NeoBiota 31
Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (7)
Document Type
- Article (7)
Language
- English (7)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- invasion (3)
- Invasive species (2)
- exotic (2)
- Alien (1)
- Conservation (1)
- Invasion science (1)
- biological invasion (1)
- colonisation (1)
- conflict species (1)
- control measures (1)
Like most jurisdictions, Australia is managing a broad range of invasive alien species. Here, we provide the first holistic quantification of how much invasive species impact Australia’s economy, and how much Australia spends on their management. In the 01–02 financial year (June to July), the combined estimated cost (economic losses and control) of invasive species was $9.8 billion, rising to $13.6 billion in the 11–12 financial year. Approximately $726 million of grants funded through the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e. federal funding) was spent on invasive species management and research between 1996 to 2013. In 01–02, total national expenditure on invasive species was $2.31 billion, rising to $3.77 billion in 11–12. Agriculture accounted for more than 90% of the total cost. For 01–02 and 11–12, these expenditure figures equate to $123 and $197 per person per year respectively, as well as 0.32 and 0.29% of GDP respectively. All values provided here are most likely to be underestimates of the real values due to the significant constraints of the data obtainable. Invasive species are clearly a significant economic burden in Australia. Given the extent of the issue of invasive species globally, there is a clear need for better quantifications of both economic loss and expenditure in more jurisdictions, as well as in Australia.
In our recent Discussion paper, we presented our view that the only real distinction between biological invasions and natural colonisations is the human element. We agree that invasion science is a very important science, not only to better understand the role that human mediation plays for colonisation, but also for many other science fields. We agree with all invasion researchers that the human influence can result in spectacular differences, including in rates of species movement, rates of successful colonisation, the particular species being moved, the biogeography of dispersal pathways and rates of any resulting ecological disturbance and biodiversity loss. Our deep point is that that species dispersed by human-mediation or natural colonisation are all subject to the same basic laws and rules of ecology, identical to many other phenomenon that occur naturally and can be greatly influenced by people. The human dimension is merely a mechanistic distinction, albeit important because it exposes insights about the colonisation process that cannot be seen by the study of natural colonisations alone. We provide 10 hypotheses that can be scientifically tested to determine whether biological invasions and natural colonisations are two separate processes or the same process being influenced by different mechanisms.
The authors inserted an incorrect figure in Oswalt et al. (2015) that was printed as Fig. 2. The mapped species represented in Oswalt et al. (2015) is Triadica sebifera or Chinese tallow. The correct Fig. 2, representing Imperata cylindrica, is reproduced below. The correction does not alter the conclusions of Oswalt et al. (2015).
Since first of January 2015, the EU-regulation 1143/2014 obligates all member states to conduct costbenefit analyses in preparation of control programs for invasive alien species to minimize and mitigate their impacts. In addition, with ratification of the Rio Declaration and the amended Federal Nature Conservation Act, Germany is committed to control any further spread of invasive species. This is the first cost-benefit analysis estimating positive welfare effects and societal importance of H. mantagezzianum invasion control in Germany. The paper analyses possible control options limiting stands of giant hogweeds (H. mantegazzianum) based on survey data of n = 287 German districts. We differentiate between several control options (e.g. root destruction, mechanical cutting or mowing, chemical treatment and grazing) depending on infested area size and protection status. The calculation of benefits is based on stated preference results (choice experiment; n = 282). For the cost side, we calculate two different invasion scenarios (i) no re-infestation after successfully conducted control measures (optimistic) and (ii) re-infestation twice after conducting control measures occurring within ten years (pessimistic). Minimum costs of eradication measures including a time span of ten years and a social discount rate of 1% result in a total of 3,467,640 € for optimistic scenario and 6,254,932 € for pessimistic invasion scenario, where no success of the first eradication attempt is assumed. Benefits of invasion control in Germany result in a total of 238,063,641 € per year and overassessment-factor corrected in 59,515,910 € per year.
The management of invasive alien species (IAS) in protected areas has become increasingly important in recent years. In this study, we analyse IAS management in the bilateral National Park Thayatal-Podyjí at the Austrian-Czech border. Based on two surveys from the years 2001 and 2010 and on annual management data from 2001-2010 we analyse changes in distribution and the efficiency of IAS management of three invasive alien plants (Fallopia × bohemica, Impatiens glandulifera, Robinia pseudoacacia). In 2010, the three study species had invaded 161 ha (2%) of the study area. Despite a decade of management, F. × bohemica has become widespread, whereas I. glandulifera distribution has decreased strongly. The most widespread species, R. pseudoacacia, has declined substantially in cover, but the area invaded has increased. From 2001 to 2010, annual management effort declined by about half. Management effort per hectare and decade was highest for F. × bohemica (2,657 hours), followed by R. pseudoacacia (1,473 hours) and I. glandulifera (270 hours). Management effort for achieving the same amount of reduction in population size and cover was highest for R. pseudoacacia, followed by F. × bohemica and I. glandulifera. We conclude that substantial effort and resources are necessary to successfully manage the study species and have to be provided over prolonged time periods, and thus continued management of these species is recommended. We highly recommend a systematic approach for monitoring the efficiency of IAS management projects in protected areas.
In a recent Discussion Paper, Hoffmann and Courchamp (2016) posed the question: are biological invasions and natural colonisations that different? This apparently simple question resonates at the core of the biological study of human-induced global change, and we strongly believe that the answer is yes: biological invasions and natural colonisations differ in processes and mechanisms in ways that are crucial for science, management, and policy. Invasion biology has, over time, developed into the broader transdisciplinary field of invasion science. At the heart of invasion science is the realisation that biological invasions are not just a biological phenomenon: the human dimension of invasions is a fundamental component in the social-ecological systems in which invasions need to be understood and managed.
The Anthropocene Epoch is characterized by novel and increasingly complex dependencies between the environment and human civilization, with many challenges of biodiversity management emerging as wicked problems. Problems arising from the management of biological invasions can be either tame (with simple or obvious solutions) or wicked, where difficulty in appropriately defining the problem can make complete solutions impossible to find. We review four case studies that reflect the main goals in the management of biological invasions – prevention, eradication, and impact reduction – assessing the drivers and extent of wickedness in each. We find that a disconnect between the perception and reality of how wicked a problem is can profoundly influence the likelihood of successful management. For example, managing species introductions can be wicked, but shifting from species-focused to vector-focused risk management can greatly reduce the complexity, making it a tame problem. The scope and scale of the overall management goal will also dictate the wickedness of the problem and the achievability of management solutions (cf. eradication and ecosystem restoration). Finally, managing species that have both positive and negative impacts requires engagement with all stakeholders and scenario-based planning. Effective management of invasions requires either recognizing unavoidable wickedness, or circumventing it by seeking alternative management perspectives.