USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

J.R.U. Wilson

Publications and source records attributed to J.R.U. Wilson.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Contain or eradicate? Optimizing the management goal for Australian acacia invasions in the face of uncertainty

Aim To identify whether eradication or containment is expected to be the most cost‐effective management goal for an isolated invasive population when knowledge about the current extent is uncertain. Location Global and South Africa. Methods We developed a decision analysis framework to analyse the best management goal for an invasive species population (eradication, containment or take no action) when knowledge about the current extent is uncertain. We used value of information analysis to identify when investment in learning about the extent will improve this decision‐making and tested the sensitivity of the conclusions to different parameters (e.g. spread rate, maximum extent, and management efficacy and cost). The model was applied to Acacia paradoxa DC, an Australian shrub with an estimated invasive extent of 310 ha on Table Mountain, South Africa. Results Under the parameters used, attempting eradication is cost‐effective for infestations of up to 777 ha. However, if the invasion extent is poorly known, then attempting eradication is only cost‐effective for infestations estimated as 296 ha or smaller. The value of learning is greatest (maximum of 8% saving) when infestation extent is poorly known and if it is close to the maximum extent for which attempting eradication is optimal. The optimal management action is most sensitive to the probability that the action succeeds (which depends on the extent), with the discount rate and cost of management also important, but spread rate less so. Over a 20‐year time‐horizon, attempting to eradicate A. paradoxa from South Africa is predicted to cost on average ZAR 8 million if the extent is known, and if our current estimate is poor, ZAR 33.6 million as opposed to ZAR 32.8 million for attempting containment. Main conclusions Our framework evaluates the cost‐effectiveness of attempting eradication or containment of an invasive population that takes uncertainty in population extent into account. We show that incorporating uncertainty in the analysis avoids overly optimistic beliefs about the effectiveness of management enabling better management decisions. For A. paradoxa in South Africa, attempting to eradicate is likely to be cost‐effective, particularly if resources are allocated to better understand and improve management efficacy

Diversity and Distributions↗

Widespread plant species: natives vs. aliens in our changing world

Estimates of the level of invasion for a region are traditionally based on relative numbers of native and alien species. However, alien species differ dramatically in the size of their invasive ranges. Here we present the first study to quantify the level of invasion for several regions of the world in terms of the most widely distributed plant species (natives vs. aliens). Aliens accounted for 51.3% of the 120 most widely distributed plant species in North America, 43.3% in New South Wales (Australia), 34.2% in Chile, 29.7% in Argentina, and 22.5% in the Republic of South Africa. However, Europe had only 1% of alien species among the most widespread species of the flora. Across regions, alien species relative to native species were either as well-distributed (10 comparisons) or more widely distributed (5 comparisons). These striking patterns highlight the profound contribution that widespread invasive alien plants make to floristic dominance patterns across different regions. Many of the most widespread species are alien plants, and, in particular, Europe and Asia appear as major contributors to the homogenization of the floras in the Americas. We recommend that spatial extent of invasion should be explicitly incorporated in assessments of invasibility, globalization, and risk assessments.

Biological Invasions↗