Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:32:21.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

California Invasive Plant Research Needs Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ramona Robison ,
Steve Schoenig ,
Douglas W. Johnson ,
Elizabeth Brusati  and
Joseph M. DiTomaso
Ramona Robison
Affiliation:
California Botany, 1925 Meer Way, Sacramento, CA 95822
Steve Schoenig
Affiliation:
California Department of Fish and Game, 1807 13th Street, Suite 202, Sacramento, CA 95811
Douglas W. Johnson
Affiliation:
California Invasive Plant Council, 1442-A Walnut St. #462, Berkeley, CA 94709
Elizabeth Brusati
Affiliation:
California Invasive Plant Council, 1442-A Walnut St. #462, Berkeley, CA 94709
Joseph M. DiTomaso*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jmditomaso@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This project summarizes the opinion of 52 experts on the future research needs in the area of invasive plants in California. Experts included academics at private and public universities, Cooperative Extension educators, land managers, members of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), employees of restoration companies, and federal, state, and local agency personnel. Surveys were conducted through in-person interviews, written questionnaires, and workshops. The objective was to identify high-priority needs for future research on issues related to invasive plants in California's wildlands. More specifically, the goals were to (1) create a forum for assessing high-priority research needs, (2) guide future research toward these high-priority needs, and (3) facilitate connections and interactions among academic disciplines and between researchers and practitioners by increasing awareness of the range of ongoing research on invasive plants. Priority needs were chosen for 10 broad research topic areas, with specific subtopics addressed within each of these areas. In addition to noting specific research areas, there was a general need expressed for a synthesis of existing scientific information, particularly about the biology and ecology of invasive plants and the ecological impacts, control and management tools, restoration activities, and related social issues surrounding invasive plants. A mutual exchange of information was also considered important among the academic researcher and the field practitioner, as was the development of more effective training programs for land managers.

Keywords

Surveyresearch assessmentinvasive plantsweedsCalifornia
Type
Education
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 470 - 481
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

Anderson, R. P., Lew, D., and Peterson, A. T. 2003. Evaluating predictive models of species' distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models. Ecol. Model 162:211–232.Google Scholar
Bangsund, D. A., Nudell, D. J., Sell, R. S., and Leistritz, F. L. 2001. Economic analysis of using sheep to control leafy spurge. J. Range Manag 54:322–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbier, E. and Knowler, D. 2006. Commercialization decisions and the economics of introduction. Euphytica 148:151–164.Google Scholar
Bashari, H., Smith, C., and Bosch, O. J. H. 2008. Developing decision support tools for rangeland management by combining state and transition models and Bayesian belief networks. Agric. Sys 99:23–34.Google Scholar
Bossard, C., Moore, K., Chabre, C., Woolfolk, A., King, J., and Johanek, D. 2005. A test of repeat flaming as a control for poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), cape ivy (Delairea odorata), and periwinkle (Vinca major). Pages 29–34. In Skurka, G. ed. Proceedings of the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) Symposium. Berkeley Cal-IPC.Google Scholar
Bossard, C. C. and Randall, J. M. 2007. Nonnative plants of California. Pages 107–123. In Barbour, M. G., Keeler-Wolf, T., and Schoenherr, A. A. eds. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Berkeley University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, M. L. 2003. Effects of increased soil nitrogen on the dominance of alien annual plants in the Mojave Desert. J. Appl. Ecol 40:344–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, M. L., D'Antonio, C. M., Richardson, D. M., Grace, J. B., Keeley, J. E., DiTomaso, J. M., Hobbs, R. J., Pellant, M., and Pyke, D. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience 54:677–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhle, E. R., Margolis, M., and Ruesink, J. L. 2005. Bang for buck: cost-effective control of invasive species with different life histories. Ecol. Econ 52:355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, J. E., Reichard, S., Randall, J. M., et al. 2002. Directing research to reduce the impacts of nonindigenous species. Conserv. Biol 16:630–640.Google Scholar
Caley, P. and Kuhnert, P. M. 2006. Application and evaluation of classification trees for screening unwanted plants. Austral Ecol 31:647–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Cal-IPC] California Invasive Plant Council 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Berkeley Cal-IPC Publication 2006-02. 39 p. http://www.cal-ipc.org.Google Scholar
Cione, N. K., Padgett, P. E., and Allen, E. B. 2002. Restoration of a native shrubland impacted by exotic grasses, frequent fire, and nitrogen deposition in southern California. Restor. Ecol 10:376–384.Google Scholar
Coates, P. 2007. American perceptions of immigrant and invasive species: strangers on the land. Berkeley University of California Press.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. C., Denslow, J. S., Ansari, S., and Kuo, H. 2004. A risk-assessment system for screening out invasive pest plants from Hawaii and other Pacific islands. Conserv. Biol 18:360–368.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1998. Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern United States. Weed Technol 12:236–336.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2008. Integration of biological control into weed management strategies. Pages 649–654. In Julien, M. H., Sforza, R., Bon, M. C., Evans, H. C., Hatcher, P. E., Hinz, H. L., and Rector, B. G. eds. Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. Wallingford, UK CAB International and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. and Healy, E. A. 2007. Weeds of California and Other Western States. Davis, CA University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3488. 1806 p.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. and Johnson, D. W. 2006. The use of fire as a tool for controlling invasive plants. Berkeley California Invasive Plant Council Publication 2006-01. 56 p. http://www.cal-ipc.org.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., Miller, J. R., Garcia, S., Smith, R. F., Nader, G., Connor, J. M., and Orloff, S. B. 2006a. Integrating prescribed burning and clopyralid for the management of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Weed Sci 54:757–782.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., and Pitcairn, M. J. 2006b. Yellow Starthistle Management Guide. Berkeley California Invasive Plant Council Publication 2006-03. 65 p. http://www.cal-ipc.org.Google Scholar
Dukes, J. S. and Mooney, H. A. 2004. Disruption of ecosystem processes in western North America by invasive species. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat 77:411–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagle, A. J., Eiswerth, M. E., Johnson, W. S., Schoenig, S. E., and van Kooten, G. C. 2007. Costs and losses imposed on California ranchers by yellow starthistle. Range. Ecol. Manag 60:369–377.Google Scholar
Eiswerth, M. E., Singletary, L., Zimmerman, J. R., and Johnson, W. S. 2005. Dynamic benefit–cost analysis for controlling perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium): a case study. Weed Technol 19:237–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erskine Ogden, J. and Rejmanek, M. 2005. Recovery of native plant communities after the control of a dominant invasive plant species, Foeniculum vulgare: implications for management. Biol. Conserv 125:427–439.Google Scholar
Fenn, M. E., Baron, J. S., Allen, E. B., et al. 2003. Ecological effects of nitrogen deposition in the Western United States. Bioscience 53:404–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnoff, D., Shogren, J. F., Leung, B., and Lodge, D. 2007. Take a risk: preferring prevention over control of biological invaders. Ecol. Econ 62:216–222.Google Scholar
Gelbard, J. L. and Belnap, J. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conserv. Biol 17:420–432.Google Scholar
Gelbard, J. L. and Harrison, S. 2005. Invasibility of roadless grasslands: an experimental study of yellow starthistle. Ecol. Appl 15:1570–1580.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. R. 1998. Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecol. Appl 8:975–989.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. R., Onderdonk, D. A., Fox, A. M., Stocker, R. K., and Gantz, C. 2008. Predicting invasive plants in Florida using the Australian weed risk assessment. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 1:178–195.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. P. and Viers, J. H. 2007. Serpentine Grasslands. Pages 145–155. In Stromberg, M. R., Corbin, J. D., and D'Antonio, C. M. eds. California Grasslands: Ecology and Management. Berkeley University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Harris, J. A. 2001. Restoration ecology: repairing the earth's ecosystems in the new millennium. Restor. Ecol 9:239–246.Google Scholar
Hrusa, F., Ertter, B., Sanders, A., Leppig, G., and Dean, E. 2002. Catalogue of non-native vascular plants occurring spontaneously in California beyond those addressed in the Jepson manual, part 1. Madrono 49:61–98.Google Scholar
Klinger, R. K. 2007. Review of American perceptions of immigrant and invasive species: strangers on the land. Madrono 54:363–365.Google Scholar
Knapp, P. A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the Great Basin Desert: history, persistence, and influences to human activities. Global Environ. Change 6:37–52.Google Scholar
Kowarik, I. 2003. Human agency in biological invasions: secondary releases foster naturalisation and population expansion of alien plant species. Biol. Invasions 5:293–312.Google Scholar
Kŕivánek, M. and Pyšek, P. 2006. Predicting invasions by woody species in a temperate zone: a test of three risk assessment schemes in the Czech Republic. Divers. Distrib 12:319–327.Google Scholar
Larson, B. 2005. The war on roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Front. Ecol. Environ 3:495–500.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl 10:689–710.Google Scholar
Marty, J. T. 2005. Effects of cattle grazing on diversity in ephemeral wetlands. Conserv. Biol 19:1626–1632.Google Scholar
Meimberg, H., Hammond, J. I., Jorgensen, C. M., Park, T. W., Gerlach, J. D., Rice, K. J., and McKay, J. K. 2006. Molecular evidence for an extreme genetic bottleneck during introduction of an invading grass to California. Biol. Invasions 8:1355–1366.Google Scholar
Millar, C. I., Stephenson, N. L., and Stephens, S. L. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol. Appl 17:2145–2151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Invasive Species Council 2007. 2008–2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan: Draft for Public Comment. Washington, DC National Invasive Species Council. 32 p.Google Scholar
Norgaard, K. M. 2007. The politics of invasive weed management: gender, race, and risk perception in rural California. Rural Sociol 72:450–477.Google Scholar
Parendes, L. A. and Jones, J. A. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conserv. Biol 14:64–75.Google Scholar
Pheloung, P. C., Williams, P. A., and Halloy, S. R. 1999. A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J. Environ. Manag 57:239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., and Schapire, R. E. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model 190:231–259.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zeniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ 52:273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pysek, P., Richardson, D. M., and Jarosik, V. 2006. Who cites who in the invasion zoo: insights from an analysis of the most highly cited papers in invasion ecology. Preslia (Prague) 78:437–468.Google Scholar
Rejmanek, M., Thomsen, C. D., and Peters, I. D. 1991. Invasive vascular plants of California. Pages 81–101. In Groves, R. H. and Di Castri, F. eds. Biogeography of Mediterranean Invasions. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. E. and McCarty, J. P. 2000. Climate change and ecosystems of the mid-Atlantic Region. Clim. Res 14:235–244.Google Scholar
Schoenig, S. ed. 2005. California Noxious and Invasive Weed Action Plan. Sacramento, CA California Department of Food and Agriculture and California Invasive Weed Awareness Coalition. 45 p.Google Scholar
Seastedt, T. R., Hobbs, R. J., and Suding, K. N. 2008. Management of novel ecosystems: are novel approaches required? Front. Ecol. Environ 6:547–555.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A. ed. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 403 p.Google Scholar
Sheppard, A. W., Hill, R., DeClerck-Floate, R. A., McCIay, A., Olckers, T., Quimby, P. C. Jr, and Zimmermann, H. G. 2003. A global review of risk-benefit-cost analysis for the introduction of classical biological control agents against weeds: a crisis in the making? Biocontrol News Inf 24:91N–108N.Google Scholar
Shogren, J. F. and Tschirhart, J. 2005. Integrating ecology and economics to address bioinvasions. Ecol. Econ 52:267–271.Google Scholar
Sutherst, R. W. 2003. Prediction of species geographical ranges. J. Biogeogr 30:805–816.Google Scholar
Sutherst, R. W., Maywald, G. F., Yonow, T., and Stevens, P. M. 1999. CLIMEX: predicting the effects of climate on plants and animals. Collingwood, Victoria, Australia Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). 89 p.Google Scholar
Theoharides, K. A. and Dukes, J. S. 2007. Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytol 176:256–273.Google Scholar
Trombulak, S. C. and Frissell, C. A. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conserv. Biol 14:18–30.Google Scholar
Trowbridge, W. B. 2007. The role of stochasticity and priority effects in floodplain restoration. Ecol. Appl 17:1312–1324.Google Scholar
Underwood, E. C., Klinger, R., and Moore, P. E. 2004. Predicting patterns of non-native plant invasions in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Divers. Distrib 10:447–459.Google Scholar
Weiss, S. B. 2006. Impacts of nitrogen deposition on California ecosystems and biodiversity. Santa Barbara California Energy Commission and PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research CEC-500-2005-165.Google Scholar
Williams, S. L. and Grosholz, E. D. 2008. The invasive species challenge in estuarine and coastal environments: marrying management and science. Estuaries Coasts 31:3–20.Google Scholar
Williamson, J. and Harrison, S. 2002. Biotic and abiotic limits to the spread of exotic revegetation species. Ecol. Appl 12:40–51.Google Scholar
Zavaleta, E. S. 2000. Valuing ecosystem services lost to Tamarix invasion in the United States. Pages 262–299. In Mooney, H. A. and Hobbs, R. J. eds. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Covelo, CA Island Press.Google Scholar
Zedler, J. B. and Kercher, S. 2005. Water resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res 30:39–74.Google Scholar