4. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS 
Both invasive species and climate change are major ecosystem stressors. Although not 
well understood, particularly in aquatic ecosystems, the interaction of these stressors may 
exacerbate the effects of each. In order to design and conduct effective AIS management, state 
managers should put in motion efforts that will allow them to consider the projected effects of 
climate change on AIS prevention, control, and eradication actions. This assessment of the 
current status of climate in AIS management underscores the need to consider climate-change 
effects in every part of AIS management plans and programs in order to address AIS threats 
effectively. 
Incorporation of climate-change information is important for every state program with 
AIS responsibility. Indeed, adapting AIS management practices will allow states to better 
prevent and control AIS invasions under changing conditions, as well as maximize the 
effectiveness and efficiency of each state dollar spent on AIS management activities. However, 
our review shows that, with few exceptions, states have not put in place adaptive management 
strategies that incorporate climate-change information. This result is not surprising since there 
currently is no legislative mandate to consider climate change in these activities. Our review 
does highlight, however, that there is considerable capacity to adapt existing plans to include 
climate-change information. For example, most plans include provisions for revising and 
updating the plan allowing new information to be incorporated, funding specific management 
goals and activities, and implementing or modifying existing monitoring activities. 
Despite the lack of a legislative mandate, several states have taken or are taking steps to 
consider climate change (e.g., Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and Wisconsin) (see Appendix 
A, Aquatic Invasive Species Programs and Activities). For example, Arkansas is concerned 
about the potential for water hyacinth to overwinter as water temperatures warm (see Appendix 
A, Aquatic Invasive Species Programs and Activities), and the Arkansas Plant Board recently 
added water hyacinth to the state’s noxious weed and prohibited plant lists (Arkansas State Plant 
Board, 2007). Taking this step now to prevent water hyacinth introductions could help prevent 
its future spread due to warmer conditions. 
For the majority of states not addressing climate change, a significant factor may be the 
lack of reliable science-based information to inform AIS managers and decision-makers in 
designing and implementing their plans, programs, and activities. Fortunately, many state plans 
include research tasks that incorporate at least some capacity to examine changing conditions, 
thus potentially reinforcing a hope for more information. In addition, the structure and substance 
of some state plans suggest that managers are thinking about environmental change and may be 
interested in including climate change more explicitly if enabled to do so cost-effectively. 
4-1 
