Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:22:20.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Forest Owners' Perceptions on Chemical Methods for Invasive Species Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Matthew B. Howle ,
Thomas J. Straka  and
Mathew C. Nespeca
Matthew B. Howle
Affiliation:
Clemson University, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Box 340317, Clemson, SC 29634–0317
Thomas J. Straka*
Affiliation:
Clemson University, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Box 340317, Clemson, SC 29634–0317
Mathew C. Nespeca
Affiliation:
Nufarm Americas, Inc., 1541 Appling Drive, Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Focus group methodology in a field demonstration setting was used to obtain qualitative data on the perceptions of family forest owners relating to treatment efficiency and feasibility of herbicide control methods. Interviews took place on sites where various strategic herbicide treatments were implemented for Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) control using the active ingredients glyphosate and metsulfuron. Forest owners expressed unease about the possibility for post-treatment privet reestablishment due to reseeding or other factors and opinions surfaced calling for selective chemicals or application methods that would spare non-target species. Furthermore, treatment cost effectiveness with regard to timber value, the possible need for expensive multiple treatments, cost-share incentives, and treatment guarantees from herbicide applicators were participant concerns. Environmental concerns surfaced about possible effects of both herbicide use and the invasion of privet on natural systems and an unexpected result was a strong feeling among the forest owners that focus groups are a powerful demonstration tool.

Keywords

Chinese privet, Ligustrum sinense LourFocus groupsherbicide effectivenesseconomicsforestry
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 253 - 261
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

Berry, J., Brewer, G. D., Gordon, J. C., and Patton, D. R. 1998. Closing the gap between ecosystem management and ecosystem research. Policy Sci 31:55–80.Google Scholar
Butler, B. J. 2008. Family Forest Owners of the United States, 2006. Newtown Square, PA USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report NRS-27. 72 p.Google Scholar
Davis, F. S., Merkle, M. G., and Bovey, R. W. 1968. Effect of moisture stress on the absorption and transport of herbicides in woody plants. Bot. Gaz 129:183–189.Google Scholar
Fern, E. F. 2001. Advanced Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications. 254 p.Google Scholar
Forshay, K. J., Morzaria-Luna, H. N., Hale, B., and Predick, K. 2005. Landowner satisfaction with the Wetlands Reserve Program in Wisconsin. Environ. Manag 36:248–257.Google Scholar
Gass, R. J., Rickenbach, M., Schulte, L. A., and Zeuli, K. 2009. Cross-boundary coordination on forested landscapes: investigating alternatives for implementation. Environ. Manag 43:107–117.Google Scholar
Greene, J. L., Kilgore, M. A., Jacobson, M. G., Daniels, S. E., and Straka, T. J. 2006. Existing and potential incentives for practicing sustainable forestry on non-industrial private forest lands. Pages 174–187. in. Proceedings of 2006 Southern Forest Economics Workshop (Knoxville, TN). Mississippi State, MS Mississippi State University, College of Forest Resources, Southern Forest Economic Workers.Google Scholar
Grudens-Schuck, N., Allen, B. L., and Larson, K. 2004. Focus Group Fundamentals. Ames, IA Iowa State University Extension Methodology Brief PM 1989b. 6 p.Google Scholar
Haragan, P. D. 1996. Privet (Ligustrum vulgare, L. sinense, L. japonicum). Pages 58–59. In Randall, J. M. and Marinelli, J. eds. Invasive Plants: Weeds of the Global Garden. Brooklyn, NY Brooklyn Botanic Garden.Google Scholar
Harrington, T. B. and Miller, J. H. 2005. Effects of application rate, timing, and formulation of glyphosate and triclopyr on control of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Weed Technol 19:47–54.Google Scholar
Holsti, O. R. 1969. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley. 235 p.Google Scholar
Kingsley, N. P., Brock, S. M., and DeBald, P. S. 1988. Focus group interviewing applied to retired West Virginia nonindustrial private forest landowners. North. J. Appl. For 5:198–200.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. A. 1998. Analyzing and Reporting Focus Group Results: Focus Group Kit 6. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications. 139 p.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. A. and Casey, M. A. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications. 215 p.Google Scholar
Langeland, K. A. and Burks, K. C. 1998. Identification and Biology of Non-Native Plants in Florida's Natural Areas. Gainesville, FL University of Florida IFAS Publication SP 257. 165 p.Google Scholar
Lauridson, T. C., Wilson, R. G., and Harderlie, L. C. 1983. Effect of moisture stress on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control. Weed Sci 31:674–680.Google Scholar
Leahy, J. E., Kilgore, M. A., Hibbard, C. M., and Donnay, J. S. 2008. Family forest landowners' interest in and perceptions of forest certification: focus group findings from Minnesota. North. J. Appl. For 25:73–81.Google Scholar
Madden, J. E. and Swarbrick, J. T. 1990. Chemical control of Ligustrum lucidum . Plant Prot. Q 5:145–147.Google Scholar
Matlack, G. R. 2002. Exotic plant species in Mississippi, USA: critical issues in management and research. Nat. Areas J 22:241–247.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. 1998. Primary screening of forestry herbicides for control of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Chinese wisteria (Wisteria sinensis), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans). Proc. 1998 Southern Weed Sci. Soc 51:161–162.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. 2003. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A Field Guide for Identification and Control. Asheville, NC USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. General Technical Report GTR-SRS-62. 93 p.Google Scholar
Minogue, P. and Williams, R. 2008. Biology and Management of Chinese Privet. Gainesville, FL University of Florida School of Forest Resources and Conservation FOR 189. 4 p.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. L. 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications. 80 p.Google Scholar
Racevskis, L. A. and Lupi, F. 2006. Comparing urban and rural perceptions of and familiarity with the management of forest ecosystems. Soc. Nat. Res 19:479–495.Google Scholar
Renz, M., Gibson, K. D., Hillmer, J., Howe, K. M., Waller, D. M., and Cardina, J. 2009. Land manager and researcher perspectives on invasive plant research needs in the United States. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 2:83–91.Google Scholar
[SCDNR] South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 2008. South Carolina State Climatology Office, South Carolina Current Drought Status. http://www.dnr.sc.gov/climate/sco/Drought/Drought_press/release_Oct7_2008.php. Accessed: May 20, 2009.Google Scholar
[TEPPC] Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council 2009. Tennessee Exotic Plant Management Manual: Privet (Ligustrum spp. L.). http://www.tneppc.org/Manual/privet.htm. Accessed: May 20, 2009.Google Scholar
Williams, G. A. and Kluender, R. A. 1998. Perspective of Arkansas' non-industrial private forest land owners concerning their forested property. Pages 54–59. in. Proceedings of 1998 Southern Forest Economics Workshop (Williamsburg, VA). Mississippi State, MS Mississippi State University, College of Forest Resources, Southern Forest Economics Workers.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Sun, S., and Hanula, J. L. 2009. Biology and life history of Argopistes tsekooni (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in China, a promising biological control agent of Chinese privet. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am 102:508–516.Google Scholar