Photo: Russian Olive, southwest Montana. © 2020 Delena Norris-Tull
A workshop approach for developing priorities for biocontrol programs for noxious weed management
Summary of the research and commentary by Dr. Delena Norris-Tull, Professor Emerita of Science Education, University of Montana Western, September 2020.
In 2017, Raghu & Morin prepared a report on a team-based system of assessing the potential effectiveness of biocontrol agents, to assist Western States in prioritizing the limited funds available for biocontrol efforts. Prior to the first workshop, they conducted surveys with weed management experts and land managers in 11 Western States, including Federal and State representatives, to capture “the knowledge of weed scientists and land managers to ensure that those investigating and managing impacts on the ground arrive at a list of weeds for which biological control may be desirable.” They reported that, “Classical biological control programs can yield substantial benefits in the management of invasive weeds and historical programs have high benefit‐cost ratios. However, these programs are typically long‐term investments with significant up‐front costs to develop safe agents, the efficacy of which can be uncertain. Given that resources to manage weeds in any jurisdiction are often limited, there is a need to better prioritize weed targets for biological control to facilitate their management in the most cost‐effective manner possible. Improving on previous prioritization processes developed and applied for weed classical biological control, we have developed a structured framework that achieves this in a consultative and transparent manner. In this study we applied this framework to assist the USDA‐ARS’s Exotic & Invasive Weeds Research Unit to prioritise weeds of ten western states of the continental USA as targets for biological control.”
The State noxious weed management coordinators from 11 Western States provided Raghu & Morin with a list of the top noxious weeds considered a priority for their State (New Mexico and Arizona submitted a joint list). 187 stakeholders completed a survey in which each individual assessed the economic and environmental impacts of each noxious weed identified for their State. The 11 States’ priority lists were compiled by Raghu & Morin, and the joint list of 109 noxious weed species, with the assessment evaluations, were presented at a Workshop in March 2017, at which the State representatives further prioritized the joint lists from the various States. This team process resulted in a regional list of 33 species that were considered the top management priorities. Through several group processes, the workshop teams developed detailed rationales for each of the 33 species. The State representatives reviewed the list and rationales jointly, and teams were then tasked to develop a list of the possible benefits of each noxious weed species, and to develop management goals for each species.
After the first workshop, Raghu & Morin, 2017, compiled the results, which were sent to the participants and to stakeholders and experts from the Western States. At the second workshop, held 6 months later, the reports were reviewed by “experts with significant experience with developing biological control solutions for weeds in the western USA.” Those unable to attend submitted written recommendations prior to the workshop. At the workshop, teams of 2-4 experts with experience with a particular species “were guided through a structured and explicit process of assessing the feasibility and likelihood of success biological control of each of the weeds with potential, known or unknown, agents not already released in the USA.” Each team prepared a report on their species, culminating in the team’s assessment of the feasibility of biocontrol agents being effective in the management of that species. “As part of its assessment, key facets considered for each weed by the teams included historical, socio‐political, logistical and ecological and evolutionary attributes of the weed and putative or known, but not already released, agent(s).” If currently available biocontrol agents were not likely to be effective for that species, the teams “were asked to reflect on both the feasibility of finding new highly specific agents and the likelihood of these agents achieving the management goals if released in the USA.” The expert teams included within their reports the scientific basis for their assessments. As a result of this workshop, “A matrix was used to make explicit where each weed of regional importance sat in terms of its impacts (identified in Workshop 1) and its biological control prospects (identified in Workshop 2). This summary matrix and the information on each weed provide an explicit rationale to guide prioritization of investment in weed biological control in the western USA.” Of the 33 species the expert teams assessed, “Sixteen of these were assessed to have low prospects of biological control with new agents, while six were assessed as having moderate prospects; eleven species were rated as having high prospects of biological control.” After the second workshop, the results were shared with stakeholders and experts from the Western States, and responses from the stakeholders were included in the final report.
In their final report, Raghu & Morin, 2017, provide the recommendation reports for each species developed through this process. And they present their workshop team-approach as an effective tool for prioritizing the management of noxious weeds.
Reference:
Next Sections on Biocontrol Agents:
A workshop approach for developing priorities for biocontrol programs for noxious weed management
Summary of the research and commentary by Dr. Delena Norris-Tull, Professor Emerita of Science Education, University of Montana Western, September 2020.
In 2017, Raghu & Morin prepared a report on a team-based system of assessing the potential effectiveness of biocontrol agents, to assist Western States in prioritizing the limited funds available for biocontrol efforts. Prior to the first workshop, they conducted surveys with weed management experts and land managers in 11 Western States, including Federal and State representatives, to capture “the knowledge of weed scientists and land managers to ensure that those investigating and managing impacts on the ground arrive at a list of weeds for which biological control may be desirable.” They reported that, “Classical biological control programs can yield substantial benefits in the management of invasive weeds and historical programs have high benefit‐cost ratios. However, these programs are typically long‐term investments with significant up‐front costs to develop safe agents, the efficacy of which can be uncertain. Given that resources to manage weeds in any jurisdiction are often limited, there is a need to better prioritize weed targets for biological control to facilitate their management in the most cost‐effective manner possible. Improving on previous prioritization processes developed and applied for weed classical biological control, we have developed a structured framework that achieves this in a consultative and transparent manner. In this study we applied this framework to assist the USDA‐ARS’s Exotic & Invasive Weeds Research Unit to prioritise weeds of ten western states of the continental USA as targets for biological control.”
The State noxious weed management coordinators from 11 Western States provided Raghu & Morin with a list of the top noxious weeds considered a priority for their State (New Mexico and Arizona submitted a joint list). 187 stakeholders completed a survey in which each individual assessed the economic and environmental impacts of each noxious weed identified for their State. The 11 States’ priority lists were compiled by Raghu & Morin, and the joint list of 109 noxious weed species, with the assessment evaluations, were presented at a Workshop in March 2017, at which the State representatives further prioritized the joint lists from the various States. This team process resulted in a regional list of 33 species that were considered the top management priorities. Through several group processes, the workshop teams developed detailed rationales for each of the 33 species. The State representatives reviewed the list and rationales jointly, and teams were then tasked to develop a list of the possible benefits of each noxious weed species, and to develop management goals for each species.
After the first workshop, Raghu & Morin, 2017, compiled the results, which were sent to the participants and to stakeholders and experts from the Western States. At the second workshop, held 6 months later, the reports were reviewed by “experts with significant experience with developing biological control solutions for weeds in the western USA.” Those unable to attend submitted written recommendations prior to the workshop. At the workshop, teams of 2-4 experts with experience with a particular species “were guided through a structured and explicit process of assessing the feasibility and likelihood of success biological control of each of the weeds with potential, known or unknown, agents not already released in the USA.” Each team prepared a report on their species, culminating in the team’s assessment of the feasibility of biocontrol agents being effective in the management of that species. “As part of its assessment, key facets considered for each weed by the teams included historical, socio‐political, logistical and ecological and evolutionary attributes of the weed and putative or known, but not already released, agent(s).” If currently available biocontrol agents were not likely to be effective for that species, the teams “were asked to reflect on both the feasibility of finding new highly specific agents and the likelihood of these agents achieving the management goals if released in the USA.” The expert teams included within their reports the scientific basis for their assessments. As a result of this workshop, “A matrix was used to make explicit where each weed of regional importance sat in terms of its impacts (identified in Workshop 1) and its biological control prospects (identified in Workshop 2). This summary matrix and the information on each weed provide an explicit rationale to guide prioritization of investment in weed biological control in the western USA.” Of the 33 species the expert teams assessed, “Sixteen of these were assessed to have low prospects of biological control with new agents, while six were assessed as having moderate prospects; eleven species were rated as having high prospects of biological control.” After the second workshop, the results were shared with stakeholders and experts from the Western States, and responses from the stakeholders were included in the final report.
In their final report, Raghu & Morin, 2017, provide the recommendation reports for each species developed through this process. And they present their workshop team-approach as an effective tool for prioritizing the management of noxious weeds.
Reference:
- Raghu, S., & Morin, L. (May, 2017). Prioritizing Weed Targets for Biological Control in the Western USA. USDA-ARS Western Regional Research Center. https://bugwoodcloud.org/resource/pdf/USDA_WRRC_Weed_CBC_prioritisation_report.pdf
Next Sections on Biocontrol Agents: