Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:48:35.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Eradication Plan for Plant Invasions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David L. Zamora ,
Donald C. Thill  and
Robert E. Eplee
David L. Zamora
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Donald C. Thill
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, Entomol. Sci., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Robert E. Eplee
Affiliation:
USDA-APHIS Method Dev. Center, P.O. Box 279, Whiteville, NC 28472
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An eradication plan is needed to counteract the increasing number of invasions by new plant species and the cost of resulting control programs. An eradication plan includes early detection of new species, assessment of the invader's noxious potential, surveys, understanding of the invader's biology, and technology incorporated into a strategy to eliminate the species and to revegetate invasion sites. Early detection increases the probability of successfully eradicating invading plants. Key factors in determining a plant's noxious potential are similarities among the climates of the invaded area and endemic population, the plant's history of spread, and its ability to germinate. Surveys are necessary to detect new species and to assess their threat. Reliable surveys depend on using proper methods and tactics. Population dynamics indicate the stage of a plant's life cycle most vulnerable to eradication treatments, the time to deplete viable propagules from the soil, and the strategy to stop spread. Eradication technology is based on a plant's population dynamics and must eliminate every plant from an infestation. The survey data, population dynamics, and eradication technology are combined into an eradication strategy that must stop spread, prevent reproduction, and deplete viable propagules from the soil. An effective eradication strategy specifies where and when to apply treatments, quarantine measures, criteria to assess progress, steps to prevent further invasions, and cost appraisals.

Keywords

SurveyChondrilla junceaCrupina vulgarisCHOJUCJNVU
Type
Feature
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 2 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the 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

1. Argel, P. J., and Humphreys, L. R. 1983. Environmental effects on seed development and hardseedness in Stylosanthes hamata cv. Veran. I. Temperature. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 34:261–270.Google Scholar
2. Auld, B. A., and Coote, B. G. 1980. A model of a spreading plant population. Oikos 34:287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Auld, B. A., and Tisdell, C. A. 1986. Impact assessment of biological invasions. p. 79–88 in Groves, R. H. and Burdon, J. J., eds. The Ecology of Biological Invasions. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
4. Auld, B. A., Menz, K. M., and Monaghan, N. M. 1978/1979. Dynamics of weed spread: implications for policies of public control. Prot. Ecol. 1:141–148.Google Scholar
5. Auld, B. A., Vere, D. T., and Coote, B. G. 1982. Evaluation of control policies for the grassland weed, Nassella trichotoma, in southeast Australia. Prot. Ecol. 4:331–338.Google Scholar
6. Baker, H. G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:1–24.Google Scholar
7. Barret, S.C.H., and Richardson, B. J. 1986. Genetic attributes of invading species. p. 21–33 in Groves, R. H. and Burdon, J. J., eds. The Ecology of Biological Invasions. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
8. Bazzaz, F. A. 1986. Life history of colonizing plants: some demographic, genetic, and physiological features. p. 96–110 in Mooney, H. A. and Drake, J. A., eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
9. Carter, R. N., and Prince, S. D. 1981. Epidemic models used to explain biogeographical distribution limits. Nature (Long.) 293:644–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Cohen, D. 1966. Optimizing reproduction in a randomly varying environment. J. Theor. Biol. 12:119–129.Google Scholar
11. Conn, J. S., Cochrane, C. L., and DeLapp, J. A. 1984. Soil seed bank changes after forest clearing and agricultural use in Alaska. Weed Sci. 32:343–347.Google Scholar
12. Cook, R. 1980. The biology of seeds in the soil. p. 107–129 in Solbrig, O. T., ed. Demography and Evolution in Plant Populations. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
13. Dahlsten, D. L. 1986. Control of invaders. p. 275–302 in Mooney, H. A. and Drake, J. A., eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. DeBach, P. 1964. Some ecological aspects of insect eradication. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 10:221–224.Google Scholar
15. Forcella, F. 1985. Final distribution is related to rate of spread in alien weeds. Weed Res. 25:181–191.Google Scholar
16. Forcella, F., and Harvey, S. J. 1982. Spread of Filago arvensis L. (Compositae) in the United States. Madrono 29:119–121.Google Scholar
17. Forcella, F., and Harvey, S. J. 1983. Eurasian weed infestation in western Montana in relation to vegetation and disturbance. Madrono 30:102–109.Google Scholar
18. Forcella, F., and Harvey, S. J. 1983. Relative abundance in an alien weed flora. Oecologia (Berl.) 59:292–295.Google Scholar
19. Forcella, F., Wood, J. T., and Dillon, S. P. 1986. Characteristics distinguishing invasive weeds within Echium (bugloss). Weed Res. 26:351–364.Google Scholar
20. Frankel, R. E. 1977. Ruderal vegetation along some California roadsides. Univ. Calif. Publ. in Geogr. 20:1–163 cited in Mooney et al. (36).Google Scholar
21. Green, D. S. 1983. The efficacy of dispersal in relation to safe site density. Oecologia (Berl.) 56:356–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Hanski, I. 1982. Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos 38:210–221.Google Scholar
23. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
24. Henry, R. D., and Scott, A. R. 1981. Time of introduction of the alien component of the spontaneous Illinois vascular flora. Am. Midl. Nat. 106:318–324.Google Scholar
25. Howe, H. F., and Estabrook, G. F. 1977. On intraspecific competition for avian dispersers in tropical trees. Am. Nat. 111:817–832.Google Scholar
26. Howe, H. F., and Smallwood, J. 1982. Ecology of seed dispersal. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 13:201–228.Google Scholar
27. Kershaw, K. A. 1973. Quantitative and Dynamic Plant Ecology. William Clowes and Sons, Ltd., London.Google Scholar
28. Kraus, B. 1983. A test of the optimal-density model for seed scatterhoarding. Ecology 64:608–610.Google Scholar
29. Lelliott, R. A., and Aitkenhead, P. 1979. The eradication of diseases and pests from the United Kingdom: its practice and management. p. 185–197 in Ebbels, D. L. and King, J. E., eds. Plant Health, The Scientific Basis for Administrative Control of Plant Diseases and Pests. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
30. Mack, R. N. 1981. Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into western North America: An ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosyst. 7:145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Mack, R. N. 1985. Invading plants: their potential contribution to population biology. p. 127–142 in White, J., ed. Studies on Plant Demography. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
32. Major, J., and Pyott, W. T. 1966. Buried viable seeds in two California bunchgrass sites and their bearing on the definition of a flora. Vegetatio 13:352–282.Google Scholar
33. May, R. M. 1977. Thresholds and breakpoints in ecosystems with a multiplicity of stable states. Nature (Lond.) 269:471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Menz, K. M., and Auld, B. A. 1977. Galvanised burr control, and public policy toward weeds. Search 8:281–287.Google Scholar
35. Menz, K. M., Coote, B. G., and Auld, B. A. 1980/1981. Spatial aspects of weed control. Agric. Syst. 6:67–75.Google Scholar
36. Mooney, H. A., Hamburg, S. P., and Drake, J. A. 1986. The invasions of plants and animals into California. p. 250–272 in Mooney, H. A. and Drake, J. A., eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
37. Moore, R. M., and Perry, R. A. 1970. Vegetation. p. 59–73 in Moore, R. M., ed. Australian Grasslands. Aust. Nat. Univ. Press, Canberra.Google Scholar
38. Mueller-Dombois, D., and Ellengurg, H. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
39. Navaratnam, S. J., and Catley, A. 1986. Quarantine measures to exclude plant pests. p. 106–112 in Groves, R. H. and Burdon, J. J., eds. The Ecology of Biological Invasion. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
40. Newsom, L. D. 1978. Eradication of plant pests-con. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 24:35–40.Google Scholar
41. Newsome, A. E., and Noble, I. R. 1986. Ecological and physiological characters of invading species. p. 1–20 in Groves, R. H. and Burdon, J. J., eds. The Ecology of Biological Invasions. Cambridge Univ. Press, London.Google Scholar
42. Northam, F. E., Old, R. R., and Callihan, R. H. 1986. New weed species and potential weed problems in northern Idaho. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep., p. 58–60.Google Scholar
43. Nuttonson, M. Y. 1982. Some aspects and objectives of crop ecology. Dep. Geogr., Univ. Calif. Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
44. Old, R. R., and Callihan, R. H. 1986. LORAN-C feasibility for pest survey. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep., p. 65.Google Scholar
45. Old, R. R., Northam, R. E., Callihan, R. H., and Thill, D. C. 1987. New weed species and potential weed problems in Idaho. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep., p. 28–31.Google Scholar
46. Ott, L. 1972. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Duxbury Press, North Scituate, MA.Google Scholar
47. Radosevich, S. R., and Holt, J. S. 1984. Weed Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
48. Roberts, E. H. 1972. Dormancy: a factor affecting seed survival in the soil. p. 321–359 in Roberts, E. H., ed. Viability of Seeds. Chapman and Hall Ltd., London.Google Scholar
49. Roughgarden, J. 1986. Predicting invasions and rates of spread. p. 179–188 in Mooney, H. A. and Drake, J. A., eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
50. Sagar, G. R., and Mortimer, A. M. 1976. An approach to the study of the population dynamics of plants with special reference to weeds. p. 1–47 in Coaker, T. H., ed. Applied Biology Vol. I. Academic Press, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
51. Salisbury, E. 1961. Weeds and Aliens. Collins Publishing Co., London.Google Scholar
52. Silvertown, J. W. 1984. Phenotypic variety in seed germination behavior: the ontogeny and evolution of somatic polymorphism in seeds. Am. Nat. 124:1–16.Google Scholar
53. Thill, D. C., Zamora, D. L., and Kambitsch, D. L. 1985. Germination and viability of common crupina (Crupina vulgaris) achenes buried in the field. Weed Sci. 33:344–348.Google Scholar
54. Thompson, K., and Grime, J. P. 1979. Seasonal variation in the seed banks of herbaceous species in ten contrasting habitats. J. Ecol. 67:893–921.Google Scholar
55. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 1983. Domestic Program Manual: Witchweed (Striga asiatica Lour.). U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
56. Whipple, S. A. 1978. The relationship of buried, germinating seeds to vegetation in an old-growth Colorado subalpine forest. Can. J. Bot. 56:1505–1509.Google Scholar