Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:00:08.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rationale for Monitoring Invasive Plant Populations as a Crucial Step for Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bruce D. Maxwell ,
Erik Lehnhoff  and
Lisa J. Rew
Bruce D. Maxwell*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Erik Lehnhoff
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Lisa J. Rew
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
*
Corresponding author's Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many land managers are faced with trying to optimize management of invasive plant species based on budget constraints and lack of knowledge of the true potential of the species. Generally, “early detection rapid response” (EDRR) is the assumed best management strategy and tends to drive management regardless of the invasion stage or possible variation in the invasion potential of the population. We created a simulation model to evaluate the optimal management strategy to reduce the rate of invasion of nonindigenous plant species. The strategies were specifically chosen to assess the value of information from monitoring populations. We compared four management strategies and a no-management control over a 20-yr period in the context of a management area: (1) managing a fixed number of populations at random each year (EDRR random), (2) managing an equivalent number of populations along a road each year (EDRR road), (3) managing half of the fixed populations that were determined by monitoring to be sources of new populations (monitoring every year), and (4) managing an equivalent set of source populations only on even years, leaving the odd years for monitoring (monitoring every other year). EDRR random location without regard to population invasion potential, and monitoring every year targeting management on populations determined to be invasive (sources for new populations), were the most successful strategies for reducing the increase in total number of populations. The model simulations suggest that managers could dedicate 50% of their management time to monitoring without risk of accelerating invasions or reducing the impact of their weed management program.

Keywords

Invasive species managementmetapopulation dynamicspopulation colonizationinformation valueearly detection rapid response
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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.)

References

Literature Cited

Cota, J. A. 2004. National Report of Pesticide Use on National Forest System Lands. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, http://www.fs.fed.us/foreshealth/pesticide/reports.shtml.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 1997. The structure of plant communities. Pages 475–531. in Crawley, M. J., editor. Plant Ecology. Malden, MA Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dietz, H. and Edwards, P. J. 2006. Recognition of changing processes during plant invasions may help reconcile conflicting evidence of the causes. Ecology 87:1359–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 1998. How does temporal variability affect predictions of weed population numbers. J. Appl. Ecol 35:340–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilpin, M. 1990. Ecological prediction. Science 248:88–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Humphries, S. E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conserv. Biol 9:761–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kot, M., Lewis, M. A., and van den Driessche, P. 1996. Dispersal data and the spread of invading organisms. Ecology 77:2027–2042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehnhoff, E. A., Rew, L. J., Taper, M. L., and Maxwell, B. D. 2008. Quantifying invasiveness: a test case with yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris). Invasive Plant Sci. and Manage 1:319–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecol. Appl 10:689–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeely, J., Neville, L. E., and Rejmanek, M. 2003. When is eradication a sound investment. Conserv. Pract 4:30–31.Google Scholar
Myers, J. H., Simberloff, D., Kuris, A. M., and Carey, J. R. 2000. Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic species. Trends Ecol. Evol 15:316–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naylor, R. L. 2000. The economics of alien species invasions. Pages 241–259. in Mooney, H. A. and Hobbs, R. J., editors. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Washington DC Island.Google Scholar
Peterson, A. T. and Papes, M. 2003. Predicting the potential invasive distributions of four alien plant species in North America. Weed Sci 51:863–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rejmánek, M. 2000. Invasive plants: approaches and predictions. Aust. Ecol 25:497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rejmánek, M. and Pitcairn, M. J. 2002. When is eradication of exotic plant pests a realistic goal. Pages 249–253. in Veitch, C. R. and Clout, M. N., editors. Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species. Cambridge, UK IUCN, Gland.Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M., Richardson, D. M., and Pyšek, P. 2005. Plant invasions and invisibility of plant communities. Pages 332–355. in van der Maarel, , editor. Vegetation Ecology. Oxford, UK Balckwell.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J., Lehnhoff, E. A., and Maxwell, B. D. 2008. Non-indigenous species management using a population prioritization framework. Can. J. Plant Sci 88:1029–1036.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J., Maxwell, B. D., Dougher, F. L., Aspinall, R., Weaver, T., and Despain, D. 2004. A Survey of Non-Indigenous Plant Species in the Northern Range of Yellowstone National Park, 2001–2004. Final Project Report. http://www.forestry.umt.edu/research/cesu/NEWCESU/Projects/NPS/NPS_03.htm. Accessed: July 5, 2007.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. 2003. Eradication-preventing invasion at the outset. Weed Sci 51:247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valverde, T. and Silvertown, J. 1997. A metapopulation model of Primula vulgaris, a temperate forest understory herb. J. Ecol 85:193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, M. and Fitter, A. 1996. The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zavaleta, E. S., Hobbs, R. J., and Mooney, H. A. 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends Ecol. Evol 16:454–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar