myths/assumptions: the problem is local or only in cultivated areas the problem is everywhere local...
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
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
<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
Distribution of Kudzu by County
Herbarium collections
Extension agent survey
FIA forestland
survey
Combined Estimates
of Occurrence