Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:10:31.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Landscape-Level Simulation of Weed Treatments to Evaluate Treatment Plan Options

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Pablo Aracena ,
Woodam Chung  and
Greg Jones
Pablo Aracena
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Management, College of Forestry and Conservation, The University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr. Missoula, MT 59812
Woodam Chung*
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Management, College of Forestry and Conservation, The University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr. Missoula, MT 59812
Greg Jones
Affiliation:
Human Dimensions Science Program, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, P. O. Box 7669, 200 East Broadway Street, Missoula, MT 59807
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: woodam.chung@umontana.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Models have been developed to simulate the long-term effects of weed treatments across a landscape to determine effective management strategies, but those models might not be suitable for evaluating short-term action plans of weed treatments that are specific in time and place. In this study, we developed a simulation model to build and evaluate 5-yr weed treatment plan options in terms of their cost and effectiveness in minimizing total infestation areas over the short-term planning horizon. In an iterative, interactive process, 5-yr treatment plan options are developed based on user-defined weed treatment preferences, and evaluated in terms of total projected infestation areas at the end of the planning horizon. The simulation model was applied to a study area of 24,867 ha (61,447 ac) located in the Salmon River watershed in Idaho. Eight treatment plan options were developed using two treatment priority strategies and four increasing budget levels, and compared for their effectiveness. The application results showed that regardless of budget levels, site priority strategies were more cost-effective than the species priority strategies in reducing total infestation areas over time. This simulation model can provide weed managers with a useful tool to evaluate short-term treatment options, and thus support informed decision-making for effective weed management. Although the availability and quality of input data may be a practical limitation of using the simulation model, more data would become available and improved as more invasive species monitoring programs are implemented.

Keywords

Noxious weedsweed controlweed spread modeling
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 278 - 290
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America

References

Literature Cited

ESSA Technologies Ltd (2008) TELSA: Tool for Exploratory Landscape Scenario Analyses, Model Description, Version 3.6. Vancouver, BC. 64 pGoogle Scholar
Frid, L, Hanna, D, Korb, N, Bauer, B, Bryan, K, Martin, B, Holzer, B (2013) Evaluating alternative weed management strategies for three Montana landscapes. Inv Plant Sci Manag 6:48–59 Google Scholar
Frid, L, Wilmshurst, JF (2009) Decision analysis to evaluate control strategies for crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) in Grasslands National Park of Canada. Inv Plant Sci Manag 2:324–336 Google Scholar
Hunt, ER, Everitt, JH, Hamilton, R (2005) A weed manager's guide to remote sensing and GIS-mapping and monitoring. USDA Forest Service Research Notes http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/rsac/invasivespecies/index.htm. Accessed November 30, 2013Google Scholar
Idaho State Department of Agriculture (2009) Salmon river weed management area end of year report FY 2009. http://www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/PlantsInsects/NoxiousWeeds/Documents/costshare/EOY_2009/Salmon_River_CWMA_2009_EOY.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2012Google Scholar
Timmins, SM, Owen, SJ (2001) Scary species, superlative sites: Assessing weed risk in New Zealand's natural protected areas. Pages 217–227 in Groves, RH, Panetta, FD, Virtue, JG, eds. Weed Risk Assessment. Melbourne, Australia CSIRO Google Scholar
[USFS] United States Forest Service (2013) The Natural Resource Manager (NRM). http://www.fs.fed.us/nrm/index.shtml/. Accessed November 30, 2013Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Aracena supplementary material

Appendix

Download Aracena supplementary material(File)
File 326.9 KB