, Volume 70, Issue 7, pp 893–904 | Cite as

Reciprocal contamination by invasive plants: analysis of trade exchange between Slovakia and Romania

  • Peter FerusEmail author
  • Culiţă Sîrbu
  • Pavol Eliášjr.
  • Jana Konôpková
  • Ľuba Ďurišová
  • Costel Samuil
  • Adrian Oprea


In this work, potential contamination by invasive plant propagules as a result of trade exchange between Slovakia and Romania, was assessed. National lists, describing biology and ecology of 30 worst invasive plant taxa, were formulated, and trading in period 2006–2010 between countries analysed. Using norms for commodity impurity level, information on species habitat occupancy and literature data dealing with seed/fruit attachment on roads we calculated then potential invasive plant propagule export (PE) for each taxon. We found three fold higher total good export from Slovakia than in opposite direction, increasing export of commodities potentially containing invasive plant propagules exported from Romania to Slovakia and rise of road compared to railway transport. PEs for Slovak invasive plant taxa were one-two orders higher than those for Romanian ones. Potentially most exported taxa for Slovakia were: Amaranthus sp., Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Galinsoga sp., Kochia scoparia and Sorghum halepense (tens to hundreds tonnes each). And these could mostly be exported from Romania: Amaranthus sp., Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Artemisia annua, Conyza canadensis, Cuscuta campestris, Datura stramonium, Erigeron annus, Galinsoga sp., Iva xanthiifolia, Kochia scoparia, Lycium barbarum, Sorghum halepense, Veronica persica and Xanthium orientale subsp. italicum (units to tens tonnes each). High PE was significantly associated with cereals export. Our formula for PE is applicable for any inter-and intra-continental trade exchange.

Key words

invasive plants Slovakia Romania trade transport potential introduction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This work was supported by the project of international science-technical cooperation between Slovakia and Romania no. SK-RO-0013-10 (in Romania project ANCSUEFISCDI Romania, PN II CAPACITATI). Special thanks to Mr. Peter Heidinger, providing us most of the statistical data, presented here, and to Mr. Juraj Bohúnsky, speaker of the Slovak Shipping and Ports Co., for very helpful approach and communication of internal data on river freight transport, as well as Mr. Marcel Minich from Slovak Rail Co. info-service for assertive completion of data file on railway cargo transport. We also very appreciate valuable comments to our work from prof. Phillip E. Hulme from New Zealand and checking our English by Mrs. Ivana Kociská.


  1. Ali M.M., Murphy K.J. & Langendorff J. 1999. Interrelations of river ship traffic with aquatic plants in the River Nile, Egypt. Hydrobiol. 415. 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastasiu P., Negrean G., Făgăraş M., Samoila C. & Cogălniceanu D. 2009. Constanşa harbour (Romania) as a major gateway and reservoir for alien plant species. Acta Hort. Bot. Bucurest. 36. 41–60.Google Scholar
  3. Anastasiu P., Negrean G., Samoila C., Memedemin D. & Cogălniceanu D. 2011. A comparative analysis of alien plant species along the Romanian Black Sea coastal area. The role of harbours. J. Coast. Conserv. doi. 10.1007/s11852-011-0149-0.Google Scholar
  4. Anghel G., Chirilă C., Ciocârlan V. & Ulinici A. 1972. Buruienile din culturile agricole şi combaterea lor. Ceres Publishing House, Bucureşti, 355 pp.Google Scholar
  5. BaraČ S., BiberdžiČ M., VukoviČ A., DikiČ A. & MilenkoviČ B. 2013. The results of testing the harvesting device work quality of the combines ZMAJ 133 and Claas Dominator 48. Res. J. Agric. Sci. 45(3): 3–9.Google Scholar
  6. Barrat-Segretain M.H., Elder A., Sagnes P. & Puijalon S. 2002. Comparison of three life-history traits of invasive Elodea canadensis Michx. and Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) H.St.John. Aquat. Bot. 74. 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benkovičová L’. (ed.) 2007. Štatistická ročenka Slovenskej republiky 2007. Štatistický úrad Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava, 692 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Benkovičová L’ (ed.) 2008. Štatistická ročenka Slovenskej republiky 2008. Štatistický úrad Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava, 680 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Benkovičová L’ (ed.) 2009. Štatistická ročenka Slovenskej republiky 2009. Štatistický úrad Slovenskej Republiky, Bratislava 712 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Benkovičová L’ (ed) 2010. Štatistická ročenka Slovenskej republiky 2010. Štatistický úrad Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava, 686 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Benkovičová L’ (ed) 2011. Štatistická ročenka Slovenskej republiky 2011. Štatistický úrad Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava, 672 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Binimelis R., Born W., Monterosso I. & Rodríguez-Labajos B. 2007. Socio-economic impact and assessment of biological invasions, pp. 331–350. In: Nentwig W. (ed.), Biological Invasions. Ecological Studies vol. 193. Springer, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blackshaw R.E. & Rode L.M. 1991. Effect of ensiling and rumen digestion by cattle on weed seed viability. Weed Sci. 39. 104–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colunga-Garcia M., Haack R.A. & Adelaja A.O. 2009. Freight transportation and the potential for invasions of exotic insects in urban and periurban forests of the United States. J. Econ. Entom. 102. 237–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Csontos P., Tamás J. & Balogh L. 2007. Thousand-seed weight records of species from the flora of Hungary. II. Dicotyledopsida. Studia Bot. Hung. 38. 179–189.Google Scholar
  16. Davies C.E., Moss D. & O’Hill M. 2004. EUNIS habitat classification revised 2004. European Environment Agency, European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity.Google Scholar
  17. Davis M.A., Grime P. & Thomson K. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J. Ecol. 88. 528–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eliáš P. 2009. Biotické invázie. VES, SPU Nitra, 192 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Essl F., Dullinger S., Rabitsch W., Hulme P.E., Hübler K., Jarošík V., Kleinbauer I., Krausmann F., Kühn I., Nentwig W., Vilà M., Genovesi P., Gherardi F., Desprez-Loustau M.L., Roques A. & Pyšek P. 2011. Socioeconomic legacy yields an invasion debt. PNAS 108: 203–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forman R.T.T. & Alexander L.E. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29. 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Godefroid S., Phartyal S.S. & Koedam N. 2006. Depth distribution and composition of seed banks under different tree layers in a managed temperate forest ecosystem. Acta Ecol. 29. 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gojdičová E., Cvachová A. & Karasová E. 2002. Zoznam nepôvodných, inváznych a expanzívnych cievnatých rastlín Slovenska. Ochrana Prírody 21: 59–79.Google Scholar
  23. Greuter W. 2003. The Euro+Med treatment Senecioneae and the minor Compositae tribes -generic concepts and required new names, with an addendum to Cardueae. Willdenowia 33: 245–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gurevitch J. & Padilla D.K. 2004. Are invasive species a major cause of extinction? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19. 470–474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hulme P.E., Bacher S., Kenis M., Klotz S., Kühn I., Minchin D., Nentwig W., Olenin S., Panov V., Pergl J., Pyšek P., Roques A., Sol D., Solarz W. & Vilà M. 2008. Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. J. App. Ecol. 45. 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hulme P.E. 2009. Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J. App. Ecol. 46. 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hulme P.E., Nentwig W., Pyšek P. & Vilà M. 2009. Common market, shared problems: time for a coordinated response to biological invasions in Europe? In: Pyšek P. & Pergl J. (eds.) Biological Invasions: Towards a Synthesis. Neobiota 8: 3–19.Google Scholar
  28. Hulme P.E. 2014. Alien plants confront expectations of climate change impacts. Trends Plant Sci. 19. 547–549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jehlík V. (ed) 1998. Cizí expanzivní plevele České republiky a Slovenské republiky. Academia, Praha, 506 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Jehlík V. 2013. Die Vegetation und Flora der Flusshäfen Mitteleuropas. Praha, Academia, 542 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Khan I., O’Donnell C., Navie S., George D., Nguyen T. & Adkins S. 2013. Weed seed spread by vehicles, pp. 94–97. In: O’Brien M., Vitelli J., Thornby D. (eds), Proceeding of the 12th Queensland Weed Symposium.Google Scholar
  32. Kohaut P. 2001. Buriny Slovenska: Určovanie podľa klíčnych lis-tov. Piešťany, Naše pole s.r.o., 99 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Kolar C.S. & Lodge M.L. 2001. Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16. 199–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kowarik I. & von der Lippe M. 2007. Pathways in plant invasion, pp. 29–48. In: Nentwig W. (ed.), Biological Invasions. Ecological Studies vol. 193. Springer, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lacko-Bartošová M. & Krošlák I. 2001. Hodnotenie zaburinenosti v rozdielnych systémoch hospodárenia. J. Centr. Eur. Agric. 2 (3-4): 173–182.Google Scholar
  36. Lambdon P.W., Pyšek P., Basnou C., Hejda M., Arianoutsou M., Essl F., Jarošík V., Pergl J., Winter M., Anastasiu P., Andriopoulos P., Bazos I., Brundu G., Celesti-Grapow L., Chassot P., Delipetrou P., Josefsson M., Kark S., Klotz S., Kokkoris Y., Kühn I., Marchante H., Perglova I., Pino J., Vilà M., Zikos A., Roy D. & Hulme P.E. 2008. Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs. Preslia 80. 101–149.Google Scholar
  37. Leuven R.S.E.W., van der Velde G., Baijens I., Snijders J., van der Zwart C., Lenders H.J.R. & bij de Vaate A. 2009. The river Rhine: a global highway for dispersal of aquatic invasive species. Biol. Inv. 11. 1989–2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lin W., Zhou X. & Xu R. 2007. Fast economic development accelerates biological invasions in China. PloS ONE 11: e1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Líška E., Černuško K., Cigľar J. & Borecký V. 1995. Atlas burín. VŠP Nitra, 276 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Lockwood J.L., Cassey P. & Blackburn T. 2005. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20. 223–228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mack R.N. & Lonsdale W.M. 2001. Humans as global plant dis-persers: getting more than we bargained for. BioSci. 51(2): 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Medvecká J., Kliment J., Májeková J., Halada L’, Zaliberová M., Gojdičová E., Feráková V. & Jarolímek I. 2012. Inventory of the alien flora of Slovakia. Preslia 84: 257–309.Google Scholar
  43. Meyerson L.A. & Mooney H.A. 2007. Invasive alien species in the era of globalization. Front. Ecol. 5. 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moravcová L., Pyšek P., Jarošík V., Havlíčková V. & Zákravský P. 2010. Reproductive characteristics of neophytes in the Czech Republic: traits of invasive and non-invasive species. Preslia 82: 365–390.Google Scholar
  45. Nehring S. 2005. International shipping -a risk for aquatic biodiversity in Germany. In: Nentwig, W. et al. (eds), Biological Invasions -From ecology to control. Neobiota 6: 125–143.Google Scholar
  46. Olson B.E., Wallander R.T. & Kott R.W. 1997. Recovery of leafy spurge seed from sheep. J. Range Manage. 50. 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oravec M., Bartko M. & Slamka M. 2012. Postupy intenzifikácie produkcie drevnej biomasy na energetické využitie. Lesnícky výskumný ústav Zvolen, 64 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Oťahelová H., Valachovič M. & Hrivnák R. 2007. The impact of environmental factors on the distribution pattern of aquatic plants along Danube river corridors (Slovakia). Limnologica 37: 290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pejchar L. & Mooney H.A. 2009. Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24. 497–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pimentel D. 2009. Invasive plants: their role in species extinctions and economic losses to agriculture in the USA, pp. 1–7. In: Inderjit V. (ed.) Management of invasive weeds. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., Netherlands.Google Scholar
  51. Pleasant J.M.T. & Schlather K.J. 1994. Incidence of weed seed in cow (Bos sp.) manure and its importance as a weed source for cropland. Weed Tech. 8. 304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pyšek P. & Richardson D.M. 2006. The biogeography of naturalization in alien plants. J. Biogeogr. 33. 2040–2050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pyšek P. & Richardson D.M. 2007. Traits associated with in-vasiveness in alien plants: where do we stand? pp. 97–126. In: Nentwig W. (ed.), Biological Invasions. Ecological Studies vol. 193. Springer, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pyšek P., Jarošík V. & Pergl J. 2011. Alien plants introduced by different pathways differ in invasion success: unintentional introductions as a treat to natural areas. PLos ONE 6: e24890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pyšek P., Jarošík V., Hulme P.E., Kühn I., Wild J., Arianoutsou M., Bacher S., Chiron F., Didžiulis V., Essl F., Genovesi P., Gherardi F., Hejda M., Kark S., Lambdon P.W., Desprez-Loustau M.-L., Nentwig W., Pergl J., Poboljšaj K., Rabitsch W., Roques A., Roy D.B., Shirley S., Solarz W., Vilà M. & Winter M. 2010. Disentangling the role of environmental and human pressures on biological invasions across Europe. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 107. 12157–12162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ráth B., Janauer G.A., Pall K. & Berczik A. 2003. The aquatic macrophyte vegetation in the Old Danube/Hungarian bank and other water bodies of the Szigetköz wetlands. Archiv Hydrobiol. 14. 129–142.Google Scholar
  57. Rejmánek M. 2000. Invasive plants: approaches and predictions. Austr. Ecol. 25. 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rew L.J. 2011. Developing functional parameters for a science-based vehicle cleaning program to reduce transport of non-indigenous invasive plant species. SERDP Project RC-1545 -Final report, Montana State University, 58 pp.Google Scholar
  59. Richardson D.M., Pyšek P., Rejmánek M., Barbour M.G. Panetta, F.D. & West C.J. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers. Distrib. 6. 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rikli M. 1904. Die Anthropochoren und der Formenkreis des Nasturtium palustre DC. Botanisches Centralblatt 45: 12–14.Google Scholar
  61. Sârbu A., Smarandache D., Janauer G. & Pascale G. 2006. Elodea nuttallii (Planchon) St. John -a competitive hydrophyte in the Romanian Danube river corridors. In: Proceedings 36th International Conference of IAD. Austrian Committee Danu-beResearch/IAD, Vienna, 4-8 September 2006, pp. 107–111.Google Scholar
  62. Scalera R. 2010. How much is Europe spending on invasive alien species? Biol. Inv. 12. 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sellens L.J., Markiewicz A.J. & Landis W.G. 2007. Risk evaluation of invasive species transport across the U.S. -Canada border in Washington state. Western Washington University, Research report No. 2. 40 pp.Google Scholar
  64. Sîrbu C. & Oprea A. 2011. Plante adventive în flora Romaniei. Ion Ionescu de la Brad Publishing House, Iasi, 733 pp.Google Scholar
  65. Stohlgren T.J., Pyšek P., Kartesz J., Nishino M., Pauchard A., Winter M., Pino J., Richardson D.M., Wilson J.R.U., Murray B.R., Phillips M.L., Ming-Yang L., Celesti-Grapow L. & Font X. 2011. Widespread plant species: natives versus aliens in our changing world. Biol. Inv. 13. 1931–1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taylor K., Brummer T., Taper M., Wing A. & Rew L.J. 2012. Human-mediated long-distance dispersal: an empirical evaluation of seed dispersal by vehicles. Diversity Distrib. 1–10.Google Scholar
  67. Thomas S.M., Tjaden N.B., van den Bos S. & Beierkuhnlein C. 2014. Implementing cargo movement into climate based risk assessment of vector-borne diseases. Int. J., Environ. Res. Public Health 11: 3360–3374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thuiller W., Richardson D.W. & Midgley G.F. 2007. Will climate change promote alien plant invasions? pp. 197–216. In: Nentwig W. (ed), Biological Invasions. Ecological Studies vol. 193. Springer, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Török P., Miglécz T., Valkó O., Tóth K., Kelemen A., Albert Á.-J., Matus G., Molnár A., Ruprecht E., Papp L., Deák B., Horváth O., Takács A., Hüse B. & Tóth B. 2013. New thousand-seed weight records of the Pannonian flora and their application in analysing social behavior types. Acta Bot. Hun. 55. 429–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tutin T.G., Heywood V.H., Burges N.A., Moore D.M., Valentine D.H., Walters S.M. & Webb D.A. (eds) 1964-1980. Flora Eu-ropaea 1-5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2524 pp.Google Scholar
  71. Vilà M. & Pujadas J. 2001. Land-use and socio-economic correlates of plant invasions in European and North African countries. Biol. Conserv. 100: 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Voineagu V. (ed.) 2007. Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010. National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, 879 pp.Google Scholar
  73. Voineagu V. (ed.) 2008. Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010. National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, 868 pp.Google Scholar
  74. Voineagu V. (ed.) 2009. Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010. National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, 1084 pp.Google Scholar
  75. Voineagu V. (ed.) 2010. Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2010. National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, 710 pp.Google Scholar
  76. Voineagu V. (ed.) 2011. Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2011. National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, 734 pp.Google Scholar
  77. von der Lippe M. & Kowarik I. 2006. Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver of plant invasions. Conserv. Biol. 21. 986–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vukov D., Boža P., Igic R. & Anačkov G. 2008. The distribution and the abundance of hydrophytes along the Danube river in Serbia. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 3. 177–187.Google Scholar
  79. Westphal M. Browne M., MacKinnon K. & Noble I. 2008. The link between international trade and the global distribution of invasive alien species. Biol. Inv. 10. 391–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zwaenepoel A., Roovers P. & Hermy M. 2006. Motor vehicles as vectors of plant species from road verges in suburban environment. Basic Appl. Ecol. 7. 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Slovak Academy of Sciences 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Ferus
    • 1
    Email author
  • Culiţă Sîrbu
    • 2
  • Pavol Eliášjr.
    • 3
  • Jana Konôpková
    • 1
  • Ľuba Ďurišová
    • 3
  • Costel Samuil
    • 2
  • Adrian Oprea
    • 4
  1. 1.Mlyňany Arboretum SASInstitute of Forest Ecology SASSlepčanySlovakia
  2. 2.Department of Plant ScienceUniversity of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary MedicineIaşiRomania
  3. 3.Department of BotanySlovak Agricultural UniversityNitraSlovakia
  4. 4.Botanical Garden, University Alexandru Ioan CuzaIaşiRomania

Personalised recommendations