Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:06:45.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Savings from Invasive Plant Prevention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger L. Sheley ,
Jordan L. Sheley  and
Brenda S. Smith
Roger L. Sheley*
Affiliation:
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, 67826-A Hwy 205, Burns, OR 97720
Jordan L. Sheley
Affiliation:
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, 67826-A Hwy 205, Burns, OR 97720
Brenda S. Smith
Affiliation:
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, 67826-A Hwy 205, Burns, OR 97720
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prevention programs are often assumed to be the most cost-effective method for managing invasive plants. However, there is very little information available about economic and biological factors that determine the forage benefits resulting from prevention programs. We developed an easy to use economic model to assess potential savings in livestock forage that might result from implementing prevention programs. The model can be used to determine potential loss in forage production caused by invasive plants and to estimate potential income savings by preventing invasive plant infestations. The model compares a prediction of populations with and without a prevention program using a logistic growth function. Animal unit month (AUM) price and interest rates are the primary economic input variables. The primary biological input variables are amount of invasive plant utilization, size of the initial infestation, and the spread rate with and without prevention. Our model suggests that as the AUM price increases and/or the interest rate decreases, the total savings increases for each AUM that was protected through a prevention program. The model also shows savings per AUM increases as the size of the initial infestation decreases, suggesting that prevention should focus on eliminating seed sources and seed production early in the program. Using our model inputs, the savings per AUM was about $9.20 for each percent reduction in spread rate over 100 yr.

Keywords

Economicsinvasive plantsprevention
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 296 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Asher, J, Spurrier, C (1998) The spread of invasive weeds in wildlands: a state of biological emergency. Boise, ID The Governor's Weed Summit. May 19, 1998Google Scholar
Carpinelli, MF, Sheley, RL, Maxwell, BD (2004) Revegetating weed-infested rangeland with niche-differentiated desirable species. J Range Manage 57:97–105 10.2307/4003960Google Scholar
Davies, KW, Johnson, DD (2011) Are we “missing the boat” on preventing the spread of invasive plants in rangelands? Invasive Plant Sci Manag. 4:166–171 10.1614/IPSM-D-10-00030.1Google Scholar
Davies, KW, Sheley, RL (2007) A conceptual framework for preventing the spatial dispersal of invasive plants. Weed Sci. 55:178–184 10.1614/WS-06-161Google Scholar
DiTomaso, JM (2000) Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts and management. Weed Sci. 48:255–265 10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0255:IWIRSI]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
Duncan, CL, Clark, JK, eds (2005) Invasive Plants of Range and Wildlands and their Environmental, Economic, and Societal Impacts. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society. 222 pGoogle Scholar
Finnoff, D, Shogren, JF, Leung, B, Lodge, D (2007) Taking a risk: Preferring prevention over control of biological invaders. Ecol Econ 62:216–222 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.025Google Scholar
Goodwin, K, Sheley, R, Jacobs, J, Wood, S, Manoukian, M, Schuldt, M, Miller, E, Sackman, S (2012) Cooperative prevention systems to protect rangelands from the spread of invasive plants. Rangeland J. 34:26–31 10.2111/1551-501X-34.1.26Google Scholar
Heitschmidt, RK, Stuth, JW (editors. 1991) Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. Corvallis, OR Timber Press. 259 pGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, R (1989) Dynamics of Biological Invasions. New York Chapman and Hall. 160 pGoogle Scholar
Higgins, SI, Richardson, DM (1996) A review of models of alien plant spread. Ecol Model 87:249–265 10.1016/0304-3800(95)00022-4Google Scholar
Hobbs, RJ, Humphries, SE (1995) An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conserv Biol. 9:761–770 Google Scholar
Hovey, M (2005) Spreadsheet Modeling for Finance. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W. Pearson Education Australia Google Scholar
Huenneke, L (1996) Ecological impacts of invasive plants in natural areas. Proc West Soc Weed Sci. 49:119–121 Google Scholar
Jayasuriya, RT, Jones, RE, van de Ven, R (2011) A bioeconomic model for determining the optimal response strategies for a new weed incursion. J Bioecon 13:45–72 Google Scholar
Jenkins, PT (2002) Pay for protection from invasive species. Issues Sci Technol 19:67–73 Google Scholar
Launchbaugh, K, Walker, JW (2006) Targeted grazing: a new paradigm for livestock management. Pp 2–8 in Launchbaugh, K. ed. Grazing, Targeted A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management and Landscape Enhancement. American Sheep Industry Association Google Scholar
Mack, RN, Simberloff, D, Lonsdale, WM, Evans, H, Clout, M, Bazzaz, F (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Issues Ecol 5:1–20 Google Scholar
Moody, ME, Mack, RN (1988) Controlling the spread of plant invasions: The importance of nascent foci. J Appl Ecol 25:1009–1021 10.2307/2403762Google Scholar
Olson, BE, Wallender, RT (2001) Sheep grazing of spotted knapweed and Idaho fescue. J Range Manage 54:25–30 10.2307/4003523Google Scholar
Peterson, AT, Vieglasis, DA (2001) Predicting species invasions using ecological niche modeling: new approaches from bioinformatics attack a pressing problem. Bioscience 51:363–371 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0363:PSIUEN]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
Pimental, 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 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.002Google Scholar
Pimm, S, Gilpin, M (1989) Theoretical issues in conservation biology. Pp 287–305 in Roughgarden, J, May, R, and Levey, S, eds. Perspectives in Ecological Theory. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press 10.1515/9781400860180.287Google Scholar
Randall, J (1996) Weed control for the preservation of biological diversity. Weed Technol 10:370–383 10.1017/S0890037X00040124Google Scholar
Sheley, RL, James, JJ, Bard, EC (2009) Augmentative Restoration: Repairing damaged ecological processes during restoration of heterogeneous environments. Invasive Plant Sci Manag. 2:10–21 10.1614/IPSM-07-058.1Google Scholar
Sheley, RL, Manoukian, M, Marks, G (1999) Preventing noxious weed invasion. Pp 69–72 in Sheley, RL and Petroff, JK, eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press Google Scholar
Sheley, RL, Manoukian, M, Marks, G (1996) Preventing noxious weed invasion. Rangelands 18:100–101 Google Scholar
Sheley, RL, Petroff, JK, eds (1999) Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press. 438 pGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D (2003) Eradication-preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Sci. 51:247–253 Google Scholar
Vitousek, PM, D'Antonio, CM, Loupe, LL, Rejmanek, M, Westbrooks, R (1997) Introduced species: a significant component of human-caused global change. New Zeal J Ecol 21:1–16 Google Scholar
Wilcove, DS, Rothstein, D, Dubow, J, Phillips, A, Losos, E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615 Google Scholar
Wittenberg, R, Cock, MJ (2001) Invasive Alien Species: A Toolkit of Best Prevention and Management Practices. Wallingford, Oxon, UK CABI Publishing. 228 p10.1079/9780851995694.0000Google Scholar
Zavaleta, E (2000) Valuing ecosystem services lost to Tamarix invasion in the United States. Pp 261–300 in Mooney, HA and Hobbs, RJ, eds. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Washington, DC Island Press Google Scholar