70 participants responded to Q29, which asked whether they felt the definition of invasive plants developed by ANLA and the Weed Science Society of America was an accurate one. 55/70 (79%) felt that yes, it was accurate while 10/70 (14%) did not feel it was accurate, for a number of reasons.

9/10 respondents felt that the definition was inaccurate explained why. 2 respondents who did not answer the yes/no/don’t know section, still wrote in their feelings about the definition. 5/6 who “don’t know” (including one “close”) if it’s accurate explained why. 21/55 respondents who felt that the definition was accurate explained why.

Two respondents simply did not like the definition and did not suggest improvements for it. One of the respondents referred back to their earlier sentiment, that man is part of nature and therefore human-induced plant invasions should not be prevented, by saying “I stated my stand earlier.” Another respondent said, “I have problem with some people’s ideas of harm (especially "environmental" harm).” Another expressed a conflict with the word “harm.” This respondent said, “What degree of harm are we talking about? Are we going to measure it in some way? Until I know how you’re going to measure something I’m not sure I can meaningfully agree or disagree. What constitutes disruption? … Is anything more disruptive than the timber industry?”

Six respondents did not like the second part of the definition, two of whom said that they did not feel the definition was accurate. One put it this way, “#2 is not necessarily true, if it's a managed plant system, or would cause economic harm, the invasive plants would be removed, or at least not allowed to spread.” Another said, “No for part 2; sometimes a weed will invade a managed planting such as dandelions. These are a nuisance but not an ‘invasive species.’” Another said, “I don't know about the economic harm part.  Native plants can do that. We can't stop our impact on the planet, we can only do the best we can.  In some respects our changing of the world's ecosystems is no different than other species carrying seeds around.  Change is part of the natural process.  But we can hope to slow down the process to a more sensible pace.  Our development of the planet is moving toward a homogeneous environment (everybody has a Pizza Hut and a Gap), and I'd like to think we could keep some diversity in the natural world, though I don't have much hope for either.”

Four respondents said that native plants are also invasive. One said, “Almost any plant could be invasive if not taken care of properly. Either by seed, root system or layering. Therefore where do you stop with the definition. Native plants can be invasive. [They] could cover any plant with a seed or root. All plants came from somewhere and a lot of top varieties are new parents to new species of their varieties by various methods.” Yet another respondents felt that the defintion should include “introduced, whether intentionally or not intentional.”

One felt that invasive plants are sometimes better suited to a situation, such as “site stabilization, wetland, etc.”

One felt that including the mode of spreading was important because “plants that can’t spread by seed are not often invasive.” The size of the population seemed important to another, who said, “small self-sustaining populations can occur without being necessarily  invasive.” The time it takes for a plant to become invasive was important to two respondents. One said that the definition “doesn't address time frame - if it is invasive for 20 years and then is eradicated by 3 cold winters - is it invasive in an area? Is change per se bad?” 2 respondents, who agreed with the definition, felt that “hard to control” should be added.

Another brought up the people deciding invasiveness. “ [The definition] is very close, but not 100% accurate. I want to see the occupation of the person making the assessment, I would like to see a time element introduced also, to me invasive brings to mind the idea of quickly taking over an area.” Two others agreed with this respondent that the definition was “close.”

6 respondents felt that the definition was “good.” Some comments were that “It is a perfect definition. Especially the wording of "disrupting those systems" and "economic harm,"” and “I feel this truly describes invasiveness simply because a plant can reproduce does not mean it is invasive, it must be disruptive to those systems.” Yet another liked the definition, but wanted “my list” to be shorter, “for the real invasive ones, like kudzu for example. You have my 100% support if the plant list changes to only the real thugs!”

One respondent made a point of bringing up the issue of biodiversity. “I think that this is a very important topic, the definition is a good one, but there is an important part that may be over looked. That is that the real issue is promoting plant diversity. As development takes over more and more of are natural areas we are going to have less diversity and nandina fire power as an example will be exotic invasive because it is the only plant hat we are allowing to live in our landscape. So for every plug for eradicating exotic invasives there should also be a plug for planting diversity and increasing habitats in the man made landscape.”