Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T23:07:34.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interpreting Life-History Traits of Miconia (Miconia calvescens) through Management over Space and Time in the East Maui Watershed, Hawaii (USA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2019

James Leary
Affiliation:
Associate Specialist, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
Brooke Mahnken
Affiliation:
GIS Specialist, Maui Invasive Species Committee, Makawao, HI, USA
Christopher Wada
Affiliation:
Research Economist, University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
Kimberly Burnett*
Affiliation:
Specialist, University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Kimberly Burnett, University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2424 Maile Way, Saunders Hall 540, Honolulu, HI 96822. (Email: kburnett@hawaii.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Miconia (Miconia calvescens DC) was introduced to the East Maui Watershed (EMW) a half-century ago with more than 25 yr of management recorded. Using a historical spatiotemporal data set, we constructed a leptokurtic dispersal kernel with 99% of progeny confined to within 549 m of the nearest maternal source and the remaining 1% dispersed out to 1,636 m. Seedbank persistence, based on postdated recruitment, displayed an exponential decay projecting extinction beyond 20 yr. These parameters are highly congruent to independent interpretations of M. calvescens in Australia and Tahiti. In a simulated stage matrix model, we projected management efforts to locally eradicate a small incipient propagule bank wherein optimal management was achieved with an annual harvest rate that eliminated all juvenile recruits before reaching maturity, until extinction. Based on current pricing for helicopter herbicide ballistic technology (HBT) operations, the optimal, variable cost to locally eradicate this incipient propagule bank was estimated to be less than US$42,000, with ~90% of the effort searching for the most distant 1% of the progeny expended within the first 9 yr after the mature discovery. This variable cost was sensitive to seedbank size, recruitment rate, and dispersal range, but was most sensitive to harvest rates between suboptimal and excess. In a scenario prioritizing the upper region of EMW, we retroactively analyzed past HBT efforts eliminating satellite M. calvescens and determined that 27% of the total effort resulted in 87% of the total protection to this priority asset, with every US$1 invested potentially avoiding US$184 in future costs. Management outside the priority area was less economical, with returns in protection diminishing with distance from the priority upper region. Miconia calvescens is currently not eradicable in the EMW, and full containment of the invasion would require a substantial increase in stable, long-term funding. With limited resources, local eradication of satellite M. calvescens could be the most cost-effective alternative to protecting uninvaded areas prioritized for critical ecosystem functions.

Information

Type
Case Study
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 
Figure 0

Figure 1 (A) Comprehensive eradication (1991–2016; n=1,516,727; gray) and containment via herbicide ballistic technology (2012–2016; n=21,072; red). (B) The number of eliminated Miconia calvescens recorded each year. (C) The frequency distribution of range distances from the founder population. Note the location of the founder population and first volunteer removal effort (yellow diamond in A). Note contour line intervals at ~150 m a.s.l. (i.e., 500 feet a.s.l.).

Figure 1

Figure 2 (A) Dispersal and (B) propagule bank persistence (recruitment) kernels displayed from histograms of progeny distances and time intervals, respectively, from the nearest mature predecessor (n=114,953). Each distribution is described with a first-order negative exponential function (black lines; R2=0.982 and 0.997, respectively) with 95% confidence intervals (red-dashed line).

Figure 2

Figure 3 The hypothetical invasion curve depicted by a logistic growth function to determine effective management countermeasures.

Figure 3

Figure 4 (A) Progeny recruitment derived from a single satellite Miconia calvescens created by the stage matrix model depicting population dynamics over time where harvest rates proportional to recruitment fail (black arrow; 0.695), contain (red arrow; 0.696), suboptimally eradicate (gray point; 0.697), optimally eradicate (red point; 0.717), and excessively eradicate (blue point; 0.999). (B) Growth rates (λ) over time leading to stable stage distribution, where λ ≈ 1.0 is effectively contained at the harvest rate 0.696 (red arrow), while λ>1 shows positive growth beyond containment (black arrow) and λ<1 leads to extinction (gray, red, and blue points), where 0.717 is the optimal harvest rate for achieving extinction without any progeny reaching maturity. Note: arrows depict continuation beyond the scale of the graph.

Figure 4

Figure 5 (A) The cumulative effort over time where harvest rates proportional to recruitment fail (black arrow; 0.695), contain (red arrow; 0.696), suboptimally eradicate (gray point; 0.697), optimally eradicate (red point; 0.717), and excessively eradicate (blue point; 0.999). (B) The cumulative effort to achieve eradication across harvest rates. Note: arrows depict continuation beyond the scale of the graph.

Figure 5

Figure 6 Model responses in time to extinction (years) and optimal harvest rate dependent on (A) propagule bank size and (B) annual recruitment rate derived from a first-order decay function.

Figure 6

Figure 7 (A) Two-dimensional pixel raster of the dispersal kernel (i.e., impact; pink), (B) variable cost per pixel (i.e., 100 m2), and (C) optimal search effort to detect progeny across the dispersal kernel. Note: the points are percentiles of the probability density function.

Figure 7

Figure 8 Output response sensitivity of variable cost to locally eradicate an incipient population based on inputs: (A) harvest rate, (B) propagule bank size, (C) annual recruitment rate, and (D) dispersal range. Note: unless variable, xi=320 propagules, annual recruitment rate is 0.24, dispersal range is 1,636 m, and the harvest rate is optimal.

Figure 8

Figure 9 Impact mitigated within the first-priority watershed asset (red zone between 400 and 1,200 m a.s.l.) by efforts to remove Miconia calvescens from the first- (A; red), second- (B; yellow), and third-priority (C; blue) asset areas. Note contour line intervals at 30 m a.s.l. (i.e., 100 feet a.s.l.).

Figure 9

Figure 10 (A) Past expenditures in each of the priority areas from 2012 to 2016 herbicide ballistic technology operations with (B) costs avoided in the first-priority asset area from each of those investments resulting in (C) mean annual cost-effectiveness derived from the avoided:expense ratio. The error bars are +/− standard deviations.

Supplementary material: PDF

Leary et al. supplementary material

Leary et al. supplementary material 1

Download Leary et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 752.1 KB