Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T00:34:57.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Land Manager and Researcher Perspectives on Invasive Plant Research Needs in the Midwestern United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark Renz ,
Kevin D. Gibson ,
Jennifer Hillmer ,
Katherine M. Howe ,
Donald M. Waller  and
John Cardina
Mark Renz
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Kevin D. Gibson
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Jennifer Hillmer
Affiliation:
Conservation Department, The Holden Arboretum, Kirtland, OH 44094
Katherine M. Howe
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Indianapolis, IN 46202
Donald M. Waller
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
John Cardina*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cardina.2@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2006, the Midwest Invasive Plant Network's Research Committee conducted a web-based survey to help identify research needs and interactions between land managers and researchers working to manage invasive plants in the Midwest. Of 192 responses, 30% identified themselves as researchers and 70% identified themselves as managers. Researchers and managers rated working together on invasive plant issues as high or medium in importance, but neither group rated the current level of cooperation as high, with over 90% describing current cooperation as low or medium. Both groups self-associate, with 89% of researchers working with other researchers and 77% of managers working with other managers. “Lack of time” and “lack of money” were the main issues limiting researchers and land managers from working more closely together: money was a greater constraint for researchers and time was more important for land managers. To help researchers and land managers work more effectively together, both groups favored opportunities to develop research-based projects at land managers' sites, with funding from a cooperative grant program. Open-ended responses suggest that on-site experiments and demonstrations of management methods could help researchers and land managers interact more effectively. Researchers rated basic biology as more important than land managers did, but neither group judged testing theories of invasion as a high priority. “Social/political factors” and “risk assessment” were viewed as less important despite their clear relevance in the introduction and spread of invasive plants.

Keywords

Surveycooperationresearch priorities
Type
Education
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 83 - 91
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

Baker, H. G. 1965. Characteristics and mode of origin of weeds. Pages 147–172. in Baker, H. G. and Stebbins, G. L., editors. The Genetics of Colonizing Species. New York Academic.Google Scholar
Barney, J. N. and Whitlow, T. H. 2008. A unifying framework for biological invasions: the state factor model. Biol. Invasions 10:259–272.Google Scholar
Berry, J., Brewer, G. D., Gordon, J. C., and Patton, D. R. 1998. Closing the gap between ecosystem management and ecosystem research. Policy Sci 31:55–80.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. 2005. Interrelated causes of plant invasion. Science 310:243–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeGasperis, B. G. and Motzkin, G. 2007. Windows of opportunity: historical and ecological controls on Berberis thunbergii invasions. Ecology 88:3115–3125.Google Scholar
Foxcroft, L. C. 2004. An adaptive management framework for linking science and management of invasive alien plants. Weed Technol 18:1275–1277.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. Hort. Technol 17:39–45.Google Scholar
Hierro, J. L., Maron, J. L., and Callaway, R. M. 2005. A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and native range. J. Ecol 95:5–15.Google Scholar
Kelley, K. M., Conklin, J. R., Sellmer, J. C., and Bates, R. M. 2006. Invasive plant species: results of a consumer awareness, knowledge, and expectations survey conducted in Pennsylvania. J. Environ. Hortic 24:53–58.Google Scholar
Leung, B., Lodge, D. M., Finnoff, D., Shogren, F. F., and Lewis, M. A. 2002. An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc. Biol. Sci 269:2407–2413.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M., Vila, M., D'Antonio, C. M., Dukes, J. S., Grigulis, K., and Lavorel, S. 2002. Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond 270:775–781.Google Scholar
Luken, J. O. and Seastedt, T. R. 2004. Management of plant invasions: the conflict of perspective. Weed Technol 18:1514–1517.Google Scholar
McPherson, G. R. 2004. Linking science and management to mitigate impacts of nonnative plants. Weed Technol 18:1185–1188.Google Scholar
Peters, W. L., Meyer, M. H., and Anderson, N. O. 2006. Minnesota horticulture industry survey on invasive plants. Euphytica 248:75–86.Google Scholar
SAS 2002. SAS User's Guide. Version 9.1. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Von Holle, B. and Motzkin, G. 2007. Historical land use and environmental determinants of nonnative plant distribution in coastal southern New England. Biol. Conserv 136:33–43.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, R. and Cock, M. J. W. 2005. Best practices for the prevention and management of invasive alien species. Pages 209–232. in Mooney, H. A., et al, editor. Invasive Alien Species: A New Synthesis. Covelo, CA Island Press.Google Scholar