Biological Invasions

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 677–690 | Cite as

Cross-scale management strategies for optimal control of trees invading from source plantations

Original Paper

Abstract

Biological invasion by non-native tree species can transform landscapes, and as a consequence, has received growing attention from researchers and managers alike. This problem is driven primarily by the naturalisation and invasion of tree species escaping from cultivation or forestry plantations. Furthermore, these invasions can be strongly influenced by the land-use matrix of the surrounding region, specific management of the source populations, and environmental conditions that influence seed dispersal or habitat quality for the invader. A major unresolved challenge for managing tree invasions in landscapes is how management should be deployed to contain or slow the spread of invading populations from one or more sources (e.g. plantations). We develop a spatial simulation model to test: (1) how to best prioritise the control of invasive tree populations spatially to slow or contain the biological invader when habitat quality varies in the landscape, and (2) how to allocate control effort among different management units when trees spread from many source populations. We first show that to slow down spread effectively, management strategy is less important than management effort. We then identify the conditions affecting the relative performance of different management strategies. At the landscape scale, targeting peripheral stands consistently yielded the best results whereas at the regional scale, management strategies needed to account for both habitat quality and tree life-history. Overall, our findings demonstrate that knowledge of how habitat affects tree life-history stages can improve management to contain or slow tree invasions by improving the spatial match between management effort and efficacy.

Keywords

Biological invasions Cohort model Spatial spread Tree invasions Weed management scenarios 

Notes

Acknowledgments

PC was supported by the weed impacts in ecosystems research programme from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), CH by the Incentive Programme 76912 and the Competitive Programme 81825 of the National Research Foundation (NRF), DP by Core funding for Crown Research Institutes from MBIE’s Science and Innovation Group, and BDM was funded by NSF- WildFIRE PIRE, OISE 09667472.

Supplementary material

10530_2013_608_MOESM1_ESM.doc (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 28 kb)

References

  1. Berthouly-Salazar C, van Rensburg BJ, Le Roux JJ, van Vuuren BJ, Hui C (2012) Spatial sorting drives morphological variation in the invasive bird, Acridotheris tristis. PLoS One 7:e38145PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buckley YM, Brockerhoff E, Langer L, Ledgard N, North H, Rees M (2005) Slowing down a pine invasion despite uncertainty in demography and dispersal. J Appl Ecol 42:1020–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caplat P, Coutts S, Buckley YM (2012a) Modeling population dynamics, landscape structure, and management decisions for controlling the spread of invasive plants. Ann NY Acad Sci 1249:72–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caplat P, Nathan R, Buckley YM (2012b) Seed terminal velocity, wind turbulence, and demography drive the spread of an invasive tree in an analytical model. Ecology 93:368–377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Caruana R, Karampatziakis N, Yessenalina A (2008) An empirical evaluation of supervised learning in high dimensions. Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning. ACM, Helsinki, pp 96–103Google Scholar
  7. Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models: construction, analysis, and interpretation. Sinauer Associates Inc, Sunderland, Massachusetts, p 722Google Scholar
  8. Coutts SR, van Klinken RD, Yokomizo H, Buckley YM (2011) What are the key drivers of spread in invasive plants: dispersal, demography or landscape: and how can we use this knowledge to aid management? Biol Invasions 13:1649–1661Google Scholar
  9. Coutts SR, Yokomizo H, Buckley YM (2012) The behavior of multiple independent managers and ecological traits interact to determine prevalence of weeds. Ecol Appl 23:523–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Development Core Team R (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  11. Epanchin-Niell RS, Hastings A (2010) Controlling established invaders: integrating economics and spread dynamics to determine optimal management. Ecol Lett 13:528–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Epanchin-Niell RS, Wilen JE (2012) Optimal spatial control of biological invasions. J Environ Econ Manag 63:260–270Google Scholar
  13. Epanchin-Niell RS, Hufford MB, Aslan CE, Sexton JP, Port JD, Waring TM (2010) Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 8:210–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giljohann KM, Hauser CE, Williams NSG, Moore JL (2011) Optimizing invasive species control across space: willow invasion management in the Australian Alps. J Appl Ecol 48:1286–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graf RF, Kramer-Schadt S, Fernandez N, Grimm V (2007) What you see is where you go? Modeling dispersal in mountainous landscapes. Landsc Ecol 22:853–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hastings A, Hall RJ, Taylor CM (2006) A simple approach to optimal control of invasive species. J Theor Biol 70:431–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haugo RD, Halpern CB, Bakker JD (2011) Landscape context and long-term tree influences shape the dynamics of forest-meadow ecotones in mountain ecosystems. Ecosphere 2: art91-art91Google Scholar
  18. Hibbard KA, Archer S, Schimel DS, Valentine DW (2001) Biogeochemical changes accompanying woody plant encroachment in a subtropical savanna. Ecology 82:1999–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Higgins SI, Richardson DM, Cowling RM (2000) Using a dynamic landscape model for planning the management of alien plant invasions. Ecol Appl 10:1833–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holmes EE, Lewis MA, Banks JE, Veit RR (1994) Partial differential equations in ecology: spatial interactions and population dynamics. Ecology 75:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hothorn T, Hornik K, Zeileis A (2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J Comput Graph Stat 15:651–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hui C, Foxcroft LC, Richardson DM, MacFadyen S (2011a) Defining optimal sampling effort for large-scale monitoring of invasive alien plants: a Bayesian method for estimating abundance and distribution. J Appl Ecol 48:768–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hui C, Krug RM, Richardson DM (2011b) Spread models in invasion ecology. In: Richardson DM (ed) Fifty years of invasion ecology the legacy of Charles Elton. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 329–343Google Scholar
  24. Hui C, Roura-Pascual N, Brotons L, Robinson RA, Evans KL (2012) Flexible dispersal strategies in native and non-native ranges: environmental quality and the ‘good–stay, bad–disperse’ rule. Ecography 35:1024–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hulme PE (2012) Weed risk assessment: a way forward or a waste of time? J Appl Ecol 49:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson H, Fahrig L (2012) What size is a biologically relevant landscape? Landsc Ecol 27:929–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ledgard N (2001) The spread of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta, Dougl.) in New Zealand. For Ecol Manage 141:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maxwell BD, Ghersa C (1992) The influence of weed seed dispersion versus the effect of competition on crop yield. Weed Technol 6:196–204Google Scholar
  29. Maxwell BD, Lehnhoff E, Rew LJ (2009) The rationale for monitoring invasive plant populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 2:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGill BJ (2010) Towards a unification of unified theories of biodiversity. Ecol Lett 13:627–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Minor ES, Gardner RH (2011) Landscape connectivity and seed dispersal characteristics inform the best management strategy for exotic plants. Ecol Appl 21:739–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moody ME, Mack RN (1988) Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of nascent foci. J Appl Ecol 25:1009–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moore JL, Runge MC, Webber BL, Wilson JRU (2011) Contain or eradicate? Optimizing the management goal for Australian acacia invasions in the face of uncertainty. Divers Distrib 17:1047–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morelli TL, Smith AB, Kastely CR, Mastroserio I, Moritz C, Beissinger SR (2012) Anthropogenic refugia ameliorate the severe climate-related decline of a montane mammal along its trailing edge. Proc R Soc BGoogle Scholar
  35. Neubert MG, Caswell H (2000) Demography and dispersal: calculation and sensitivity analysis of invasion speed for structured populations. Ecology 81:1613–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Phillips BL, Brown GP, Webb JK, Shine R (2006) Invasion and the evolution of speed in toads. Nature 439:803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rew LJ, Lehnhoff EA, Maxwell BD (2007) Non-indigenous species management using a population prioritization framework. Can J Plant Sci 87:1029–1036Google Scholar
  38. Richardson DM, Pysek P, Rejmanek M, Barbour MG, Panetta FD, West CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distrib 6:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roura-Pascual N, Krug RM, Richardson DM, Hui C (2010) Spatially-explicit sensitivity analysis for conservation management: exploring the influence of decisions in invasive alien plant management. Divers Distrib 16:426–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shine R, Brown GP, Phillips BL (2011) An evolutionary process that assembles phenotypes through space rather than through time. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:5708–5711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strobl C, Boulesteix A-L, Zeileis A, Hothorn T (2007) Bias in random forest variable importance measures: illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinf 8:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Wilgen BW, Forsyth GG, Le Maitre DC, Wannenburgh A, Kotzé JDF, van den Berg E, Henderson L (2012) An assessment of the effectiveness of a large, national-scale invasive alien plant control strategy in South Africa. Biol Conserv 148:28–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Von Holle B, Simberloff D (2005) Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86:3212–3218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilensky U (1999) NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Evanston, ILGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Caplat
    • 1
  • C. Hui
    • 2
  • B. D. Maxwell
    • 3
  • D. A. Peltzer
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem ScienceUniversity of LundLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of Botany and Zoology, Centre for Invasion BiologyStellenbosch UniversityMatielandSouth Africa
  3. 3.Department of Land Resources and Environmental ScienceMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA
  4. 4.Landcare ResearchLincolnNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations