Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:38:07.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the Australian Branched Broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) Eradication Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

F. Dane Panetta  and
Roger Lawes
F. Dane Panetta*
Affiliation:
Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management, Alan Fletcher Research Station, Biosecurity Queensland, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, P.O. Box 36, Sherwood, Queensland 4075, Australia
Roger Lawes
Affiliation:
Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Sustainable Ecosystems, Davies Laboratory, Townsville, Queensland 4814, Australia
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Because weed eradication programs commonly take 10 or more years to complete, there is a need to evaluate progress toward the eradication objective. We present a simple model, based on information that is readily obtainable, that assesses conformity to the delimitation and extirpation criteria for eradication. It is applied to the program currently targeting the annual parasitic weed, branched broomrape, in South Australia. The model consists of delimitation and extirpation (E) measures plotted against each other to form an ‘eradograph.’ Deviations from the ‘ideal’ eradograph plot can inform tactical responses, e.g., increases in survey and/or control effort. Infestations progress from the active phase to the monitoring phase when no plants have been detected for at least 12 mo. They revert to the active phase upon further detection of plants. We summarize this process for the invasion as a whole in a state-and-transition model. Using this model we demonstrate that the invasion is unlikely to be delimited unless the amount of newly detected infested area decreases, on average, by at least 50% per annum. As a result of control activities implemented, on average approximately 70% (range, 44 to 86%) of active infestations progressed to the monitoring phase in the year following their detection. Simulations suggest that increasing this rate of transition will not increase E to a significant extent. The rate of reversion of infestations from the monitoring phase to the active phase decreased logarithmically with time since last detection, but it is likely that lower rates of reversion would accelerate the trend toward extirpation. Program performance with respect to the delimitation criterion has been variable; performance with respect to the extirpation criterion would be improved considerably by the development and application of cost-effective methods for eliminating branched broomrape soil seed populations.

Keywords

branched broomrape, Orobanche ramosa L. ORARADelimitationextirpationparasitic weedsimulationsoil seed populationstate-and-transition model
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 6 , December 2007 , pp. 644 - 651
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

Bomford, M and O'Brien, P. 1995. Eradication or control for vertebrate pests? Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:249–255.Google Scholar
Buddenhagen, C.E. 2006. The successful eradication of two blackberry species Rubus megalococcus and R. adenotrichos (Rosaceae) from Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos, Ecuador. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 12:272–278.Google Scholar
Burgman, M.A. and Fox, J.C. 2003. Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: implications for conservation and options for improved planning. Anim. Conservat. 6:19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, K, Kaiser, B, Pitafi, B.A., and Roumasset, J. 2006. Prevention, eradication, and containment of invasive species: illustrations from Hawaii. Agr. Resource Econ. Rev. 35:63–77.Google Scholar
Cacho, O.J., Spring, D, Pheloung, P, and Hester, S. 2006. Evaluating the feasibility of eradicating an invasion. Biol. Inv. 8:903–917.Google Scholar
Correll, R and Marvanek, S. 2006. Sampling for detection of branched broomrape. Pages 618–621. in. Proceedings of the 15th Australian Weeds Conference. Adelaide, Australia Weed Management Society of South Australia.Google Scholar
Cronk, C.B. and Fuller, J.L. 1995. Plant Invaders. London Chapman and Hall. 241.Google Scholar
Cunningham, D.C., Woldendorp, G, Burgess, M.B., and Barry, S.C. 2003. Prioritising Sleeper Weeds for Eradication: Selection of Species Based on Potential Impacts on Agriculture and Feasibility of Eradication. Canberra, Australia Bureau of Resource Sciences, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 24.Google Scholar
Daehler, C.C. and Carino, D.A. 2000. Predicting invasive plants: prospects for a general screening system based on current regional models. Biol. Inv. 2:93–102.Google Scholar
Eplee, R.E. 1992. Witchweed (Striga asiatica): an overview of management strategies in the USA. Crop Prot. 11:3–7.Google Scholar
Eplee, R.E. 2001. Co-ordination of witchweed eradication in the USA. Pages 36. in Wittenberg, R., Cock, M.J.W. eds. Invasive Alien Species: A Toolkit of Best Prevention and Management Practices. Wallingford, Oxon, UK CAB International.Google Scholar
Jackson, R.D., Bartolome, J.W., and Allen-Diaz, B. 2002. State and transition models: response to an ESA symposium. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 83 (3):194–196.Google Scholar
Jupp, P, Warren, P, and Secomb, N. 2002. The branched broomrape eradication program: methodologies, problems encountered and lessons learnt. Pages 270–273. in. Proceedings of the 13th Australian Weeds Conference. Perth Plant Protection Society of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Lawes, R and Panetta, F.D. 2004. Detecting alien plant species early in the invasion process: a sampling strategy for the detection of Chromolaena odorata (L.) R.M. King (Siam weed). Pages 484–487. in. Proceedings of the 14th Australian Weeds Conference. Wagga Wagga, Australia Weed Society of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Liebhold, A and Bascompte, J. 2003. The Allee effect, stochastic dynamics and the eradication of alien species. Ecol. Lett. 6:133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, R.N. and Lonsdale, W.M. 2002. Eradicating invasive plants: hard-won lessons for islands. Pages 164–172. in Veitch, C.R., Clout, M.N. eds. Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species. Auckland Invasive Species Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN).Google Scholar
Matthews, J, Miegel, D, and Hayton, D. 2006. Seed bank and seed bank reduction of Orobanche ramosa in South Australia. Pages 626–628. in. Proceedings of the 15th Australian Weeds Conference. Adelaide, Australia Weed Management Society of South Australia.Google Scholar
Mooney, H.A. and Cleland, E.E. 2001. The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 98:5446–5451.Google Scholar
Myers, J.H., Savoie, A, and van Randen, E. 1998. Eradication and pest management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43:471–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panetta, F.D. 2007. Evaluation of the performance of weed eradication programs: containment and extirpation. Divers. Distrib. 13:33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panetta, F.D. and Lawes, R. 2005. Evaluation of the performance of weed eradication programs: the delimitation of extent. Divers. Distrib. 11:435–442.Google Scholar
Panetta, F.D. and Timmins, S.M. 2004. Evaluating the feasibility of eradication for terrestrial weed invasions. Plant Prot. Q. 19:5–11.Google Scholar
Pheloung, P.C., Williams, P.A., and Halloy, S.R. 1999. A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J. Environ. Manag. 57:239–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D, Zuniga, R, and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 52:273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, T.J., McCarthy, M.A., Baxter, P.W., Panetta, F.D., and Possingham, H.P. 2006. Optimal eradication: when to stop looking for an invasive plant? Ecol. Lett. 9:759–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rejmánek, M and Pitcairn, M.J. 2002. When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? 249–253. in Veitch, C.R., Clout, M.N. eds. Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species. Auckland Invasive Species Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN).Google Scholar
Setter, M.J. and Campbell, S.D. 2002. Impact of foliar herbicides on germination and viability of Siam weed (Chromolaena odorata) seeds located on plants at the time of application. Plant Prot. Q. 17:155–157.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D 2003. Eradication—preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Sci. 51:247–253.Google Scholar
Tomley, A.J. and Panetta, F.D. 2002. Eradication of the exotic weeds Helenium amarum (Rafin) H.L. and Eupatorium serotinum Michx. from south-eastern Queensland. Pages 629–632. in. Proceedings of the 13th Australian Weeds Conference. Perth Plant Protection Society of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Virtue, J.G., DeDear, C, Potter, M.J., and Rieger, M. 2006. Potential use of isothiocyanates in branched broomrape eradication. Pages 629–632. in. Proceedings of the 15th Australian Weeds Conference. Adelaide Weed Management Society of South Australia.Google Scholar
Vitousek, P.M. 1986. Biological invasions and ecosystem properties: can species make a difference? 163–176. in Mooney, H.A., Drake, J. eds. Biological Invasions in North American and Hawaii. New York Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Walker, L.R. and Smith, S.D. 1997. Impacts of invasive plants on community and ecosystem properties. Pages 69–86. in Luken, J.O., Thieret, J.W. eds. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westoby, M, Walker, B.H., and Noy-Meir, I. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J. Range Manag. 42:266–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A.M., Virtue, J.G., DeDear, C, and McInerney, T. 2006. Sampling challenges in detecting branched broomrape seed bank decline. Pages 622–625. in. Proceedings of the 15th Australian Weeds Conference. Adelaide Weed Management Society of South Australia.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.J. and Bowran, D.G. 2002. Report on the Review of the Branched Broomrape Eradication ProgrAm. Canberra Land, Water and Biodiversity Committee. 32.Google Scholar
Zamora, D.L., Thill, D.C., and Eplee, R.E. 1989. An eradication plan for plant invasions. Weed Technol. 3:2–12.Google 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.Google Scholar