Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:34:07.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Calibration of an Herbicide Ballistic Technology (HBT) Helicopter Platform Targeting Miconia calvescens in Hawaii

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James J. K. Leary ,
Jeremy Gooding ,
John Chapman ,
Adam Radford ,
Brooke Mahnken  and
Linda J. Cox
James J. K. Leary*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawaii at Manoa, PO Box 269, Kula, HI 96790
Jeremy Gooding
Affiliation:
Pacific Islands Exotic Plant Management Team, National Park Service, PO Box 880896 Pukalani, HI 96788
John Chapman
Affiliation:
Kauai Invasive Species Committee, P.O. Box 1998, Lihue, HI 96766
Adam Radford
Affiliation:
Maui Invasive Species Committee, P.O. Box 983 Makawao, HI 96768
Brooke Mahnken
Affiliation:
Maui Invasive Species Committee, P.O. Box 983 Makawao, HI 96768
Linda J. Cox
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawaii at Manoa, PO Box 269, Kula, HI 96790
*
Correspondending author's Email: leary@hawaii.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Miconia (Miconia calvescens DC.) is a tropical tree species from South and Central America that is a highly invasive colonizer of Hawaii's forested watersheds. Elimination of satellite populations is critical to an effective containment strategy, but extreme topography limits accessibility to remote populations by helicopter operations only. Herbicide Ballistic Technology (HBT) is a novel weed control tool designed to pneumatically deliver encapsulated herbicide projectiles. It is capable of accurately treating miconia satellites within a 30 m range in either horizontal or vertical trajectories. Efficacy was examined for the encapsulated herbicide projectiles, each containing 199.4 mg ae triclopyr, when applied to miconia in 5-unit increments. Experimental calibrations of the HBT platform were recorded on a Hughes 500-D helicopter while conducting surveillance operations from November 2010 through October 2011 on the islands of Maui and Kauai. Search efficiency (min ha−1; n = 13, R2 = 0.933, P< 0.001) and target acquisition rate (plants hr−1, n = 13, R2 = 0.926, P< 0.001) displayed positive linear and logarithmic relationships, respectively, to plant target density. The search efficiency equation estimated target acquisition time at 25.1 sec and a minimum surveillance rate of 67.8 s ha−1 when no targets were detected. The maximum target acquisition rate for the HBT platform was estimated at 143 targets hr−1. An average mortality factor of 0.542 was derived from the product of detection efficacy (0.560) and operational treatment efficacy (0.972) in overlapping buffer areas generated from repeated flight segments (n = 5). This population reduction value was used in simulation models to estimate the expected costs for one- and multi-year satellite population control strategies for qualifying options in cost optimization and risk aversion. This is a first report on the performance of an HBT helicopter platform demonstrating the capability for immediate, rapid-response control of new satellite plant detections, while conducting aerial surveillance of incipient miconia populations.

Keywords

Miconia, Miconia calvescens DC. MICA20HawaiiHerbicide Ballistic Technology
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 292 - 303
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

Brooks, S. J., Panetta, F. D., and Sydes, T. A. 2009. Progress towards the eradication of three melastome shrub species from northern Australian rainforests. Plant Protect. Quart. 24(2):71–78.Google Scholar
Buddenhagen, C. and Yañez, P. 2005. The costs of Quinine Cinchona pubescens control on Santa Cruz Island. Galapagos, Galapagos Res. 63:32–36.Google Scholar
Burnett, K., Kaiser, B., and Roumasset, J. 2007. Economic Lessons from Control Efforts for an Invasive Species: Miconia calvescens in Hawaii, J. For. Econ. 13(2–3):151–167.Google Scholar
Cacho, O. J., Hester, S., and Spring, D. 2007. Applying search theory to determine the feasibility of eradicating an invasive population in natural environments. Aus. J. Agric. and Res. Econ. 51:425–433.Google Scholar
Cacho, O. J., Spring, D., Pheloung, P., and Hester, S. 2006. Evaluating the feasibility of eradicating an invasion. Bio. Inv. 8:903–917.Google Scholar
Cacho, O. J., Spring, D., Hester, S., and MacNally, N. 2010. Allocating surveillance effort in the management of invasive species: a spatially-explicit model. Environ. Modelling and Software 25:444–454.Google Scholar
Campbell, S. D., Setter, C. L., Jeffrey, P. L., and Vitelli, J. 1996. Controlling dense infestations of Prosopis pallida . Pages 231–232 in Shepherd, R.C.H., ed. Proc. 11th Aus. Weeds Conf. Weed Science Society of Victoria, Frankston.Google Scholar
Chimera, C. G., Medeiros, A. C., Loope, L. L., and Hobdy, R. H. 2000. Status of management and control efforts for the invasive alien tree Miconia calvescens DC. (Melastomataceae) in Hana, East Maui. Honolulu, HI University of Hawaii Pacific Coop. Studies Unit, Tech Rep #128. 53 p.Google Scholar
Denslow, J. S. 2003. Weeds in paradise: thoughts on the invasibility of tropical islands. Ann. MO Bot. Gard. 90:119–127.Google Scholar
Florence, J. 1993. La végétation de quelques îles de Polynésie. Planches 54–55. in Dupon, F., coord. ed. Atlas de la Polynésie franç aise. ORSTOM, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Giambelluca, T. W., Sutherland, R. A., Nanko, K., Mudd, R. G., and Ziegler, A. D. 2010. Effects of Miconia on hydrology: a first approximation. Pages 1–7 in Loope, L. L., Meyer, J. Y., Hardesty, B. D., and Smith, C. W., eds. Proceedings of the International Miconia Conference, Keanae, Maui, Hawaii, May 4–7, 2009. Honolulu, HI University of Hawaii, Maui Invasive Species Committee and Pacific Coop Studies Unit, www.hear.org/conferences/miconia2009/pdfs/giambelluca.pdf. Accessed March 2012.Google Scholar
Hardesty, B. D., Metcalfe, S. S., and Westcott, D. A. 2011. Persistence and spread in a new landscape: dispersal ecology and genetics of Miconia invasions in Australia. Acta Oecol., 37:657–665.Google Scholar
Hester, S. M., Brooks, S. J., Cacho, O. J., and Panetta, F. D. 2010. Applying a simulation model to the management of an infestation of Miconia calvescens in the wet tropics of Australia. Weed Res. 50(3):269–279.Google Scholar
Hulme, P. E. 2006. Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. J. Appl. Ecol. 43:835–847.Google Scholar
Kueffer, C., Daehler, C. C., Torres-Santana, C. W., Lavergne, C., Meyer, J-Y., Otto, R., and Silva, L. 2010. A global comparison of plant invasions on oceanic islands. Persp. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 12:145–161.Google Scholar
Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S., and De Poorter, M. 2000. 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species A selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), 12 p.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H. C., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecol. Appl. 10:689–710.Google Scholar
Medeiros, A. C., Loope, L. L., Conant, P., and McElvaney, S. 1997. Status, ecology and management of the invasive plant Miconia calvescens DC. (Melastomataceae) in the Hawaiian Islands. B. P. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 48:23–36.Google Scholar
Medeiros, A. C., Loope, L. L., and Hobdy, R. W. 1998. Interagency efforts to combat Miconia calvescens on the island of Maui, Hawai'i. Pages 45–51, in Meyer, J-Y. and Smith, C. W., eds. Proceedings of the first regional conference on Miconia control. August 26–29, 1997, Centre ORSTOM de Tahiti.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, D. J., Grubb, P. J., and Turner, I. M. 1998. The ecology of very small-seeded shade-tolerant trees and shrubs in lowland rain forest in Singapore. Plant Ecol. 134:131–149.Google Scholar
Meyer, J-Y. 1994. Mecanismes d'invasion de Miconia calvescens en Polynesie Francaise. Ph.D. thesis, I'Universite de Montpellier I1 Sciences et Techniques du Langueduc; Montpellier, France. 122 p.Google Scholar
Meyer, J-Y. 1996. Status of Miconia calvescens (Melastomataceae), a dominant invasive tree in the Society Islands (French Polynesia). Pac. Sci. 50:66–76.Google Scholar
Meyer, J-Y. 1998. Observations on the reproductive biology of Miconia calvescens DC (Melastomataceae), an alien invasive tree on the island of Tahiti (South Pacific Ocean). Biotropica. 30:609–624.Google Scholar
Meyer, J-Y., Loope, L. L., and Goarant, A. C. 2011. Strategy to control the invasive alien tree Miconia calvescens in Pacific islands: eradication, containment or something else? Pages 91–96 in Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N., and Towns, D. R., eds. 2011. Island Invasives: Eradication and Management. Gland, Switzerland IUCN.Google Scholar
Moody, M. E. and Mack, R. N. 1988. Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the importance of nascent foci. J. Appl. Ecol. 25:1009–1021.Google Scholar
Murphy, H. T., Hardesty, B. D., Fletcher, C. S., Metcalfe, D. J., Westcott, D. A., and Brooks, S. J. 2008. Predicting dispersal and recruitment of Miconia calvescens (Melastomataceae) in Australian tropical rainforests. Biol. Inv. 10:925–936.Google Scholar
Myers, J. H., Simberloff, D., Kuris, A. M., and Carey, J. R. 2000. Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:316–20.Google Scholar
PCSU (Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit). 2011. Standing Operating Procedure for Herbicide Ballistic Technology Operations: Ground and Aerial Herbicide Application. Safety Management Program. RCUH-PCSU SOP no. 32. 19 p.Google Scholar
Panetta, F. D. 2009. Weed eradication: an economic perspective. Inv. Pl. Plant Sci. Manag. 2(4):360–368.Google Scholar
Panetta, F. D. and Cacho, O. J. 2012. Beyond fecundity control: which weeds are most containable? J. Appl. Ecol. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02105.Google Scholar
Panetta, F. D. and Lawes, R. 2005. Evaluation of weed eradication programs: the delimitation of extent. Div. Distr. 11(5):435–42.Google Scholar
Pouteau, R., Meyer, J-Y., and Stoll, B. 2011. A SVM-based model for predicting the distribution of the invasive tree Miconia calvescens in tropical rainforests. Ecol. Model. 222:2631–2641.Google Scholar
Reaser, J. K., Meyerson, L. A., Cronk, Q., DePoorter, M., Eldrege, L. G., Green, E., Kairo, M., Latasi, P., Mack, R. N., Mauremootoo, J., O'Dowd, D., Orapa, W., Sastroutomo, S., Saunders, A., Shine, C., Thrainsson, S., and Vaiutu, L. 2007. Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of invasive alien species in island ecosystems. Environ. Conserv. 34:98–111.Google Scholar
Rejmánek, M. and Pitcairn, M. J. 2002. When is eradication of exotic pest plants a realistic goal? Pages 249–253 in Vietch, C. R. and Clout, M. N., eds. Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Island Invasive. Gland, Switzerland IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. M. and Hastings, A. 2004. Finding optimal control strategies for invasive species: a density-structured model for Spartina alterniflora . J. Appl. Ecol. 41:1049–1057.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, R. and Cock, M.J.W., eds. 2001. Invasive Alien Species: A Toolkit of Best Prevention and Management Practices. Wallingford, Oxon, UK CAB International. 241 p.Google Scholar