluation of extensive green roof thermal performance. Energy Build. 2021, 231, 110562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Mkhize, N.L.F. Biology, Seasonal Abundance and Host Range of Capitulum-Feeding Insects Associated with the Invasive Weed Senecio madagascariensis (Asteraceae) in Its Native Range in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Masters’ Thesis, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  129. Sosa, L.L.; Jozami, E.; Oakley, L.J.; Montero, G.A.; Ferreras, L.A.; Venturi, G.; Feldman, S.R. Using C4 perennial rangeland grasses for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 128, 105299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Gandini, M.L.; Lara, B.D.; Moreno, L.B.; Cañibano, M.A.; Gandini, P.A. Trends in fragmentation and connectivity of Paspalum quadrifarium grasslands in the Buenos Aires province, Argentina. PeerJ 2019, 7, e6450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  131. Gutiérrez, F.; Gallego, F.; Paruelo, J.M.; Rodríguez, C. Damping and lag effects of precipitation variability across trophic levels in Uruguayan rangelands. Agri. Syst. 2020, 185, 102956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Rayment, J.; French, K.; Bedward, M. Understanding patterns and pathways of exotic perennial grass invasion in South-eastern Australian grassy communities. Div. Distrib. 2022, 28, 1136–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Hlophe, S.N.; Moyo, N.A.G. A comparative study on the use of Pennisetum clandestinum and Moringa oleifera as protein sources in the diet of the herbivorous Tilapia rendalli. Aquac. Int. 2014, 22, 1245–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Seeman, O.D.; Loch, D.S.; Knihinicki, D.K.; McMaugh, P.E. A new species of Steneotarsonemus (Acari: Tarsonemidae) from kikuyu grass, Pennisetum clandestinum (Poaceae), in Australia. System. Appl. Acarol. 2016, 21, 889–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Vurayai, R.; Nkoane, B.; Moseki, B.; Chaturvedi, P. Phytoremediation potential of Jatropha curcas and Pennisetum clandestinum grown in polluted soil with and without coal fly ash: Selibe-Phikwe, Botswana. J. Biodiv. Environ. Sci. 2017, 10, 193–206. [Google Scholar]
  136. Romero-Perdomo, F.; Ocampo-Gallego, J.; Camelo-Rusinque, M.; Bonilla, R. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and their potential as bioinoculants on Pennisetum clandestinum (Poaceae). Rev. Biol. Tropic. 2019, 67, 825–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Aghajani-Shahrivar, A.; Hagare, D.; Maheshwari, B.; Muhitur Rahman, M. The effect of irrigation using recycled waters obtained from MBR and IDAL wastewater treatment systems on soil pH and EC under kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) production. Water Supply 2020, 20, 1313–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Fokom, W.D.; Tendonkeng, F.; Azangue, G.J.; Miégoué, E.; Djoumessi, F.G.T.; Kwayep, N.C.; Mouchili, M. Effects of Different Levels of Fertilization with Hen Droppings on the Production and Chemical Composition of Pennisetum clandestinum (Poaceae). Open J. Animal Sci. 2021, 11, 543–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Chen, X.F.; Huang, C.; Xiong, L.; Wang, B.; Qi, G.X.; Lin, X.Q.; Wang, C.; Chen, X.D. Use of elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) acid hydrolysate for microbial oil production by Trichosporon cutaneum. Preparative Biochem. Biotech. 2016, 46, 704–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Negawo, A.T.; Teshome, A.; Kumar, A.; Hanson, J.; Jones, C.S. Opportunities for Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) improvement using molecular genetics. Agronomy 2017, 7, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Negawo, A.T.; Jorge, A.; Hanson, J.; Teshome, A.; Muktar, M.S.; Azevedo, A.L.S.; Ledo, F.J.; Machado, J.C.; Jones, C.H.R.I.S. Molecular markers as a tool for germplasm acquisition to enhance the genetic diversity of a Napier grass (Cenchruspurpureus syn. Pennisetum purpureum) collection. Tropic. Grasslands-Forrajes Tropic. 2018, 6, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Danquah, J.A.; Roberts, C.O.; Appiah, M. Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum): A potential source of biomass for power generation in Ghana. Curr. J. Appl. Sci. Tech. 2018, 30, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Zhou, Z.; Guo, Y.; Hu, L.; He, L.; Xu, B.; Huang, Z.; Wang, G.; Chen, Y. Potential use of king grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach, Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) for phytoextraction of cadmium from fields. Environ. Sci. Pollution Res. 2020, 27, 35249–35260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Antunes, F.A.F.; Machado, P.E.M.; Rocha, T.M.; Melo, Y.C.S.; Santos, J.C.; da Silva, S.S. Column reactors in fluidized bed configuration as intensification system for xylitol and ethanol production from napier grass (Pennisetum Purpureum). Chem. Engine. Process. Int. 2021, 164, 108399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Badalamenti, E.; Militello, M.; La Mantia, T.; Gugliuzza, G. Seedling growth of a native (Ampelodesmos mauritanicus) and an exotic (Pennisetum setaceum) grass. Acta Oecol. 2016, 77, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Rodríguez-Caballero, G.; Caravaca, F.; Alguacil, M.M.; Fernández-López, M.; Fernández-González, A.J.; Roldán, A. Striking alterations in the soil bacterial community structure and functioning of the biological N cycle induced by Pennisetum setaceum invasion in a semiarid environment. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 109, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Da Re, D.; Tordoni, E.; de Pascalis, F.; Negrín-Pérez, Z.; Fernández-Palacios, J.M.; Arévalo, J.R.; Rocchini, D.; Medina, F.M.; Otto, R.; Arlé, E.; et al. Invasive fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum (Forssk.) Chiov.) increases its potential area of distribution in Tenerife Island under future climatic scenarios. Plant Ecol. 2020, 221, 867–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Badagliacco, D.; Sanfilippo, C.; Megna, B.; La Mantia, T.; Valenza, A. Mechanical and Thermal Properties of Insulating Sustainable Mortars with Ampelodesmos mauritanicus and Pennisetum setaceum Plants as Aggregates. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Charai, M.; Salhi, M.; Horma, O.; Mezrhab, A.; Karkri, M.; Amraqui, S. Thermal and mechanical characterization of adobes bio-sourced with Pennisetum setaceum fibers and an application for modern buildings. Cons. Build. Mater. 2022, 326, 126809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Liu, L.; Teng, K.; Fan, X.; Han, C.; Zhang, H.; Wu, J.; Chang, Z. Combination analysis of single-molecule long-read and Illumina sequencing provides insights into the anthocyanin accumulation mechanism in an ornamental grass, Pennisetum setaceum cv. Rubrum. Plant Mol. Biol. 2022, 109, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Zhang, Y.; Yuan, X.; Teng, W.; Chen, C.; Wu, J. Identification and phylogenetic classification of Pennisetum (Poaceae) ornamental grasses based on ssr locus polymorphisms. Plant Mol. Biol. Report. 2016, 34, 1181–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Gupta, N.; Biswas, N.; Sudhakar, V.J. Amazing world of grasses. Rai J. Tech. Res. Inn. 2016, 4, 5–11. [Google Scholar]
  153. Mobamed-Saleem, M.A.; Woldu, Z. 23 Land Use and Biodiversity in the Upland Pastures in Ethiopia. Mountain biodiversity: Global Assess. 2019, 7, 277. [Google Scholar]
  154. Abdi, S.; Dwivedi, A.; Kumar, S.; Bhat, V. Development of EST-SSR markers in Tomaskin, J. and Tomaskinova and their applicability in studying the genetic diversity and cross-species transferability. J. Gen. 2019, 98, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Wang, Q. The plastid genome of an ornamental grass Pennisetum villosum (Poaceae: Paniceae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B 2020, 5, 1586–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Salas-Luevano, M.A.; Puente-Cuevas, R.; Vega-Carrillo, H.R. Concentrations of heavy metals and measurement of 40K in mine tailings in Zacatecas, Mexico. Environ. Earth Sci. 2021, 80, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Kim, J. The Current State and Characteristics of Ornamental Grasses in South Korea. J. Korean Ins. Landsc. Arch. 2021, 49, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Nirala, P.D.; Jain, S.C.; Kumari, P. Distribution of different bamboo species in different areas of North Chota Nagpur division of Jharkhand. Biosci. Disc. 2016, 7, 21–24. [Google Scholar]
  159. Stephan, J.G.; Pourazari, F.; Tattersdill, K.; Kobayashi, T.; Nishizawa, K.; de Long, J.R. Long-term deer exclosure alters soil properties, plant traits, understory plant community and insect herbivory, but not the functional relationships among them. Oecologia 2017, 184, 685–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Smith, M.C.; Mack, R.N. Apparent tolerance of low water availability in temperate Asian bamboos. J. Environ. Hortic. 2018, 36, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Akaji, Y.; Fujiyoshi, K.; Wu, C.; Hattori, I.; Hirobe, M.; Sakamoto, K. Survival and recruitment of Sasa kurilensis culms in response to local light conditions in a cool temperate forest. J. Forest Res. 2019, 24, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Reinhardt, C. Thread of herbicide-resistant weeds in soya beans: Prognosis for South Africa in light of global trends: Chemicals and fertiliser. Oilseeds Focus 2016, 2, 11–13. [Google Scholar]
  163. Sezen, U.U.; Barney, J.N.; Atwater, D.Z.; Pederson, G.A.; Pederson, J.F.; Chandler, J.M.; Cox, T.S.; Cox, S.; Dotray, P.; Kopec, D.; et al. Multi-phase US spread and habitat switching of a post-Columbian invasive, Sorghum halepense. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0164584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  164. Zhang, S.C.; Lin, S.; Shen, A.; Chen, H.; Wang, F.; Huai, H.Y. Traditional knowledge on “Luchai” [Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. and Arundo donax L.] and their dynamics through urbanization in Yangzhou area, East China. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2016, 15, 580–586. [Google Scholar]
  165. Watts, D.A.; Moore, G.W. Water-use dynamics of an invasive reed, Arundo donax, from leaf to stand. Wetlands 2011, 31, 725–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Mararakanye, N.; Magoro, M.N.; Matshaya, N.N.; Rabothata, M.C.; Ncobeni, S.R. Railway side mapping of alien plant distributions in Mpumalanga, South Africa. Bothalia-Afr. Biodiv Conserv. 2017, 47, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  167. Cronin, K.; Kaplan, H.; Gaertner, M.; Irlich, U.M.; Timm Hoffman, M. Aliens in the nursery: Assessing the attitudes of nursery managers to invasive species regulations. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 925–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Moshobane, M.C.; Nnzeru, L.R.; Nelukalo, K.; Mothapo, N.P. Patterns of permit requests and issuance for regulated alien and invasive species in South Africa for the period 2015–2018. Afr. J. Ecol. 2020, 58, 514–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Moshobane, M.C.; Olowoyo, J.O.; Middleton, L. Alien plant species of Haenertsburg Village, Limpopo Province, South Africa. BioInvasions Rec. 2022, 11, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Jiménez-Ruiz, J.; Hardion, L.; Del Monte, J.P.; Vila, B.; Santín-Montanyá, M.I. Monographs on invasive plants in Europe N° 4: Arundo donax L. Bot. Lett. 2021, 168, 131–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Racelis, A.; Wagle, P.; Escamilla, J.; Goolsby, J.; Gowda, P. Interannual Variability and Seasonal Dynamics of Evapotranspiration of Arundo donax L. and Populations of its Biological Control Agent (Tetramesa romana). Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2022, 22, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 15032 g001 550
Figure 1. Classification of ecosystem services provided by invasive alien grass and rush species, their South African invasion statuses, and legal categories. (Key: Pt, potential transformer; R, ruderal and agrestal; S, special effect weed and T, transformer).
Figure 1. Classification of ecosystem services provided by invasive alien grass and rush species, their South African invasion statuses, and legal categories. (Key: Pt, potential transformer; R, ruderal and agrestal; S, special effect weed and T, transformer).
Sustainability 14 15032 g001
Sustainability 14 15032 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparison of studies that have reported the use of invasive alien grass species in South Africa and elsewhere.
Figure 2. Comparison of studies that have reported the use of invasive alien grass species in South Africa and elsewhere.
Sustainability 14 15032 g002
Table
Table 1. An inventory of useful invasive alien grass and rush species in South Africa (Category 1a, invasive alien grass species that required immediate compulsory control; Category 1b, invasive alien grass species that should be controlled or eradicated where possible; Category 2, invasive alien grass species that must be allowed only in specified areas under controlled conditions; Category 3, invasive alien grass species that must be controlled within riparian zones, and therefore, there should be no further cultivation allowed; Pt, potential transformer—plant species that invade natural or semi-natural habitats and have the potential to dominate vegetation layers; R, ruderal and agrestal—plant species that are normally weeds in waste and cultivated areas; S, special effect weed—plants that can slowly degrade the biodiversity value without dominating; T, transformer— plants that can easily alter the integrity and functionality of ecosystems).
Table 1. An inventory of useful invasive alien grass and rush species in South Africa (Category 1a, invasive alien grass species that required immediate compulsory control; Category 1b, invasive alien grass species that should be controlled or eradicated where possible; Category 2, invasive alien grass species that must be allowed only in specified areas under controlled conditions; Category 3, invasive alien grass species that must be controlled within riparian zones, and therefore, there should be no further cultivation allowed; Pt, potential transformer—plant species that invade natural or semi-natural habitats and have the potential to dominate vegetation layers; R, ruderal and agrestal—plant species that are normally weeds in waste and cultivated areas; S, special effect weed—plants that can slowly degrade the biodiversity value without dominating; T, transformer— plants that can easily alter the integrity and functionality of ecosystems).
Family NameBotanical NameCommon NameNEMBA/CARA CategoriesInvasion StatusProvision of Ecosystem ServiceGeographic OriginCitations (A = Local Uses Records; B = Use Records Elsewhere)
PoaceaeAgrostis castellana Boiss. & Reut.Bent grass1aPtUsed as lawns and pastureEurope, North Africa, and AsiaA: [38,43]; B: [44,80]
PoaceaeAgrostis gigantea RothBlack bent grass, Redtop1aTUsed as pasture, lawns, for mine dump stabilization, and erosion controlEurope and AsiaA: [38,48,81,82,83]; B: [44,84,85,86,87,88]
PoaceaeAgrostis stolonifera L.Creeping bent grass1aTUsed as pasture, lawns, and erosion controlEurope and AsiaA: [34,36,38,48,82]; B: [44,89,90]
PoaceaeAmmophila arenaria (L.) LinkMarram grass2SUsed for erosion controlEurope, North Africa, and Western Asia.A: [34,38,91,92,93]; B: [94,95,96,97]
PoaceaeArundo donax L.Giant reed1bTUsed for ornamental purposes, construction, flood attenuation, mine damp stabilization and musical flutesAsia (Middle East)A: [27,34,36,37,38,93,98]; B: [41,42,44,99,100,101,102]
PoaceaeCortaderia jubata (Lemoine) StapfPampas grass, Purple pampas1bTUsed for ornamental purposes, mine dump stabilization, medicineSouth AmericaA: [34,36,38,93,103]; B: [44,104,105,106]
PoaceaeCortaderia selloana (Schult. & Schult.f.) Asch. & Graebn.Silwergras1b PtUsed for ornamental, and mine dump stabilizationSouth AmericaA: [34,36,38,93]; B: [102,105,106,107]
PoaceaeElymus repens (L.) GouldTwitch, Quick Grass, Quitch1aPtUsed for ornaments, erosion control and medicineEurope, North Africa, and AsiaA: [34,36,37]; B: [44,108,109,110]
PoaceaeFestuca rubra L.Red fescue, Creeping red fescue1aPtUsed as lawns and for erosion controlEurope, North Africa, Asia, and North AmericaA: [34,38,48]; B: [44,111,112,113]
PoaceaeGlyceria maxima (Hartm.) Holmb.Reed meadow grass, Reed sweet grass2TUsed as pastureEurope, and AsiaA: [34,36,38,114,115,116]; B: [90,117,118,119,120,121,122]
JuncaceaeLuzula multiflora (Ehrh.) Lej.Woodrush1aPtUsed as pastureEurope, North Africa, Asia, and North AmericaA: [38,123]; B: [124,125,126,127]
PoaceaePaspalum quadrifarium Lam.Tussock paspalum1aPtUsed for ornamentsBrazil and ArgentinaA: [34,36,38,128]; B: [128,129,130,131,132]
PoaceaePennisetum clandestinum Hochst. ex Chiov.Kikuyu grass1bTUsed as pasture, lawns, and for erosion controlTropical AfricaA: [34,38,133]; B: [44,134,135,136,137,138]
PoaceaePennisetum purpureum Schumach.Elephant or Napier grass2PtUsed as pasture and for ornamental purposesTropical AfricaA: [34,38]; B: [44,139,140,141,142,143,144]
PoaceaePennisetum setaceum (Forssk.) Chiov.Fountain grass1bTUsed for ornamental and erosion control purposesNorth and North-East Africa, and South-West AsiaA: [34,36,38]; B: [145,146,147,148,149,150]
PoaceaePennisetum villosum R. Br. ex Fresen.Feathertop1bRUsed for ornamentsEthiopiaA: [34,36,38]; B: [151,152,153,154,155,156,157]
PoaceaePoa pratensis L.Kentucky bluegrass1aTUsed as pasture, erosion control and as lawnsEurope, North Africa, Asia, North AmericaA: [34,36,38]; B: [44]
PoaceaeSasa palmata (hort. ex Burb.) E.G. CamusDwarf yellow-striped bamboo3PtUsed for ornamental and erosion control purposesEast AsiaA: [38]; B: [158,159,160,161]
PoaceaeSorghum halepense (L.) Pers.Johnson grass, Aleppo grass2TUsed as pastureMediterraneanA: [34,36,38,162,163]; B: [44]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramarumo, L.J. Harnessing Ecosystem Services from Invasive Alien Grass and Rush Species to Suppress their Aggressive Expansion in South Africa. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215032

AMA Style

Ramarumo LJ. Harnessing Ecosystem Services from Invasive Alien Grass and Rush Species to Suppress their Aggressive Expansion in South Africa. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):15032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215032

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramarumo, Luambo Jeffrey. 2022. "Harnessing Ecosystem Services from Invasive Alien Grass and Rush Species to Suppress their Aggressive Expansion in South Africa" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 15032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215032

APA Style

Ramarumo, L. J. (2022). Harnessing Ecosystem Services from Invasive Alien Grass and Rush Species to Suppress their Aggressive Expansion in South Africa. Sustainability, 14(22), 15032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215032

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop