Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:56:41.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Montana's Dyer's Woad (Isatis tinctoria) Cooperative Eradication Project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Monica L. Pokorny  and
Jane M. Krueger-Mangold
Monica L. Pokorny*
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
Jane M. Krueger-Mangold
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR 97720
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eradication is often stated as an essential element of weed management. Assessing the costs and benefits of eradication programs is often difficult because doing so requires speculation about the impacts and spread of weeds if eradication measures were not undertaken. The objective of this article is to describe and assess the Montana Dyer's Woad Cooperative Project, a program aimed at eradicating dyer's woad from Montana. The Project comprises four key components: early detection, treatment technologies, repeated site visits with monitoring, and education. To evaluate the success of the Montana Dyer's Woad Cooperative Project, we used monitoring data to observe the change in the number of counties where dyer's woad is present, plotted the trend in population size over time, and evaluated change in infestation size. We also predicted population spread based on the 1999 population size and demographic characteristics of dyer's woad. Dyer's woad has been eradicated from 9 of 13 infested counties in Montana, and infestation sizes have decreased in the remaining infested counties. In some counties, a containment effort was needed in conjunction with repeated inventories and treatment applications to prevent spread while depleting the seedbank to the point where eradication is possible. If not for the Project, our analysis suggests that some dyer's woad populations might consist of millions of plants, potentially covering 39,021 ha in Montana and costing $1.9 million/yr to manage. In comparison, the Project has reduced the total area infested in Montana to 2.6 ha and cost the state only $142,000 for the past 7 yr of management. In Montana, dyer's woad eradication from individual counties has been successful because of persistence and ongoing cooperative efforts.

Keywords

Dyer's woad, Isatis tinctoria L. ISATICost–benefit analysisearly detectionpreventionrapid response
Type
Extension/Outreach
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 262 - 269
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

Allendorf, F. W. and Lundquist, L. L. 2003. Introduction: population biology, evolution, and control of invasive species. Conserv. Biol. 17:24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[APHIS] Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 2000. Witchweed: A Parasitic Pest. USDA–APHIS fact sheet. http://www.invasive.org/publications/aphis/fswweed.pdf. Accessed: August 2, 2005.Google Scholar
Aspevig, K., Fay, P., and Lacey, J. 1985. Dyer's woad: a threat to rangeland in Montana. Bozeman, MT Montguide, Montana State University Extension Publications.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H. 1990. Dyer's woad: biology, distribution, and control. Moscow, ID University of Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station Series No.857.Google Scholar
[CDFA] California Department of Food and Agriculture 2003. The California Department of Food and Agriculture Hydrilla Eradication Program Executive Summary. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/hydrilla/hydrilla2003rpt/hydrilla2003_exec-summary.pdf. Accessed: July 29, 2005.Google Scholar
Chippendale, J. F. 1991. Potential returns to research on rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora). MS thesis Brisbane, Australia University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Dewey, S. A., Price, K. P., and Ramsey, D. 1991. Satellite remote sensing to predict potential distribution of dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria). Weed Technol. 5:479–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci. 48:255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, H. E., Dewey, S. A., and Evans, J. O. 1994. Manual control of dyer's woad on heavily infested rangeland and non-crop sites in northern Utah. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 47:13–15.Google Scholar
Eplee, R. E. 2001. Coordination of witchgrass eradication in the USA. in Wittenberg, R., Cock, M.J.W., eds. Invasive Alien Species: A Toolkit of Best Prevention and Management Practices. Wallingford, Great Britain CAB International. 36.Google Scholar
Evans, J. O. and Chase, R. L. 1981. Dyer's woad control. Logan, UT Utah State University Extension Service Bulletin EL-188.Google Scholar
Farah, K. O., Tanaka, A. F., and West, N. E. 1988. Autecology and population biology of dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria). Weed Sci. 36:186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, C. L. 1934. Isatis tinctoria Herbarium Specimen 23784. Missoula, MT University of Montana.Google 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
McAdoo, J. K. and Carpenter, J. 2002. “Woad Warriors”—Community Weed Awareness. Reno, NV University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet FS-02-62.Google Scholar
McConnell, E. G., Evans, J. O., and Dewey, S. A. 1999. Dyer's woad. in Sheley, R.L., Petroff, J.K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press. 231–237.Google Scholar
Mullin, B. 1989. Isatis tinctoria . Helena, MT Montana Department of Agriculture Record 531.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
O'Connell, R. A. 1997. Hydrilla, a case study: the state of California's noxious weed eradication programs. in. California Exotic Pest Council 1997 Symposium Proceedings. Berkeley, CA California Invasive Plant Council http://www.cal-ipc.org/symposia/archive/pdf/1997_symposium_proceedings1942.pdf.Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M. 2000. Invasive plants: approaches and predictions. Aust. Ecol. 25:497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Sheley, R., Manoukian, M., and Marks, G. 2002. Preventing Noxious Weed Invasion. Bozeman, MT Montana State University Extension Service Montguide MT199517 AG 8/2002.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. 2001. Eradication of island invasives: practical actions and results achieved. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:273–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D. 2003. Eradication—preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Sci. 51:247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDI] United States Department of Interior 1985. Northwest area noxious weed control program environmental impact statement. Portland, OR USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office.Google Scholar
Varga, W. A. and Evans, J. O. 1978. Dyer's woad: from cultivation to cursed. Utah Sci. 39:87–90.Google Scholar
Westbrooks, R. G. 2004. New approaches for early detection and rapid response to invasive plants in the United States. Weed Technol. 18:1468–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A. and Evans, R. A. 1971. Germination of dyer's woad. Weed Sci. 19:76–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamora, D. L. and Thill, D. C. 1999. Early detection and eradication of new weed infestations. in Sheley, R.L., Petroff, J.K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press. 73–84.Google Scholar