Aim A range of approaches and philosophies underpin national‐level strategies for managing invasive alien plants. This study presents a strategy for the management of taxa that both have value and do harm. Location South Africa. Methods Insights were derived from examining Australian Acacia species in South Africa (c. 70 species introduced, mostly > 150 years ago; some have commercial and other values; 14 species are invasive, causing substantial ecological and economic damage). We consider options for combining available tactics and management practices. We defined (1) categories of species based on invaded area (a surrogate for impact) and the value of benefits generated and (2) management regions based on habitat suitability and degree of invasion. For each category and region, we identified strategic goals and proposed the combinations of management practices to move the system in the desired direction. Results We identified six strategic goals that in combination would apply to eight species categories. We further identified 14 management practices that could be strategically combined to achieve these goals for each category in five discrete regions. When used in appropriate combinations, the prospect of achieving the strategic goal will be maximized. As the outcomes of management cannot be accurately predicted, management must be adaptive, requiring continuous monitoring and assessment, and realignment of goals if necessary. Main conclusions Invasive Australian Acacia species in South Africa continue to spread and cause undesirable impacts, despite a considerable investment into management. This is because the various practices have historically been uncoordinated in what can be best described as a strategy of hope. Our proposed strategy offers the best possible chance of achieving goals, and it is the first to address invasive alien species that have both positive value and negative impacts.
Background: This paper reviewed the benefits and negative impacts of alien species that are currently listed in the Alien and Invasive Species Regulations of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act no 10 of 2004) and certain alien species that are not yet listed in the regulations for which conflicts of interest complicate management. Objectives: Specifically, it identified conflict-generating species, evaluated the causes and driving forces of these conflicts and assessed how the conflicts have affected management. Method: A simple scoring system was used to classify the alien species according to their relative degree of benefits and negative impacts. Conflict-generating species were then identified and further evaluated using an integrated cognitive hierarchy theory and risk perception framework to identify the value systems (intrinsic and economic) and risk perceptions associated with each conflict. Results: A total of 552 alien species were assessed. Most of the species were classified as inconsequential (55%) or destructive (29%). Beneficial (10%) and conflict-generating (6%) species made a minor contribution. The majority (46%) of the conflict cases were associated with more than one value system or both values and risk perception. The other conflicts cases were based on intrinsic (40%) and utilitarian (14%) value systems. Conclusions: Conflicts based on value and risk perceptions are inherently difficult to resolve because authorities need to balance the needs of different stakeholders while meeting the mandate of conserving the environment, ecosystem services and human well-being. This paper uses the identified conflict-generating species to highlight the challenges and trade-offs of managing invasive species in South Africa.
Even with no new introductions, the number of biological invasions in South Africa will increase as introduced species naturalise and become invasive. As of 2010 South Africa had ~8750 introduced plant taxa, 660 recorded as naturalised, 198 included in invasive species legislation, but only 64 subject to regular control (i.e. only widespread invaders are managed post-border). There is only one documented example of a successful eradication programme in continental South Africa – against the Mediterranean snail (Otala punctata) in Cape Town. Here we describe the establishment in 2008 of a unit funded by the Working for Water Programme as part of the South African National Biodiversity Institute's Invasive Species Programme (SANBI ISP) designed to (1) detect and document new invasions, (2) provide reliable and transparent post-border risk assessments and (3) provide the cross-institutional coordination needed to successfully implement national eradication plans. As of the end of 2012, the ISP had an annual budget of R36 million, employed 33 staff working across all nine provinces, supported 10 postgraduate students, hosted 35 interns (including those as part of a drive to collect DNA barcodes for all invasive taxa) and created over 50 000 days of work as part of government poverty alleviation programmes. The unit has worked towards full risk assessments for 39 plant taxa and has developed eradication plans for seven species; the unit is now helping implement these plans. By focusing on science-based management and policy, we argue that SANBI ISP can play a leading role in preventing introduced species from becoming widespread invaders.
Background: In many countries around the world, the most damaging invasive plant species are grasses. However, the status of grass invasions in South Africa has not been documented recently. Objectives: To update Sue Milton’s 2004 review of grasses as invasive alien plants in South Africa, provide the first detailed species level inventory of alien grasses in South Africa and assess the invasion dynamics and management of the group. Method: We compiled the most comprehensive inventory of alien grasses in South Africa to date using recorded occurrences of alien grasses in the country from various literature and database sources. Using historical literature, we reviewed past efforts to introduce alien grasses into South Africa. We sourced information on the origins, uses, distributions and minimum residence times to investigate pathways and patterns of spatial extent. We identified alien grasses in South Africa that are having environmental and economic impacts and determined whether management options have been identified, and legislation created, for these species. Results: There are at least 256 alien grass species in the country, 37 of which have become invasive. Alien grass species richness increased most dramatically from the late 1800s to about 1940. Alien grass species that are not naturalised or invasive have much shorter residence times than those that have naturalised or become invasive. Most grasses were probably introduced for forage purposes, and a large number of alien grass species were trialled at pasture research stations. A large number of alien grass species in South Africa are of Eurasian origin, although more recent introductions include species from elsewhere in Africa and from Australasia. Alien grasses are most prevalent in the south-west of the country, and the Fynbos Biome has the most alien grasses and the most widespread species. We identified 11 species that have recorded environmental and economic impacts in the country. Few alien grasses have prescribed or researched management techniques. Moreover, current legislation neither adequately covers invasive species nor reflects the impacts and geographical extent of these species. Conclusion: South Africa has few invasive grass species, but there is much uncertainty regarding the identity, numbers of species, distributions, abundances and impacts of alien grasses. Although introductions of alien grasses have declined in recent decades, South Africa has a potentially large invasion debt. This highlights the need for continued monitoring and much greater investment in alien grass management, research and legislation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.