A Long-Term Experimental Case Study of the Ecological Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Invasive Plant Management in Achieving Conservation Goals: Bitou Bush Control in Booderee National Park in Eastern Australia

Abstract

Invasive plant management is often justified in terms of conservation goals, yet progress is rarely assessed against these broader goals, instead focussing on short-term reductions of the invader as a measure of success. Key questions commonly remain unanswered including whether invader removal reverses invader impacts and whether management itself has negative ecosystem impacts. We addressed these knowledge gaps using a seven year experimental investigation of Bitou Bush, Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata. Our case study took advantage of the realities of applied management interventions for Bitou Bush to assess whether it is a driver or passenger of environmental change, and quantified conservation benefits relative to management costs of different treatment regimes. Among treatments examined, spraying with herbicide followed by burning and subsequent re-spraying (spray-fire-spray) proved the most effective for reducing the number of individuals and cover of Bitou Bush. Other treatment regimes (e.g. fire followed by spraying, or two fires in succession) were less effective or even exacerbated Bitou Bush invasion. The spray-fire-spray regime did not increase susceptibility of treated areas to re-invasion by Bitou Bush or other exotic species. This regime significantly reduced plant species richness and cover, but these effects were short-lived. The spray-fire-spray regime was the most cost-effective approach to controlling a highly invasive species and facilitating restoration of native plant species richness to levels characteristic of uninvaded sites. We provide a decision tree to guide management, where recommended actions depend on the outcome of post-treatment monitoring and performance against objectives. Critical to success is avoiding partial treatments and treatment sequences that may exacerbate invasive species impacts. We also show the value of taking advantage of unplanned events, such as wildfires, to achieve management objectives at reduced cost.

Management of invasive Phragmites australis in the Adirondacks: a cautionary tale about prospects of eradication

“…However, deciding which plant species to target for control is difficult, especially when multiple species co-occur and each is associated with or facilitated by other biotic or abiotic stressors (Simberloff and Von Holle 1999;Bertness et al 2002;Minchinton and Bertness 2003;Nuzzo et al 2009;Fisichelli et al 2013;Kuebbing et al 2013;Dávalos et al 2014Dávalos et al , 2015Craven et al 2016). An abundance of prioritization schemes exist, largely developed by scientists, to help land managers make better informed decisions that focus control efforts (Robertson et al 2003;Fox and Gordon 2009;Downey et al 2010;Esler et al 2010b;Darin et al 2011;Barney et al 2013;Abella et al 2015;Adams and Setterfield 2015;Lindenmayer et al 2015). Depending on a particular scheme's focus, species, habitats, ecosystem services, control strategies, probability of achieving success, expected impacts, and costs may be evaluated.…”

Does the biogeographic origin of species matter? Ecological effects of native and non‐native species and the use of origin to guide management

“…; Lindenmayer et al . ). Balancing the costs and benefits of species introductions is not a new concept as there has long been a trade‐off between regulation vs. facilitation of species movement (Yokomizo et al .…”

Non‐target impacts of weed control on birds, mammals, and reptiles

“…Despite a desire for vegetation dominated by native plants, there are often complex issues associated with alien species control, including the cost vs. efficacy of control (Lindenmayer et al. ) and non‐target impacts on other species. Invasive plants can provide food or habitat for a wide range of native species (Low , Zavaleta et al.…”