Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Evaluation of the Australian Branched Broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) Eradication Program

  • F. Dane Panetta (a1) and Roger Lawes (a2)
Abstract

Because weed eradication programs commonly take 10 or more years to complete, there is a need to evaluate progress toward the eradication objective. We present a simple model, based on information that is readily obtainable, that assesses conformity to the delimitation and extirpation criteria for eradication. It is applied to the program currently targeting the annual parasitic weed, branched broomrape, in South Australia. The model consists of delimitation and extirpation (E) measures plotted against each other to form an ‘eradograph.’ Deviations from the ‘ideal’ eradograph plot can inform tactical responses, e.g., increases in survey and/or control effort. Infestations progress from the active phase to the monitoring phase when no plants have been detected for at least 12 mo. They revert to the active phase upon further detection of plants. We summarize this process for the invasion as a whole in a state-and-transition model. Using this model we demonstrate that the invasion is unlikely to be delimited unless the amount of newly detected infested area decreases, on average, by at least 50% per annum. As a result of control activities implemented, on average approximately 70% (range, 44 to 86%) of active infestations progressed to the monitoring phase in the year following their detection. Simulations suggest that increasing this rate of transition will not increase E to a significant extent. The rate of reversion of infestations from the monitoring phase to the active phase decreased logarithmically with time since last detection, but it is likely that lower rates of reversion would accelerate the trend toward extirpation. Program performance with respect to the delimitation criterion has been variable; performance with respect to the extirpation criterion would be improved considerably by the development and application of cost-effective methods for eliminating branched broomrape soil seed populations.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Corresponding author's E-mail: dane.panetta@dpi.qld.gov.au
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

C.E. Buddenhagen 2006. The successful eradication of two blackberry species Rubus megalococcus and R. adenotrichos (Rosaceae) from Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos, Ecuador. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 12:272278.

M.A. Burgman and J.C. Fox 2003. Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: implications for conservation and options for improved planning. Anim. Conservat. 6:1928.

K Burnett , B Kaiser , B.A. Pitafi , and J Roumasset . 2006. Prevention, eradication, and containment of invasive species: illustrations from Hawaii. Agr. Resource Econ. Rev. 35:6377.

O.J. Cacho , D Spring , P Pheloung , and S Hester . 2006. Evaluating the feasibility of eradicating an invasion. Biol. Inv. 8:903917.

C.C. Daehler and D.A. Carino 2000. Predicting invasive plants: prospects for a general screening system based on current regional models. Biol. Inv. 2:93102.

R.E. Eplee 1992. Witchweed (Striga asiatica): an overview of management strategies in the USA. Crop Prot. 11:37.

A Liebhold and J Bascompte . 2003. The Allee effect, stochastic dynamics and the eradication of alien species. Ecol. Lett. 6:133140.

H.A. Mooney and E.E. Cleland 2001. The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 98:54465451.

J.H. Myers , A Savoie , and E van Randen . 1998. Eradication and pest management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43:471491.

F.D. Panetta and R Lawes . 2005. Evaluation of the performance of weed eradication programs: the delimitation of extent. Divers. Distrib. 11:435442.

P.C. Pheloung , P.A. Williams , and S.R. Halloy 1999. A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J. Environ. Manag. 57:239–51.

D Pimentel , R Zuniga , and D Morrison . 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 52:273288.

T.J. Regan , M.A. McCarthy , P.W. Baxter , F.D. Panetta , and H.P. Possingham 2006. Optimal eradication: when to stop looking for an invasive plant? Ecol. Lett. 9:759766.

D Simberloff 2003. Eradication—preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Sci. 51:247253.

P.M. Vitousek 1986. Biological invasions and ecosystem properties: can species make a difference? 163176. in H.A. Mooney , J. Drake eds. Biological Invasions in North American and Hawaii. New York Springer-Verlag.

L.R. Walker and S.D. Smith 1997. Impacts of invasive plants on community and ecosystem properties. Pages 6986. in J.O. Luken , J.W. Thieret eds. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York Springer.

M Westoby , B.H. Walker , and I Noy-Meir . 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J. Range Manag. 42:266274.

E.S. Zavaleta , R.J. Hobbs , and H.A. Mooney 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:454459.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Weed Science
  • ISSN: 0043-1745
  • EISSN: 1550-2759
  • URL: /core/journals/weed-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 2 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 14 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 26th April 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.