Robison R.,California Botany |
Schoenig S.,Supervising Biologist |
Johnson D.W.,California Invasive Plant Council |
Brusati E.,California Invasive Plant Council |
Ditomaso J.M.,University of California at Davis
Invasive Plant Science and Management | Year: 2010
This project summarizes the opinion of 52 experts on the future research needs in the area of invasive plants in California. Experts included academics at private and public universities, Cooperative Extension educators, land managers, members of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), employees of restoration companies, and federal, state, and local agency personnel. Surveys were conducted through in-person interviews, written questionnaires, and workshops. The objective was to identify high-priority needs for future research on issues related to invasive plants in California's wildlands. More specifically, the goals were to (1) create a forum for assessing high-priority research needs, (2) guide future research toward these high-priority needs, and (3) facilitate connections and interactions among academic disciplines and between researchers and practitioners by increasing awareness of the range of ongoing research on invasive plants. Priority needs were chosen for 10 broad research topic areas, with specific subtopics addressed within each of these areas. In addition to noting specific research areas, there was a general need expressed for a synthesis of existing scientific information, particularly about the biology and ecology of invasive plants and the ecological impacts, control and management tools, restoration activities, and related social issues surrounding invasive plants. A mutual exchange of information was also considered important among the academic researcher and the field practitioner, as was the development of more effective training programs for land managers. © 2010 Weed Science Society of America.
Gornish E.,University of California at Davis |
Johnson D.W.,California Invasive Plant Council
California Agriculture | Year: 2016
Restoration practitioners use both native and nonnative plant species for revegetation projects. Typically, when rehabilitating damaged working lands, more practitioners consider nonnative plants; while those working to restore habitat have focused on native plants. But this may be shifting. Novel ecosystems (non-analog communities) are commonly being discussed in academic circles, while practical factors such as affordability and availability of natives and the need for more drought tolerant species to accommodate climate change may be making nonnative species attractive to land managers. To better understand the current use of nonnatives for revegetation, we surveyed 192 California restoration stakeholders who worked in a variety of habitats. A large portion (42%) of them considered nonnatives for their projects, and of survey respondents who did not use nonnatives in vegetation rehabilitation, almost half indicated that they would consider them in the future. Across habitats, the dominant value of nonnatives for vegetation rehabilitation was found to be erosion control, and many respondents noted the high cost and unavailability of natives as important drivers of nonnative use in revegetation projects. Moreover, 37% of respondents noted they had changed their opinion or use of nonnatives in response to climate change. © 2016, University of California. All rights reserved.
Funk J.L.,Chapman University |
Matzek V.,Santa Clara University |
Bernhardt M.,Chapman University |
Johnson D.,California Invasive Plant Council
BioScience | Year: 2014
In addition to their negative impacts on biodiversity, alien plant species often affect ecosystem processes in ways that degrade ecosystem services for humans, resulting in economic losses. Timely intervention to control the spread of invaders can minimize economic and ecological damages, whereas lapses or delays in funding weed control can be extremely costly in the long run. Using recent decreases in funding for invasive plant management in California as an example, we argue that managers must make a broader case for investing in the control of invasive species to prevent the loss of ecosystem services. In particular, managers need to partner with academic scientists, private landowners, and the public sector to quantify the impact of invasive weeds on service provision, assess where services are most at risk and who benefits from the avoided cost of weed control, and create mechanisms to fund invasive species management through payment for ecosystem services. © 2013 The Author(s) 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.