myths/assumptions: the problem is local or only in cultivated areas the problem is everywhere local...

47

Upload: sierra-emmerson

Post on 11-Dec-2015

215 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Myths/Assumptions:

•The problem is local or only in cultivated areas

•The problem is everywhere

• Local control solves the problem

Stages of a Successful Invader and Potential for Control (Bartuska) A

reas

In

fest

ed

Eradication is simple

Invader is absent

Eradication is feasible

Era

dic

atio

n u

nli

kely

,

inte

nse

eff

ort

req

uir

ed

Scattered locations

Numerous locations

Approaching biological potential

Management only

Introduction

Distribution Through Time

Local Monitoring Is as Plain as the Nose on Your Head, But..,

Extensive-Area Monitoring Is Able To

• Supplement Existing Knowledge of DistributionsSupplement Existing Knowledge of Distributions• Identify Regional Hot SpotsIdentify Regional Hot Spots• Provide Credible Evidence of the Need for Prevention:Provide Credible Evidence of the Need for Prevention:

Identification, Ranking, Cover Estimates of the Most Identification, Ranking, Cover Estimates of the Most • Important Species Important Species • Vulnerable Areas, Resources, HabitatsVulnerable Areas, Resources, Habitats• Rapidly Increasing InvadersRapidly Increasing Invaders

• Calibrate with Finer-scaled Data, e.g., Satellite ImageryCalibrate with Finer-scaled Data, e.g., Satellite ImageryTo Provide Data to Suggest Regional:To Provide Data to Suggest Regional:• Pathways for Infection, ResistancePathways for Infection, Resistance• Susceptibility (Injury), Vulnerability (Death)Susceptibility (Injury), Vulnerability (Death)

Climbing fern

Invasive Plant Monitoring

• Shared Leadership (BLM, FS, States, …) with Limited Collaboration

• Few Species-Specific Approaches to Monitoring• $ Priorities for Monitoring Are Not Always Clear• Inventories Incomplete: What, Where, How

Much• Limited Predictive Models

Good Information Provides Strategic Information for Long-term Success at Controlling the Problem

after Rob Mangold

Microstegium vimineum (Nepalese browntop) invasion in a southeastern floodplain forest

Photo courtesy of Chris Oswalt

Invasive Plant Monitoring– Some Definitions

Infested - >1 Individual of a Nonative Invasive Species is Found in the Sampled Area

Infested Area – Sum (Area Represented by Infested Plots)

Severity – Dominance (% Cover at a Sampled Location)

Total Cover – Sum (% Cover X Infested Area)

FIA InventoryPhoto-

Interpre-tation (P1)

Year-round field

observation (P2)

Growing-season field

observation(P3)

Sample Intensity 1 every 90 ha1 every 2,400 ha

(1 panel=12,000 ha)1 every 39,000 ha

(1 panel=194,000 ha)

States All surveyed All surveyed

As funding permits (SC, some TN

counties, special study areas

Invasive or Noxious Species Inventoried

No32 Region-wide & + 20 FL, all likely on

forestland

All vascular plants on forestland

Estimates

Forestland >1 acre >120 ft

wide, not developed

Severity (Cover) classes:

<1, 1-10, 11-50, 51-90, 91-100%

Severity (Cover) classes:

<1, 1-100% in 1% increments and 3

plant layers

FIA InventoryPhoto-

Interpre-tation (P1)

Year-round field

observation (P2)

Growing-season field

observation(P3)

Sample Intensity 1 every 90 ha1 every 2,400 ha

(1 panel=12,000 ha)1 every 39,000 ha

(1 panel=194,000 ha)

States All surveyed All surveyed

As funding permits (SC, some TN

counties, special study areas

Invasive or Noxious Species Inventoried

No32 Region-wide & + 20 FL, all likely on

forestland

All vascular plants on forestland

Estimates

Forestland >1 acre >120 ft

wide, not developed

Severity (cover) classes:

<1, 1-10, 11-50, 51-90, 91-100%

Severity (cover) classes:

<1, 1-100% in 1% increments and 3

plant layers

FIA 3 Phase Sample Design

0.6 ha plot area,and four 7.3 m

radius supplots

36.6 m

1 m2 quadrats

P3

P2

P1 Photo-interpretation

Standard FIA plot (Since 1997)

0.6 ha plot area

Four 7.3 m radius

subplots (0.07 ha per

plot location)

36.6 m between subplot centers

P2 Inventory of Selected Invasive Species With Traditional Forest Resource Inventory, Every 5 km

Southern FIA

SURVEY DESIGN•All Seasons, All States

• Invasive nontree taxa:•8 vines•8 shrubs•4 forbs•6 grasses•1 fern

•33 taxa, including trees

•11 of 13 States since 2001, only on forest land

Kudzu Pueraria montana

Southern FIA - FloridaAdditional 20 (14 nontree)

species

Old world climbing fern Lygodium microphyllum

All ARe

TX SC LAN

C GA VA TN AL KY

Relative subplot frequencyJapanese

honeysuckle 50 77 41 62 25 58 61 54 54 66 32

Chinese/European privet 11 1 11 10 13 14 24 7 5 19 0

Chinese tallowtree 7 0 31 2 26 0 1 0 0 1 0

Tall fescue 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 16 6 0 25

Exotic roses 5 2 1 0 0 9 0 9 7 0 20

Japanese privet 5 14 5 8 8 6 2 3 9 6 0

Japanese climbing fern 3 0 5 0 23 0 1 0 0 2 0

Bush honeysuckles 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 2 0 11

Tree-of-heaven 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 3

Chinese lespedeza 1 3 0 5 0 3 6 2 2 0 2

Mimosa 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0

Chinaberry 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0

Nepalese browntop 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 1

Kudzu 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0

15 other taxa 3 0 1 6 2 6 2 5 5 2 6

All taxa 100 100 100 10010

010

0 100 100 100 100 100

2001-2004 SRSFIA

All ARe

TX SC LAN

C GA VA TN AL KY

Relative subplot frequencyJapanese

honeysuckle 50 77 41 62 25 58 61 54 54 66 32

Chinese/European privet 11 1 11 10 13 14 24 7 5 19 0

Chinese tallowtree 7 0 31 2 26 0 1 0 0 1 0

Tall fescue 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 16 6 0 25

Exotic roses 5 2 1 0 0 9 0 9 7 0 20

Japanese privet 5 14 5 8 8 6 2 3 9 6 0

Japanese climbing fern 3 0 5 0 23 0 1 0 0 2 0

Bush honeysuckles 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 2 0 11

Tree-of-heaven 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 3

Chinese lespedeza 1 3 0 5 0 3 6 2 2 0 2

Mimosa 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0

Chinaberry 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0

Nepalese browntop 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 1

Kudzu 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0

15 other taxa 3 0 1 6 2 6 2 5 5 2 6

All taxa 100 100 100 10010

010

0 100 100 100 100 100

2001-2004 SRSFIA

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Chinaberry

Japanese climbing fern

Non-native roses

Mimosa

Tree-of-heaven

Chinese lespedeza

Chinese tallow

Japanese privet

Chinese/European privet

Bush honeysuckles

Japanese honeysuckle

Nepalese browntop

Tall fescue

Kudzu

<1 1 to 10 11 to 50 >50

Severity (% Cover) of Top 14 Infestations by Species

Proportion of Infested Subplots, 2001-2004 SRSFIA

% COVER

Infested Forestland, East Texas 2003

Japanese honeysuckle 22.88 Nonnative roses 0.43

Chinese tallow 14.14 Bush honeysuckle 0.33

Chinese/European privet 5.78 Nandina 0.32

Japanese privet 3.41 Kudzu 0.28

Climbing fern 3.04 Tree-of-Heaven 0.10

Chinaberry 2.32 Shrubby lespedeza 0.06

Mimosa 1.51 Bamboo 0.06

Chinese lespedeza 0.45 Tropical soda apple 0.05

% of Sampled Locations % of Sampled Locations

Area of Infestation: Top 5 Nonnative Invasive Plant Species in Forests, East Texas 2003

Thousand Acres

Area of Infestation and Cover: Top 5 Nonnative Invasive Plant Species in Forests, East Texas 2003

Infested Area Total Cover

Thousand Acres

Total Cover of Selected* Nonnative Invasive Plant Species in Forests, East Texas 2003

Species Area in acres  + 2 Standard

Errors

Japanese honeysuckle 154,700 + 15,000

Chinese tallow 160,000 + 15,300

Chinese/European privet 39,100 + 7,600

Japanese/glossy privet 17,700 + 5,100

Climbing fern 12,600 + 4,300

Chinaberry 8,500 + 3,500

Mimosa 1,700 + 1,600

Nonnative roses 1,900 + 1,700

Bush honeysuckle 1,700 + 1,600

*Out of 32 taxa and having a 95% confidence interval not including zero

Maps

Infested Forestland by County and

Species: Trees

Ailanthus

Albizia

Chinese tallowtree

Infested Forestland by County and

Species: Shrubs

Ligustrum

Nonnative roses

Autumn olive

Infested Forestland by County and Species:

Grasses, Ferns

(Microstegium)Nepalese browntop

Tall fescue

Japanese climbing

fern

Infested Forestland by County and

Species: Vines

Japanese honeysuckle

Nonnative Wisteria

Oriental bittersweet

19%

38%

52%Tall Fescue

Nonnative Roses

28% Nonnative Roses

Brazilian Pepper,Jap. Climbing Fern Melaleuca

8%

Invaded forestland (selected species) by ecological provincJapanese honeysuckle #1 everywhere, Privet #2 except where noted

21%

12%

17%29%ChineseTallowtree

Planned EffortsExamples from Older Survey Designs

<11 to 1718 to 3435 to 5253 to 7071 to 100Ltd sample(<25% forest)

No data

Major roads

State

Rudis and Jacobs in review

Forest land (FIA-P2) and Kriged (spatial interpolated) 1989-1995 Infestation

Probability Japanese

honeysuckle

Where?• Greatest in the Piedmont • Least likely along the Coast and Lower South

Why?•Hardwood types• Ltd fire mgmt

•Mesic and more productive

Infestation

probability

Japanese honeysuckle

on Forestland (Nonforest: 1992 AVHRR)

1989-1995 FIA P2 Surveys*

*Largely forest interior samples

PATHWAYS for INVASION and ESTABLISHMENT

– AGRICULTURE

– URBAN DEVELOPMENT

– ROADS

– FRAGMENTATION

– WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE, esp. EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT

• Fire Suppression• Lack of Active Management

Infestation Probability

Shade Intolerant Understory Spp.

Much Greater (Kudzu 7X) Odds of Infestation at the Nonforest Edge than Forest Interior

Shade Tolerant Understory Spp.

•Greater (2 to 3X for J.honeysuckle, Privet) Odds of Infestation at the Nonforest Edge than Forest Interior

Georgia 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% o

ccu

rre

nce

J. honeysuckle Privet Kudzu

Forest Other Forest NonforestInterior Edge Edge

0.6-ha sample frame, based on odds ratio

Future: Finer-Scaled Estimates for the Abundant Species

MODIS, 250 m resolution

East TX LA

Houston

Forest

HoustonHouston

East TX LA

Chinese tallow

biomass

Inputs: Nonforest, Forest, and Infected Forest Plot locations; Biomass Volume; Spectral Reflectance; Elevation, Rainfall, etc.

Future Goal: Fine-Resolution Estimates Within Counties

Houston

Texas

Low

High

%Tallow Biomass

On Forest Land

Preliminary Draft

- 1.2**

+ 0.5**

- 0.2 *

0.00.7

0.00.3

NA

NA

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Paulownia tomentosa

Melaleuca

Kudzu

Tree of heaven

Multiflora rose

Privet

J apanese honeysuckle

Million acres

Trend in the Area of (largely interior) Forest InfestationsFlorida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia

(Matched samples, McNemar test, *p<0.05, **p<0.01; Kappa statistics otherwise)

% Change1980s-1990s

Timberland by Species Million acres, 1990s

P3 Monitoring1 plot per 39,000 ha every 5 years

(1 plot per 194,000 ha every year)

Of what value is that?

P3-Vegetation Pilot Survey Nonnative Plant Species

Common Name Frequency per subplot

Japanese honeysuckle* 28.2

Chinese privet* 16.9

Asian spiderwort 7.0

Centipede grass 5.6

Chinese lespedeza* 4.2

Nepalese browntop* 4.2

Alligatorweed 2.8

Spadeleaf 2.8

Chinaberrytree* 2.8

Bahiagrass 2.8

Annual bluegrass 2.8

Additional 15 nonnative

species (half are invasive)

at frequencies of 1.4% each

Blue = WetlandRed = Nonforest

*P2 Invasive Species List

Example: South Carolina, 31 plots (Oswalt, in press)

FHM-Vegetation Pilot Survey All Plant Species

SURVEY DESIGN•Growing season, selected States, all

forested plots

•All vegetation lifeform survey. Analysis: native

versus nonnative (some invasive)

•1% cover classes by species

(tolerance 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, 21-40, 41-60,

61-80, 81-100%)

South Carolina, 31 plots (Oswalt)

Intro-duced 5%

Native 84%

Unknown 11%

Ecoregions Reflect the Site Productivity, Predominant

Forest Types, and

Land Uses

Low%

High%

% NonnativesSome invasive

Ecoregions Reflect the Site Productivity, Predominant Forest

Types, and Land Use/Forest Fragmentation

20 % forestcover

98 % forest cover ,mostly

conifers

Invasive Plant Monitoring

• Shared Leadership (BLM, FS, States, …) with Limited Collaboration

• Few Species-Specific Approaches to Monitoring• $ Priorities for Monitoring Are Not Always Clear• Inventories Incomplete: What, Where, How Much• Limited Predictive Models

Good Information Provides Strategic Information for Long-term Success at Controlling the Problem

after Rob Mangold

Japanese Honeysuckle Distribution by County and Data Source

USDA-NRCS-

PLANTS dbLargely

from Herbarium Specimens

FIA (Phase 2)Field

Observations2001-2004

PLANTS and FIA

Kudzu

Kudzu Distribution by CountyPLANTS, other herbarium records and other sources (www.niiss.org)

Kudzu Distribution by CountyExtension agent survey (Jewett et al. 2001. On file, SRS –Athens, GA)

Kudzu Distribution on Forestland by CountyFIA surveys 2001-2004

MS, OK not yet surveyed

Distribution of Kudzu by County

Herbarium collections

Extension agent survey

FIA forestland

survey

Combined Estimates

of Occurrence

• ANY QUESTIONS?ANY QUESTIONS?