Comparing Perceptions of Native Status

REFERENCES

1. 1. Brown RW,
   2. Amacher MC.

   1999. Selecting plants species for ecological restoration: a perspective for land managers. In: Holzworth LK, Brown RW, compilers. Symposium proceedings, Revegetation with native species; 1997 Nov 12–15; Ft Lauderdale, FL. Ogden (UT): USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-P-8. p 1–16.
2. 1. Brown DW,
   2. Brown KD.

   1996. Disturbance plays key role in distribution of plant species. Restoration and Management Notes 14:140–147.

   OpenUrl
3. 1. City of Tucson.

   1997. Land use code. Development regulations. Division 8. Native plant preservation. URL: http://www.ci.tuc-son.az.us/planning/luc/art3div8.pdf (accessed 20 Jul 2000).
4. 1. Colton TF,
   2. Alpert P.

   1998. Lack of public awareness of biological invasions by plants. Natural Areas Journal 18:262–266.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
5. 1. Fowler FJ.

   1984. Survey research methods. Applied social research methods series. Volume 1. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications. 159 p.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Houston DB,
   2. Schreiner EG.

   1994. Alien species in national parks: drawing lines in space and time. Conservation Biology 9: 204–209.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Lemons J,
   2. Westra L,
   3. Goodland R.

   1998. Ecological sustainability and integrity: concepts and approaches. Boston (MA): Kluwer Academic. 315 p.
8. 1. Lesica P,
   2. Allendorf FW.

   1999. Ecological genetics and the restoration of plant communities: mix or match? Restoration Ecology 7:42–50.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
9. 1. MacKenzie DS.

   1989. Native debate. American Nurseryman 169:51–58.

   OpenUrl
10. 1. Moritz C.

    1999. Conservation units and translocations: strategies for conserving evolutionary processes. Hereditas 130:217–228.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
11. 1. Palmer MW,
    2. Wade GL,
    3. Neal P.

    1995. Standards for the writing of floras. BioScience 45:339–345.

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Richards RT,
    2. Chambers JC,
    3. Ross C.

    1998. Use of native plants on federal lands: policy and practice. Journal of Range Management 51:625–632.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
13. 1. SAS Institute Inc.

    1989. SAS/STAT® User’s guide. Version 6. 4th ed. Volume 2. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc. 378 p.

    OpenUrl
14. 1. Society for Range Management.

    1989. A glossary of terms used in range management, 3rd ed. Denver (CO): Society for Range Management. 20 p.
15. 1. Sokal RR,
    2. Rohlf FJ.

    1995. Biometry. 3rd ed. New York (NY): WH Freeman. 887 p.
16. 1. Schwartz MW.

    1997. Defining indigenous species: an introduction. In: Luken JO, Thieret JW, editors. Assessment and management of plant invasions. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag. p 7–17.
17. 1. USDA NRCS.

    1999. The PLANTS database, Version 3.0. URL: http://plants.usda.gov/plants/cgi_bin/topics.cgi?earl=characteristics.html (accessed 20 Jul 2000). Baton Rouge (LA): National Plant Data Center.
18. 1. Webb DA.

    1985. What are the criteria for presuming native status? Watsonia 15:231–236.

    OpenUrl
19. 1. Westbrooks R G.

    1998. Invasive plants: changing the landscape of America: fact book. Washington (DC): Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. 109 p.