 |
||||
| Status and Trends of Biological Resources |
|
|
|
To close this window and return to the previous screen, please click the "x" in the top right of your screen. PTS: 9354BO6.543.0 Title: Managing biological invasions: moving from control to coexistence TASK MOVED IN FY2007 TO PROJECT 9354CUB, Task 543 Leaders: * Adams, Michael J., mjadams@usgs.gov, 541-758-8857, FAX 541-758-7761, 3200 S.W. Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 * Hoffman, Robert , robert_hoffman@usgs.gov, 541-758-7788, FAX 541-758-8806, 3200 S.W. Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 * Pearl, Christopher , christopher_pearl@usgs.gov, 541-750-1011, FAX , 3200 S.W. Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 * Pyke, David A., david_a_pyke@usgs.gov, 541-750-7334, FAX 541-758-8806, 3200 S.W. Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 Send EMail to Leaders Locations: United States,Western US,Oregon Objectives: If prevention and eradication efforts are ineffective, then what else can be done to effectively manage invasions? The answer may lie in understanding more about variation in the success of invasions and variation in their impacts. It is widely known by researchers and managers on the ground that most invasions have few significant ecological consequences. This often happens because invaders either fail to establish, or remain in isolated localities or persist at low numbers. Even with well-established and/or widespread invasions, there is notable variation in their success and impacts. This implies a degree of coexistence is possible between invading species and impacted species or ecosystems. If it is possible to 1) find evidence of potential coexistence, and 2) determine if coexistence is related to something that can be managed, then management for coexistence (versus prevention or eradication) may be a viable opportunity. The collective experience among scientists working within FRESC points to coexistence as an important issue in invasion biology, yet it remains a vastly under-appreciated phenomenon in research. For example, none of the recent ¿white papers¿ published in the research literature the past few years provides significant guidance on this issue. Policies and management actions also seem focused on prevention and eradication, yet many managers implicitly acknowledge the possibility of coexistence. Statement of Problem: Biological invasions represent a major long-term threat to species and ecosystem services worldwide. The growing pace of invasions has far outstripped resources available to control them, and the search for solutions for managing invasions may need to move beyond traditional control measures of prevention and eradication. Current policy and management emphasizes the common sense of preventing invasions, including actions such as screening luggage in airports or the ballast water of ships, early detection and rapid response to recent invasions, control, eradication and restoration of known invasions, and public education to increase awareness of common pathways for invaders. Given the increasing mobility of humans and associated goods across the globe, it seems that prevention of invasions is a truly overwhelming and seemingly impossible task, except perhaps in very small and tightly controlled situations. The ever-increasing list of new invaders and rapid spread of existing invasions speaks to the difficulty of prevention and eradication techniques as a stand-alone solution. If invaders arrive to a location and establish, it may be possible to eradicate them, especially if a ¿rapid response¿ is possible. This approach has been increasingly advocated in principle, but management realities seriously constrain practical applications of this oft-dispensed advice. First, it is extremely difficult to detect new invasions when they occur. Invasions are most controllable via eradication when they are the least detectable (e.g., limited spatial distribution, low numbers of individuals). Second, the litany of environmental regulations and coordination that accompany any management action may delay action, possibly reducing the effectiveness of any resulting attempt at eradication. In other words, by the time a management response is implemented, it may already be too late. Finally, eradication is often extremely expensive, and resources are always extremely limited. Even if an efficient prioritization system could be effectively used to direct limited resources, eradication will always be an incomplete solution to managing invasions. 2006 Progress: We completed literature review and held of series of 6 meetings to explore and define "management for coexistence". We have produced a draft manuscript for submission to a scientific journal. 2006 Statement of Work: We will conduct a literature review and continuing dialogue among scientists within FRESC to further explore and define the theme of ¿coexistence¿ as a way of developing a unique and relevant research agenda spanning different taxonomic groups and scientific expertise. This interaction among FRESC scientists will involve writing a paper to be submitted for publication in a widely-circulated peer-reviewed journal, such as Bioscience, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Ecological Applications, or other similar outlet. The project will be completed within one year. We believe such a publication will promote interactions and collaborations among FRESC scientists and provide the program with a unique identity in this growing research arena. We will involve as many FRESC scientists as possible who are willing to actively participate in this effort. Furthermore, we will consider engaging an invasive species manager or policymaker to contribute experience from management. Product: Report Planned Adams MJ, Dunham J, Hoffman R, Pearl CA, Pyke D, Living with invasive species: can we manage for coexistence?, USGS |
|
|
| Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices | |
|
|
