Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Student workers needed for summer fieldwork and laboratory sample processing. Potential for job continuation into Fall 2007 semester. Various ecological.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Student workers needed for summer fieldwork and laboratory sample processing. Potential for job continuation into Fall 2007 semester. Various ecological."— Presentation transcript:

1 Student workers needed for summer fieldwork and laboratory sample processing. Potential for job continuation into Fall 2007 semester. Various ecological research projects including soil microbial and root processes, invasion ecology, and forest pathology. Knowledge of desert ecosystems, plant identification, or GIS software a plus. Field trips involve travel to remote sites for up to a week at a time. This is a great opportunity for research experience and résumé building. Starting Date: approximately May 21 st, full time students needed. Starting Pay $8.00-$11.00 Depending on experience Send resume, cover letter, and contact information for 3 references to: Scot Ferguson or Lora Perkins For additional information on current projects visit the Nowak Lab website:

2 Culliney, T Benefits of classical biological control for managing invasive plants. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 24:

3 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Simberloff, D Eradication – preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Science 51:

4 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Simberloff, D Eradication – preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Science 51: Definitions: 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

5 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Simberloff, D Eradication – preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Science 51: Problems with eradication: Not believed to be feasible in most cases May be very costly May entail collateral damage (e.g. fire ant eradication attempts in SE US exacerbated invasion by killing more natural enemies than fire ants)

6 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Simberloff, D Eradication – preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Science 51: 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)

7 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Simberloff, D Eradication – preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Science 51: 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)

8 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Small-scale eradication is not enormously costly

9 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Small-scale eradication is not enormously costly Log(cost) increases linearly and rapidly with log(area) (Rejmanek and Pitcairn 2002).

10 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Small-scale eradication is not enormously costly Log(cost) increases linearly and rapidly with log(area) (Rejmanek and Pitcairn 2002). For large areas substantial funding is prerequisite: e.g. witchweed in Carolinas reduced from 162,000 ha in 1950 to 2800 ha in Supported by federal and state government funds.

11 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Small-scale eradication is not enormously costly Log(cost) increases linearly and rapidly with log(area) (Rejmanek and Pitcairn 2002). For large areas substantial funding is prerequisite SO: best to eradicate early – ASAP after invasion detected.

12 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Examples: Crupina vulgaris (common crupina)

13 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Examples: Crupina vulgaris (common crupina) Detected in Idaho in 1969 (18 ha infested) By 1981 covered 9000 ha and was a federal noxious weed

14 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Examples: Crupina vulgaris (common crupina) Detected in Idaho in 1969 (18 ha infested) By 1981 covered 9000 ha and was a federal noxious weed 1981 eradication feasibility study launched, and gave biological evidence of high probability of success

15 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Examples: Crupina vulgaris (common crupina) Detected in Idaho in 1969 (18 ha infested) By 1981 covered 9000 ha and was a federal noxious weed 1981 eradication feasibility study launched, and gave biological evidence of high probability of success Study not completed until 1988 and task force to plan the eradication project did not convene until 1991

16 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Examples: Crupina vulgaris (common crupina) Detected in Idaho in 1969 (18 ha infested) By 1981 covered 9000 ha and was a federal noxious weed 1981 eradication feasibility study launched, and gave biological evidence of 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 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Examples: Crupina vulgaris (common crupina) 10 years after feasibility study project abandoned (unsuccessful)

18 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management 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 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management 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 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management 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 California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biological invasions 7:

21 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management 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 California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biological invasions 7: Placed on noxious weed list in 1999 (due to history in Mediterranean)

22 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management 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 California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biological invasions 7: Placed on noxious weed list in 1999 (due to history in Mediterranean) Discovered at Agua Hedionda lagoon June 12, 2000.

23 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management 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 California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biological invasions 7: Placed on noxious weed list in 1999 (due to history in Mediterranean) Discovered at Agua Hedionda lagoon June 12, Containment and treatments began 17 days after discovery Rapid response and ready resources ($2.12 million/year) = containment and near eradication in 2005.

24 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary; governmental authority may be necessary to overcome public outcry

25 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary; governmental authority may be necessary to overcome public outcry e.g. removal of Eucalyptus spp from Angel Island = ‘brutality’ and ‘eucalyptus-phobia’ in public opinion

26 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important

27 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important Easier to eradicate No soil seed bank Large size, conspicuous Trees, shrubs Short dispersal distance Harder to eradicate Persistent soil seed bank Small or cryptic Other growth forms Long distance dispersal mechanisms

28 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important

29 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important Persistent effort may be necessary

30 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important Persistent effort may be necessary Deplete seed banks Find last few individuals Last 1% of eradication costs as much as first 99%

31 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important Persistent effort may be necessary When do you stop looking?

32 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important 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

33 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important Persistent effort may be necessary When do you stop looking? How do you monitor success? Panetta, F. D Evaluation of weed eradication programs: containment and extirpation. Diversity and Distributions 13:33-41.

34 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important Persistent effort may be necessary When do you stop looking? How do you monitor success? Three criteria: Delimitation: how well do you know the extent and location of the invasion?

35 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important Persistent effort may be necessary When do you stop looking? How do you monitor success? 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)

36 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important Persistent effort may be necessary When do you stop looking? How do you monitor success? 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

37 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important 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 may mean maintenance management is more reasonable than eradication (e.g. watermilfoil elimination from a lake with a public boat ramp – futile) Intentional subversion – Johnny Weedseed in Golden Gate Park Economic analysis; cost-benefit

38 5)Management d)Eradication VS maintenance management Considerations Cost and difficulty increases rapidly with size of invasion Cooperation is necessary Biological characteristics are important 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 there is not a stable community in place e.g. Sheley, R. and Krueger-Mangold, J Principles for restoring invasive plant-infested rangeland. Weed science 51:


Download ppt "Student workers needed for summer fieldwork and laboratory sample processing. Potential for job continuation into Fall 2007 semester. Various ecological."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google