Fletcher Cameron S, Westcott David A, Murphy Helen T, Grice Anthony C, Clarkson John R
CSIRO Land & Water Flagship, CSIRO Atherton PO Box 780, Atherton, Qld, 4883, Australia.
CSIRO Land & Water Flagship, Australian Tropical Sciences and Innovation Precinct Private Mail Bag PO, Aitkenvale, Qld, 4814, Australia.
J Appl Ecol. 2015 Feb;52(1):59-68. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12361. Epub 2014 Nov 21.
Containment can be a viable strategy for managing invasive plants, but it is not always cheaper than eradication. In many cases, converting a failed eradication programme to a containment programme is not economically justified. Despite this, many contemporary invasive plant management strategies invoke containment as a fallback for failed eradication, often without detailing how containment would be implemented.We demonstrate a generalized analysis of the costs of eradication and containment, applicable to any plant invasion for which infestation size, dispersal distance, seed bank lifetime and the economic discount rate are specified. We estimate the costs of adapting eradication and containment in response to six types of breach and calculate under what conditions containment may provide a valid fallback to a breached eradication programme.We provide simple, general formulae and plots that can be applied to any invasion and show that containment will be cheaper than eradication only when the size of the occupied zone exceeds a multiple of the dispersal distance determined by seed bank longevity and the discount rate. Containment becomes proportionally cheaper than eradication for invaders with smaller dispersal distances, longer lived seed banks, or for larger discount rates.Both containment and eradication programmes are at risk of breach. Containment is less exposed to risk from reproduction in the 'occupied zone' and three types of breach that lead to a larger 'occupied zone', but more exposed to one type of breach that leads to a larger 'buffer zone'.For a well-specified eradication programme, only the three types of breach leading to reproduction in or just outside the buffer zone can justify falling back to containment, and only if the expected costs of eradication and containment were comparable before the breach.. Weed management plans must apply a consistent definition of containment and provide sufficient implementation detail to assess its feasibility. If the infestation extent, dispersal capacity, seed bank longevity and economic discount rate are specified, the general results presented here can be used to assess whether containment can outperform eradication, and under what conditions it would provide a valid fallback to a breached eradication programme.
遏制可以作为管理入侵植物的一种可行策略,但它并不总是比根除成本更低。在许多情况下,将失败的根除计划转变为遏制计划在经济上并不合理。尽管如此,许多当代入侵植物管理策略将遏制作为根除失败后的备用方案,却常常没有详细说明如何实施遏制。我们展示了一种对根除和遏制成本的通用分析方法,适用于任何已明确侵染规模、扩散距离、种子库寿命和经济贴现率的植物入侵情况。我们估计了针对六种突破类型调整根除和遏制措施的成本,并计算了在何种条件下遏制可作为突破的根除计划的有效备用方案。我们提供了可应用于任何入侵情况的简单通用公式和图表,并表明只有当被占领区域的规模超过由种子库寿命和贴现率决定的扩散距离的倍数时,遏制才会比根除成本更低。对于扩散距离较小、种子库寿命较长的入侵者或较高的贴现率,遏制相对于根除会按比例更便宜。
遏制和根除计划都有突破的风险。遏制在“被占领区域”内繁殖以及导致“被占领区域”扩大的三种突破类型方面面临的风险较小,但在导致“缓冲区”扩大的一种突破类型方面面临的风险更大。对于一个明确的根除计划,只有导致在缓冲区或其外繁殖的三种突破类型才可能有理由转向遏制,并且只有在突破前根除和遏制的预期成本相当的情况下才成立。杂草管理计划必须对遏制采用一致的定义,并提供足够的实施细节以评估其可行性。如果明确了侵染范围、扩散能力、种子库寿命和经济贴现率,这里给出的一般结果可用于评估遏制是否能胜过根除,以及在何种条件下它可作为突破的根除计划的有效备用方案。