The Art and Science of Weed Mapping

Barnett, David T.; Stohlgren, Thomas J.; Jarnevich, Catherine S.; Chong, Geneva W.; Ericson, Jenny; Davern, Tracy R.; Simonson, Sara

doi:10.1007/s10661-006-9530-0

Cited by 41 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, 60% of plots had < 1% cover, indicating extensive minimally infested area. Plot-based surveys of landscapes like ours provide information on species distribution and abundance and are not exhaustive botanical inventories (Barnett et al 2007). Our plots contained 21% of the 139 non-native species on inventory lists of these parks.…”

Section: Invasion Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nature reserves world-wide contain increasing numbers of non-native plant species in their flora (e.g., Allen et al 2009, Barnett et al 2007, Pyšek et al 2003. Invasion by non-native plants occurred both before and after establishment of nature reserves.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Identifying the non-native species present and their distribution is a first step in managing biological invasions (Barnett et al 2007). For example, inventorying species abundance enables identifying which species are currently rare and thus manageable through early detection and treatment (Klinger et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Status and management of non-native plant invasion in three of the largest national parks in the United States

Abella¹,

Fisichelli²,

Schmid³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, invasion by non-native plants threatens resources that nature reserves are designated to protect. We assessed the status of non-native plant invasion on 1,662, 0.1-ha plots in Death Valley National Park, Mojave National Preserve, and Lake Mead National Recreation Area. These parks comprise 2.5 million ha, 23% of the national park land in the contiguous USA. At least one non-native species inhabited 82% of plots. Thirty-one percent of plots contained one non-native species, 30% two, 17% three, and 4% four to ten non-native species. Red brome (Bromus rubens), an 'ecosystem engineer' that alters fire regimes, was most widespread, infesting 60% of plots. By identifying frequency of species through this assessment, early detection and treatment can target infrequent species or minimally invaded sites, while containment strategies could focus on established invaders. We further compared two existing systems for prioritizing species for management and found that a third of species on plots had no rankings available. Moreover, rankings did not always agree between ranking systems for species that were ranked. Presence of multiple non-native species complicates treatment, and while we found that 40% of plots contained both forb and grass invaders, exploiting accelerated phenology of non-natives (compared to native annuals) might help manage multi-species invasions. Large sizes of these parks and scale of invasion are formidable challenges for management. Yet, precisely because of their size, these reserves represent opportunities to conserve large landscapes of native species by managing non-native plant invasions. RESEARCH ARTICLE Launched to accelerate biodiversity conservationA peer-reviewed open-access journal Scott R. Abella et al. / Nature Conservation 10: 71-94 (2015) 72

show abstract

Section: Invasion Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Status and management of non-native plant invasion in three of the largest national parks in the United States

Abella¹,

Fisichelli²,

Schmid³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beginning in 2007 through 2010, we searched marshes and shoreline within a few kilometers of known populations, repeating this process when occurrences of LIRA and LIDU were found or reported through 2010. Mapping weeds via landscape searches leverages knowledge of local experts but may miss locations considered unlikely to be invaded (Barnett et al 2007). To augment our approach, in 2010, a spatially explicit species distribution model (SDM) was developed and used to identify LIRA habitat in south San Francisco Bay (South Bay).…”

Section: Distribution and Abundance Of Lira And Lidumentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution and Invasion Potential of Limonium ramosissimum subsp. provinciale in San Francisco Estuary Salt Marshes

Archbald¹,

Boyer²

2014

SFEWS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Hence, weed surveys in these arable systems evolved over centuries always delve into a multitude of species, the diversity and the communities they build. This task of arable weed surveys is different from environmental weed surveys as reported by Barnet et al (2007), which focus single invasive species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Methods to conduct and analyse weed surveys in arable farming: a review

Hanzlik

Gerowitt

2016

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arable weeds always accompany arable farming; however, species and abundances vary in space and change in time. Surveys assess weeds on a large spatial scale. The regional and national importance, the abundances in which weeds occur, is derived from surveys. Environmental and management background data assist to explain the weed vegetation. Arable weed surveys can have an agronomic, a botanical or an ecological purpose-we approach the agronomic viewpoint. Scientific value results from spatial data about the arable weed vegetation for modelling the dependencies and predicting future changes on a large scale. Researchers, botanists, farmers, advisors, herbicide manufacturers and other industry players engaged in weed control can get rationale spatial impressions of trends in the weed vegetation. This review focuses on methodical aspects of weed surveys. Forty-three surveys on farmed fields, mainly but not exclusively undertaken in Europe, done in up to nine crops per survey covering periods of 1 to 67 years and including 59 to 4423 fields were excerpted for suitable methods to conduct and analyse surveys. The methods reflect agronomic and other targets, e.g. from vegetation science. When accessing existing data, the interdependencies of the layout and all targets should be handled with care. When setting up surveys for agronomic purpose, it is worthwhile to include 3 years and apply stratified sampling. We recommend assessing abundances rather than presence only. Weed survey data is most suitable for applying multivariate statistics. We recommend using proven methods, without discouraging to explore others. To collect sound explanatory data demands for robust contacts with land managers. Explanatory variables are important in survey analyses to extract knowledge about the drivers of the weed vegetation. We conclude that extra value can be obtained from existing weed survey data. We propose to setup public-private partnerships as a way to carry on with arable weed surveys.

show abstract

The Art and Science of Weed Mapping

Cited by 41 publications

References 52 publications

Status and management of non-native plant invasion in three of the largest national parks in the United States

Status and management of non-native plant invasion in three of the largest national parks in the United States

Distribution and Invasion Potential of Limonium ramosissimum subsp. provinciale in San Francisco Estuary Salt Marshes

Methods to conduct and analyse weed surveys in arable farming: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About