Control or re-treat? Model-based guidelines for managing established plant invasions

Abstract

Established invasions have wide-ranging negative impacts but constraints relating to invader detectability, cost, and efficacy of control may hamper management efforts. One choice that managers face is whether to target control efforts at heavily invaded areas that are sources of invasive propagules or to re-treat previously controlled areas that may be cheaper to control and in which local elimination may be achieved. We developed a mathematical model for the dynamics and control of a plant invasion to determine whether prioritizing heavily invaded or recently controlled areas better achieves each of two management objectives: minimizing the total number of detectable invaded sites (eradication) or heavily invaded sites only (beautification). We provide general guidelines for management by considering how invader traits, budgetary and time constraints, and control efficacy influence prioritization of control efforts and discuss their applicability to long-established invasive plants. For a wide range of invaders and control types, we find that prioritizing heavily-invaded sites performs better for meeting the beautification objective, while re-treating previously controlled sites better achieves eradication. However, combinations of invader traits can lead to the alternate strategy being favored for each management objective, while the optimal choice of management strategy can switch depending on the time horizon of control and annual budget. We summarize model findings to provide general guidelines for invasion managers on how to efficiently allocate limited resources based on invader life history, control cost, and mode of action.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Abramovitz JN (1983) Pueraria lobata Willd. (Ohwi), kudzu: limitations to sexual reproduction. M.S. thesis, University of Maryland

  2. Alderman DH (2004) Channing Cope and the making of a miracle vine. Geogr Rev 94:157–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baxter PW, Sabo JL, Wilcox C, McCarthy MA, Possingham HP (2008) Cost-effective suppression and eradication of invasive predators. Conserv Biol 22:89–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bentley KE, Mauricio R (2016) High degree of clonal reproduction and lack of large-scale geographic patterning mark the introduced range of the invasive vine, kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata), in North America. Am J Bot 103:1499–1507

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bogich TL, Liebhold AM, Shea K (2008) To sample or eradicate? A cost minimization model for monitoring and managing an invasive species. J Appl Ecol 45:1134–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buhle ER, Margolis M, Ruesink JL (2005) Bang for buck: cost-effective control of invasive species with different life histories. Ecol Econ 52:355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Büyüktahtakın İE, Kıbış EY, Cobuloglu HI, Houseman GR, Lampe JT (2015) An age-structured bio-economic model of invasive species management: insights and strategies for optimal control. Biol Invasions 17:2545–2563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Caplat P, Hui C, Maxwell BD, Peltzer DA (2014) Cross-scale management strategies for optimal control of trees invading from source plantations. Biol Invasions 16:677–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chadès I, Martin TG, Nicol S, Burgman MA, Possingham HP, Buckley YM (2011) General rules for managing and surveying networks of pests, diseases, and endangered species. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:8323–8328

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Chalak M, Polyakov M, Pannell DJ (2017) Economics of controlling invasive species: a stochastic optimization model for a spatial-dynamic process. Am J Agric Econ 99:123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cook GD, Setterfield SA, Maddison JP (1996) Shrub invasion of a tropical wetland: implications for weed management. Ecol Appl 6:531–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Courchamp F, Woodroffe R, Roemer G (2003) Removing protected populations to save endangered species. Science 302:1532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Crooks JA (2002) Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97:153–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. DiTomaso JM (2000) Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Doing H, Biddiscombe EF, Knedlhans S (1969) Ecology and distribution of the Carduus nutans group (nodding thistles) in Australia. Vegetatio 17:313–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunn PH (1976) Distribution of Carduus nutans, C. acanthoides, C. pycnocephalus, and C. crispus, in the United States. Weed Sci 24:518–524

    Google Scholar 

  17. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by plants and animals. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  18. Enserink M (1999) Biological invaders sweep in. Science 285:1834–1836

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Epanchin-Niell RS, Hastings A (2010) Controlling established invaders: integrating economics and spread dynamics to determine optimal management. Ecol Lett 13:528–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Epanchin-Niell RS, Haight RG, Berec L, Kean JM, Liebhold AM (2012) Optimal surveillance and eradication of invasive species in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Lett 15:803–812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Follak S (2011) Potential distribution and environmental threat of Pueraria lobata. Cent Eur J Biol 6:457–469

    Google Scholar 

  22. Geerts S, Mashele BV, Visser V, Wilson JRU (2016) Lack of human-assisted dispersal means Pueraria montana var. lobata (kudzu vine) could still be eradicated from South Africa. Biol Invasions 18:3119–3126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Giljohann KM, Hauser CE, Williams NS, Moore JL (2011) Optimizing invasive species control across space: willow invasion management in the Australian Alps. J Appl Ecol 48:1286–1294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Grechi I, Chadès I, Buckley YM, Friedel MH, Grice AC, Possingham HP, van Klinken RD, Martin TG (2014) A decision framework for management of conflicting production and biodiversity goals for a commercially valuable invasive species. Agric Syst 125:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Grevstad FS (2005) Simulating control strategies for a spatially structured weed invasion: Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) in Pacific Coast estuaries. Biol Invasions 7:665–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hall RJ, Hastings A (2007) Minimizing invader impacts: striking the right balance between removal and restoration. J Theor Biol 249:437–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hall RJ, Gubbins S, Gilligan CA (2004) Invasion of drug and pesticide resistance is determined by a trade-off between treatment efficacy and relative fitness. Bull Math Biol 66:825–840

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hastings A, Hall RJ, Taylor CM (2006) A simple approach to optimal control of invasive species. Theor Popul Biol 70:431–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hauser CE, McCarthy MA (2009) Streamlining ‘search and destroy’: cost-effective surveillance for invasive species management. Ecol Lett 12:683–692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hobbs RJ, Humphries SE (1995) An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conserv Biol 9:761–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hughes MJ, Johnson EG, Armsworth PR (2014) Optimal spatial management of an invasive plant using a model with above- and below-ground components. Biol Invasions 16:1009–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kartzinel TR, Hamrick JL, Wang C, Bowsher AW, Quigley BGP (2015) Heterogeneity of clonal patterns among patches of kudzu, Pueraria montana var. lobata, an invasive plant. Ann Bot 116:739–750

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kopf RK, Nimmo DG, Humphries P, Baumgartner LJ, Bode M, Bond NR, Byrom AE, Cucherousset J, Keller RP, King AJ, McGinness HM, Moyle PB, Olden JD (2017) Confronting the risks of large-scale invasive species control. Nat Ecol Evol 1:172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lampert A, Hastings A, Grosholz ED, Jardine SL, Sanchirico JN (2014) Optimal approaches for balancing invasive species eradication and endangered species management. Science 344:1028–1031

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Lewis MA, Lamberti G (2002) An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc R Soc Lond [Biol] 269:2407–2413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Maguire LA (2004) What can decision analysis do for invasive species management? Risk Anal 24:859–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McCarty MK, Scifres CJ (1969) Life cycle studies with musk thistle. Nebr Agric Exp Stn Res Bull 230:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  38. Miller JH, Edwards B (1983) Kudzu: Where did it come from? And how can we stop it? South J Appl For 7:165–169

    Google Scholar 

  39. Moody ME, Mack RN (1988) Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of Nascent Foci. J Appl Ecol 25:1009–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Olson LJ (2006) The economics of terrestrial invasive species: a review of the literature. Agric Resource Econ Rev 35:178–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Panetta FD, Lawes R (2005) Evaluation of weed eradication programs: the delimitation of extent. Divers Distrib 11:435–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Piper CV (1909) The search for new leguminuos forage crops. In: Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC, pp 245–260

  44. R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  45. Reichard SH, White P (2001) Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States: most invasive plants have been introduced for horticultural use by nurseries, botanical gardens, and individuals. Bioscience 51:103–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rejmánek M, Pitcairn M (2002) When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? In: Veitch C, Clout M (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. Invasive Species Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), Auckland, pp 249–253

    Google Scholar 

  47. Richardson DM, Kluge RL (2008) Seed banks of invasive Australian Acacia species in South Africa: role in invasiveness and options for management. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 10:161–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rout TM, Moore JL, McCarthy MA (2014) Prevent, search or destroy? A partially observable model for invasive species management. J Appl Ecol 51:804–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Schlaepfer MA, Sax DF, Olden JD (2011) The potential conservation value of non-native species. Conserv Biol 25:428–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sharov AA, Liebhold AM (1998) Model of slowing the spread of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) with a barrier zone. Ecol Appl 8:1170–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sharov AA, Leonard D, Liebhold AM, Roberts EA, Dickerson W (2002) “Slow the spread”: a national program to contain the gypsy moth. J For 100:30–36

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sharp RL, Larson LR, Green GT (2011) Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biol Conserv 144:2097–2104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Shea K, Kelly D (1998) Estimating biocontrol agent impact with matrix models: Carduus nutans in New Zealand. Ecol Appl 8:824–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Shea K, Kelly D, Sheppard AW, Woodburn TL (2005) Context-dependent biological control of an invasive thistle. Ecology 86(12):3174–3181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shea K, Sheppard AW, Woodburn TL (2006) Seasonal life-history models for the integrated management of the invasive weed nodding thistle, Carduus nutans, in Australia. J Appl Ecol 43(3):517–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Shea K, Jongejans E, Skarpaas O, Kelly D, Sheppard AW (2010) Optimal management strategies to control local population growth or population spread may not be the same. Ecol Appl 20:1148–1161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Shmida A, Ellner S (1984) Coexistence of plant species with similar niches. Plant Ecol 58:29–55

    Google Scholar 

  58. Simberloff D (2003a) Eradication: preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Sci 51:247–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Simberloff D (2003b) How much information on population biology is needed to manage introduced species? Conserv Biol 17:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Skarpaas O, Shea K (2007) Dispersal patterns, dispersal mechanisms, and invasion wave speeds for invasive thistles. Am Nat 170:421–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Susko DJ, Mueller JP (1999) Influence of environmental factors on germination and emergence of Pueraria lobata. Weed Sci 47:585–588

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Taylor CM, Hastings A (2004) Finding optimal control strategies for invasive species: a density-structured model for Spartina alterniflora. J Appl Ecol 41:1049–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Waldron GE, Larson BM (2012) Kudzu vine, Pueraria montana, adventive in southern Ontario. Can Field-Nat 126:31–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Welk E (2004) Constraints in range predictions of invasive plant species due to non-equilibrium distribution patterns: purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America. Ecol Model 179:551–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22:5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for International Research and Education (PIRE) program (OISE 0730218). We also acknowledge the suggestions of the handling editor and two anonymous reviewers whose comments substantially improved the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra L. Hoffberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Appendix 1

R code including the model and numerical solutions to produce Figs. 2 and 3 (DOC 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoffberg, S.L., Mauricio, R. & Hall, R.J. Control or re-treat? Model-based guidelines for managing established plant invasions. Biol Invasions 20, 1387–1402 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1632-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Invasive species
  • Eradication
  • Kudzu
  • Musk thistle
  • Optimal control