jats:titleAbstract</jats:title>jats:secjats:titleBackground</jats:title>jats:pInvasive alien plant species often have negative environmental and social impacts, such as loss of biodiversity and alteration of ecosystem services. As a result, managing the introduction, establishment, and abundance of invasive species is a major priority. To do this effectively, we need evidence on the effect of management interventions (such as using herbicide or cutting to control invasive plants). This evidence should not only include the effects of these management interventions on invasive alien species, but also on native species and other non-target outcomes such as ecosystem services. Such evidence would allow for comparison of the trade-offs between different management interventions. In the planned review we aim to assess how management interventions to control nine priority invasive alien plants species in England and Wales affect environmental outcomes. These species are: Japanese knotweed (jats:italicFallopia japonica</jats:italic>) Nuttall’s waterweed (jats:italicElodea nuttallii</jats:italic>), Chilean rhubarb (jats:italicGunnera tinctoria</jats:italic>), Giant hogweed (jats:italicHeracleum mantegazzianum</jats:italic>), Floating pennywort (jats:italicHydrocotyle ranunculoides</jats:italic>), Himalayan balsam (jats:italicImpatiens glandulifera</jats:italic>), Curly waterweed (jats:italicLagarosiphon major</jats:italic>), American skunk cabbage (jats:italicLysichiton americanus</jats:italic>), Parrot’s feather (jats:italicMyriophyllum aquaticum</jats:italic>).</jats:p></jats:sec>jats:secjats:titleMethods</jats:title>jats:pSearches will be in English and use bibliographic databases (jats:italicScopus</jats:italic>,jats:italicWeb of Science Core Collection</jats:italic>,jats:italicOpen Access Theses and Dissertations</jats:italic>, andjats:italicConservation Evidence</jats:italic>) and internet searches (jats:italicGoogle Scholar</jats:italic>), as well as specialist databases. Our methodology will only use the names of each species (scientific names and common names, including synonyms) as our search string (we will not use qualifiers, such as “AND invasive”). This will give low specificity but will increase the likelihood of capturing all relevant information. We will use predefined criteria for study inclusion and data extraction. We will screen publications in two stages: (1) using titles and abstracts and (2) using full texts. Consistency of inclusion will be checked by two people screening a random sample of 10% of titles and abstracts. This dual-screening will be subject to kappa analysis and any disagreements resolved through discussion. We will use critical appraisal to assess study validity by identifying studies that are potentially prone to bias.</jats:p></jats:sec>