Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:53:07.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Point Mapping Integrates Data Collection and Weed Control Operations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2017

Craig C. Young ,
Jordan C. Bell ,
Chad S. Gross ,
Lloyd W. Morrison  and
Jennifer L. Haack-Gaynor
Craig C. Young*
Affiliation:
Terrestrial Program Leader, Project Manager, GIS Technician, Quantitative Ecologist, and GIS Specialist, National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network/Exotic Plant Management Team, 6424 W. Farm Road 182, Republic, MO 65738
Jordan C. Bell
Affiliation:
Terrestrial Program Leader, Project Manager, GIS Technician, Quantitative Ecologist, and GIS Specialist, National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network/Exotic Plant Management Team, 6424 W. Farm Road 182, Republic, MO 65738
Chad S. Gross
Affiliation:
Terrestrial Program Leader, Project Manager, GIS Technician, Quantitative Ecologist, and GIS Specialist, National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network/Exotic Plant Management Team, 6424 W. Farm Road 182, Republic, MO 65738
Lloyd W. Morrison
Affiliation:
Terrestrial Program Leader, Project Manager, GIS Technician, Quantitative Ecologist, and GIS Specialist, National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network/Exotic Plant Management Team, 6424 W. Farm Road 182, Republic, MO 65738
Jennifer L. Haack-Gaynor
Affiliation:
Terrestrial Program Leader, Project Manager, GIS Technician, Quantitative Ecologist, and GIS Specialist, National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network/Exotic Plant Management Team, 6424 W. Farm Road 182, Republic, MO 65738
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this case study, we evaluated a point-mapping method for simultaneously collecting data while controlling three invasive woody plant species: black locust, Chinese privet, and hardy orange. The study in Arkansas Post National Memorial included seven project areas ranging in size from 2.7 to 27.3 ha and spanned six field seasons (2010 to 2015). The control techniques varied depending on plant size and always included the application of herbicide, which also varied over the course of the study to include glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr. Each person responsible for controlling plants simultaneously collected global positioning system point data to estimate the foliar cover of the plants treated. The resulting data demonstrated evidence of decreases in all three plant species in most project areas during the 6-yr period. Initial increases in area treated for some species–area combinations reflected differences in the preliminary efforts required to control invasive plants in entire project areas, but by 2012 six of seven project areas were treated in their entirety. Despite a high level of reduction, in some cases, the plants persisted at low levels even during the sixth year of the project. Our findings support the ability of this method to granularly detect changes in plant abundance while simultaneously controlling invasive plants. With several acknowledged limitations, this streamlined project-based monitoring approach provides data that allow managers to assess the effectiveness of weed control treatments.

Keywords

Glyphosateimazapyrtriclopyrblack locust, Robinia pseudoacacia L.Chinese privet, Ligustrum sinense Lour.hardy orange, Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf.Data collectioneffectiveness monitoringGPSinvasive plantspoint datapoint mappingweed mappingNAISMA
Type
Case Study
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 33 - 43
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Stephen F. Enloe, University of Florida.

References

Literature Cited

Abella, SR (2014) Effectiveness of exotic plant treatments on National Park Service lands in the United States. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 7:147–163 Google Scholar
Balint, PJ, Stewart, RE, Desai, A (2011) Wicked environmental problems: managing uncertainty and conflict. Washington, DC: Island Press Google Scholar
Barnett, DT, Stohlgren, TJ, Jarnevich, CS, Chong, GW, Ericson, J A, Davern, TR, Simonson, SE (2007) The art and science of weed mapping. Environ Monit Assess 132:235–252 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonanno, G (2016) Alien species: to remove or not to remove? That is the question. Environ Sci Policy 59:67–73 Google Scholar
Cabin, RJ (2007) Science‐driven restoration: a square grid on a round Earth? Restor Ecol 15:1–7 Google Scholar
Christensen, SD, Ransom, CV, Edvarchuk, KA, Rasmussen, VP (2011) Efficiency and accuracy of wildland weed mapping methods. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 4:458–465 Google Scholar
Davies, KW, Johnson, DD (2011) Are we “missing the boat” on preventing the spread of invasive plants in rangelands? Invasive Plant Sci Manag 4:166–171 Google Scholar
Davis, MA (2009) Invasion Biology. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp 1–11 Google Scholar
Davis, MA, Chew, MK, Hobbs, RJ, Lugo, AE, Ewel, JJ, Vermeij, GJ, Brown, JH, Rosenzweig, ML, Gardener, MR, Carroll, SP, Thompson, K (2011) Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474:153–154 Google Scholar
Dewey, SA, Andersen, KS (2004) Distinct roles of surveys, inventories, and monitoring in adaptive weed management. Weed Technol 18:1449–1452 Google Scholar
DiTomaso, JM (2000) Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management Weed Sci 48:255–265 Google Scholar
Elzinga, CL, Salzer, DW, Willoughby, JW (1998) Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730–1731 Google Scholar
Fisher, CE, Meadors, CH, Behrens, R, Robinson, ED, Marion, PT, Morton, HL (1959) Control of mesquite on grazing lands. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 935. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 24 pGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, E, Stanturf, J, Leininger, T, Hamel, P, Dorris, L, Portwood, J, Shepard, J (2008) Establishing a research and demonstration area initiated by managers: the Sharkey Restoration Research and Demonstration Site. J Forest 106:363–369 Google Scholar
Georgia Exotic Pest Plant Council (2015) List of Non-native Plants in Georgia. http://www.gaeppc.org/list. Accessed: November 15, 2015Google Scholar
Giardina, CP, Litton, CM, Thaxton, JM, Cordell, S, Hadway, LJ, Sandquist, DR (2007) Science driven restoration: a candle in a demon haunted world—response to Cabin (2007). Restor Ecol 15:171–176 Google Scholar
Hammond, JS, Keeney, RL, Raiffa, H (1999) Smart Choices. New York: Broadway Books Google Scholar
Heath, C, Heath, D (2013) Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work. New York: Crown Business Google Scholar
Hodur, NM, Leistritz, FL, Bangsund, DA (2006) Evaluation of TEAM leafy spurge project. Rangeland Ecol Manag 59:483–493 Google Scholar
Johnson, DH, Soma, MB (2012) The treatment of missing data in long-term monitoring programs. Pages 298–312 in Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ, Cooper AB & Licht DS, eds. Design and Analysis of Long-term Ecological Monitoring Studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Kettenring, KM, Adams, CR (2011) Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Appl Ecol 48:970–979 Google Scholar
Lindenmayer, DB, Wood, J, MacGregor, C, Buckley, YM, Dexter, N, Fortescue, M, Hobbs, RJ, Catford, JA (2015) A long-term experimental case study of the ecological effectiveness and cost effectiveness of invasive plant management in achieving conservation goals: Bitou Bush control in Booderee National Park in Eastern Australia. PLoS One 10:e0128482 Google Scholar
MacDougall, AS, Turkington, R (2005) Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86:42–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, LW (2016) Observer error in vegetation surveys: a review. J Plant Ecol 9:367–379 Google Scholar
NatureServe (2015) NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [Web application]. Version 7.0. http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed: November 15, 2015Google Scholar
North American Invasive Species Management Association (2014) Mapping Standards. http://www.naisma.org/mapping-standards. Accessed: April 4, 2016Google Scholar
Pearson, D, Ortega, Y (2009) Managing invasive plants in natural areas: moving beyond weed control. Pages 1–21 in Kingely RV, ed. Weeds: Management, Economic Impacts and Biology. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers Google Scholar
Pokorny, ML, Dewey, SA, Radosevich, SR (2006) Getting started: fundamentals of nonindigenous plant species inventory/survey. Pages 8–16 in Rew LJ & Pokorny ML, eds. Survey Methods for Nonindigenous Plant Species. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Extension Google Scholar
Randall, JM (1996) Weed control for the preservation of biological diversity. Weed Technol 1:370–383 Google Scholar
Ransom, CV, Christensen, SD, Edvarchuk, KA, Naumann, T (2012) A reinventory of invasive weed species in Dinosaur National Monument to determine management effectiveness. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:300–309 Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M, Pitcairn, MJ (2002) When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? Pages 249–253 in Veith CR & Clout MN, eds. Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species. Auckland, NZ: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Google Scholar
Rinella, MJ, Maxwell, BD, Fay, PK, Weaver, T, Sheley, RL (2009) Control effort exacerbates invasive-species problem. Ecol Appl 19:155–162 Google Scholar
Schramm, P (1970) A practical restoration method for tall-grass prairie. Pages 63–65 in Schramm P, ed. Proceedings of a Symposium on Prairie and Prairie Restoration. Galesburg, IL: Knox College Google Scholar
Shackelford, N, Hobbs, RJ, Heller, NE, Hallett, LM, Seastedt, TR (2013) Finding a middle-ground: the native/non-native debate. Biol Conserv 28:55–62 Google Scholar
Shea, K, Possingham, HP, Murdoch, WW, Roush, R (2002) Active adaptive management in insect pest and weed control: intervention with a plan for learning. Ecol Appl 12:927–936 Google Scholar
Sheley, R, James, J, Smith, B, Vasquez, E (2010) Applying ecologically based invasive-plant management. Rangeland Ecol Manag 6:605–613 Google Scholar
Sheley, RL, Mangold, JM, Anderson, JL (2006) Potential for successional theory to guide restoration of invasive-plant-dominated rangeland. Ecol Monogr 76:365–379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D (2011) Non-natives: 141 scientists object Nature 475:36 Google Scholar
Simberloff, D, Martin, JL, Genovesi, P, Maris, V, Wardle, DA, Aronson, J, Courchamp, F, Galil, B, García-Berthou, E, Pascal, M, Pyšek, P (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol Evol 28:58–66 Google Scholar
Skurski, TC, Maxwell, BD, Rew, LJ (2013) Ecological tradeoffs in non-native plant management. Biol Conserv 159:292–302 Google Scholar
Smith, EP (2002) BACI design (Pages 141–148 in El-Shaarai AH & Piegorsch WW, eds. Encyclopedia of Environmetrics. Chichester, UK: Wiley Google Scholar
Stone, KR (2009) Robinia pseudoacacia. In Fire Effects Information System. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. Accessed: December 8, 2015Google Scholar
Sutherland, WJ (2006) Ecological Census Techniques. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp 11–85 Google Scholar
Texas Invasives (2015) Invasives Database. http://www.texasinvasives.org/plant_database/index.php. Accessed: November 15, 2015Google Scholar
Tienes, M, Skogen, K, Vitt, P, Havens, K (2010) Optimal monitoring of rare plant populations—report for the USDA Forest Service. Glencoe, IL: Chicago Botanic Garden. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299343219_Optimal_Monitoring_of_Rare_Plant_Populations_Report_for_the_USDA_Forest_Service. Accessed: April 4, 2016Google Scholar
Timmons, FL (2005) A history of weed control in the United States and Canada. Weed Sci 53:748–761 Google Scholar
Wagner, RG, Newton, M, Cole, EC, Miller, JH, Shiver, BD (2004) The role of herbicides for enhancing forest productivity and conserving land for biodiversity in North America. Nat Area J 32:1028–1041 Google Scholar