Non-native plant species richness adjacent to a horse trail network in seven National Parks in southeast Queensland, Australia

Ngugi, Michael R.; Neldner, Victor J.; Dowling, Ralph

doi:10.1080/14486563.2014.952788

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…IUCN Category II Park), and it is also used for a wide range of recreational activities, with bushwalking, running and mountain biking the most popular [ 33 , 34 ]. At least thirty species of environmental weds occur in the Park, mostly along the edges of recreation trails [ 16 ]. Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee approved this study (Permit: ENV/50/13/HREC) and the Queensland Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing granted the permission to conduct the study in the park.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Partly, this is because weeds benefit from disturbance, including that associated with the construction, maintenance and use of different types of visitor infrastructure [ 14 – 17 ]. As a result, weeds dominate the edges of roads, tracks and car parks in many national parks [ 3 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 ]. Visitors can also unintentionally introduce and spread new weeds, with a wide diversity of weed seeds found on vehicles and clothing [ 16 , 19 – 22 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, weeds dominate the edges of roads, tracks and car parks in many national parks [ 3 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 ]. Visitors can also unintentionally introduce and spread new weeds, with a wide diversity of weed seeds found on vehicles and clothing [ 16 , 19 – 22 ]. For instance, seeds from 626 species of plants have been collected from cars, nearly all of which (96%) are considered weeds somewhere [ 23 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What’s a Weed? Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviour of Park Visitors about Weeds

Ansong¹,

Pickering²

2015

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weeds are a major threat to biodiversity globally degrading natural areas of high conservation value. But what are our attitudes about weeds and their management including weeds in national parks? Do we know what a weed is? Do we consider weeds a problem? Do we support their management? Are we unintentionally spreading weeds in parks? To answer these questions, we surveyed visitors entering a large popular national park near the city of Brisbane, Australia. Park visitors were knowledgeable about weeds; with >75% correctly defining weeds as ‘plants that grow where they are not wanted’. About 10% of the visitors, however, provided their own sophisticated definitions. This capacity to define weeds did not vary with people’s age, sex or level of education. We constructed a scale measuring visitors’ overall concern about weeds in parks using the responses to ten Likert scale statements. Over 85% of visitors were concerned about weeds with older visitors, hikers, and those who could correctly define weeds more concerned than their counterparts. The majority think visitors unintentionally introduce seeds into parks, with many (63%) having found seeds on their own clothing. However, over a third disposed of these seeds in ways that could facilitate weed spread. Therefore, although most visitors were knowledgeable and concerned about weeds, and support their control, there is a clear need for more effective communication regarding the risk of visitors unintentionally dispersing weed seeds in parks.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What’s a Weed? Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviour of Park Visitors about Weeds

Ansong¹,

Pickering²

2015

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there is very little research on weed spread by feral horses in Australia (e.g. Ngugi et al 2014) and none from the alpine parks. Weed invasion, facilitated by horses, is potentially important in the alpine parks and warrants further research attention (Nimmo & Miller 2007), including the potential for invasion through commercial trail-riders (Barros & Pickering 2014).…”

Section: Priorities and Knowledge Gapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of feral horses in the Australian Alps and evidence‐based solutions

Driscoll¹,

Worboys

Allan³

et al. 2019

Eco Management Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary New evidence of impacts by feral horses in Australia's alpine parks systems confirms they endanger threatened species and extensively damage critically endangered bog communities that could take millennia to recover. These impacts are not confounded by effects of deer and accumulate over time, even when only a small number of feral horses (~100) are present. With protected areas representing only a small proportion of the area of the Australian states of New South Wales (9.3%) and Victoria (17%), allowing feral horses to degrade reserves is not a reasonable management compromise, is contrary to the purpose of the protected area system and conflicts with international obligations. Modelling and decades of management experience indicate that trapping alone does not control feral horse numbers. Trapping and fertility control can work in small populations, but not when there are several thousand horses in remote areas. Aerial culling is needed to cost‐effectively and humanely control feral horse populations. The relatively small amount of suffering feral horses experience during a cull is outweighed by (i) avoiding suffering and death of horses from starvation and thirst, (ii) avoiding the suffering of native animals displaced by horses and (iii) avoiding the ethical concerns of driving threatened species towards extinction. Objections to aerial culling on welfare and cultural grounds are contradicted by evidence. Improving knowledge in the general community about what is at stake is long overdue because without this knowledge, small groups with vested interests and unfounded claims have been able to dominate debate and dictate management actions. As a result of ineffective management, horse populations are now expanding and causing well‐documented damage to Australia's alpine parks, placing at risk almost $10M spent on restoration after livestock grazing ended. The costs of horse control and restoration escalate the longer large horse populations remain in the alpine parks. It is crucial that feral horse numbers are rapidly reduced to levels where ecosystems begin to recover. Aerial culling is needed as part of the toolbox to achieve that reduction.

show abstract

“…Many non-native species only colonize frequently visited disturbed areas; few can outcompete native plants in undisturbed settings, particularly under shady forest canopies (Marion et al 2016). Across national parks in Australia, non-natives species were recorded within 20 m of the trail edge, with a rapid decrease in abundance occurring with increasing distance (Ngugi et al 2014). Dickens and others (2005) found non-native plants only within 1 m (3.28 ft) of portage trails in the US Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

}“Naturalness” in Designated Wilderness: Long-Term Changes in Non-Native Plant Dynamics on Campsites, Boundary Waters, Minnesota

Eagleston

Marion

2017

Forest Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wilderness areas in the United States are preserved for their untrammeled naturalness and opportunities for unconfined recreation. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness has these qualities, but long-term recreation visitation pressures on campsites can cause significant ecological changes. This article explores changes on campsites, specifically examining non-native plant ecology over 3 decades. The research replicates a 1982 study analyzing vegetation composition and cover on campsites and environmentally paired controls. Camping activities have removed substantial tree cover on campsites, altering their ecological conditions and perceived wilderness character. Over the span of 32 years, the number of non-native plant species found on campsites has not risen, although their mean relative cover has increased significantly and they have spread to more sites. Of the 23 non-native herbs and grasses found on the campsites, only Cirsium arvense is considered a noxious weed by the state of Minnesota. Other noninvasive, non-native plants fall into a gray area in the context of "naturalness" for an area protected as Wilderness because they provide some positive ecological services even as they degrade wilderness character. Thus, wilderness managers face a difficult challenge in coping with the long-term impacts of visitor use on wilderness conditions and character.

show abstract

Non-native plant species richness adjacent to a horse trail network in seven National Parks in southeast Queensland, Australia

Cited by 9 publications

References 22 publications

What’s a Weed? Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviour of Park Visitors about Weeds

What’s a Weed? Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviour of Park Visitors about Weeds

Impacts of feral horses in the Australian Alps and evidence‐based solutions

}“Naturalness” in Designated Wilderness: Long-Term Changes in Non-Native Plant Dynamics on Campsites, Boundary Waters, Minnesota

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About