Stakeholder perceptions and practices regarding Prosopis (mesquite) invasions and management in South Africa

Abstract

Invasive alien trees impact the environment and human livelihoods. The human dimensions of such invasions are less well understood than the ecological aspects, and this is hindering the development of effective management strategies. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken to investigate the knowledge and perceptions of Prosopis between different stakeholder groups. Chi-squared tests, Welch ANOVAs, and Principle Component Analyses were run. Factors such as land tenure and proximity to invasions were especially important for explaining differences in perceptions and practices relating to Prosopis among different stakeholder groups. Most respondents were aware of Prosopis and considered it to be invasive (i.e., spreading). Costs associated with Prosopis were perceived to exceed benefits, and most stakeholders wanted to see a reduction in the abundance of Prosopis stands. The mean total cost for the management of Prosopis was US$ 1914 year -1 per farm, where costs ranged from under US$ 10 to over UD$ 500 per ha based on invasion densities and objectives for control. The findings highlight the need for more effective management interventions.

Distribution and socio-ecological impacts of the invasive alien cactus Opuntia stricta in eastern Africa

“…This technique (eliciting local ecological knowledge) is growing in the field of invasion biology, as it is a cost-effective way of providing a useful understanding of how invasive species impact on humans (García-Llorente et al 2011;Shackleton et al 2015). The questionnaire surveys were conducted in Dol Dol and 20 villages in Laikipia County where the extent of invasion by O. stricta on communal land varied from moderate to high (Fig.…”

“…Other semi-arid rangeland invasive species such as Prosopis spp. are also known to impact negatively on livestock health, through loss of teeth (due to consumption of the pods which have a high sugar content), and thorn injuries (Shackleton et al 2015).…”

“…However, it is often difficult to justify the expenditure of scarce resources to support the control of invasive alien species because of a lack of evidence of impacts, or in many cases differences of opinion regarding the magnitude of impacts . When impacts are studied, it is most often from ecological or economic perspectives and studies based on social perspectives are rare, although they are receiving increasing attention (Shackleton et al 2007;Garcia et al 2008;García-Llorente et al 2011;Kull et al 2011;Kannan et al 2014;Shackleton et al 2015). An understanding of social perspectives is important, as it is often people that influence plant distribution and need management of invasions to reduce impacts and enhance benefits.…”

A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species

“…It is also essential for identifying valuable local knowledge and practices, promoting awareness and social learning, reaching consensus and gaining support, and formulating co-management programs (Touza et al 2014;Forsyth et al, 2012;García-Llorente et al, 2008;Moon et al, 2015;Novoa et al, 2015b;Reed, 2008;Reed et al, 2009;Sharp et al, 2011;Stokes et al, 2006). Therefore, the importance of participatory approaches in alien species management has been increasingly recognized (García-Llorente et al, 2008;Shackleton et al, 2015;Crowley et al, 2017b) and the number of studies aiming to understand stakeholders' perceptions to facilitate decision-making in alien species management is growing (e.g. Liu and Cook, 2016;Novoa et al, 2016;Rout et al, 2014).…”

“…Explore key stakeholders' perceptions and develop initial aims for management By studying stakeholder perceptions and levels of awareness of the invasions, factors influencing management can be uncovered and explored (Eisweth et al, 2011;García-Llorente et al, 2008;Shackleton and Shackleton, 2016). Moreover, people's views on alien species can be better understood (Urgenson et al, 2013) and their wants and needs for management gauged (Kreuter et al, 2005;Shackleton et al, 2015). Finally, the level of cohesion and consensus between stakeholders can be identified (Fischer et al, 2014;Novoa et al, 2015a,b).…”