Controlling an invasive plant at the edge of its range: towards a broader understanding of management feasibility

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Zdravka Tzankova ; Amy Concilio
• 关键词：Bromus tectorum ; California ; Cheatgrass ; Invasive species management ; Public lands ; Non ; noxious weed
• 刊名：Biological Invasions
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：January 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：17
• 期：1
• 页码：507-527
• 全文大小：705 KB
• 参考文献：1. Agricultural Commissioner’s Office (2008, 2009, 2010, & 2011) Noxious weed control and eradication activities on lands in Inyo and Mono Counties. Annual Report. Inyo and Mono Counties Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. Bishop, CA
  2. Agricultural Commissioner’s Office (2012) Inyo and mono counties agricultural department. http://www.inyomonoagriculture.com/ Accessed 3 March 2012
  3. Anderson GL, Delfosse ES, Spencer NR et al (2003) Lessons in developing successful invasive weed control programs. J Range Manage 56:2-2 CrossRef
  4. APHIS (2009) Action Plan for the Noxious Weeds Program. United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weed_action_plan.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept 2013
  5. Aslan CE, Hufford MB, Epanchin-Niell RS, Port JD, Sexton JP, Waring TM (2009) Practical challenges in private stewardship of rangeland ecosystems: yellow starthistle control in Sierra Nevadan foothills. Rangel Ecol Manag 62:28-7 CrossRef
  6. Baker WL (2011) Pre-Euro-American and recent fire in sagebrush ecosystems. In: Knick ST, Connelly JW (eds) Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp 185-01
  7. Brooks ML, D’Antonio CM, Richardson DM et al (2004) Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience 54:677-88 CrossRef
  8. Buckman TE (1937) Setting up Taylor Grazing Districts in Nevada. Agricultural Extension Service, University of Nevada. Reno, Nevada. Bull 77
  9. Butler KF, Koontz TM (2005) Theory into practice: implementing ecosystem management objectives in the USDA Forest Service. Environ Manage 35:138-50 CrossRef
  10. Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (2006) Comments regarding the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on vegetation treatments using herbicides in 17 western states
  11. Carruthers R (2003) Invasive species research in the United States Department of Agiculture—Agricultural Research Service. Pest Manag Sci 59:827-34 CrossRef
  12. CDFA (2012) Encycloweedia. 2010 Pest ratings. California Department of Food and Agriculture. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/ipc/weedinfo/winfo_list-pestrating.htm. Accessed 1 March 2012
  13. CDFA & CALIWAC (2005) California noxious and invasive weed action plan. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento
  14. Clarke JN, McCool D (1996) Staking out the terrain: power and performance among natural resource agencies. State University of New York Press, Albany
  15. Concilio A (2013) Effectiveness and cost of downy brome ( / Bromus tectorum) control at high elevation. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 6:502-11 CrossRef
  16. Concilio AL, Loik ME (2013) Elevated nitrogen effects on / Bromus tectorum dominance and native plant diversity in an arid, montane ecosystem. Appl Veg Sci 16:598-09 CrossRef
  17. Concilio AL, Loik ME, Belnap J (2013) Global change effects on / Bromus tectorum L. ( / Poaceae) at its high-elevation range margin. Glob Chang Biol 19:161-72 CrossRef
  18. D’Antonio CM, Thomsen M (2004) Ecological resistance in theory and practice. Weed Technol 18:1572-577 CrossRef
  19. D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 23:63-7
  20. Darin GS (2008) Prioritizing weed populations for eradication at a regional level: The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s
• 刊物类别：Biomedical and Life Sciences
• 刊物主题：Life Sciences
  Plant Sciences
  Ecology
  Hydrobiology
  Zoology
  Forestry
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-1464

文摘

Invasion biologists often think about feasibility of weed control in purely ecological terms, while land managers-feasibility definitions are further informed by social, policy, and institutional considerations. We use the case of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) in the Eastern Sierra Nevada in California to examine the origins and practical significance of differences between scientific and managerial definitions of feasibility. A serious invasive weed and a major ecological threat to the region, cheatgrass in the Eastern Sierra still exists in the kinds of low-density patches that are technically amenable to containment through active management. Yet land managers in this region dominated by public land are not using active management. We conducted a study of the reasons for the apparent disconnect between management potential and management realities, combining semi-structured interviews of public land managers in the region with analysis of the policy and institutional landscape in which land managers operate. We found that managers are concerned about cheatgrass impacts on the region but face a number of barriers to the deployment of useful spread prevention techniques. The de-prioritization of cheatgrass, which is not listed as a noxious weed under either California or federal law, along with resource constraints exacerbated by such policy de-prioritization form one important set of barriers. Certain substantive and procedural requirements of federal and state environmental law form another barrier: they can limit swiftness and flexibility of managerial action and make managers more hesitant to launch such action; they also provide a venue for public opposition to herbicide-based management or directly restrict managers-access to useful herbicide treatments. We end with some thoughts on increasing the feasibility of cheatgrass control in eastern California. Many of these are broadly relevant to improving invasion management on public lands.