Management feasibility of established invasive plant species in Queensland, Australia: A stakeholders' perspective.
Australia
Expert elicitation
Management feasibility
Pest risk assessment
Prioritization
Stakeholders
Weed control options
Journal
Journal of environmental management
ISSN: 1095-8630
Titre abrégé: J Environ Manage
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0401664
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Sep 2019
15 Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
16
12
2018
revised:
26
02
2019
accepted:
10
05
2019
pubmed:
15
6
2019
medline:
26
9
2019
entrez:
15
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Managing and monitoring invasive alien species (IAS) is costly, and because resources are limited, prioritization decisions are required for planning and management. We present findings on plant pest prioritization for 63 established invader species of natural and grazing ecosystems of Queensland, Australia. We used an expert elicitation approach to assess risk (species occurrence, spread, and impact) and feasibility of control for each IAS. We elicit semi-quantitative responses from diverse expert stakeholders to score IAS on three management approaches (biocontrol, chemical and mechanical) in relation to cost, effectiveness and practicality, and incorporate uncertainty in expert inputs and model outputs. In the process, we look for promising management opportunities as well as seek general trends across species' ecological groups and management methods. Stakeholders were cautiously optimistic about the feasibility of managing IAS. Taking into consideration all factors, the overall feasibility of control was uncorrelated with the stakeholders' level of confidence. However, within individual management criterion, positive trend was observed for the same bivariate traits for chemical control, and negative trends for biocontrol and mechanical controls. Utility and confidence in IAS management options were in the order: chemical > biocontrol = mechanical, with practicality and effectiveness being the main driver components. Management feasibility differed significantly between IAS life forms but not between habitats invaded. Lastly, we combined IAS risk assessment and management feasibility scores to create a risk matrix to guide policy goals (i.e. eradication, spread containment, protection of sensitive sites, targeted control, site management, monitoring, and limited action). The matrix identifies promising species to target for each of these policy outcomes. Overall, our general approach illustrates (i) the importance of understanding the feasibility of IAS control actions and the factors that drive it, and (ii) demonstrates how quantifying management feasibility can be used to enhance traditional risk assessment rankings to improve policy outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31200182
pii: S0301-4797(19)30662-0
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.052
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
484-495Informations de copyright
Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.