2.14 Discussion
Several assessments have indicated that, for a relatively small country, South Africa
has made a disproportionate contribution to the development of invasion science.
The country has been a pioneer in the field of invasive alien plant biological control
and is currently among the leaders, or may even have assumed the mantle of
leadership (Moran and Hoffmann 2015; Schwarzländer et al. 2018). Currently,
South Africa is one of two countries where the practice of invasive alien plant
biological control is thriving (the other being New Zealand; Moran and Hoffmann
2015). South Africa’s role in initiating and participating in the SCOPE project on
biological invasions in the 1980s helped both to develop invasion science in the
country and to cement the country’s position as a leader in the field. The establishment and sustained funding of a Centre of Excellence on biological invasions has
similarly contributed to a substantial expansion in understanding and has enabled the
training of a new cohort of scientists. Richardson et al. (2004) reported on a historic
four-day summit on “Invasive plants in natural and managed systems: Linking
science and management” held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and attended by over
700 delegates. They noted that “there were numerous references in many sessions to
South Africa’s substantial and innovative contributions in the field” and that “there
is no doubt that the small scientific community in South Africa has made its mark”.
Another important indicator is contributions to the biennial EMAPi (Ecology and
Management of Alien Plant invasions) conferences (Pyšek et al. 2020). A total of
1696 individual delegates from 77 countries attended one or more of the 14 EMAPi
conferences held between 1992 and 2017. Of these, only six countries (the USA,
South Africa, Australia, the Czech Republic, Germany and the UK, in that order)
were represented by over 100 delegates. If one does not count attendance from host
countries, then the Czech Republic with 109 participants was most active, followed
by South Africa, the USA, Germany and the UK. Pyšek et al. (2006) provide an
analysis of the most cited (i.e. influential) papers in invasion ecology. The majority
(70%) of well-cited papers were from the USA, but South Africa was second with
9% of the most cited papers, followed by Australia and the UK with 6% each, the
Czech Republic, France and Canada with 3%. Pyšek et al. (2008) noted that invasion
science was poorly studied in Africa, with the notable exception of South Africa,
“which alone accounts for two-thirds of research effort on this continent”. Finally,
the existence of Working for Water, arguably Africa’s largest and best-funded
conservation program, and with a focus on biological invasions, has provided a
host of implementation problems that needed evidence-based solutions, thus providing a stimulus for further research.
Some authors have put forward the idea that South Africa’s relative prominence
in the field of invasion science has its roots in apartheid philosophies, and that it is
similar in some ways to Nazi Germany’s proclivity for the nature garden (Peretti
1998; Comaroff and Comaroff 2001). For example, Peretti 1998 stated that “Like
Nazism, apartheid thinking is concerned with separating the pure from the impure.
Even anti-racist scientists living in an apartheid culture may be influenced by this
2 A Brief, Selective History of Researchers and Research Initiatives
57
Several assessments have indicated that, for a relatively small country, South Africa
has made a disproportionate contribution to the development of invasion science.
The country has been a pioneer in the field of invasive alien plant biological control
and is currently among the leaders, or may even have assumed the mantle of
leadership (Moran and Hoffmann 2015; Schwarzländer et al. 2018). Currently,
South Africa is one of two countries where the practice of invasive alien plant
biological control is thriving (the other being New Zealand; Moran and Hoffmann
2015). South Africa’s role in initiating and participating in the SCOPE project on
biological invasions in the 1980s helped both to develop invasion science in the
country and to cement the country’s position as a leader in the field. The establishment and sustained funding of a Centre of Excellence on biological invasions has
similarly contributed to a substantial expansion in understanding and has enabled the
training of a new cohort of scientists. Richardson et al. (2004) reported on a historic
four-day summit on “Invasive plants in natural and managed systems: Linking
science and management” held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and attended by over
700 delegates. They noted that “there were numerous references in many sessions to
South Africa’s substantial and innovative contributions in the field” and that “there
is no doubt that the small scientific community in South Africa has made its mark”.
Another important indicator is contributions to the biennial EMAPi (Ecology and
Management of Alien Plant invasions) conferences (Pyšek et al. 2020). A total of
1696 individual delegates from 77 countries attended one or more of the 14 EMAPi
conferences held between 1992 and 2017. Of these, only six countries (the USA,
South Africa, Australia, the Czech Republic, Germany and the UK, in that order)
were represented by over 100 delegates. If one does not count attendance from host
countries, then the Czech Republic with 109 participants was most active, followed
by South Africa, the USA, Germany and the UK. Pyšek et al. (2006) provide an
analysis of the most cited (i.e. influential) papers in invasion ecology. The majority
(70%) of well-cited papers were from the USA, but South Africa was second with
9% of the most cited papers, followed by Australia and the UK with 6% each, the
Czech Republic, France and Canada with 3%. Pyšek et al. (2008) noted that invasion
science was poorly studied in Africa, with the notable exception of South Africa,
“which alone accounts for two-thirds of research effort on this continent”. Finally,
the existence of Working for Water, arguably Africa’s largest and best-funded
conservation program, and with a focus on biological invasions, has provided a
host of implementation problems that needed evidence-based solutions, thus providing a stimulus for further research.
Some authors have put forward the idea that South Africa’s relative prominence
in the field of invasion science has its roots in apartheid philosophies, and that it is
similar in some ways to Nazi Germany’s proclivity for the nature garden (Peretti
1998; Comaroff and Comaroff 2001). For example, Peretti 1998 stated that “Like
Nazism, apartheid thinking is concerned with separating the pure from the impure.
Even anti-racist scientists living in an apartheid culture may be influenced by this
2 A Brief, Selective History of Researchers and Research Initiatives
57