Photo: Massive erosion of the Loess Plateau, China, north of Xi'an. © 2007 Delena Norris-Tull
Challenges of Managing Invasive Plants
Summary and commentary by Dr. Delena Norris-Tull, July 2020.
There remain many questions about how best to tackle these problems. In my research so far, I have heard from agency representatives that have seen some ranchers spend more money on attempts to eradicate weeds than is economically supportable, given the value of their property. In addition, while many millions are spent annually on removal or poisoning of invasive species, comparatively little money is spent on habitat restoration or re-planting with native species. Too often, this means that within one or two years of treating with herbicides, the area is re-populated with the same, or a different, invasive species.
In a report developed by the US Forest Service, A dynamic invasive species research vision: Opportunities and priorities 2009-2029, Sieg,et, al., 2010, p. 37, state that, “Preventing the widespread establishment of nonnative species may be more cost effective than attempting to control full-blown infestations, which may not be economically feasible. Quantitative analyses are needed to better understand the distribution and abundance patterns of nonnative species populations, pathways of introduction, and habitats most at risk. The development of predictive models that identify areas likely to be negatively affected by nonnative species and accounting for sampling effort, climate, physiography, human population density, and other variables that reflect land use intensity is an important step in developing a national invasive species strategy.”
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) states on their website: “The BLM manages 245 million acres of public lands primarily in the Western United States, including Alaska. 79 million of these acres are infested with noxious and invasive weeds.
“One of the BLM's highest priorities is to promote ecosystem health and one of the greatest obstacles to achieving this goal is the rapid expansion of weeds across public lands. These invasive plants can dominate and often cause permanent damage to natural plant communities. If not eradicated or controlled, noxious weeds will continue to jeopardize the health of the public lands and to constrain the myriad activities that occur on public lands.”
In the research I have conducted (which includes interviews with a number of State-level and Federal-level individuals responsible for removing and monitoring invasive plant species), I have developed concerns about the challenges with coordinating efforts between County, State, and Federal agencies, and the lack of a scientific basis for some current management practices.
References:
Next sections on "Defining the Problem":
Summary and commentary by Dr. Delena Norris-Tull, July 2020.
There remain many questions about how best to tackle these problems. In my research so far, I have heard from agency representatives that have seen some ranchers spend more money on attempts to eradicate weeds than is economically supportable, given the value of their property. In addition, while many millions are spent annually on removal or poisoning of invasive species, comparatively little money is spent on habitat restoration or re-planting with native species. Too often, this means that within one or two years of treating with herbicides, the area is re-populated with the same, or a different, invasive species.
In a report developed by the US Forest Service, A dynamic invasive species research vision: Opportunities and priorities 2009-2029, Sieg,et, al., 2010, p. 37, state that, “Preventing the widespread establishment of nonnative species may be more cost effective than attempting to control full-blown infestations, which may not be economically feasible. Quantitative analyses are needed to better understand the distribution and abundance patterns of nonnative species populations, pathways of introduction, and habitats most at risk. The development of predictive models that identify areas likely to be negatively affected by nonnative species and accounting for sampling effort, climate, physiography, human population density, and other variables that reflect land use intensity is an important step in developing a national invasive species strategy.”
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) states on their website: “The BLM manages 245 million acres of public lands primarily in the Western United States, including Alaska. 79 million of these acres are infested with noxious and invasive weeds.
“One of the BLM's highest priorities is to promote ecosystem health and one of the greatest obstacles to achieving this goal is the rapid expansion of weeds across public lands. These invasive plants can dominate and often cause permanent damage to natural plant communities. If not eradicated or controlled, noxious weeds will continue to jeopardize the health of the public lands and to constrain the myriad activities that occur on public lands.”
In the research I have conducted (which includes interviews with a number of State-level and Federal-level individuals responsible for removing and monitoring invasive plant species), I have developed concerns about the challenges with coordinating efforts between County, State, and Federal agencies, and the lack of a scientific basis for some current management practices.
References:
- Sieg, C.H., et al. (May, 2010). The role of the Forest Service in nonnative invasive plant research. In M.E. Dix & K. Britton (Eds.), A dynamic invasive species research vision: Opportunities and priorities 2009-2029. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.
Next sections on "Defining the Problem":