Management feasibility of established invasive plant species in Queensland, Australia: A stakeholders' perspective

Strategies for the Management of Aggressive Invasive Plant Species

Current control methods for invasive alien plants (IAPs) have acceptable short-term outcomes but have proven to be unfeasible or unaffordable in the long-term or for large invaded areas. For these reasons, there is an urgent need to develop sustainable approaches to control or restrict the spread of aggressive IAPs. The use of waste derived from IAP control actions could contribute to motivating the long-term management and preservation of local biodiversity while promoting some economic returns for stakeholders. However, this strategy may raise some concerns that should be carefully addressed before its implementation. In this article, we summarize the most common methods to control IAPs, explaining their viability and limitations. We also compile the potential applications of IAP residues and discuss the risks and opportunities associated with this strategy.

Lag times and invasion dynamics of established and emerging weeds: insights from herbarium records of Queensland, Australia

Herbarium records provide comprehensive information on plant distribution, offering opportunities to construct invasion curves of introduced species, estimate their rates and patterns of expansions in novel ranges, as well as identifying lag times and hence “sleeper weeds”, if any. Lag times especially have rarely been determined for many introduced species, including weeds in the State of Queensland, Australia as the trait is thought to be unpredictable and cannot be screened for. Using herbarium records (1850–2010), we generated various invasiveness indices, and developed simple invasion and standardised proportion curves of changes in distribution with time for ~ 100 established and emerging weed species of Queensland. Four major periods (decades) of increased weed spread (spikes) were identified: 1850s, 1900–1920, 1950–1960 and 2000–2010, especially for grasses and trees/shrubs. Many weeds with spikes in spread periods did so only 1–2 decadal times, except for a few species with higher spike frequencies > 6; the majority of these spikes occurred recently (1950–1990). A significant proportion (~ 60%) of Queensland’s weeds exhibit non-linear increase in spread with time, and hence have lag phases (mean: 45.9 years; range: 12–126 years); of these lag-phase species, 39% are “sleeper” weeds with > 50 years of lag time (mainly trees/shrubs and grasses). Twelve traits of invasiveness, including lag time and species-specific/historical factors were screened, of which frequency of invasion waves, spread rates and residence time were the main drivers of weeds’ distribution. The low predictive power of lag time on weed distribution suggests that retrospective analyses offer little hope for a robust generalisation to identify weeds of tomorrow.

Using structured eradication feasibility assessment to prioritize the management of new and emerging invasive alien species in Europe

Prioritizing the management of invasive alien species (IAS) is of global importance and within Europe integral to the EU IAS regulation. To prioritize management effectively, the risks posed by IAS need to be assessed, but so too does the feasibility of their management. While the risk of IAS to the EU has been assessed, the feasibility of management has not. We assessed the feasibility of eradicating 60 new (not yet established) and 35 emerging (established with limited distribution) species that pose a threat to the EU, as identified by horizon scanning. The assessment was carried out by 34 experts in invasion management from across Europe, applying the Non-Native Risk Management scheme to defined invasion scenarios and eradication strategies for each species, assessing the feasibility of eradication using seven key risk management criteria. Management priorities were identified by combining scores for risk (derived from horizon scanning) and feasibility of eradication. The results show eradication feasibility score and risk score were not correlated, indicating that risk management criteria evaluate different information than risk assessment. In all, 17 new species were identified as particularly high priorities for eradication should they establish in the future, whereas 14 emerging species were identified as priorities for eradication now. A number of species considered highest priority for eradication were terrestrial vertebrates, a group that has been the focus of a number of eradication attempts in Europe. However, eradication priorities also included a diverse range of other taxa (plants, invertebrates and fish) suggesting there is scope to broaden the taxonomic range of attempted eradication in Europe. We demonstrate that broad scale structured assessments of management feasibility can help prioritize IAS for management. Such frameworks are needed to support evidence-based decision-making.

The impact is in the details: evaluating a standardized protocol and scale for determining non-native insect impact

Assessing the ecological and economic impacts of non-native species is crucial to providing managers and policymakers with the information necessary to respond effectively. Most non-native species have minimal impacts on the environment in which they are introduced, but a small fraction are highly deleterious. The definition of ‘damaging’ or ‘high-impact’ varies based on the factors determined to be valuable by an individual or group, but interpretations of whether non-native species meet particular definitions can be influenced by the interpreter’s bias or level of expertise, or lack of group consensus. Uncertainty or disagreement about an impact classification may delay or otherwise adversely affect policymaking on management strategies. One way to prevent these issues would be to have a detailed, nine-point impact scale that would leave little room for interpretation and then divide the scale into agreed upon categories, such as low, medium, and high impact. Following a previously conducted, exhaustive search regarding non-native, conifer-specialist insects, the authors independently read the same sources and scored the impact of 41 conifer-specialist insects to determine if any variation among assessors existed when using a detailed impact scale. Each of the authors, who were selected to participate in the working group associated with this study because of their diverse backgrounds, also provided their level of expertise and uncertainty for each insect evaluated. We observed 85% congruence in impact rating among assessors, with 27% of the insects having perfect inter-rater agreement. Variance in assessment peaked in insects with a moderate impact level, perhaps due to ambiguous information or prior assessor perceptions of these specific insect species. The authors also participated in a joint fact-finding discussion of two insects with the most divergent impact scores to isolate potential sources of variation in assessor impact scores. We identified four themes that could be experienced by impact assessors: ambiguous information, discounted details, observed versus potential impact, and prior knowledge. To improve consistency in impact decision-making, we encourage groups to establish a detailed scale that would allow all observed and published impacts to fall under a particular score, provide clear, reproducible guidelines and training, and use consensus-building techniques when necessary.

Global Actions for Managing Cactus Invasions

The family Cactaceae Juss. contains some of the most widespread and damaging invasive alien plant species in the world, with Australia (39 species), South Africa (35) and Spain (24) being the main hotspots of invasion. The Global Cactus Working Group (IOBC GCWG) was launched in 2015 to improve international collaboration and identify key actions that can be taken to limit the impacts caused by cactus invasions worldwide. Based on the results of an on-line survey, information collated from a review of the scientific and grey literature, expertise of the authors, and because invasiveness appears to vary predictably across the family, we (the IOBC GCWG): (1) recommend that invasive and potentially invasive cacti are regulated, and to assist with this, propose five risk categories; (2) recommend that cactus invasions are treated physically or chemically before they become widespread; (3) advocate the use of biological control to manage widespread invasive species; and (4) encourage the development of public awareness and engagement initiatives to integrate all available knowledge and perspectives in the development and implementation of management actions, and address conflicts of interest, especially with the agricultural and ornamental sectors. Implementing these recommendations will require global co-operation. The IOBC GCWG aims to assist with this process through the dissemination of information and experience.