Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:25:35.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic Benefit–Cost Analysis for Controlling Perennial Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium): A Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark E. Eiswerth ,
Loretta Singletary ,
John R. Zimmerman  and
Wayne S. Johnson
Mark E. Eiswerth*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, 800 West Main Street, Whitewater, WI 53190
Loretta Singletary
Affiliation:
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, Lyon County Office, 504 S. Main Street, Yerington, NV 89447
John R. Zimmerman
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557
Wayne S. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics, MS204, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Perennial pepperweed, found throughout the western United States, reduces biodiversity and causes economic losses in the form of control costs as well as decreased quantity and quality of agricultural yields. The future stream of net benefits of weed management and the future point in time at which they will have accumulated enough to equal total management costs were estimated under different land-use and expansion rate scenarios. Benefits and costs were calculated in present value terms by applying a rate of discount to future values. On land used solely for grazing, the total economic returns from management did not equal total costs until 15 yr after initial treatment. However, on land used for grazing plus hay harvest, cumulative benefits equaled and began to exceed cumulative costs after 4 to 5 yr. The costs and benefits of management efforts were also estimated for a landowner, who controls an adjacent infestation before it spreads. This landowner benefited economically from weed management in as little as 5 to 6 yr, highlighting the importance of cooperative efforts to control nearby weed infestations.

Keywords

Perennial pepperweedLepidium latifolium L. # LEPLAEconomic externalityeconomic impactseconomic thresholdGISGPSinvasive speciesinvasive weedsnonnative speciesAUM, animal unit monthsGIS, Geographic Information SystemGPS, Global Positioning System
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 237 - 243
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

Beck, G. 1999. Perennial pepperweed and hoary cress in Colorado. in Proceeding of the National Symposium on Tall Whitetop. Alamosa, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Pp. 19–22.Google Scholar
Coase, R. H. 1960. The problem of social cost. J. Law Econ. 3:1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiswerth, M. E., Donaldson, S., and Johnson, W. S. 2000. Potential environmental impacts and economic damages of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) in western Nevada and northeastern California. Weed Technol. 14:511–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiswerth, M. E. and Johnson, W. S. 2002. Managing nonindigenous invasive species: insights from dynamic analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 23:319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiswerth, M. E. and van Kooten, G. C. 2002. Uncertainty, economics, and the spread of an invasive plant species. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 84:1317–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, D. 1999. Economic evaluation procedures for noxious weed management on rangeland. in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Pp. 44–56.Google Scholar
Griffith, D. and Lacey, J. R. 1991. Economic evaluation of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) control using picloram. J. Range Manag. 44:43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, R. and Cooper, K. 1995. Plant succession as a natural range restoration factor in private livestock enterprises. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77:901–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. E. and Medd, R. W. 2000. Economic thresholds and the case for longer term approaches to population management of weeds. Weed Technol. 14:337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, J. R. 1997. The Economic Approach to Environmental and Natural Resources. Orlando, FL: Dryden. Pp. 39–51.Google Scholar
Knowler, D. and Barbier, E. B. 2000. The economics of an invading species: A theoretical model and case study application. in Perrings, C., Williamson, M., and Dalmazzone, S., eds. The Economics of Biological Invasions. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar. Pp. 95–130.Google Scholar
Leistritz, F. L., Thompson, F., and Leitch, J. A. 1992. Economic impact of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) in North Dakota. Weed Sci. 40:275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitch, J. A., Leistritz, F. L., and Bangsund, D. 1996. Economic effect of leafy spurge in the upper great plains: methods, models and results. Impact Assessment 14:419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, B. E. 1999. Impacts of noxious weeds on ecologic and economic systems. in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Pp. 4–18.Google Scholar
Renz, M. J. 1999. Seasonal carbohydrate translocation patterns of perennial pepperweed and implications for control in California. in Proceeding of the National Symposium on Tall Whitetop. Alamosa, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Pp. 31–36.Google Scholar
Renz, M. J. and DiTomaso, J. M. 1998. The effectiveness of mowing and herbicides to control perennial pepperweed in rangeland and roadside habitats. Proc. 1998 Calif. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:178.Google Scholar
Renz, M. J. and DiTomaso, J. M. 1999. Biology and control of perennial pepperweed. Proc. 1999 Calif. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:13–16.Google Scholar
Smith, H. A., Johnson, W. S., Shonkwiler, J. S., and Swanson, S. R. 1999. The implications of variable or constant expansion rates in invasive weed infestations. Weed Sci. 47:62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trumbo, J. 1994. Perennial pepperweed: a threat to wildland areas. Calif. Exotic Pest Plant Counc. Newslett. 2:4–5.Google Scholar
Young, J. A. and Longland, W. S. 1996. Impact of alien plants on Great Basin rangelands. Weed Technol. 10:384–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A., Palmquist, D. E., and Blank, R. R. 1998. The ecology and control of perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). Weed Technol. 12:402–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A., Palmquist, D. E., and Wotring, S. O. 1997. The invasive nature of Lepidium latifolium: a review. in Brock, J. H., Wade, M., Pysek, P., and Green, D., eds. Plant Invasions: Studies from North America and Europe. Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys. Pp. 59–68.Google Scholar
Young, J. A., Turner, C. E., and James, L. F. 1995. Perennial pepperweed. Rangelands 17:121–123.Google Scholar