Cargando…

Managing breaches of containment and eradication of invasive plant populations

1. Containment can be a viable strategy for managing invasive plants, but it is not always cheaper than eradication. In many cases, converting a failed eradication programme to a containment programme is not economically justified. Despite this, many contemporary invasive plant management strategies...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fletcher, Cameron S, Westcott, David A, Murphy, Helen T, Grice, Anthony C, Clarkson, John R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BlackWell Publishing Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25678718
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12361
_version_ 1782355173935415296
author Fletcher, Cameron S
Westcott, David A
Murphy, Helen T
Grice, Anthony C
Clarkson, John R
author_facet Fletcher, Cameron S
Westcott, David A
Murphy, Helen T
Grice, Anthony C
Clarkson, John R
author_sort Fletcher, Cameron S
collection PubMed
description 1. Containment can be a viable strategy for managing invasive plants, but it is not always cheaper than eradication. In many cases, converting a failed eradication programme to a containment programme is not economically justified. Despite this, many contemporary invasive plant management strategies invoke containment as a fallback for failed eradication, often without detailing how containment would be implemented. 2. We demonstrate a generalized analysis of the costs of eradication and containment, applicable to any plant invasion for which infestation size, dispersal distance, seed bank lifetime and the economic discount rate are specified. We estimate the costs of adapting eradication and containment in response to six types of breach and calculate under what conditions containment may provide a valid fallback to a breached eradication programme. 3. We provide simple, general formulae and plots that can be applied to any invasion and show that containment will be cheaper than eradication only when the size of the occupied zone exceeds a multiple of the dispersal distance determined by seed bank longevity and the discount rate. Containment becomes proportionally cheaper than eradication for invaders with smaller dispersal distances, longer lived seed banks, or for larger discount rates. 4. Both containment and eradication programmes are at risk of breach. Containment is less exposed to risk from reproduction in the ‘occupied zone’ and three types of breach that lead to a larger ‘occupied zone’, but more exposed to one type of breach that leads to a larger ‘buffer zone’. 5. For a well-specified eradication programme, only the three types of breach leading to reproduction in or just outside the buffer zone can justify falling back to containment, and only if the expected costs of eradication and containment were comparable before the breach. 6. Synthesis and applications. Weed management plans must apply a consistent definition of containment and provide sufficient implementation detail to assess its feasibility. If the infestation extent, dispersal capacity, seed bank longevity and economic discount rate are specified, the general results presented here can be used to assess whether containment can outperform eradication, and under what conditions it would provide a valid fallback to a breached eradication programme.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4312900
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BlackWell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43129002015-02-10 Managing breaches of containment and eradication of invasive plant populations Fletcher, Cameron S Westcott, David A Murphy, Helen T Grice, Anthony C Clarkson, John R J Appl Ecol Biosecurity 1. Containment can be a viable strategy for managing invasive plants, but it is not always cheaper than eradication. In many cases, converting a failed eradication programme to a containment programme is not economically justified. Despite this, many contemporary invasive plant management strategies invoke containment as a fallback for failed eradication, often without detailing how containment would be implemented. 2. We demonstrate a generalized analysis of the costs of eradication and containment, applicable to any plant invasion for which infestation size, dispersal distance, seed bank lifetime and the economic discount rate are specified. We estimate the costs of adapting eradication and containment in response to six types of breach and calculate under what conditions containment may provide a valid fallback to a breached eradication programme. 3. We provide simple, general formulae and plots that can be applied to any invasion and show that containment will be cheaper than eradication only when the size of the occupied zone exceeds a multiple of the dispersal distance determined by seed bank longevity and the discount rate. Containment becomes proportionally cheaper than eradication for invaders with smaller dispersal distances, longer lived seed banks, or for larger discount rates. 4. Both containment and eradication programmes are at risk of breach. Containment is less exposed to risk from reproduction in the ‘occupied zone’ and three types of breach that lead to a larger ‘occupied zone’, but more exposed to one type of breach that leads to a larger ‘buffer zone’. 5. For a well-specified eradication programme, only the three types of breach leading to reproduction in or just outside the buffer zone can justify falling back to containment, and only if the expected costs of eradication and containment were comparable before the breach. 6. Synthesis and applications. Weed management plans must apply a consistent definition of containment and provide sufficient implementation detail to assess its feasibility. If the infestation extent, dispersal capacity, seed bank longevity and economic discount rate are specified, the general results presented here can be used to assess whether containment can outperform eradication, and under what conditions it would provide a valid fallback to a breached eradication programme. BlackWell Publishing Ltd 2015-02 2014-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4312900/ /pubmed/25678718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12361 Text en © 2014 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Biosecurity
Fletcher, Cameron S
Westcott, David A
Murphy, Helen T
Grice, Anthony C
Clarkson, John R
Managing breaches of containment and eradication of invasive plant populations
title Managing breaches of containment and eradication of invasive plant populations
title_full Managing breaches of containment and eradication of invasive plant populations
title_fullStr Managing breaches of containment and eradication of invasive plant populations
title_full_unstemmed Managing breaches of containment and eradication of invasive plant populations
title_short Managing breaches of containment and eradication of invasive plant populations
title_sort managing breaches of containment and eradication of invasive plant populations
topic Biosecurity
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312900/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25678718
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12361
work_keys_str_mv AT fletchercamerons managingbreachesofcontainmentanderadicationofinvasiveplantpopulations
AT westcottdavida managingbreachesofcontainmentanderadicationofinvasiveplantpopulations
AT murphyhelent managingbreachesofcontainmentanderadicationofinvasiveplantpopulations
AT griceanthonyc managingbreachesofcontainmentanderadicationofinvasiveplantpopulations
AT clarksonjohnr managingbreachesofcontainmentanderadicationofinvasiveplantpopulations