The study area lies in the Vindhyan biogeographic sub-zone in the district of Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh, India (Figure 1). It has 16.94% of its total geographical area covered with forest (746.11 sq km) composed of very dense forest, moderately dense forest and open forest. It also consists of an additional area of 51.14 sq km covered with scrub forest (ISFR 2021). These forests also act as buffers for Chandraprabha Wildlife Sanctuary (CWLS) and Kaimoor Wildlife Sanctuary (KWLS) (Sinha et al., 2017; Goparaju et al., 2019). The vegetation type as per Champion and Seth (1968) classification is tropical dry deciduous forests (Goparaju et al., 2017), characterized by long, dry conditions, where vegetation is supported by monsoonal rainfall. This region is a human-dominated landscape where anthropogenic factors such as overexploitation of resources, habitat loss owing to habitat destruction, fragmentation, degradation and overgrazing pose a threat to the survival of species (Khan et al., 2019). Overall, the decrease in forest cover in the study area was recorded to be 57.62 sq km with respect to 2019 assessment (ISFR 2021). Terminalia arjuna (Roxb.), Tectona grandis L.f, Dalbergia sissoo (Roxb.), Butea monosperma (Lam.), Boswellia serrata (Roxb.), Anogeissus latifolia (Roxb. ex-DC.), Ziziphus mauritiana Lam., Ziziphus glaberrima L., Lagerstroemia parviflora (Roxb.), Acacia nilotica (Linn.), Acacia catechu L., Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr. etc., dominate the flora (Singh and Narain, 2009; Chaturvedi et al., 2011; Srivastava et al., 2020). The majority of the plant species are ethnobotanically significant.

We considered Mirzapur an important forest within the Vindhyan region due to the significant presence of forest cover, scrubs and anthropogenic pressure. Five sites located at varying distances from the nearest forests were selected randomly in the order of decreasing anthropogenic activities and disturbances, starting from the urban to rural gradient (Vakhlamova et al., 2014). The two rural sites were located within 0–2 km of the forest and the two semi-urban sites were located 3–8 km away (Table 1), and one urban site was located 12–15 km away from the forest. Both rural sites were surrounded by a mix of forest and agricultural fields, while both semi-urban sites are surrounded by agricultural fields. The urban site is surrounded by scarce agricultural fields, human settlements and micro- to macro-level manufacturing and processing units.

A semi-structured questionnaire-based survey was conducted with inhabitants (≥18 years of age) at five locations (Potgieter et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2022) between January 2022 and June 2022. To avoid sampling bias and homogeneity, we used a snowball sampling technique, to conduct face-to-face interview and record twenty responses from various socio-demographic profiles, for a total of one hundred responses from five sites. The questionnaire (see Supplementary material; Roopa and Rani, 2012; Nemoto and Beglar, 2014) for the interview consisted of the following four sections: (1) environmental awareness and knowledge; (2) perceptions of ecosystem services (benefits) and disservices (negative effects); (3) attitude towards the management of selected IAPs; and (4) socio-demographic information of respondents. The 12 IAPs shortlisted for the questionnaire were screened from available literature (Raghubanshi et al., 2005; Reddy, 2008; Singh and Narain, 2009; Sandilyan et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2019; Sinha and Chaudhary, 2019; ISFR, 2021; ENVIS, 2022) considering their origin, invasiveness, impacts and pathways of invasion (see Supplementary material). Picture panels of Ageratum houstonianum Mill., Argemone mexicana L., Cassia tora L., Calotropis procera (Aiton), Hyptis suaveolens (L.) Poit, Ipomea carnea Jacq., Lantana camara L., Sonchus oleraceus L., Parthenium hysterophorus L., Saccharum spontaneum L., Stylosanthes hamata (L.) Taub., and Typha angustifolia L., were embedded in the questionnaire for the purpose of identification. The section on management of IAPs assessed the most preferred type of management approach for control of IAPs. Responses to section III were provided on a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants.

The data obtained from the questionnaire were used to analyze the socio-demographic profile of the respondents, quantify respondents’ perceptions of ES and EDS and the management of IAPs. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005), ES are classified as regulating, provisioning, supporting, and cultural. EDS were categorized according to the outcomes perceived by respondents (namely- toxicity, loss of diversity, obstruction to mobility, reduction in crop production, reduced soil fertility, allergic or harmful effects and fire hazards). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (a non-parametric test that measures the relationship between two variables) (Mukaka, 2012) was used to analyze socio-demographic variables and ES and EDS citations. The prioritization of IAPs for the purpose of management was done on the basis of ranking of the ratio of perceived EDS and ES. Microsoft excel and IBM-SPSS software was used for statistical analysis. The reliability and internal consistency of the Likert-scale questions were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha in SPSS.

A total of 100 responses were recorded from face-to-face interviews conducted. Respondents comprised 46% females and 54% males in the age range of 18 to 75 years (Table 2). Eighty-three percent of the total respondents were below the age of 50. Thirty-two percent of respondents were illiterate, and 84.38% of illiterate respondents were over the age of 31. Agriculture was observed to be the most common source of livelihood among the respondents, with 44% of citations. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents reported having a monthly income less than 5,000 Indian rupees (INR). Strong positive relationships between age and residence time (Spearman’s ρ = 0.698, p < 0.01) and occupation and income (Spearman’s ρ = 0.712, p < 0.01) of respondents were observed. Also, a moderately negative correlation (Spearman’s ρ = −0.558, p < 0.01) between age and education was observed.

Respondents were aware of the IAPs present around them, their uses and impacts; however, 95% of respondents were not familiar with the term IAPs in any form or language. Respondents mentioned global warming (34%) and pollution (30%) as serious environmental problems for the planet. The most frequently identified IAPs through embedded pictures were Ipomea carnea (95%) and Calotropis procera (86%), while Stylosanthes hamata (3%) was the least identified IAP (Figure 2). Respondents also answered queries about the local name and the probable location where these identified species were located, how they managed them in their fields or surroundings and the ES or EDS they provided (see Supplementary material).

Analyses of responses found that respondents perceived IAPs positively as well as negatively, i.e., creating both ES and EDS. Respondents noted six ES (namely medicinal use for humans or domestic animals, fuel, fodder, fiber for roofs or baskets, fencing, food, and religious uses) (Table 3) and seven EDS (namely toxicity for grazing animals or humans, loss of diversity, obstruction to mobility through them, reduction in crop production, reduced soil fertility, allergic or harmful effects and fire hazard) (Table 4) for all twelve IAPs. Calotropis procera was the species most frequently perceived to provide ES (25.84 percent of total citations) due to its high religious value and medicinal use. People considered provisioning and cultural services to be the most significant ES for the 12 IAPs. Specifically, medicinal use (Calotropis procera) and fiber for roofs and baskets (Saccharum spontaneum) were the most cited ES.

The toxicity of Calotropis procera was the most perceived EDS individually, while reduced soil fertility was the most perceived EDS across all IAPs. Reduction in crop production and soil fertility were both cited for 9 out of 12 IAPs, mostly cited as a major issue by respondents involved in agricultural activities. Lantana camara (20.32%) and Hyptis suaveolens (18.72%) were as the species perceived to deliver most of the EDS. The value of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the total number of ES and EDS for each IAPs is ρ = 0.487 (p > 0.05) which means that there is no significant correlation between ranks of ES and EDS cited by respondents.

Understanding the management approaches utilized for various IAPs can aid in decision-making (Weidlich et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2022). The management approaches mentioned by respondents were uprooting, cutting or biomass utilization, tillage, application of herbicides, fire and no effort to control, respectively, in the order of their citation (Figure 3). The mean Likert scale score on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for respondents’ willingness to manage IAPs was 3.82, i.e., they are moderately agreeable to managing IAPs (mode = 4) (Table 5). Respondents in Gortutwa (semiurban) were neutral for management with a score of 3.1, while the other four sites were agreeable with scores ranging from 3.7 to 4.3. Respondents moderately agreed with the statement “control of IAPs is necessary to help conserve and protect the environment and biodiversity” with an overall mean Likert score of 3.71, whereas Mirzapur (3.3) and Gortutwa (3.15) were slightly neutral. The respondents moderately agreed to the statement “control of IAPs is necessary to protect the wellbeing of people” with a mean Likert score of 3.57. The respondents agreed to all three statements (mode = 4). Forty-eight percent of the total respondents agreed to contribute to the management of IAPs, either by creating awareness or by volunteering for future initiatives. However, 24 percent of the respondents were opposed to complete removal of one or more of the IAPs. The reliability and internal consistency of the Likert-scale questions were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. As a result, the findings show that the Likert scale has strong internal consistency and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = 0.858).

Of the 12 selected species from Mirzapur region Parthenium hysterophorus, Argemone mexicana and Lantana camara were ranked first, second and third consecutively for the purpose of management, while Stylosanthes hamata and Typha angustifolia were the least prioritized by respondents. The rankings were based on the ratio of EDS and ES citations which was strongly related to EDS citation ranks (Spearman’s ρ = 0.781, p < 0.01). Across all species, the ranking order for management was Parthenium hysterophorus, Argemone mexicana, Lantana camara, Hyptis suaveolens, Saccharum spontaneum, Ageratum houstonianum Cassia tora, Calotropis procera, Sonchus oleraceus, Ipomea carnea, Typha angustifolia, and Stylosanthes hamata.

A strong positive relationship between age and residence time of respondents (Spearman’s ρ = 0.698, p < 0.01) suggested that most residents had lived at the survey location since birth. A moderately negative correlation (Spearman’s ρ = −0.558, p < 0.01) between respondents’ age and their education indicates that the number of illiterate respondents increased with increasing age. Because the majority of respondents came from an agricultural background, there was a strong positive relationship between their occupation and income (Spearman’s ρ = 0.712, p = < 0.01).

The results showed that the respondents are aware of global warming and pollution, and other sources of environmental problems around them as a result of the active role of media (Thaker et al., 2017). However, although the majority of the respondents were not familiar with technical terms such as IAPs, they were largely aware of IAPs in their immediate surroundings and often identified these species. Their awareness was not limited to identification only and they were able to perceive how IAPs affect their surroundings i.e., create ES and EDS (Singh et al., 2022). Ipomoea carnea, Calotropis procera, and Saccharum spontaneum are readily observed in agricultural farms and surroundings so they were the mostly identified IAPs. However, Stylosanthes hamata is not as common as other IAPs in the region (Chandra et al., 2006) and was rarely identified.

The medicinal use, collection of fiber for roofs and baskets, use in fencing, as a source of fuel and religious use of IAPs were the most frequently cited ES. The socio-demographics of the surveyed sample suggests that low income of respondents is the main factor for utilization of these IAPs as medicine, fiber for roofs and baskets, fencing, fuel and fodder (Potgieter et al., 2019; Ntalo et al., 2022). Singh et al. (2022) have reported similar results in the riparian zone in Varanasi, India. The respondents considered IAPs to be equally contributing toward clean air, water or rainfall, wildlife habitat etc., and were not very specific while citing any regulating or supporting services. Thus, the analysis of results only yielded significant provisioning and cultural services of 12 IAPs as ES. The total number of ES citations for Calotropis procera, Ipomoea carnea, and Saccharum spontaneum were more than their EDS citations which suggests their naturalization and utilization by people in the region. Medicinal use and religious value of Calotropis procera has resulted in its high significance in terms of perceived ES.

Reduction in crop production and soil fertility are two most perceived EDS created by IAPs. Both these EDS are strongly related as IAPs compete for light, nutrients, and water (Fried et al., 2017; Bajwa et al., 2019) to reduce soil fertility, ultimately resulting in a reduction in crop production (Cook et al., 2007). Fire hazards created during dry months are mostly multiplied with the presence of dried habits of IAPs (Keeley, 2000). Other negative impacts (EDS) perceived by respondents are human allergy (Potgieter et al., 2017), obstruction to mobility, toxicity and loss of diversity (Pyšek et al., 2020). Lantana camara and Hyptis suaveolens were perceived to create most of the EDS because of their presence in both agricultural and forest areas.

The selection of appropriate management and control methods for IAPs is solely dependent on the intentions and goals of management. IAPs in agricultural fields necessitate the use of management practices that do not destroy crops. Thus, uprooting, cutting or utilization, tillage, and the application of herbicide were the most preferred management practices. Based on the intensity and severity of the problem, respondents mostly chose uprooting (either manually or mechanically). On the other hand, respondents not associated with agriculture also preferred uprooting because of their experience with management of weeds in their home gardens or flower beds.

Because IAPs provide both ES and EDS (Figure 4 and Table 6), the key statements related to IAP management have a moderate level of agreement (Potgieter et al., 2019) on the Likert scale. IAPs providing both ES and EDS often result in disagreements about their management and use (Dickie et al., 2014; Vaz et al., 2017b). Such disagreements among stakeholders often interrupt management initiatives. Twenty-four percent of the respondents were opposed to the complete removal of one or more of the IAPs, while 48 percent of the total respondents agreed to contribute to the management of IAPs, either by raising awareness or by volunteering for future initiatives. According to García-Llorente et al. (2008), social views and stakeholder attitudes have a significant impact on management.

Invasive alien plants are mostly managed with the motive to lessen the harmful impacts i.e., EDS. The species on top priority for management i.e., Parthenium hysterophorus and Argemone mexicana are mostly observed in agricultural fields and are directly faced by farmers and agricultural workers. Respondents reported them as harmful for their productivity and fertility of soil. Parthenium hysterophorus is reported to be the most notorious species that degrades crop productivity, and native biodiversity (Singh et al., 2022; Weyl, 2022). The least prioritized species was Stylosanthes hamata, besides being less familiar with this species, the pros and cons related to this species was also not much identified. Other IAPs in the priority list are also reported to create various negative impacts (EDS) and thus require attention toward management.