Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 175–188 | Cite as

Citizen engagement in the management of non-native invasive pines: Does it make a difference?

  • Michele de Sá DechoumEmail author
  • Eduardo L. Hettwer Giehl
  • Rafael Barbizan Sühs
  • Thiago Cesar Lima Silveira
  • Sílvia R. Ziller
Original Paper

Abstract

Civil society can play a relevant role in supporting local environmental management, as volunteer efforts can be carried out at low cost and therefore be sustained over time. We present in this paper the assessment of the effectiveness of a volunteer program for the control of invasive pines in a protected area (PA) in a coastal zone of southern Brazil. Volunteer work has been ongoing for 8 years and the current state of invasion was compared with three simulation scenarios of species distribution that considered suitable habitats for pine invasion. Our results suggest that management actions have been effective. In the absence of any control efforts, pine trees would cover a high percentage of suitable habitats within the PA. Eliminating adult pine trees that function as seed sources and not allowing the next generation to reach maturity has been an efficient control strategy that has led to changes in the population structure of pines in the PA. Reaching neighboring private property owners is key for the future effective control of pines in the area, as all sources of pine seeds need to be eliminated. The approach used in our study may be applied to broader spatial scales to provide a baseline for management efforts needed to effectively control non-native invasive species.

Keywords

Coastal scrub Control program Habitat suitability models Invasive pines Simulations Volunteering 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Professor David Richardson and three anonymous reviewers provided thoughtful comments and suggestions which helped to improve the manuscript. We acknowledge and thank all the volunteers who have been working on the project since 2010. We thank all the people who have made donations through our crowd funding campaigns. The Federal University of Santa Catarina provided transportation for volunteers on occasion and a scholarship for an undergraduate student in 2010. MSD, RBS, ELHG and TCLS are supported by CAPES-Brazil.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1814_MOESM1_ESM.docx (5.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 5694 kb)

References

  1. Araújo MB, New M (2007) Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baret S, Baider C, Kueffer C, Foxcroft LC, Lagabrielle E (2013) Threats to paradise? Plant invasions in protected areas of the Western Indian Ocean Islands. In: Foxcroft LC, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Genovesi P (eds) Plant invasion in protected areas—patterns, problems and challenges, vol 7. Springer, New York, pp 423–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechara FC, Reis A, Bourscheid K, Vieira NK, Trentin BE (2013) Reproductive biology and early establishment of Pinus elliottii var. elliottii in Brazilian sandy coastal plain vegetation: implications for biological invasion. Sci Agric 70(2):88–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biehl L, Landgrebe DA (2002) MultiSpec—a tool for multispectral-hyperspectral image data analysis. Comput Geosci 28(10):1153–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bois ST, Silander JA, Mehrhoff LJ (2011) Invasive plant atlas of New England: the role of citizens in the science of invasive alien species detection. Bioscience 61:763–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L, Rogers WE, Siemann E, Prati D (2005) Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandon A, Spyreas G, Molano-Flores B, Carroll C, Ellis J (2003) Can volunteers provide reliable data for forest vegetation surveys? Nat Areas J 23:254–261Google Scholar
  8. Bryce R, Oliver MK, Davies L, Gray H, Urquhart J, Lambin X (2011) Turning back the tide of american mink invasion at an unprecedented scale through community participation and adaptive management. Biol Conserv 144(1):575–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caruso MML (1990) O desmatamento da Ilha de Santa Catarina de 1500 aos dias atuais, 2nd edn. UFSC, FlorianopolisGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper RW (1957) Silvicultural characteristics of Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm. var elliottii). Station paper. Southeast For Exp Stn 81:13Google Scholar
  11. Crall AW, Newman GJ, Jarnevich C, Stohlgren TJ, Waller DM, Graham J (2010) Improving and integrating data on invasive species collected by citizen scientists. Biol Invasions 12:3419–3428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crall AW, Jarnevich CS, Young NE, Panke BJ, Renz M, Stohlgren TJ (2015) Citizen science contributes to our knowledge of invasive plant species distributions. Biol Invasions 17(8):2415–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delaney DG, Sperling CD, Adams CS, Leung B (2008) Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol Invasions 10:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engler R, Hordijk W, Guisan A (2012) The MIGCLIM R package—seamless integration of dispersal constraints into projections of species distribution models. Ecography 35(10):872–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford-Thompson AES, Snell C, Saunders G, White PCL (2012) Stakeholder participation in management of invasive vertebrates. Conserv Biol 26(2):345–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foxcroft LC, McGeoch M (2011) Implementing invasive species management in an adaptive management framework. Koedoe 53(2):11.  https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoev53i2.1006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foxcroft LC, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Genovesi P, MacFadyen S (2017) Plant invasion science in protected areas: progress and priorities. Biol Invasions 19:1353–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franzese J, Urrutia J, García RA, Taylor K, Pauchard A (2017) Pine invasion impacts on plant diversity in Patagonia: invader size and invaded habitat matter. Biol Invasions 19:1015–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallo T, Waitt D (2011) Creating a successful citizen science model to detect and report invasive species. Bioscience 61:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guimarães TB (2006) Florística e fenologia reprodutiva de plantas vasculares na restinga do Parque Municipal das Dunas da Lagoa da Conceição, Florianópolis, SC. Master thesis, Federal University of Santa Catarina, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  21. Guizoni-Jr IR, Farias FB, Vieira BP, Willrich G, Silva ES, Mendonça EN, Albuquerque JLB, Gass DA, Ternes MH, Nascimento CE, Roos AL, Couto CCM, Serrão M, Serafini PP, Dias D, Fantacini FM, Santi S, Souza MCR, Silva MS, Barcellos A, Albuquerque C, Espínola CRR (2013) Checklist da avifauna da ilha de Santa Catarina, sul do Brasil. Atualidades Ornitológicas On-line Nº 171. http://www.ao.com.br/download/AO171_50.pdf
  22. Ingwell LL, Preisser EL (2011) Using citizen science programs to identify host resistance in pest-invaded forests. Conserv Biol 25:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. INMET (2017) Climatological database. http://www.inmet.gov.br/portal/index.php?r=clima/graficosClimaticos. Acessed 24 Oct 2017
  24. Jankovski (1985) Avaliação da produção e disseminação de sementes em um povoamento de Pinus taeda L. Master thesis, Federal University of Paraná, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  25. Klein RM (1990) Espécies raras ou ameaçadas de extinção–estado de Santa Catarina–v1. IBGE, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  26. Klein RM (1997) Espécies raras ou ameaçadas de extinção–estado de Santa Catarina–v3. IBGE, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  27. Kueffer C, McDougall K, Alexander J, Daehler C, Edwards P, Haider S, Milbau A, Parks C, Pauchard A, Reshi ZA, Rew LJ, Schroder M, Seipel T (2013) Invasions into mountain protected areas: assessment, prevention and control at multiple spatial scales. In: Foxcroft LC, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Genovesi P (eds) Plant invasion in protected areas—patterns, problems and challenges. Springer, New York, pp 89–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Le Maitre DC, Versfeld DB, Chapman RA (2000) The impact of invading alien plants on surface water resources in South Africa: a preliminary assessment. Water 26:397–408Google Scholar
  29. McConnachie M, vanWilgen BW, Ferraro PJ, Forsyth AT, Richardson DM, Gaertner M, Cowling RM (2016) Using counterfactuals to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of controlling biological invasions. Ecol Appl 26:475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miralles L, Dopico E, Devlo-Delva F, Garcia-Vazquez E (2016) Controlling populations of invasive pygmy mussel (Xenostrobus securis) through citizen science and environmental DNA. Mar Pollut Bull 110:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Naimi B, Araújo MB (2016) sdm: a reproducible and extensible R platform for species distribution modelling. Ecography 39:368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nuñez MA, Chiuffo MC, Torres A, Paul T, Dimarco RD, Raal P, Policelli N, Moyano J, García RA, van Wilgen BW, Pauchard A, Richardson D (2017) Ecology and management of invasive Pinaceae around the world: progress and challenges. Biol Invasions 19:3099–3120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pagès M, Fischer A, van der Wal R (2017) The dynamics of volunteer motivations for engaging in the management of invasive plants:insights from a mixed-methods study on Scottish seabird islands. J Environ Plann Man.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1329139 Google Scholar
  34. Pichancourt JB, Chadès I, Firn J, van Klinken RD, Martin TD (2012) Simple rules to contain an invasive species with a complex life cycle and high dispersal capacity. J Appl Ecol 49:52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pocock MJO, Roy HE, Fox R, Ellis WN, Botham M (2016) Citizen science and invasive alien species: predicting the detection of the oak processionary moth Thaumetopoea processionea by moth recorders. Biol Conserv 208:146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Queensland Government (2011) Slash pine, Pinus elliottii. Weeds of Australia, Biosecurity Queensland Edition. Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Queensland Government. http://keyserver.lucidcentral.org/weeds/data/080c0106-040c-4508-8300-0b0a06060e01/media/Html/Pinus_elliottii.htm. Accessed 26 June 2018
  37. R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  38. Rejmánek M, Pitcairn MJ (2002) When eradication is a realistic goal? In: Veitch CR, Clout MN (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN Gland, Cambridge, pp 249–253Google Scholar
  39. Ricciardi A, Blackburn TM, Carlton JT, Dick JTA, Hulme PE, Iacarella JC, Jeschke JM, Liebhold AM, Lockwood JL, MacIsaac HJ, Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Ruiz GM, Simberloff D, Sutherland WF, Wardle DA, Aldridge DC (2017) Invasion science: a horizon scan of emerging challenges and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 32(6):464–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richardson DM (1998) Forestry trees as invasive aliens. Conserv Biol 12:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Richardson DM (2006) Pinus: A model group for unlocking the secrets of alien plant invasions? Preslia 78:375–388Google Scholar
  42. Richardson DM, Higgins SI (1998) Pines as invaders in the southern hemisphere. In: Richardson DM (ed) Ecology and biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 450–473Google Scholar
  43. Richardson DM, Williams PA, Hobbs RJ (1994) Pine invasions in the southern hemisphere: determinants of spread and invasibility. J Biogeogr 21:511–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rundel PW, Dickie IA, Richardson DM (2014) Tree invasions into treeless areas: mechanisms and ecosystem processes. Biol Invasions 16(3):663–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SIGSC (2017) Geographical information system of Santa Catarina state. http://sigsc.sds.sc.gov.br/download/index.jsp. Accessed 03 Mar 2017
  46. Simberloff D (2003) Eradication—preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Sci 51(2):247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simberloff D, Nuñez MA, Ledgard NJ, Pauchard A, Richardson DM, Sarasola M, Van Wilgen BW, Zalba SM, Zenni RD, Bustamante R, Peña E, Ziller SR (2010) Spread and impact of introduced conifers in South America: lessons from other southern hemisphere regions. Aust Ecol 35:489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tomazello Filho M, Latorraca JVF, Fischer FM, Muñiz GIB, Melandri JL, Stasiak PM, Torres MA, Piccioni WJ, Hoffmann HA, Silva LD (2016) Avaliação da Dispersão de Sementes de Pinus taeda L. pela Análise dos Anéis de Crescimento de Árvores de Regeneração Natural. Floresta e Ambiente.  https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-8087.040913 Google Scholar
  49. USDA Plants Database (2017). https://plants.usda.gov/java. Accessed 16 Jan 2018
  50. Valduga MO, Zenni RD, Vitule JRS (2016) Ecological impacts of non-native tree species plantations are broad and heterogeneous: a review of Brazilian research. An Acad Bras de Ciênc 88(3):1675–1688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Wilgen BW, Fill JM, Baard J, Cheney C, Forsyth AT, Kraaij T (2016) Historical costs and projected future scenarios for the management of invasive alien plants in protected areas in the Cape Floristic Region. Biol Conserv 200:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zalba SM, Ziller SR (2007) Adaptive management of alien invasive species: putting the theory into practice. Perspect Ecol Conserv 5(2):86–92Google Scholar
  53. Zenni RD, Ziller SR, Pauchard A, Rodriguez-Cabal M, Nuñez MA (2017) Invasion science in the developing world: a response to Ricciardi. Trends Ecol Evol 32(11):807–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ziller SR, Galvão F (2000) A degradação da Estepe Gramíneo-Lenhosa no Paraná por contaminação biológica de P. elliottii e P. taeda. Revista Floresta 32(1):41–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Horus Institute for Environmental Conservation and DevelopmentAC Baía SulFlorianopolisBrazil
  2. 2.Programa de pós-graduação em Biologia de Fungos, Algas e PlantasUniversidade Federal de Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil
  3. 3.Programa de pós-graduação em EcologiaUniversidade Federal de Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations