Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:39:40.138Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maine Nursery and Landscape Industry Perspectives on Invasive Plant Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Vanessa C. Coats ,
Lois Berg Stack  and
Mary E. Rumpho
Vanessa C. Coats
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular and Biomedical Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469
Lois Berg Stack
Affiliation:
University of Maine Cooperative Extension, Orono, ME 04473-1294
Mary E. Rumpho*
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular and Biomedical Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mrumpho@umit.maine.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A survey of the Maine landscape and nursery industry was conducted to identify industry views on invasive plant issues, attitudes towards potential regulation, and to estimate the potential economic costs of banning the sale of specific invasive plant species in Maine. Analysis of the 190 surveys returned (19% of 980 mailed) revealed that 76% of industry member respondents were genuinely concerned about invasive plant issues, and the same percentage felt the horticulture industry is responsible for educating customers about invasive plants. Industry members (68%) did not feel compelled to sell invasive plants merely on the basis of customer attraction to the plant, or due to competition with a neighboring business that sells the invasive plant. Self-reporting of sales indicated that Norway maple ($96K), burningbush ($68K), and Japanese barberry ($44K) constituted the largest portion of annual industry revenue (maximum values reported for 2006 to 2008) derived from the sale of seven identified invasive plants. Industry self-regulation was the most favored form of regulation, although the industry likely would not be significantly affected by legislated state-wide bans of at least purple loosestrife and oriental bittersweet. Bans on other popular invasive plants, including burningbush, Japanese barberry, and Norway maple likely would have a relatively small, short-term impact on the horticulture industry until alternative plants with similar properties were identified. The results of this survey demonstrated a need for identifying which plants are truly invasive or potentially invasive in Maine, as well as a need for open discussion of invasive plant issues among all interested parties in Maine.

Keywords

Burningbush, Euonymus alatus (Thunb.) SieboldJapanese barberry, Berberis thunbergii DC.Japanese honeysuckle, Lonicera japonica Thunb.multiflora rose, Rosa multiflora Thunb.Norway maple, Acer platanoides L.oriental bittersweet, Celastrus orbiculatus Thunb.purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria L.Ornamental horticultureeconomic impactssurveypreventionnursery cropsSt. Louis Declarationself-regulationinvasive species
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 378 - 389
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

Alberini, A. and Segerson, K. 2002. Assessing voluntary programs to improve environmental quality. Environ. Resour. Econ. 22:157–184.Google Scholar
Barton, A. M., Brewster, L. B., Cox, A. N., and Prentiss, N. K. 2004. Non-indigenous woody invasive plants in a rural New England town. Biol. Invasions 6:205–211.Google Scholar
Beck, K. G., Zimmerman, K., Schardt, J., et al. 2008. Invasive species defined in a policy context: recommendations from the federal invasive species advisory committee. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1:414–421.Google Scholar
Burt, J. W., Muir, A., Piovia-Scott, J., Veblen, K. E., Chang, A. L., Grossman, J. D., and Weiskel, H. W. 2007. Preventing horticultural introductions of invasive plants: potential efficacy of voluntary initiatives. Biological Invasions 9:909–923.Google Scholar
Center for Plant Conservation. 2002. Voluntary Codes of Conduct for Nursery Professionals. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Missouri. http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/invasives/DownloadPDF/nursery.pdf. Accessed: June 18, 2010.Google Scholar
D'Appollonio, J. 2006. Regeneration strategies of Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii DC.) in coastal forests of Maine. Master's thesis. Department of Forestry. Orono, ME University of Maine. 93 p.Google Scholar
Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Touza, J., Perrings, C., and Williamson, M. 2007. The horticultural trade and ornamental plant invasions in Britain. Conserv. Biol. 21:224–231.Google Scholar
Gagliardi, J. A. and Brand, M. H. 2007. Connecticut nursery and landscape industry preferences for solutions to the sale and use of invasive plants. HortTechnology 17:39–45.Google Scholar
Greene, C. W., Weber, J. E., Rooney, S. C., and Anderson, K. B. 2004. Invasive Plant Distribution and Abundance in Acadia National Park. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR-2004/003. Boston, MA National Park Service. 69 p.Google Scholar
Greenlaw, C. 2009. A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods—testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Eval. Rev. 33:464–480.Google Scholar
[ISAC] Invasive Species Advisory Committee. 2006. Invasive species definition clarification and white paper. Available at: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf. Accessed: June 4, 2010.Google Scholar
Lickert, R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140:5–55.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N. and Lonsdale, W. M. 2001. Humans as global plant dispersers: getting more than we bargained for. BioScience 51:95–102.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
Maine Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry. 2010. Quick Reference Table on Importing Plant Material to Maine. http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/pi/horticulture/QuarantineReferenceTable.htm. Accessed: March 1, 2010.Google Scholar
Maine Forest Service, Department of Conservation, Forest Health and Monitoring Division. 2010. Invasive Species. http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/woodswise/invasive.html. Accessed: February 28, 2010.Google Scholar
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources. 2006. Massachusetts Prohibited Plant List. http://www.mass.gov/agr/farmproducts/proposed_prohibited_plant_listv12-12-05.htm. Accessed: June 3, 2010.Google Scholar
Mehrhoff, L. J., Silander, J. A. Jr., Leicht, S. A., Mosher, E. S., and Tabak, N. M. 2003. IPANE: Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269. www.ipane.org. Accessed: March 15, 2010.Google Scholar
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2007. Non-Native Species. http://www.nps.gov/acad/naturescience/nonnativespecies.htm. Accessed: May 19, 2010.Google Scholar
New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food, Plant Industry Division. 2004. Chapter 3800 Invasive Species Statutory Authority: RSA 430:51–55, part agr 3801 invasive species part agr 3802 NH Prohibited Invasive Species. http://agriculture.nh.gov/divisions/plant_industry/documents/Rules_8.pdf. Accessed: June 3, 2010.Google Scholar
Pemberton, R. W. and Liu, H. 2009. Marketing time predicts naturalization of horticultural plants. Ecology 90:69–80.Google Scholar
Peters, W. L., Meyer, M. H., and Anderson, N. O. 2006. Minnesota horticultural industry survey on invasive plants. Euphytica 148:75–86.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.Google Scholar
Reichard, S. H. and White, P. 2001. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. BioScience 51:103–113.Google Scholar
Stack, L. B., Zhang, D., and Rumpho, M. 2007. Attitudes of green industry members and Master Gardeners concerning invasive plants. HortScience 42:966–967.Google Scholar
University of Maine Cooperative Extension Publications. 2001. Bulletin #2508: Maine Invasive Plants—Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). http://www.umaine.edu/publications/2508e/. Accessed: May 28, 2010.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. 2006. Federal Noxious Weed List. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Agriculture. 4 p.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007 Census of Agriculture. 2009. 2009 Census of Horticultural Specialties. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Agriculture. 536 p.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Census 2000 Maine Profile: Population Density by Census Tract. http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/special/profile2k/ME_2K_Profile.pdf. Accessed: June 4, 2010.Google Scholar
Williamson, M. and Fitter, A. 1996. The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661–1666.Google Scholar
Wirth, F. F., Davis, K. J., and Wilson, S. B. 2004. Florida nursery sales and economic impacts of 14 potentially invasive landscape plant species. J. Environ. Hortic. 22:12–16.Google Scholar