1 / 35

Management Eradication

Management Eradication. Concerns about eradication: Not believed to be possible in most cases May be very costly May entail collateral damage Example: fire ant eradication attempts in SE US exacerbated invasion by killing more natural enemies than fire ants. Management

ida
Download Presentation

Management Eradication

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Management • Eradication • Concerns about eradication: • Not believed to be possible in most cases • May be very costly • May entail collateral damage • Example: fire ant eradication attempts in SE US exacerbated invasion by killing more natural enemies than fire ants

  2. Management • Eradication Feasibility

  3. Management • Eradication • Feasibility: • Biological characteristics Harder to eradicate Habitat generalist Small or cryptic Other growth forms Persistent soil seed bank Long distance dispersal mechanisms Easier to eradicate Habitat specialist Large size, conspicuous Trees, shrubs No soil seed bank Short dispersal distance

  4. Management • Eradication • Feasibility: • Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal • Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate • Cost increases exponentially with area

  5. Management • Eradication • Feasibility: • Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal • Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate AND restore

  6. Management • Eradication • Feasibility: • Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal • Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate AND restore • Widespread support and cooperation

  7. Management • Eradication • Feasibility: • Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal • Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate AND restore • Widespread support and cooperation • Governmental authority may be needed to overcome vocal public groups • Example: removal of Eucalyptus from Angel Island: public groups complained of “brutality” and “eucalyptus-phobia”

  8. Management • Eradication • Feasibility: • Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal • Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate AND restore • Widespread support and cooperation • Prevent re-invasion

  9. Management • Eradication • Feasibility: • Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal • Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate AND restore • Widespread support and cooperation • Prevent re-invasion • Low populations, small areas

  10. Management • Eradication • Eradications have been successful: • Diseases (smallpox, yellow fever) • Animals (vertebrate and invertebrate) • Especially on islands (e.g. Nutria eliminated from Britain) • Examples of eradications from continental areas too (e.g. african giant snail from FL and QLD)

  11. Management • Eradication • Eradications have been successful: • Diseases (smallpox, yellow fever) • Animals (vertebrate and invertebrate) • Especially on islands (e.g. Nutria eliminated from Britain) • Examples of eradications from continental areas too (e.g. african giant snail from FL and QLD) • Plants eradicated less frequently, but: • Witchweed (Striga asiatica) in Carolinas drastically reduced • Asian common rice (Oryza rufipogon) in Everglades National Park (0.1 ha) • Karoo thorn (Acacia karoo) in W.Aust. • Taurian thistle (Onopordium tauricum) VIC • Witchweed and rice are two of seven eradication projects sponsored by APHIS through 1993 (others less successful)

  12. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina)

  13. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina) • Detected in Idaho in 1969 (18 ha infested) • By 1981 covered 9000 ha and listed asfederal noxious weed

  14. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina) • Detected in Idaho in 1969 (18 ha infested) • By 1981 covered 9000 ha and listed as federal noxious weed • 1981 eradication feasibility study launched. Initial biological evidence indicated high probability of success.

  15. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina) • Detected in Idaho in 1969 (18 ha infested) • By 1981 covered 9000 ha and listed asfederal noxious weed • 1981 eradication feasibility study launched. Initial biological evidence indicated high probability of success. • Study not completed until 1988 and task force to plan the eradication project did not convene until 1991

  16. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina) • Detected in Idaho in 1969 (18 ha infested) • By 1981 covered 9000 ha and listed asfederal noxious weed • 1981 eradication feasibility study launched. Initial biological evidence indicated high probability of success. • Study not completed until 1988 and task force to plan the eradication project did not convene until 1991 • By 1991 crupina had spread to CA, OR, and WA, and dominated 25,000 ha. Task force decided not to act because of possible negative impact of herbicide on salmon.

  17. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina) • 10 years after feasibility study project abandoned (unsuccessful)

  18. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina) • 10 years after feasibility study project abandoned (unsuccessful) • Kochia scoparia(summer cypress) in W. A. • Introduced in 1990 as drought tolerant forage • Recognized in 1992 as weed, and eradication began (herbicide)

  19. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina) • 10 years after feasibility study project abandoned (unsuccessful) • Kochia scoparia(summer cypress) in W. A. • Introduced in 1990 as drought tolerant forage • Recognized in 1992 as weed, and eradication began (herbicide) • By 1993 plant had spread 900 linear km and affected 3200 ha. • By 1995 infestation reduced to 139 ha • By 2000 infestation reduced to 5 ha

  20. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina) • 10 years after feasibility study project abandoned (unsuccessful) • Kochia scoparia(summer cypress) in W. A. • Problem recognized and controlled early (successful) • Caulerpa taxifolia • Anderson, L. 2005. California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biological invasions 7:1003-1016.

  21. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina) • 10 years after feasibility study project abandoned (unsuccessful) • Kochia scoparia(summer cypress) in W. A. • Problem recognized and controlled early (successful) • Caulerpa taxifolia • Anderson, L. 2005. California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biological invasions 7:1003-1016. • Placed on noxious weed list in 1999 (due to history in Mediterranean)

  22. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina) • 10 years after feasibility study project abandoned (unsuccessful) • Kochia scoparia(summer cypress) in W. A. • Problem recognized and controlled early (successful) • Caulerpa taxifolia • Anderson, L. 2005. California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biological invasions 7:1003-1016. • Placed on noxious weed list in 1999 (due to history in Mediterranean) • Discovered at Agua Hedionda lagoon June 12, 2000.

  23. Management • Eradication • Examples: • Crupina vulgaris(common crupina) • 10 years after feasibility study project abandoned (unsuccessful) • Kochia scoparia(summer cypress) in W. A. • Problem recognized and controlled early (successful) • Caulerpa taxifolia • Anderson, L. 2005. California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biological invasions 7:1003-1016. • Placed on noxious weed list in 1999 (due to history in Mediterranean) • Discovered at Agua Hedionda lagoon June 12, 2000. • Containment and treatments began 17 days after discovery • Rapid response and ready resources ($2.12 million/year) = containment and near eradication in 2005.

  24. Management • Eradication • Feasibility: • Biological characteristics: habitat specific; poor dispersal • Sufficient resources allocated: Eradicate AND restore • Widespread support and cooperation • Prevent re-invasion • Low populations, small areas

  25. Management • Eradication • Additional considerations • Persistent effort may be necessary • Deplete seed banks • Find last few individuals • Last 1% of eradication costs as much as first 99%

  26. Management • Eradication • Additional considerations • Persistent effort may be necessary • When do you stop looking? (Regan et al 2002 Ecology Letters)

  27. Management • Eradication • Additional considerations • Persistent effort may be necessary • When do you stop looking? (Regan et al 2002 Ecology Letters) • A set time since detection (3 years, 5 years, longevity of seedbank) • Once population is below an arbitrary threshold (1%, 5%) • Dynamic programming ‘cost-benefit’ approach: stop monitoring and treating when the cost of doing so outweighs the benefits of finding a plant

  28. Management • Eradication • Additional considerations • Persistent effort may be necessary • When do you stop looking? (Regan et al 2002 Ecology Letters) • A set time since detection (3 years, 5 years, longevity of seedbank) • Once population is below an arbitrary threshold (1%, 5%) • Dynamic programming ‘cost-benefit’ approach: stop monitoring and treating when the cost of doing so outweighs the benefits of finding a plant • Plant eradication requires long-term funding (10+ years) – end of funding = end of project

  29. Management • Eradication • Additional considerations • Persistent effort may be necessary • When do you stop looking? • How do you monitor success? (Panetta 2007 Diversity & Distributions)

  30. Management • Eradication • Additional considerations • Persistent effort may be necessary • When do you stop looking? • How do you monitor success? (Panetta 2007 Diver & Distrib) • Three criteria: • Delimitation: how well do you know the extent and location of the invasion?

  31. Management • Eradication • Additional considerations • Persistent effort may be necessary • When do you stop looking? • How do you monitor success? (Panetta 2007 Diver & Distrib) • Three criteria: • Delimitation: how well do you know the extent and location of the invasion? • Containment: Have new invasions arisen outside the identified area for eradication? (containment failure)

  32. Management • Eradication • Additional considerations • Persistent effort may be necessary • When do you stop looking? • How do you monitor success? (Panetta 2007 Diver & Distrib) • Three criteria: • Delimitation: how well do you know the extent and location of the invasion? • Containment: Have new invasions arisen outside the identified area for eradication? (containment failure) • Extirpation: active management reducing live individuals and seed production; monitoring of site once no live plants found. Monitor sites at intervals matching the juvenile period of the plant for maximum power

  33. Management • Eradication • Additional considerations • Persistent effort may be necessary • When do you stop looking? • How do you monitor success? • How likely is the plant to re-invade? • Eradication on islands more successful because reinvasion less likely • Ready source of seed/propagules make persistent eradication unlikely – e.g. watermilfoil elimination from a lake with a public boat ramp may be futile • Intentional subversion – Johnny Weedseed in Golden Gate Park

  34. Management • Eradication • Additional considerations • Persistent effort may be necessary • When do you stop looking? • How do you monitor success? • How likely is the plant to re-invade? • Is restoration possible? • Removal of invasive may leave an ‘open niche space’ – ripe for invasion of something else or expansion of weeds already present • Re-invasion may be more likely if a stable community is NOT in place

  35. Management • Eradication Simberloff, D. 2003. Eradication – preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Science 51:247-253. Tradeoff: Eradication vs. maintenance management Eradication: complete removal (or less commonly substantial reduction and control) of pest species in a specified area Maintenance management: controlling the invader at a tolerably low level. Involves chemical, mechanical and biological control and ecosystem management

More Related