2. Myths/Assumptions: The problem is local or only in cultivated areas The problem is everywhere Local control solves the problem

3. Stages of a Successful Invader and Potential for Control (Bartuska) Areas Infested Eradication is simple Invader is absent Eradication is feasible Eradication unlikely, intense effort required Scattered locations Numerous locations Approaching biological potential Management only Introduction Distribution Through Time

4. Local Monitoring Is as Plain as the Nose on Your Head, But.., Extensive-Area Monitoring Is Able To Supplement Existing Knowledge of DistributionsSupplement Existing Knowledge of Distributions Identify Regional Hot SpotsIdentify Regional Hot Spots Provide Credible Evidence of the Need for Prevention:Provide Credible Evidence of the Need for Prevention: Identification, Ranking, Cover Estimates of the Most Important SpeciesImportant Species Vulnerable Areas, Resources, HabitatsVulnerable Areas, Resources, Habitats Rapidly Increasing InvadersRapidly Increasing Invaders Calibrate with Finer-scaled Data, e.g., Satellite ImageryCalibrate with Finer-scaled Data, e.g., Satellite Imagery To Provide Data to Suggest Regional: Pathways for Infection, ResistancePathways for Infection, Resistance Susceptibility (Injury), Vulnerability (Death)Susceptibility (Injury), Vulnerability (Death) Climbing fern

5. Invasive Plant Monitoring Shared Leadership (BLM, FS, States, …) with Limited Collaboration Few Species-Specific Approaches to Monitoring $ Priorities for Monitoring Are Not Always Clear Inventories Incomplete: What, Where, How Much Limited Predictive Models Good Information Provides Strategic Information for Long-term Success at Controlling the Problem after Rob Mangold

6. Microstegium vimineum (Nepalese browntop) invasion in a southeastern floodplain forest Photo courtesy of Chris Oswalt

7. Invasive Plant Monitoring – Some Definitions Infested - >1 Individual of a Nonative Invasive Species is Found in the Sampled Area Infested Area – Sum (Area Represented by Infested Plots) Severity – Dominance (% Cover at a Sampled Location) Total Cover – Sum (% Cover X Infested Area)

8. FIA Inventory Photo- Interpre- tation (P1) Year-round field observation (P2) Growing-season field observation (P3) Sample Intensity 1 every 90 ha 1 every 2,400 ha (1 panel=12,000 ha) 1 every 39,000 ha (1 panel=194,000 ha) States All surveyed As funding permits (SC, some TN counties, special study areas Invasive or Noxious Species Inventoried No 32 Region-wide & + 20 FL, all likely on forestland All vascular plants on forestland Estimates Forestland >1 acre >120 ft wide, not developed Severity (Cover) classes: <1, 1-10, 11-50, 51- 90, 91-100% Severity (Cover) classes: <1, 1-100% in 1% increments and 3 plant layers

9. FIA Inventory Photo- Interpre- tation (P1) Year-round field observation (P2) Growing-season field observation (P3) Sample Intensity 1 every 90 ha 1 every 2,400 ha (1 panel=12,000 ha) 1 every 39,000 ha (1 panel=194,000 ha) States All surveyed As funding permits (SC, some TN counties, special study areas Invasive or Noxious Species Inventoried No 32 Region-wide & + 20 FL, all likely on forestland All vascular plants on forestland Estimates Forestland >1 acre >120 ft wide, not developed Severity (cover) classes: <1, 1-10, 11-50, 51- 90, 91-100% Severity (cover) classes: <1, 1-100% in 1% increments and 3 plant layers

10. FIA 3 Phase Sample Design 0.6 ha plot area, and four 7.3 m radius supplots 36.6 m 1 m 2 quadrats P3 P2 P1 Photo- interpretation

11. Standard FIA plot (Since 1997) 0.6 ha plot area Four 7.3 m radius subplots (0.07 ha per plot location) 36.6 m between subplot centers P2 Inventory of Selected Invasive Species With Traditional Forest Resource Inventory, Every 5 km

12. Southern FIA SURVEY DESIGN All Seasons, All States Invasive nontree taxa: 8 vines 8 shrubs 4 forbs 6 grasses 1 fern 33 taxa, including trees 11 of 13 States since 2001, only on forest land Kudzu Pueraria montana

13. Southern FIA - Florida Additional 20 (14 nontree) species Old world climbing fern Lygodium microphyllum

14. AllAR e TXSCLANCGAVATNALKY Relative subplot frequency Japanese honeysuckle5077416225586154 6632 Chinese/European privet111 1013142475190 Chinese tallowtree7031226010010 Tall fescue6003000166025 Exotic roses521009097020 Japanese privet514588623960 Japanese climbing fern305023010020 Bush honeysuckles300002042011 Tree-of-heaven20000100403 Chinese lespedeza13050362202 Mimosa12201110120 Chinaberry10211020010 Nepalese browntop10000100501 Kudzu11010010120 15 other taxa30162625526 All taxa100 2001-2004 SRSFIA

15. AllAR e TXSCLANCGAVATNALKY Relative subplot frequency Japanese honeysuckle5077416225586154 6632 Chinese/European privet111 1013142475190 Chinese tallowtree7031226010010 Tall fescue6003000166025 Exotic roses521009097020 Japanese privet514588623960 Japanese climbing fern305023010020 Bush honeysuckles300002042011 Tree-of-heaven20000100403 Chinese lespedeza13050362202 Mimosa12201110120 Chinaberry10211020010 Nepalese browntop10000100501 Kudzu11010010120 15 other taxa30162625526 All taxa100 2001-2004 SRSFIA

16. Severity (% Cover) of Top 14 Infestations by Species Proportion of Infested Subplots, 2001-2004 SRSFIA % COVER

17. Infested Forestland, East Texas 2003 Japanese honeysuckle22.88Nonnative roses0.43 Chinese tallow14.14Bush honeysuckle0.33 Chinese/European privet5.78Nandina0.32 Japanese privet3.41Kudzu0.28 Climbing fern3.04Tree-of-Heaven0.10 Chinaberry2.32Shrubby lespedeza0.06 Mimosa1.51Bamboo0.06 Chinese lespedeza0.45Tropical soda apple0.05 % of Sampled Locations

18. Area of Infestation: Top 5 Nonnative Invasive Plant Species in Forests, East Texas 2003 Thousand Acres

19. Area of Infestation and Cover: Top 5 Nonnative Invasive Plant Species in Forests, East Texas 2003 Infested Area Total Cover Thousand Acres

20. Total Cover of Selected* Nonnative Invasive Plant Species in Forests, East Texas 2003 SpeciesArea in acres + 2 Standard Errors Japanese honeysuckle154,700+15,000 Chinese tallow160,000+15,300 Chinese/European privet39,100+7,600 Japanese/glossy privet17,700+5,100 Climbing fern12,600+4,300 Chinaberry8,500+3,500 Mimosa1,700+1,600 Nonnative roses1,900+1,700 Bush honeysuckle1,700+1,600 * Out of 32 taxa and having a 95% confidence interval not including zero

21. Maps

22. Infested Forestland by County and Species: Trees Ailanthus Albizia Chinese tallowtree

23. Infested Forestland by County and Species: Shrubs Ligustrum Nonnative roses Autumn olive

24. Infested Forestland by County and Species: Grasses, Ferns (Microstegium) Nepalese browntop Tall fescue Japanese climbing fern

25. Infested Forestland by County and Species: Vines Japanese honeysuckle Nonnative Wisteria Oriental bittersweet

26. 19% 38% 52% Tall Fescue Nonnative Roses 28% Nonnative Roses Brazilian Pepper, Jap. Climbing Fern Melaleuca 8% Invaded forestland (selected species) by ecological provinc Japanese honeysuckle #1 everywhere, Privet #2 except where noted 21% 12% 17% 29% Chinese Tallowtree

27. Planned Efforts Examples from Older Survey Designs

28. <1 1 to 17 18 to 34 35 to 52 53 to 70 71 to 100 Ltd sample (<25% forest) No data Major roads State Rudis and Jacobs in review Forest land (FIA-P2) and Kriged (spatial interpolated) 1989-1995 Infestation Probability Japanese honeysuckle Where? Greatest in the Piedmont Least likely along the Coast and Lower South Why? Hardwood types Ltd fire mgmt Mesic and more productive Infestation probability

29. Japanese honeysuckle on Forestland (Nonforest: 1992 AVHRR) 1989-1995 FIA P2 Surveys* *Largely forest interior samples

30. PATHWAYS for INVASION and ESTABLISHMENT –AGRICULTURE –URBAN DEVELOPMENT –ROADS –FRAGMENTATION –WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE, esp. EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT Fire Suppression Lack of Active Management

31. Infestation Probability Shade Intolerant Understory Spp. Much Greater (Kudzu 7X) Odds of Infestation at the Nonforest Edge than Forest Interior Shade Tolerant Understory Spp. Greater (2 to 3X for J.honeysuckle, Privet) Odds of Infestation at the Nonforest Edge than Forest Interior Georgia 1997 Forest Other Forest Nonforest Interior Edge Edge 0.6-ha sample frame, based on odds ratio

32. Future: Finer-Scaled Estimates for the Abundant Species MODIS, 250 m resolution East TX LA Houston Forest Houston East TX LA Chinese tallow biomass Inputs: Nonforest, Forest, and Infected Forest Plot locations; Biomass Volume; Spectral Reflectance; Elevation, Rainfall, etc.

33. Future Goal: Fine-Resolution Estimates Within Counties Houston Texas Low High %Tallow Biomass On Forest Land Preliminary Draft

34. - 1.2** + 0.5** - 0.2 * 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 NA Trend in the Area of (largely interior) Forest Infestations Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia (Matched samples, McNemar test, *p<0.05, **p<0.01; Kappa statistics otherwise) % Change 1980s- 1990s Timberland by Species Million acres, 1990s

35. P3 Monitoring 1 plot per 39,000 ha every 5 years (1 plot per 194,000 ha every year) Of what value is that?

36. P3-Vegetation Pilot Survey Nonnative Plant Species Common NameFrequency per subplot Japanese honeysuckle*28.2 Chinese privet*16.9 Asian spiderwort7.0 Centipede grass5.6 Chinese lespedeza*4.2 Nepalese browntop*4.2 Alligatorweed2.8 Spadeleaf2.8 Chinaberrytree*2.8 Bahiagrass2.8 Annual bluegrass2.8 Additional 15 nonnative species (half are invasive) at frequencies of 1.4% each Blue = Wetland Red = Nonforest *P2 Invasive Species List Example: South Carolina, 31 plots (Oswalt, in press)

37. FHM-Vegetation Pilot Survey All Plant Species SURVEY DESIGN Growing season, selected States, all forested plots All vegetation lifeform survey. Analysis: native versus nonnative (some invasive) 1% cover classes by species (tolerance 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100%) South Carolina, 31 plots (Oswalt) Intro- duced 5% Native 84% Unknown 11%

38. Ecoregions Reflect the Site Productivity, Predominant Forest Types, and Land Uses Low% High% % Nonnatives Some invasive

39. Ecoregions Reflect the Site Productivity, Predominant Forest Types, and Land Use/Forest Fragmentation 20 % forest cover 98 % forest cover, mostly conifers

40. Invasive Plant Monitoring Shared Leadership (BLM, FS, States, …) with Limited Collaboration Few Species-Specific Approaches to Monitoring $ Priorities for Monitoring Are Not Always Clear Inventories Incomplete: What, Where, How Much Limited Predictive Models Good Information Provides Strategic Information for Long-term Success at Controlling the Problem after Rob Mangold

41. Japanese Honeysuckle Distribution by County and Data Source USDA- NRCS- PLANTS db Largely from Herbarium Specimens FIA (Phase 2) Field Observations 2001-2004 PLANTS and FIA

42. Kudzu

43. Kudzu Distribution by County PLANTS, other herbarium records and other sources (www.niiss.org)

44. Kudzu Distribution by County Extension agent survey (Jewett et al. 2001. On file, SRS –Athens, GA)

45. Kudzu Distribution on Forestland by County FIA surveys 2001-2004 MS, OK not yet surveyed

46. Distribution of Kudzu by County Herbarium collections Extension agent survey FIA forestland survey Combined Estimates of Occurrence

47. ANY QUESTIONS?ANY QUESTIONS?