More Megacopta cribraria - kudzu bug - a recent introduction to the United States; another invasive species

kudzu bug 
Megacopta cribraria (Fabricius)
image by Joseph LaForest,  University of Georgia, Bugwood.org      

               I wrote about a recent invasive arrival to the United States last year Sunday, October 30, 2011"A new invasive species: Asian kudzu bug Megacopta cribraria attacks legumes in US" This newcomer to American ecosystems, Megacopta cribraria, is native to India and China and is also found in Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. The bean plataspid is pea-sized, greenish brown, and round with a wide posterior. In case you need to know, the insect  to waddle when it walks on a surface and is an excellent flier.[1]

               This insect is an invasive species from Asia that attacks soybean and other legumes. It also beneficially also feeds on kudzu, an invasive plant species that has spread throughout the southern United States. This sets up a classic collision of desires for it is reducing some of the invasion pressure of kudzu while at the same time threatening the heart of American agriculture.  USDA-APHIS reports that the "pest, which is sometimes called the kudzu bug or lablab bug, was first detected in the United States in November 2009 on kudzu in Barrow County, GA. At that time, a number of homeowners complained about a large number of bugs that had swarmed onto the sides of their homes and other structures, leaving a mildly offensive or bitter odor in their wake. As of August 2010, the bean plataspid has been identified throughout Georgia, in numerous South Carolina counties, and in one North Carolina county."

               So far this particular blog - and this pest - reads like the innumerable other posts about invasive pests that have established in the United States and are causing harm to our ecosystems and the services and resources they provide. And, because it is more of the same thing, most of us are becoming hardened to the point of  being inured and unconcerned by what seems to be background disturbance, a life-style noise and an acceptable condition of modern life. In other words, as with most things today that involve the environment, the this invasive insect and the damage it causes are someone else's problem because it is not directly impacting anything we care about at the moment.

               It turns out that there are places in the world that do not want this invasive insect and are willing to stop American shipping from bring our goods such as cotton to their ports.[2] Honduran officials refused thousands of pounds of goods already landed in their ports this winter after finding several dead bugs in the bottom of cargo containers because of their concerned after learning about reports from China indicating that the bean plataspid can significantly impact springtime soybean crop losses of up to 50 percent and summertime losses of up to 30 percent. It does not help that the bean plataspid is also listed as a harmful pest of Chinese fruit trees. If it moves to other host plants in the Americas, the pest has the potential to cause significant agricultural damage.[3]

               Amazingly enough we have been fighting invasive species before there was a United States of America (Connecticut keeps trying to ban plants). An invasive species, the Hessian fly, established itself during the American revolution and worked havoc on our young nation's commercial trade. what is new is that invasive species are entering and establishing at ever growing rates. We are being overwhelmed by a biological oil-slick, a living forest fire that is permanently altering our ecosystems and the services they render. Our response is to mimic the ostrich - to hear no evil and see no wrong, to leave to a future generation the task of cleaning up and responding to the damage we are allowing to happen.

               We need to find money to raise awareness and engage the political process.

---

[1] USDA-APHIS PPQ Invasive Insect (Bean Plataspid) Poses Risk to Soybean Crops and Infests Homes in Southeastern States. [accessed May 20, 2012] http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/plant_health/content/printable_version/fs_beanpla.pdf

[2] National Cotton Council. kudzu bug remediation. [accessed May 20, 2012] http://www.cotton.org/tech/flow/kudzu-bug-remediation.cfm

[3] Erin France. April 8, 2012. Kudzu bugs raise concerns. erin.france@onlineathens.com/ [accessed May 20. 2012] http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2012-04-08

Ruminations on Harm and Invasive Species

               The wicked inconvenience of invasive species is wrapped up in definitional fuzziness.[1] Bertrand Russell must of been channeling invasion biology when he wrote that "everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise,  and everything precise is so remote from everything that we normally think, that you cannot for a moment suppose that is what we really mean when we say what we think." (Bertrand Russell. 1918.  Logic & Knowledge: The Philosophy of Logical Atomism )

               In many debates the conversation rarely moves past the definition of the word invasive, never reaching the dark recesses of taxonomy and the outer limits of agreeing on what exactly a species is. Because the interest groups, both those worried about invasives and those who are dismissive of any concern, stay far away from the tail-end of the general definition of an invasive species - the part that refers to harm. The U. S. Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive species as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” In the Executive Summary of the National Invasive Species Management Plan (NISMP) the term invasive species is further clarified and defined as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” As one of the authors of the white paper referenced in the link above, I remember the conversations surrounding the challenge of what we mean and what we do not mean by the term invasive species. I also recall the problem of dealing with the idea and consequences of harm. In a real sense, it for many stakeholders it comes down to the old adage that one knows harm when one sees it.

               So what exactly is harm? The word harm comes to us through the centuries from the Old English word  hearm that is related to Old Norse's word harmr meaning grief and is related to the Old High German word harm which is translated by our modern English word injury. It is interesting to note the Old Slavonic word sramǔ which is rendered by the English word disgrace.  Today the modern English noun, harm, is defined as 1. a physical or mental injury or damage or 2. a moral evil or wrongdoing.  Harm can therefore be any physical damage to the body caused by violence or accident or fracture. By analogy or inference we can think of a landscape or ecosystem as a body and see the extension of meaning as a species introduced by human activity displaces indigenous species. Harm can also be defined as an occurrence of a change for the worse (the act of damaging something or someone) which on the surface seems to succinctly explain the invasive problem but in itself begs the question as to how to assign a value to worse. Again we tend to resort to know it when we see it to escape the tedious process of actually thinking through the logic of the definitions.

               Armed with the above definition it is clear that the problem is one of valuation. How does one assign a value to change? What do we mean by change for the good or change for the worse?  If I see a tree falling in my direction , self-preservation assigns a value of bad and I move to correct my path so as to disallow a presumed negative outcome - on other words I get out of the way. If I have a tree leaning towards my house and I notice that each month it leans a little more, I will assign values to the potential damage to the house that may come at some point versus the cost of being proactive and cutting down the tree or if possible staking it.  I am now performing complicated future value calculations taking a discount rate and considering opportunity costs. I am assessing risk.

               In the examples above, I am the only decider in the equation. The problems and solutions revolve around me and there is no other human parameter to consider. However if we add another person to the equation the process of valuation can become complicated quickly and gives rise to one of the reason we have societal laws. If the leaning tree is not on my property, and for example is a walnut, my neighbor for his own economic reasons may wish to let the tree grow to harvest the wood at a later date when the market return is better. Short of altruism or laws his concern is not harm to my house. It is more profitable for him to externalize the problem onto me. Of course he needs to figure the potential loss of access to when it falls onto my property.

               Now consider the problem that arise if I decide to grow and sell a non native bamboo such as Phyllostachys aurea and my reason to sell this plant are 1. it reproduces with little input or effort from me and thus is easily propagated for sale and 2.  is easy to market because it grows anywhere and creates quick landscape screening - a ready market for my business. I am making a profit, and from this profit am able to afford health-care. The little issue of its spread onto my neighbors land can be seen as my "free" gift to him or her. I am externalizing some of my production costs because I do not spend time or resources controlling the movement of the plant through the local landscape and ecosystem. I rationalize this by noting how wonderful it is to be able to afford health-care because of this wonderful non native species. My calculations are all done in near time; I benefit right now and tomorrow and am therefore convinced of the overwhelming evidence of positive valuation of the introduction of this species. In fact as far out as I can see the profits from this species will allow me to set aside fungible resources to deal with and hazy problems that may arise in the distant future from any unexpected challenges to the community.

               Now my neighbor happens to be interested in back yard habitats and butterfly photography...it is how he or she makes her mortgage payment. The destruction of indigenous biological diversity is bad enough as my plant spreads by sales into common areas such as public parks, but the direct incursion of my profitable plant on to his or her land is intolerable. However I make money by not spending it on control. If I had to spend the amount of money necessary to keep the plant from spreading my profits would go down. My neighbor is of course not interested in my profits which for him or her are realized as costs. In other words my positive valuation becomes their negative valuation. My good species is their bad species. at the neighbor to neighbor level this is fairly straightforward, but when applied to ecosystems, landscapes and communities at large the valuation process spins out of easy linear consideration.

               Keeping the above, contrived situational valuing processes in mind, we need to consider the problem of change in space and in time.  Change in and of itself is dimensionless. Change is the result of an operation. Without change there is no life as we know it.  "Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει - All is flux", said Heraclitus, and any work to hold back change has a cost. Change is geography, change over time lead to change in resource service mix and output possibilities. However doing nothing about change is not an answer that leads to long life. A farmer who says that there is no point to removing weeds in the field every day because the weeds just come back soon as no crop from which he can harvest food. In essence the farmer spends resources, lowering profitability, fending off the incursion and establishment of unwanted species who from experience he judges to have a negative value. The farmer takes a lower short term profit because if in the long term he chooses to do nothing he knows there will be no benefit.

               Harm in invasive species is reduced to a calculation of near and long term benefit that must be redefined continuously. This makes for difficult policy conversations and the difficulty in turns leads to implications in order to enable movement towards predefined goals.  The wicked inconvenience of invasive species lies in part in our inability to address how much harm is permissible, how much change can we permit and who will pay to stop a tree from falling or an ecosystem from collapsing. The cost of preventing can be compared with cost of the benefit lost and a near term decision made, but ho to calculate the loss of future possibilities. For example, the emerald ash borer, an invasive species will reduce the number of ash trees to near zero.  Baseball bats are made from ash trees. What is the value of future loss of yet unmake baseball bats? What other as of yet unknown benefits might come from a future that now has no ash trees to speak of?

               When considering harm how do we value biodiversity's future possibilities against present needs? By homogenizing the landscape, we introduce predictability into our lives many of which because of our urban lifestyles are rife with landscape illiteracy. Who has the time to learn about the interactions between species and which ones may bite or give a rash? If we introduce the same workhorse species around the world then we can presume a certain amount of predictability and therefore unthinking safety as we move about the landscape absorbed in our pursuit of life. Invasive species are co evolutionary partners with mankind. Invasive species are biotic ploughs that chronically disturb the land around human settlements and grind down biological diversity brining a predictable simplicity. This simplistic landscape buys enough time in theory for humans to life in relative safety and work to find alternative resources to provide medicine, air and clean water as the natural ecosystem declines, or so the short term decision model seems to suggest. Humans will extract enough profit to deal with any problem that arises in a distant opaque future.

               To some extent it seems that harm is in the eye of the beholder. Harm that comes today trumps the harm that comes tomorrow for logically if you do not live through the day the problems of tomorrow will not matter to you. Because we use a hyperbolic function to assess the value or size of harm in time, tomorrow's problems which are of the same size or value as today's look smaller to us. When it comes to deciding the value of a future  decision we find ourselves in a negatively curved decision space.  The decision seems to boil down to how much known resource extraction or change is of a benefit now versus how much will this change possibly, maybe cost us then in inaccessible opportunities. This simplistic equation reduces the question about preserving biodiversity to one of a question of preserving the crown jewels of Great Britain; what is the cost of protecting them versus the worth of the metal and stones today.

               To all of the above we now need to add the layman's confusion that rises between assessing risk of harm with managing the risk of harm. "Risk assessment is the determination of quantitative or qualitative value of risk related to a concrete situation and a recognized threat (also called hazard)" according to Wikipedia.  Explicit in the definition is the idea of concrete situations, and not therefore, hypothetical maybes. The Wiki entry continues, "Quantitative risk assessment requires calculations of two components of risk: the magnitude of the potential loss and the probability  that the loss will occur."  The idea of probability is the most slippery deeply inset idea behind risk. It destroys our notion of a world of clearly defined possibilities upon which we build our entire decision making structure . We assume that the world can be defined into convenient terms of absolutes when in actuality we live in a probability universe. By assigning either a value of good or bad we set ourselves up for irrational arguments at the fuzzy boundaries of the problem.   To assess the risk of harm in the future from an introduced species we enter the world of probabilities, an alien ecosystem to many of us in the domain of the general public. A challenge  in risk management is finding the means to measure potential loss and probability of occurrence. How do we go about measuring the potential loss caused by feral cats let loose upon our common public areas or our private garden spaces for instance?   

              

---

[1] The Wicked Inconvenience of Invasive Species: A Reader in Complexities  

Invasive Species – A Wicked Inconvenience

Invasive Species; Wicked Inconvenience: part two

Invasive species issues & the danger of being controlled by dogmatic ecological paradigms

Invasive Inconvenience Wicked Definitions

Invasive Species Definitions akin to Herding Cats

Invasive Species Conundrum: A Wicked Inconvenience

Invasive Species Complexities: A Wicked Inconvenience

Invasive Species; Wickedly Inconvenient Still

Invasive species: more inconveniences of a wicked nature

Weeds: Defining Inconvenience, Wickedly

Invasive Species: Simple at First Glance

Inconvenient question: Invasive species

The problem of invasive species and beauty

Wicked Invasives; Inconvenient Issues

Invasive species: The Great Green Divide

Invasive species: "cosmic definitions"

Private preferences, Invasive species & Public values

A Garden or a Jar in Tennessee

Invasive Species Definitions Defined

Ruminations on the Complexities of Invasive Species

Invasive Species Issues - Flailing in the Wind

The Fuzziness of Invasive Species Issues

The Speed of Climate Change & Invasive Species Impacts

Climate change & invasive species

Are cats an invasive species - a wickedly inconvenient conversation

New Members of US Invasive Species Advisory Committee

On Friday, September 16, 2011, Secretary Ken Salazar appointed six new members, and reappointed eight current members to the seventh convening Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). NISC is pleased to present the members of the seventh convening ISAC among whom is the author of this blog: [http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/isac_class7.html]

Peter Alpert, Ph.D. University of Massachusetts Patrick Burch (New) Dow AgroSciences Earl Chilton, II, Ph.D. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Joseph DiTomaso, Ph.D. (Reappointed) University of California, Davis Otto Doering, III, Ph.D. (Reappointed) Purdue University Susan Ellis (reappointed) California Department of Fish and Game Amy Frankmann Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association Ann Gibbs Maine Department of Agriculture (Representing National Plant Board) Bonnie Harper-Lore (New) Private Invasive Species Consultant Scott Hendrick National Conference of State Legislatures Phyllis Johnson University of North Dakota Eric Lane Colorado Department of Agriculture Susan Kedzie (New) Leech Lake Band Of Ojibwe Timothy Male Defenders of Wildlife Robert McMahon University of Texas at Arlington N. Marshall Meyers (New) Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council Edward L. Mills, Ph.D. (Reappointed) Cornell University Stephen Phillips Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Jamie K. Reaser, Ph.D. Congruence, LLC Kristina Serbesoff-King The Nature Conservancy Celia Smith, Ph.D. University of Hawaii David E. Starling, D.V.M. (Reapponted) Aqueterinary Services, P.C. Nathan Stone, Ph.D. (Reappointed) University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff John Peter Thompson Maryland Nursery and Landscape Association John Torgan Save the Bay Robert Van Steenwyck, Ph.D. (New) University of California, Berkeley Jennifer Vollmer, Ph.D. CPS Timberland Damon E. Waitt, Ph.D. (Reappointed) Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center University of Texas at Austin Robert H. Wiltshire (Reappointed) Invasive Species Action Network (Representing the Federation of Fly Fishers)

Invasive Species Issues - Flailing in the Wind

    Invasive species are all around us. They are so ubiquitous that they are accepted as part of the fabric of daily life with little to no consideration given until they reach out and bite us. Then, they become personal, and we reach for the quickest most toxic solution which fixes the symptom, fills the individual which caused the immediate problem, and does nothing at all about the problem. The spread of invasive species is like a global oil spill, so large that we cannot absorb the slow alteration of the landscapes around us. Because the problem pervades our world, our community and our person we integrate it into the background of our lives.  P. ramorum, commonly known as sudden oak death, check; 15 plus foot Burmese pythons, check; 80 pound Asian carp, fish that fling themselves into the air, check; vines that cover 8 million acres of the country, check; Asian fish that walks from ponds into our rivers, the northern snakehead well on its way to becoming a naturalized resident of the United States, check; millions of dead 100 foot tall ash trees from which we might have made baseball bats, killed by the Emerald ash borer, check; the European corn borer taking out a staple of our food supply, check; purple loosestrife, a beautiful garden flowers creating acres of monotony, check; non native brown marmorated stink bugs that devour our crops and then move inside our homes for the winter; and the list goes on and on, too large to be kept in the forefront of our day to day plans.     
   One might expect a robust national policy to address and manage this invasion of our environment, and, indeed, there is a management plan with no funding, a council with no teeth, and a government with no will. The Department of Energy for example is not even a member of the National Invasive Species Council and has no intention so far of becoming a member. The Department of Energy does have intentions of funding biofuel programs that use invasive species such as Arundo donax with plans to intentionally introduce the species under the usual understanding that impacts to the general good is acceptable cost of producing energy. While considerable thought has been put into what a robust national policy might look like, the lack of political will and funding support has crippled any effectiveness.    This lack of national will results in a patch-work of local efforts each struggling to contain the dramatic affects of invasive species. With little support, "weed warriors" valiantly try to contain their own invasive species of the moment. Even though study after study, and common sense, suggests that any reduction of introduction is the most cost effective approach, the lack of a national policy makes this hard to do. However, local action and determination are beginning to propose state laws and regulations to address the movement and introduction of invasive species. Each state will have its own system and specifications addressing the local needs. Because of the lack of national funding, the policies of the several states will be loosely coordinated at best.
    And so, the optimization of our local ecological systems proceeds in the hope that our local actions will stabilize the overall environment. Unfortunately, the lack of national coordination almost certainly guarantees unintended and unsuspected outcomes. In addition, optimizing the outcome of a subsystem by trying to mitigate the damage of invasive species on a local level will in general not optimize the outcome for the larger system as a whole. The result can even become the "tragedy of the commons": the exhaustion of shared resources because of competition among local ecosystem stakeholders. And worse, the optimized ecosystems may not actually preserve the larger environmental picture as wished or planned, or further the general sense of human societal well-being.
    In short when we try to achieve the "greatest good for the greatest number", we soon find that the greatest good (optimal outcome) for the individual in general differs from the greatest group good for the larger system of individuals or society as a whole. Protecting our local park from invasive species may benefit us locally, but restricting global trade may impact our larger system dynamics. The only way to "manage" the process is to establish both local and national activities linked by intensive feedback loops. We seem to be creating the local system; we are dismantling any semblance of a national decision making platform through inattention and distraction.
    Invasive species are a wicked inconvenience that alter the environment around us in ways we cannot imagine. We need a national policy that is backed by funding for research, outreach and support for grass root and state efforts. We need to be continuously reexamining our national focus in light of local conditions, and we need to coordinate information in a timely manner. We need to fund Early Detection and Rapid Response efforts, and we need to continue fine tuning our risk assessment tools. Mostly, we need to wake up and notice there is a problem, before all we can smell are the stink bugs.

Invasive pythons & party politics - Revenge of the Republicans

Python in the Everglades picture by author who was not focused on framing but rather on running just in case


An article by Kurt Repanshek House Republicans Say Interior Secretary's Proposed Snake Ban Bad for Business Posted March 25th, 2010 certainly brought me up short first thing this morning and gave me pause to think about why I should care about invasive species. In the clear, stark exposition of value ladened absolutes, some politicians and their stakeholders have found a certainty that their right to make a living trumps any right to preserve a mostly native and, for now, functioning ecosystem. This, in a nut shell, sums up the challenges of invasive species: Do I have a right to use natural resources in any fashion that I choose without public regulation or interference? Are by-products of my actions that affect a ecological resource a cost that should be born by me or by those people whose use of the resources that might now be negatively impacted? And most importantly, how exactly does one place an immediate economic value on a natural resource that has not yet been exploited or valued by bankers, investors or their accountants?

The invasive species controversy ranges those who feel that nature needs to be shaped, scaped, corralled and tamed against those constituencies who, for various reasons, want to preserve, conserve or simply serve nature’s elaborate complex biomes. In my blog entitled: Pythons, People & Pathways: Invasive Species Slither In, I wrote about the conflicted cast of characters and their desires. The disagreement boils down to a short term personal right to do or possess whatever one want versus a long term public or social goal. The immediacy of the lure of beauty is a powerful and compelling force. And yes, charismatic reptiles are beautiful for there is no arguing with taste; even the Romans knew to stay at arms length from such disputes (non est disputandum gustibus) being a popular quote) and even perhaps even had a healthy respect for snakes. As I noted in Lythrum & Lionfish - Invasive Beauties as well as Dangerous Beauty and other Invasive Species Traps, the powerful draw of beauty and our human desire to possess it obscures the issues of novel species introduction into the ecological systems that support our quality of life.

The report on Republican opposition to regulating constrictor introductions into the United States suggests that pet owners who might release their over-grown pets into the wild are not a realistic proximate cause but instead a hurricane‘s destruction of a warehouse is proffered as a more a more probable early cause of the introduction of the non-native predator. Of course this puts the burden back on business as the warehouse existed to supply business and is hardly helpful as a reason not to regulate. This idea that pet owners are not at fault and business should not be constrained is based upon the assumption that the destruction of the Everglades ecosystem as we know it a cost of the hobby and a externalized cost of doing business. The bottom line so to speak is that if there is a market, and no personal harm is being done under current law, business has a right to be left alone to meet the needs of their customers. The report states that the US government snake supply revenue to be $3.6 to $10.7 million and notes that this is reported to be a gross undervaluation while at the same time claiming that losses for private pet dealers, pet supply stores and companies such Delta, FedEx, and UPS might combine to total $1.6-$1.8 billion (Source: U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers.) Even assuming the associations number to be true, does that mean that the Everglades are worth less? How do address climatic boundaries if we go down the regulatory path? More interesting than the factor of ten disparity is the statement that “The scope of this “injurious” listing is unprecedented and would cause severe economic pain for thousands of Americans by destroying livelihoods and possibly exacerbating the problem of constrictor snakes in South Florida as snake owners and breeders could then release their newly illegal snakes into the wild.” Offered as a factual defense, the statement notes that constrictors can in numbers harm natural resources which is the whole point of the restriction in trade in the first place.

The third line of reasoning seems to suggest that armed hunters could fix the problem of invasion that is a non-existent problem in the opinion of some law makers in Washington DC. One wonders why, if there is no real problem, we should need to arm hunters to take care of an over supply that is at least in part caused by the importation and supply to a market which the Secretary of Interior is trying to control. Prevention which is always cheaper than the mitigation is a fact that seems to have gone to ground. I wish I were in a position to help bring the parties together for a philosophic conversation to lay the groundwork to address each stakeholder’s valid claim.

What clearly needs to happen is a good faith dialogue between the two sides, instead of turning the challenge into a political campaign football loaded with potential unintended consequences. Invasive species issues are a wicked inconvenience that includes multiple disagreeing stakeholder seeking a linear solution for a non-linear problem. The early questions are the ones of definition, responsibility and accountability. Do we agree on what an invasive species is? Do one have a personal right to own a plant or pet that might escape and may cause harm to an ecological system? Can an exotic species eventually become naturalized and part of a functioning ecological system? How many pythons can be released accidentally into a system before there is an irreversible problem? Who ultimately pays for the clean up of a harmful species introduction? And, there needs to be a reading and discussion of the Invasive Species Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper, Submitted by the Definitions Subcommittee of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC), Approved by ISAC April 27, 2006: “An invasive species is a non-native species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health. The National Invasive Species Management Plan indicates that NISC will focus on non-native organisms known to cause or likely to cause negative impacts and that do not provide an equivalent or greater benefit to society. In the technical sense, the term ‘invasion’ simply denotes the uncontrolled or unintended spread of an organism outside its native range with no specific reference about the environmental or economic consequences of such spread or their relationships to possible societal benefits. However, the policy context and subsequent management decisions necessitate narrowing what is meant and what is not meant by the term invasive species. Essentially, we are clarifying what is meant and not meant by “causing harm” by comparing negative effects caused by a non-native organism to its potential societal benefits. Complications concerning the concept of invasive species arise from differing human values and perspectives. Differing perceptions of the relative harm caused or benefit gained by a particular organism are influenced by different values and management goals. If invasive species did not cause harm, we would not be nearly as concerned. Perceptions of relative benefit and harm also may change as new knowledge is acquired, or as human values or management goals change.”

Pythons, People & Pathways: Invasive Species Slither In

[picture of python taken by author on visit by National Invasive Species Advisory Committee - ISAC to the Everglades]


I was asked how the Burmese pythons that now inhabit the Florida Everglades as an invasive species arrive. I quickly answered that it was not by first class reservation on a commercial airline, but rather from the pet industry. Pet industry though does not mean just the business operations but includes the customers for whom they procure a wide variety of pets. This is an important part of the discussion for it is often too easy to blame just the business side of the issue. No business lasts long that does not provide a product sought by its consumer market.

The website, Everglades Burmese Python Project, describes the south Florida ecosystem invader as a”… Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) are large, constricting snakes, native to southeastern Asia, that are one of the most popular snakes in the pet trade.”[1] Popular means that there are many customers who think that having a python is the sine qua non of their existence, a personal necessity for their own quality of life. And the American consumer the bulwark of the global economy is not to be denied his want. As with many wants, though, the unexpected consequence of a good python owning regime is a 15 foot pet. Not unexpectedly, the cost of containment and subsistence grows with the snake leading a few owners to decide, much like gardeners heavy clipping of ivy over the fence into a park, that the snake deserves the best and nature is boundless and unlimited in her abilities to care for the now burdensome former trophy. Out of the bag and into the Everglades and the Florida canal system the soon to be lost love slithers.

EPA provides a list of invasive species pathways noting that ‘[e]scapes or intentional release of unwanted pets can be a source of new non-native species in all parts of the country.” [2] It is most likely the case that the customers are releasing the invasive species intentionally or not rather than the businesses throwing away costly inventory. Disposal of possessions non longer wanted or needed is a challenge. The idea that the land is infinite and that we can just bury our problems is becoming a costly solution, as is releasing our pets into nature out of an anthropocentric sense of kindness. Everything has a consequence even refuse and trash, unwanted plants and pets, and those cherished species that escape from out gardens and homes.

Invasive species negatively impact every one of our current ecosystem services altering the resources that the system provides. Invasive species which are top predators may expand rapidly, deplete resources and may fade away or may become established, altering the known ability of the system to create benefits for humanity. Invasive species introduction in effect create new ecosystems that are restructuring and resetting ecological interactions and while doing so creating challenges for resource predictability. Some invasive species in certain settings can enhance ecosystem services such as Miscanthus sinensis used for erosion control.[3] These diametrically opposed possibilities in part create the wicked inconvenience of invasive species and the issues that surround them




[1] Dr. Michael Dorcas. Davidson College Herpetology Laboratory http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/research/StResearch/Python%20Project%20Website/Python.htm
Dr. Michael Dorcas and the Davidson College Herpetology laboratory are assisting the National Park Service, Dr. Frank Mazzotti, and his laboratory in their studies of Burmese Pythons in Everglades National Park and surrounding areas. Burmese Pythons (Python molurus bivittatus) are large, constricting snakes, native to southeastern Asia, that are one of the most popular snakes in the pet trade. Unfortunately, most pet owners do not realize that their 3 foot, hatchling python may grow to be longer than 15 feet. At this point, owners are frequently unable to care for such a large snake and release them. Researchers believe this is the initial reason for the population of Burmese Pythons in the Everglades; however, over time these captive snakes have bred in the Park and now there appears to be a well-established population. These snakes thrive in the Everglades because they are habitat generalists and the park has an abundance of prey available to them (nearly any animal that exists in the Everglades). These snakes have the ability to consume large animals and potentially pose a threat to threatened and endangered populations of Florida Panthers and Wood Storks among others in the Everglades. Thus, researchers are studying these animals to discover the best ways to eradicate or control the Burmese Python population. Researchers are conducting road surveys to capture snakes and are radio-tracking pythons in the area. Their goal is to determine how Burmese Pythons are using the habitat available to them in Everglades National Park and document the impact the snakes are having on native animal populations. We have been assisting with this project by conducting surgeries to implant transmitters and temperature dataloggers, aiding data collection along roads, and assisting with GIS analysis
[2] Pathways for Invasive Species Introduction http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/pathways.html Globalization has vastly increased long-distance travel and commerce, and highly altered waterways. These and other factors have increased the frequency by orders of magnitude by which non-native plants, animals and pathogens are introduced to new areas, sometimes with costly results. Invasive species can enter important aquatic habitats including riparian zones and wetlands by several common pathways listed below.
Ballast Water: Since 95% of all foreign goods by weight enter the U.S. through its ports, the potential for invasive species impacts on coastal communities is immense.
Boat Hulls, Fishing Gear and Other Recreational Pathways: Boat hulls, fishing boots (felt-soled wading boots transport whirling disease organisms from stream to stream) and equipment, diving gear, and other recreational items that are transported among several water bodies have been known to spread invasive species problems to new waters. Some zebra mussels and milfoil have been introduced via these pathways.
Aquaculture Escapes: Non-native shrimp, oysters and Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest, are just a few examples of non-native mariculture species that have generated concern over disease and other impacts that might arise from their escape.
Intentional Introductions: The introduction of non-indigenous species into ecosystems with few controls on reproduction or distribution.
Aquaria Releases: Escapes or intentional release of unwanted pets can be a source of new non-native species in all parts of the country. The invasive algae Caulerpa is thought to have been introduced to U.S. waterways after being discarded from aquaria.
Live Food Industry: The import of live, exotic foods and the release of those organisms can result in significant control costs, e.g. the snakehead fish in Maryland. Asian swamp eels are spreading through the Southeast after introduction as a food source.
Vehicular Transportation: Both private and commercial transportation are major factors in the movement and range expansion of non-native species throughout the U.S.
Escaped Ornamental Plants, Nurseries Sales, or Disposals: Many invasive plant problems began as ornamental plantings for sale in nurseries and garden shops. Purple loosestrife, for example, is sold as an ornamental plant but takes over native vegetation in wetlands, and can clog western streams preventing water withdrawal and recreational uses. Only some problem species are currently banned from sale.
Cross-basin Connections: From small channels to major intercoastal waterways, new connections between isolated water bodies have allowed the spread of many invasive species. Great Lakes invasions increased markedly after the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959.
Fishing Bait Releases: Discarding unused bait can introduce species that disrupt their new ecosystems and eliminate competing native species; examples include non-native crayfish, baitfish that overpopulate certain waters, and earthworms that are depleting the organic duff layer in northern forests where no indigenous earthworms existed (Conover, 2000).
Illegal Stockings: Although prohibited by law, people release fish into new waters and sometimes cause severe impacts. Yellowstone Lake's world-class cutthroat trout fishery is now jeopardized by an illegal release of lake trout.
Domestic Animals Gone Feral: The impact of feral house cats on birds and small mammals in natural areas is well documented; escaped feral pigs from farms have recently begun to do significant damage to soils and plants in the Smokey Mountains.
Pathogens Spread by Non-natives to Vulnerable Native Species: Non-native species problems include pathogens carried by resistant non-natives to vulnerable native species. Whirling disease, which has decimated rainbow trout in many western rivers, was originally introduced when European brown trout, tolerant of whirling disease, were imported to U.S. waters and hatcheries.
Disposal of Solid Waste or Wastewater: Seeds, viable roots or other propagules of invasive plants may be easily spread to receiving waters through wastewater discharge, then spread by water flow to distant areas downstream.
Science/laboratory Escapes, Disposals or Introductions: Accidental or intentional release of laboratory animals has introduced some non-native species into U .S. waters.
Seafood Packing and Disposal: Much seafood is packed in seaweed prior to distribution. Because seafood is transported long distances, organisms in packing seaweed may reach new waters as an unintended by-product.
Biological Control Introductions: Ideally, introducing a second non-native species to control an invader should result in diminished numbers of both species after control is accomplished, but some introduced controls have backfired because they attack non-target species. Mongoose introduced in Hawaii to control rats have wiped out many native bird species.
Past Government Programs: The establishment of a new invader is sometimes an unanticipated outcome of a government program; kudzu, for example, was originally introduced through a government-sponsored erosion control program.
Moving and Depositing Fill in Wetlands: Seeds and viable parts of invasive plants contained in fill material may rapidly colonize the new substrate, which then compete with native species within the wetlands.
Land/water Alterations That Help Spread Invaders: Many invaders are adept at rapid pioneering where soil has been disturbed or water levels or routes have been changed, leaving a temporary gap in occupation by native flora and fauna.

[3] Ann Perry. August 21, 2009. “A Hedge with an Edge for Erosion Control”. http://www.ars.usda.gov/news/docs.htm?docid=1261 One way farmers can preserve soil and protect water quality is by planting grass hedges to trap sediment that would otherwise be washed away by field runoff. Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists at the agency’s National Sedimentation Laboratory in Oxford, Miss., have calculated how much soil erosion these hedges prevent and verified predictions of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation version 2 (RUSLE2).

Request for Nominations for the Invasive Species Advisory Committee - ISAC

Copied from the Federal Register Notice

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Request for Nominations for the Invasive Species Advisory Committee
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, National Invasive Species Council.
ACTION: Request for Nominations for the Invasive Species Advisory Committee.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Interior, on behalf of the interdepartmental National Invasive Species Council, proposes to appoint new members to the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). The Secretary of the Interior, acting as administrative lead, is requesting nominations for qualified persons to serve as members of the ISAC.

DATES: Nominations must be postmarked by July 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent to
Dr. Christopher Dionigi, Acting Executive Director,
National Invasive Species Council (OS/NISC),
Regular Mail:
1849 C Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20240;
Express Mail:
1201 Eye
Street, NW., 5th Floor,
Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kelsey Brantley, Program Analyst and
ISAC Coordinator, at (202) 513–7243,
fax: (202) 371–1751, or by e-mail at
Kelsey_Brantley@ios.doi.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Advisory Committee Scope and Objectives

The purpose and role of the ISAC areto provide advice to the National Invasive Species Council (NISC), as authorized by Executive Order 13112,on a broad array of issues including preventing the introduction of invasive species, providing for their control, and minimizing the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. NISC is Co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, and is charged with providing coordination, planning and leadership regarding invasive species issues.

Pursuant to the Executive Order, NISC developed a 2008–2012 NationalInvasive Species Management Plan (Plan), which is available on the Web at http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/council/nmp.shtml .
NISC is responsiblefor effective implementation of the Plan including any revisions of the Plan, and also coordinates Federal agency activities concerning invasive species; encourages planning and action at local, tribal, State, regional and ecosystembased levels; develops recommendations for international cooperation in addressing invasive species; facilitates the development of a coordinated network to document, evaluate, and monitor impacts from invasive species; and facilitates establishment of an information-sharing system on invasive species that utilizes, to the greatest extent practicable, the Internet.

The role of ISAC is to maintain an intensive and regular dialogue regarding the aforementioned issues. ISAC provides advice in cooperation with stakeholders and existing organizations addressing invasive species. The ISAC meets up to three (3) times per year. Terms for five of the current members of the ISAC will expire in October 2009.

After consultation with the other members of NISC, the Secretary of the Interior will actively solicit new nominees and appoint members to ISAC. Prospective members of ISAC should be knowledgeable in and represent one or more of the following communities of interests:
Weed science,
fisheries science,
rangeland management,
forest science,
entomology,
nematology,
plant pathology,
veterinary medicine,
the broad range of farming or agricultural practices, biodiversity issues, applicable laws and regulations relevant toinvasive species policy,
risk assessment,
biological control of invasive species,
public health/epidemiology,
industry activities,
international affairs or trade,
tribal or State government interests,
environmental education,
ecosystem monitoring,
natural resource database design and integration,
and Internet based management of conservation issues.

Prospective nominees should also have practical experience in one or more of the following areas:
Representing sectors of the national economy that are significantly threatened by biological invasions (e.g., agriculture, fisheries, public utilities, recreational users, tourism, etc.);
representing sectors of the national economy whose routine operations may pose risks of new or expanded biological invasions (e.g., shipping, forestry, horticulture, aquaculture, pet trade, etc.); developing natural resource management plans on regional or ecosystem-level scales; addressing invasive species issues, including prevention, control and monitoring, in multiple ecosystems and on multiple scales; integrating science and the human dimension in order to create effective solutions to complex conservation issues including education, outreach, and public relations experts; coordinating diverse groups of stakeholders to resolve complex environmental issues and conflicts; and complying with NEPA and other Federal requirements for public involvement in major conservation plans.

Members will be selected in order to achieve a balanced representation of viewpoints, so to effectively address invasive species issues under consideration. No member may serve on the ISAC for more than two (2) consecutive terms. All terms will be limited to three (3) years in length. Members of the ISAC and its subcommittees serve without pay. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services of the ISAC, members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the government service, as authorized by
section 5703 of Title 5, United StatesCode.

Note: Employees of the Federal Government are not eligible for nomination or appointment to ISAC.

Submitting Nominations
Nominations should be typed and must include each of the following:
1. A brief summary of no more than two (2) pages explaining the nominee’s suitability to serve on the ISAC.
2. A resumeor curriculum vitae.
3. At least two (2) letters of reference.

All required documents must be compiled and submitted in one complete nomination package. This office will not assemble nomination packages from documentation sent piecemeal.

Incomplete submissions (missing one or more of the items described above) will not be considered.

Nominations should be postmarked no later than July 23, 2009, to Dr. Christopher Dionigi, Acting Executive
Director, National Invasive Species
Council (OS/NISC), Regular Mail: 1849
C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240;
Express Mail: 1201 Eye Street, NW., 5th
Floor, Washington, DC 20005.

The Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the other members of NISC, is actively soliciting nominations of qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities and members of low income populations to ensure that recommendations of the ISAC take into account the needs of the diverse groups served.

Dated: June 3, 2009.
Christopher P. Dionigi,
Acting Executive Director, National Invasive
Species Council.
[FR Doc. E9–13312 Filed

The establishment of a single body to bring together invasive species related resources and activities ...not quite yet

Well does any of this sound familiar? Maybe someday the U. S. will actually fund its National Invasive Species Council.

"The authors of the paper, who recently edited the Handbook of Alien Species in Europe2, recommend the European Parliament and Council give serious consideration to the establishment of a single body to bring together invasive species related resources and activities currently dispersed amongst the various European institutions. This body, which they call the European Centre for Invasive Species Management (ECISM), would have a mission to identify, assess and communicate current and emerging threats to the economy and environment posed by invasive species. ECISM would coordinate activities across Member States, building a Europe-wide surveillance system which could monitor emerging threats, support rapid response and raise public awareness around the issues of invasive species.

The idea is sound, but such a Centre would face considerable challenges. For example, the major policy driver of a single EU market for goods and people favours the spread of invasive species, the number of alien species introductions continues to increase year on year, and public awareness of the impact of those species is little more than 2%. Unfortunately, these factors make the formation of such a body all the more challenging and only time will tell if Europe is able to meet that challenge."http://www.labspaces.net/96786/Will_Europe_at_last_unite_to_combat_thousands_of_alien_invaders_

National Invasive Species Committee meeting: send in your ideas

The National Invasive Species Council Advisory Committee (ISAC) will be meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, November 18th and 19th, 2008. This is a public meeting and all are welcomed to attend. The National Invasive Species Council is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture and Commerce, and its members include the Secretaries of State, Defense, Transportation, Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security and the Administrators of the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration, the National Air and Space Administration, U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Trade Representative.

The Invasive Species Advisory Committee is made up of 31 individuals representing a broad range of stakeholders including scientific, conservation, agriculture, State and Tribal governments and industry organizations that are impacted by invasive species.

This will be the first meeting of ISAC Class V which will include an orientation for new ISAC members. It is also the first ISAC meeting since the approval on August 1, 2008 of the 2008-2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan (2008 Plan). This Plan sets out the overall blueprint for NISC member departments and agencies in dealing with the issues of invasive species for the next five years. The 2008 Plan includes a number of items in which nonfederal partners are likely to play a role as well as a number of items for which NISC as an entity or NISC staff are the lead or an important participant. ISAC provides advice and input to the NISC federal agencies and it is important that ISAC study the 2008 Plan and identify priority objectives or action items that ISAC would work on to provide advice and input to NISC agencies to help in the implementation of the 2008 Plan. Therefore the theme of the November 2008 meeting is how ISAC can best provide input and advice to assist NISC in the implementation of the 2008 Plan, including setting out priorities and specific recommendations as well as referring work to the relevant NISC/ISAC Subcommittees. This will be an over-arching theme and associated or separate items may also be considered at the meeting. Under this theme, issues associated with invasive species in the context of bio-fuels (a prevention item) will be one topic that will be addressed as recommended at the last ISAC meeting in Alaska, May 2008.

As a member of ISAC, but acting personally, I am taking this opportunity to ask you to send to me any topics or ideas which you feel the federal advisory committee should take under consideration. Please send ideas, comments and/or suggestions to IPETRUS@MSN.COM

Members of the Fifth Convening of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee
Name - Affiliation
Peter Alpert, Ph.D. - University of Massachusetts
Nancy Balcom - Connecticut Sea Grant
Leslie Cahill - American Seed Trade Association
Timothy Carlson - Tamarisk Coalition
Earl Chilton, II, Ph.D. - Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Janet Clark - Montana State University
Joseph DiTomaso, Ph.D. - University of California, Davis
Otto Doering, III, Ph.D. - Purdue University
Susan Ellis - California Department of Fish and Game
Miles Falck - Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
Christopher Fisher - Colville Confederated Tribes
Amy Frankmann - Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association
Ann Gibbs - Maine Department of Agriculture(Representing National Plant Board)
Catherine L. Hazlewood, Esq. - The Nature Conservancy
Lisa Ka’aihue - Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council
John Kennedy - Wyoming Game and Fish Department(Representing the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies)
Robert McMahon - University of Texas at Arlington
Kathy Metcalf - Chamber of Shipping of America
Edward L. Mills, Ph.D. - Cornell University
Jamie K. Reaser, Ph.D. - Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Steven Jay Sanford - New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Jeffrey D. Schardt - Florida Department of Environment Protection
Celia Smith, Ph.D. - University of Hawaii
David E. Starling - Aqueterinary Services, P.C.
Nathan Stone, Ph.D. - University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
Douglas W. Tallamy, Ph.D. - University of Delaware
John Peter Thompson - The Behnke Nurseries Company
Jennifer Vollmer, Ph.D. - BASF Corporation
Damon E. Waitt, Ph.D. - Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center University of Texas at Austin
Robert H. Wiltshire - Center for Aquatic Nuisance Species(Representing the Federation of Fly Fishers)
Kenneth Zimmerman - Lone Tree Cattle Company

Invasive Plant Research and Partnership

This is the report from a gathering of organizations and stakeholders which I helped bring together in March of 2008.

I wish to thank Dr. Phyllis Johnson, USDA ARS, retired, for coming up with the idea of a meeting of the minds, and Dr. Chris Dionigi, NISC, for making this meeting possible.

Invasive Plant Research and Partnerships with Ornamental Horticulture and Natural Resource Management Workshop Report

Sponsored by:
U. S. National Arboretum
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
The Nature Conservancy
The American Nursery and Landscape Association
National Invasive Species Council


Suggested Citation: Invasive Plant Research and Partnerships with Ornamental Horticulture and Natural Resource Management Workshop Report. May 2008. Workshop sponsored by U. S. National Arboretum, USDA Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, The Nature Conservancy, The American Nursery and Landscape Association, National Invasive Species Council, and Invasive Species Advisory Committee. Held March 3 and 4, 2008, at the U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, D.C. 30pp.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Executive Summary…………………………………………… 3
1. Introduction………………………………………………… 6
2. General Consensus Points…………………………………. 7
3. Research Prioritization Criteria and Planning…………… 8
4. Research Focus Areas………………………………………. 9
5. General Strategic Research Planning Needs……………… 10
6. Process and Institutional Recommendations……………… 11

7. Issues Outside the Scope of the Workshop……………….. 12

Appendix 1: Workshop Participants………………………… 13

Appendix 2: Meeting Agenda………………………………… 17

Appendix 3: Invasive Species Definition Clarification…...… 18

Appendix 4: On-line Resources……………………………… 30



Executive Summary
Many non-native plants are important components of gardens, farms, orchards, and landscapes. However, some non-native plants escape cultivation and cause economic and environmental harm. These “invasive plants[1]” complicate efforts to sustain our natural areas and cultivated landscapes. The environmental conservation community, federal resource managers, the horticulture industry, and others all seek to avoid the introduction and spread of invasive plants. Development of new plant cultivars that retain valuable horticultural characteristics and also exhibit “non-invasive” attributes, e.g., sterility, provide enhanced planting options and reduce the likelihood of undesired spread. However, the degree that traits are exhibited by plants can vary among cultivars, and there are no agreed upon scientifically demonstrable standards for “sterile,” “hardy,” and “non-invasive” traits. In addition, plants and their environments are dynamic. Rising carbon dioxide concentrations, atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, habitat fragmentation, and other global-scale processes impact plant invasions within the decadal periods envisioned by current landscape and natural resource management plans.

On March 3 and 4, 2008, a workshop was held at the U.S. National Arboretum. Representatives of the horticulture industry, natural resource managers, environmental conservation groups, researchers, and others identified strategic knowledge gaps and priorities for ornamental plant breeding and natural area protection research and related issues. The focus was on the USDA’s U.S. National Arboretum’s and the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) research agendas. Research by other agencies and institutions was also discussed.
General Consensus Points:
1) Industry and natural resource conservation stakeholder groups represented were in consensus concerning the importance of coordination and avoiding the introduction and spread of invasive plants.

2) Partnerships and communication among industry representatives, natural resource managers, and research administrators are critical to the success of research programs.

3) Terminology can contribute to confusion. It is important to clarify terms initially, e.g., “invasive species,” during discussions.

4) Stakeholders, i.e., the horticulture industry and conservation groups, have not agreed upon standards (i.e., adequate levels of expression) for attributes such as “sterility,” and “non-invasiveness” in plant selections and cultivars. However, the relative effectiveness of the underlying genetic and/or physiological mechanisms that produce sterility in a cultivar provides a level of assurance of that cultivar’s anticipated performance in the field.

5) Decisions concerning codes of conduct, regulations, and planting recommendations should be based on “sound science.” Although specific scientific standards were not identified in this workshop, examples of the application of sound science principles were provided.

6) Systematics[2] is a critical limiting factor. There are critical shortages of trained systematics experts and gaps in the U.S. systematics research and collections infrastructure. For example, currently there is no comprehensive inventory of the cultivated plants in North America[3].

7) A critical limiting factor is shared access to reliable information. There is no centralized, searchable data source of credible, geographically-referenced information on the behavior of species, cultivars, and hybrids of cultivated plants in the field, i.e., information concerning their undesired spread, if any. Data exists in dispersed sources. Their reliability is difficult to determine and coverage is incomplete.

8) Finding solutions to complex problems requires research efforts at that are sustained over long periods at levels that are commensurate with the value of the resources a stake. Resources are a critical limitation.

Priority should be given to research projects that are:
1) Integrated - Establish or enhance strategic multi-sector partnerships that consider the integrated needs of a full range of stakeholders, such as conservationists, industry, and consumers;
2) Strategic - Build strategic “infrastructure elements,” avoid duplication, and employ the most efficient and up-to-date methodologies and approaches;
3) Important - Address urgent problems and/or problems where research would contribute to substantial positive economic and environmental benefits, and of;
4) Broad Application – Provide a sustained stream of new products and solutions that meet stakeholder and consumer needs in applications that range from highly cultivated landscapes to natural areas.
Research Focus Areas:
1) Non-invasive Alternatives:
a. enhanced techniques for reducing plant reproduction/spread, such as obligate (true)
sterility and lack of spontaneous vegetative reproduction, including specific gene and
chromosome (ploidy) manipulation;
b. enhanced methods for the scientific evaluation of new plants for invasiveness
(screening); and
c. develop scientific standards for non-invasive attributes, e.g., sterility.

Research Focus Areas Cont.:
2) Quantifying Harm/Benefits and Avoiding Negative Impacts:
a. determine the impacts (if any) of native plant cultivars on indigenous native plant
populations;
b. develop methods for objectively evaluating the harm/benefits of invasive plants on
native plant and animal populations and ecosystem services, such as effects on water
quality and wildlife habitat;
c. develop scientific methods for the evaluation of post-cultivation persistence/spread of
species, cultivars, and hybrids of cultivated plants;
d. determine how site-specific factors (i.e. soils, climate, and disturbance) influence plant
behavior in the environment and the harm/benefit caused by cultivars;
e. determine how(if) gene flow and pathogens influence plants’ invasiveness and impacts;
f. develop scientific objective methods for estimating (ranking) the invasive potential of
cultivars and hybrids of cultivated plants;
g. enhance methods for the detection, evaluation, and response to new invasions
(Early Detection and Rapid Response, i.e., EDRR); and
h. develop ways to identify invasive taxa (e.g. genetic markers) for use by field
personnel when evaluating plants found at sites.
1. Introduction
Many non-native plants are important components of gardens, farms, orchards, and landscapes. However, some non-native plants escape cultivation, spread, persist, exclude other species, and cause other forms of economic and environmental harm. Other plants arrive unintentionally as hitchhikers on materials, equipment, and by other pathways of introduction. These invasive plants[4] are harmful to natural areas and cultivated landscapes. They are ongoing problems for conservationists, gardeners, and public-sector resource managers. They complicate the shared challenge of sustaining our natural areas and cultivated landscapes. It can be difficult to correctly identify plants, especially closely related taxa in the field. Cultivars may not be readily discernible, even by experts. Additionally, certain hybrids can exhibit invasive characteristics that are not known in parent populations. The public, the environmental conservation community, and the horticulture and landscaping industry all seek to avoid the introduction and spread of invasive plants and protect both natural areas and cultivated landscapes.

Invasive species cross jurisdictional boundaries and require a coordinated multi-sector response. Executive Order 13112 created the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) to coordinate federal invasive species actions. NISC is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce and in total contains thirteen members. The Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide non-federal stakeholder advice to NISC. The coordination of research is an important aspect of NISC’s work, and critical to solving invasive species problems. Scientific information is also needed to provide a sound underpinning for self-regulation of invasive plants and for federal or state regulations.
Research is advancing our capacity to address invasive species issues. However, significant technical challenges and knowledge gaps remain. Currently, there is no comprehensive inventory of the plants in cultivation in North America. Many plant characteristics that contribute to “invasiveness” have been identified, but the underlying genetic, physiological, and ecological processes and interactions are poorly understood. Both plants and their environments are dynamic. The potential impacts of global-scale processes, particularly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and nitrogen deposition, increase the invasiveness of some plants. These dynamics are increasingly a factor in invasive species policy and management decisions.
Scientific advances in molecular genetics, plant breeding, systematics, ecology, and other fields offer great promise and are very active areas of research. The development of new plant cultivars that retain valuable horticultural characteristics and also exhibit important “non-invasive” traits, such as stable sterility and a lack of spontaneous vegetative reproduction, provide enhanced options for new and replacement plantings, while reducing the likelihood of escape from cultivation. However, there are no agreed upon scientifically demonstrable standards for traits such as “sterile,” “hardy,” “non-invasive,” and “non-persistent” that would provide performance targets for plant breeding research and cultivar selection and evaluation efforts.

The U. S. National Arboretum maintains a 446 acre facility in Washington, DC that welcomes over 500,000 visitors a year. Additionally, the National Arboretum conducts nearly two-thirds of all the USDA-ARS’s research in ornamental horticulture. This $12.8 million per year research and education facility has made over 675 official ornamental/horticultural plant releases. The National Arboretum is part of USDA’s Agricultural Research Service’s Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC). The nearby 6900-acre BARC research facility is the largest agricultural research facility in the U.S. The National Arboretum and BARC are uniquely qualified to provide scientific information that is needed to solve many of the problems concerning the invasiveness of ornamental plants.

On March 3 and 4, 2008, U. S. National Arboretum, BARC, The Nature Conservancy, The American Nursery and Landscape Association, Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) and NISC sponsored a workshop at the U.S. National Arboretum in Washington DC. A total of thirty-five representatives of the commercial horticulture industry, ISAC, natural resource managers, NISC, state government officials, environmental conservation groups, researchers, and other constituencies from across the U.S participated (see Appendix 1). Participants included: Dr. Peter Raven the President of the Missouri Botanical Garden and a Trustee of the National Geographic Society, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Paul Hoffman, and the Executive Director of NISC, Lori Williams. Facilitators were provided by the Department of the Interior and NISC.

Purpose and Scope of the Workshop:
This workshop was convened to explore whether a consensus could be reached among representatives of the commercial horticulture industry, natural resource managers, environmental conservation groups, and researchers concerning knowledge gaps and research priorities for ornamental plant breeding and testing and natural area protection. An emphasis was placed on discussion rather than formal presentations (see Appendix 2). Objectives were to identify specific focus research areas and criteria for prioritization of projects. The focus was on BARC and the U.S. National Arboretum’s research agendas. However, other research partner organizations were included and recommendations outside the scope of this meeting were also offered.

2. General Consensus Points
Participants represented a diverse range of stakeholders, interest groups, subject discipline areas, sectors, and regions. However, consensus was reached on several issues.

Participants agreed that invasive species are critical problems for both highly cultivated landscapes and for natural-resource conservation. The need for federal interdepartmental coordination and for input from the full range of stakeholders was identified as critical to the shared goal of avoiding the introduction and spread of invasive plants. Stakeholders have important resources and expertise, and they can provide specialized opportunities to test new methods and cultivars. However, no single agency or group can provide all of the perspectives and resources needed. Partnerships and communication among industry, natural-resource conservation, and research institutions were indentified as critical to the success of research programs. Invasive-species research requires new partnerships with institutions and constituencies in addition to those with long records of involvement with the USDA.

A key factor contributing to inefficient communication is “terminology.” What is meant by terms such as “sterile, hardy, non-invasive, weedy, and invasive species” varies among individuals. Some terms such as, “invasive species,” “variety” and “noxious” have definitions that are established Executive Order 13112, the Plant Variety Protection Act, and the Plant Protection Act. Additionally, supportive information concerning the definition of “invasive species” has been developed by ISAC (see Appendix 3). Certain definitions are appropriate for regulations others maybe appropriate for public information and educational campaigns. The use of definitions without explanation and clarification can lead to confusion and unintended interpretations of statements, documents and meeting outcomes. Participants agreed that it is important to clarify terms used during discussions and recognize the potential for miscommunication.

Development of new plant cultivars that retain valuable horticultural characteristics and also exhibit important “non-invasive” attributes, such as stable sexual sterility and lack of spontaneous vegetative reproduction, provide enhanced options for new and replacement plantings, while reducing the likelihood of escape from cultivation and undesired spread. However, the degree and stability (i.e. robustness) of those traits can vary among cultivars, over time and across regions. Various genetic and/or physiological mechanisms lead to different degrees of sterility. Stakeholders, such as the horticulture industry and conservation groups, have not agreed upon standards (i.e., adequate levels of expression) for attributes such as “sterility,” and “non-invasiveness” in plant selections and cultivars. However, the relative strength and stability of the underlying genetic mechanism(s) used to produce a trait provides an indication of a cultivar’s anticipated performance in the field. For example, cultivars that have reinforcing (redundant) mechanisms of sterility exhibit more robust sterility. Enhanced methods for the scientific evaluation of new plants for invasiveness (i.e., screening) would augment the field evaluation of plant selections.
Participants agreed that decisions concerning development of codes of conduct, regulations, and planting recommendations should be based on “sound science.” Although specific scientific standards were not determined in this workshop, examples of the application of sound science principles were provided, e.g., the California Horticultural Invasive Prevention partnership (CAL-HIP) project concerning Pampasgrass and Jubatagrass [Pampasgrass and Jubatagrass Threaten California Coastal Habitats. 1999. J. M. DiTomaso, E. Healy, C. E. Bell, J. Drewitz, and A. Tschohl, Leaflet #99-1. See Appendix 4].
A critical limiting factor is authoritative identifications of plant specimens and related systematics information. Currently, there is no single source of systematic information that researchers and others can use to find what cultivars are currently or have been grown in North America. Work toward a comprehensive cultivated flora of North America was presented. This flora will be very large and require on-going revision. It may use a “Wiki-type” open review and editing structure. A comprehensive cultivated flora would have several applications. For example, to obtain a Certificate of Protection under the Plant Variety Protection Act, plant breeders must demonstrate that a proposed new plant variety is “new and distinct” from all other varieties. Specifically, a cultivated flora would help plant breeders protect a new “non-invasive cultivar” by indicating what other varieties are in cultivation. Research advances could help plant breeders differentiate non-invasive cultivars from others by demonstrating the removal or suppression of the invasive traits. Additionally, the performance of a particular cultivar in the field, such as its spread, viable seed production, vegetative reproduction, hybridization, and other characteristics related to invasiveness could be entered into the database and be subject to review and revision. Currently, there is no centralized searchable data source of credible, geographically referenced information concerning the performance of cultivars. Information, such as undesired spread or persistence, may be available from dispersed sources. However, information about specific cultivars is often lacking, and the reliability of available data is difficult to determine.

Some cultivars may not be readily discernible, even by experts. There is a critical shortage of trained systematics experts. In the past, programs such as the National Science Foundation’s Partnerships for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET) provided support for the training of systematics and systematics research. However, new faculty positions, graduate fellowships, and research support for systematics are declining. Systematics laboratories and collections are also in decline. There is a need for enhanced methods to identify invasive taxa (e.g. genetic markers) that can be used by field personnel and others.

Finding solutions to complex problems requires sustained research that maintains the continuity of programs over time and is coordinated among locations and across subject discipline areas. Lapse in research support can undermine years of effort. Additionally, research funding should be at levels that are commensurate with the size of the resources at stake. The nursery industry is estimated to be about a $4.65 Billion industry (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/NursProd/NursProd-09-26-2007.pdf page 9.) In 2005, U.S. grower sales receipts for annual and perennial bedding and gardening plants alone totaled about $2.6 billion (Floriculture and Nursery Crops Yearbook. Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 2006, FLO-2006.). Sustained support for research at levels that are commensurate with stakeholder needs was identified as critical gap.

3. Research Prioritization Criteria and Planning
Participants suggested several criteria for prioritizing research projects and suggestions for planning research.
Criteria for establishing priorities:
1. A priority should be placed upon research that not only solves a specific problem but also increases overall research capacities.
2. Certain projects exploit similarities among taxa and allow the rapid propagation of technical advances to other areas of application. Others offer a sustainable source of new products and other advances over time. Projects that offer broad and/or sustained applications should be given priority.
3. Certain problems are urgent. Research can expedite the detection of emerging problems and increase our ability to respond quickly while problems are localized and by that prevent more extensive harm. Priority should then be given to projects that increase our abilities to proactively avoid problems and take timely action.
4. Certain problems result in large economic costs and/or environmental impacts and research may provide large benefits compared to investments of time and research costs. Projects with a potential for extensive benefits should be given priority.
5. Advances in molecular genetics, plant breeding, systematics, and other fields may expedite research, and also make possible new solutions. Efforts that utilize “cutting edge” methodologies and advance the overall technical capacity should be given priority.
6. Research efforts that augment and complement other efforts but not duplicate them should be given priority.
Suggestions for planning research:
1. In addition to cultivated landscapes, planning should consider a range of potential applications, such as how specific research might be integrated with environmental restoration projects, biomass and bio-fuels production, overseas development programs, and natural area management.
2. The potential impact and relevancy of research should be considered so that there is a balance between long-standing problems and emerging “new” issues. Additionally, a balance between economic and ecological benefits should be sought.
3. Focus should be on researchable targets where it is anticipated that significant advances will be available within a five to twenty-year period. Timeline planning should anticipate partnerships needed to transfer basic research advances to the private sector for further development. The needs of consumers and those that supply consumer needs should be considered early in the planning process.
4. No single agency or group can provide all of the perspectives and resources needed. A project’s potential to establish and foster strategic partnerships should be evaluated.

5. Integrated planning should focus on enhancing overall capacities and infrastructure. Areas of strength, unique capacities, specific resources, roles and responsibilities within partnerships, and strategic gaps should be identified and then evaluated among research cooperators.
4. Research Focus Areas
Participants identified two focus areas for research. In addition, specific examples of research topics were suggested within the two focus areas.

1) The development of non-invasive cultivars that serve as alternatives to currently available invasive plants.

The development of enhanced techniques for manipulating plant reproduction/spread was identified as a way to develop new plant cultivars that retain valuable horticultural characteristics and also exhibit important “non-invasive” attributes. The manipulation of genes involved in sexual and vegetative reproduction, alteration of chromosome (ploidy) number, production of single sex populations and sterile hybrids were identified as approaches to developing obligate (true) sterility. Molecular techniques such as “knockout genes” and “epigenetics” or gene silencing may also be useful.

It is important to note that asexual and vegetative mechanisms can be important means of reproduction and spread. All mechanisms of reproduction and spread must be identified and addressed. Physiological and genetic information is needed to develop relative rankings of the invasive potential for cultivars and the scientific evaluation of new plants species and cultivars.

Gene flow or introgression of genes within populations could result in a reversion of the progeny of some plants to invasiveness. Cultivars that have very stable and/or reinforcing (redundant) mechanisms of sterility (and lack spontaneous vegetative reproduction) typically exhibit greater levels of sterility, and are less likely to regain an ability to reproduce than other cultivars. The type(s) of sterility bred into plant selections yielding new cultivars could be indicated at points of sale to facilitate purchaser choice.

2) Improved quantification and prediction of the current and potential harm and/or benefit of species and cultivars and avoiding negative impacts.

There is a need for improved methods to determine the benefits and harm (if any) caused by non-native plant cultivars and their underlying genetic, physiological, and ecological mechanisms. For example, various cultivars may harbor or inhibit pathogens or differ in their value as wildlife food. They may provide differing levels of ecosystem services, such as preventing soil erosion. The competiveness of cultivars with native plants may also vary among cultivars and across environmental gradients. In addition to the plants themselves, the potential for gene flow from cultivars of native species to indigenous (or local) native populations could impact plant and animal communities. Understanding of the underlying genetic, physiological, and ecological mechanisms that produce specific benefits or undesirable traits would guide further development of plant selections and evaluation of cultivars.

Interactions with physical conditions and the “human environment” can be critical to a cultivar’s performance. Cultivars may differ in their responses to soils, fire, flooding, precipitation, climate change, light quality and quantity, and both natural and human-induced disturbance. The need for objective quantitative methods to determine “invasiveness” e.g., post-cultivation persistence, spread, and harm (if any) of cultivars across environmental gradients and a range of environmental applications is needed.

The combination of early detection, rapid assessment, and rapid response (EDRR) can prevent larger negative impacts from invasive species. Improved GIS-based methods for finding invasive populations that are large enough to detect, but localized enough to contain and eradicate are needed. Systematic analysis and access to up-to-date and accurate inventory and mapping data are needed for the timely assessment of suspected invasions and prediction of spread and impacts. Improved methods for the containment and eradication of localized invasive species populations are also needed.



5. General Strategic Research Planning Needs
Central to strategic planning is the clear identification and articulation the actual or “root” problem to be solved by the research. Focus should remain on what objective is actually to be accomplished and differentiate between objectives and strategies towards an objective. For example, is the objective to remove invasive populations or it is to reduce their impacts? Is it to promote the recovery of native species or maintain ecosystem services? Is the prevention of invasive species range expansions the objective or a strategy towards a larger objective? Seemingly subtle differences can lead to very different outcomes. Research recommendations should identify priority problems rather than “desired” or predetermined solutions. This allows researchers to bring the latest advances and strategies to bear on problems and allow for unanticipated or “creative” solutions, rather than trying to achieve a specific solution. Close coordination with research partners and on-going stakeholder review helps ensure that research remains directed at core problems.

Many ornamental plants are long-lived species and are planted across wide regions. Research planning should consider large-scale and long-term factors, such as climate change, habitat fragmentation, and changes in land use. To facilitate this, there is a need for global climate modeling as related to invasive species threats and interactions. Information, such as current and potential ranges, rates of spread, and predicted effects of increased nitrogen and carbon dioxide availability could guide research efforts. Additionally, information on plant systematics and mapping, cultivar sterility, persistence, growth, and spread within and among regions, vegetative growth and interactions with native plant populations, and plant and site-specific factors that contribute to invasiveness is needed. In some cases, invasive species may be symptomatic of both global-scale processes and localized disturbances. These underlying factors must be addressed to achieve invasive species objectives.

6. Process and Institutional Recommendations
Adoption of products and practices depends in part upon consumer choice. A better understanding of consumer attitudes towards invasive species, why and how they make planting choices, and how best to market alternatives can help guide research. Enhanced agency information staff participation is needed in research planning rather than just “after the fact.”
Scientifically-sound reinforcing messages must be provided to consumers directly and by those that they rely upon for information. “Awareness messages” should be coupled with “action” or “what I can do” messages. Information and technology transfer staff members can facilitate the transfer of research results to professional educators, Master Gardeners, horticulture and landscape professionals, and Land Grant University personnel. However, in addition to these “traditional contacts,” information staff members should develop contacts with conservation organizations and other stakeholders so that they are aware of ARS-generated developments.

Academics have access to scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific society meetings. These communicate effectively within the academic community, but they are not sufficient for consumer education needs. Communicating research findings to consumers is also required.

Much of the information produced is supported by federally agencies or grants. These data are in the public domain. There are extensive data sources, such as the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service’s PLANTS database and those at the USDA’s National Agricultural Library. However, there is no centralized repository of searchable geographically-linked data. Data are available from dispersed sources, but reliability of those data is difficult to determine. Although data are often lacking, conducting a comprehensive analysis of gaps is also difficult.

Interdepartmental and interagency review of research contributes to improved quality assurance of the products and practices developed. Cross-agency coordination with Department of the Interior, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, and other agencies increases ARS’s service to those action agencies and departments.

Research, especially with long-lived plant species, may require long timeframes and have both a high risk of failure and a high impact. The evaluation and compensation of researchers involved in “high risk” and long-term research needs to differ from that used to evaluate researchers involved in shorter-cycle projects.

7. Issues Outside the Scope of the Workshop
Research questions concerning biofuel crops, forage crops, and large-scale post-fire restoration plantings were identified as being similar to those discussed at this workshop that was focused upon ornamental plants. In addition, determining the most effective forms and methods for public communication of important invasive-species concepts, e.g., what is an invasive species and what actions should an individual take, were identified as important to the overall success of programs.
Appendix 1: Workshop Participants
Present at the Workshop:
Elenor Altman Adkins Arboretum
Gordon Brown U.S. Department of the Interior
Chip Cameron Facilitator
Steve Clemants Brooklyn Botanic Gardens
Brian E. Corr Ball Horticultural Company
Hilda Diaz-Soltero U.S. Department of Agriculture
Chris Dionigi NISC Staff
Thomas Elias USDA U.S. National Arboretum
Amy Frankmann Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association and ISAC
Dave Fujino California Center for Urban Horticulture
Susan Goodwin Facilitator
Robert Griesbach USDA Agricultural Research Service
John Hammond USDA U.S. National Arboretum
Nadine Hiers USDA U.S. National Arboretum
Paul Hoffman U.S. Department of the Interior
Carol Holko Maryland Department of Agriculture
Kate Howe The Nature Conservancy
Gary Knosher Midwest Groundcovers, LLC
Faith Kuehn Delaware, Plant Protection and Weed Management Section
Kerrie Kyde Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Wayne Mezitt Weston Nurseries
Richard Olsen USDA U.S. National Arboretum
Margaret Pooler USDA U.S. National Arboretum
John Randall The Nature Conservancy
Tom Ranney North Carolina State University
Peter Raven Missouri Botanical Garden
Craig Regelbrugge American Nursery & Landscape Association
Robert E. Schutzki Michigan State University
Joe Spence USDA Animal Health Inspection Service
Carol Spurrier U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Catherine Hazlewood The Nature Conservancy and ISAC
Marc Teffeau American Nursery & Landscape Association
John Peter Thompson The Behnke Nurseries Company and ISAC
Mary Travaglini The Nature Conservancy
Lee Van Wychen Weed Science Societies of America
Valerie Vartanian The Nature Conservancy
Alan Whittemore USDA U.S. National Arboretum
Mark Widrlechner USDA North Central Regional Plant Introduction Station
Lori Williams NISC Staff
Lewis Ziska USDA Agricultural Research Service

Appendix 2:
Workshop on Invasive Plant Research and Partnerships with Ornamental Horticulture and Natural Resource Management

Monday, March 3, Objective – Discuss and identify the issues
Time
Topic
Discussion Lead
8:30 - 9:00
Arrive & sign in

9:00 - 9:10
Welcome from National Arboretum

National Arboretum: T. Elias
9:10 - 10:00
Introductions
- Introductions around the table
- Groundrules
- Agenda review

Facilitators
10:00 - 10:50
Overview of work on Invasive Species
- National Invasive Species Council (NISC)
- Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC)
- USDA: Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
- Questions & comments
NISC: P. Hoffman
NISC/ISAC: L. Williams
ARS: J. Spence

10:50 - 11:10
Break

11:10 - 11:50
How will outcomes of meeting be used?
- Research priorities & national program planning
- Transfer of technology & research results to industry & resource managers
- Questions & comments
ARS National Program Staff: G. Wisler
Office of Technology Transfer: R. Griesbach










Monday, March 3, Cont.
11:50 - 1:00
Lunch

1:00 - 3:00
Panel Discussion:
- Background & importance of issue from perspectives of industry, conservation community, & Federal government
- Questions & comments
ANLA: M. Teffeau C.Regelbrugge
TNC: J. Randall V. Vartanian
Federal: H. Diaz-Soltero, G. Brown
3:00 - 3:15
Break

3:15 - 3:45
Climate Change & Cultivars
- Climate change impacts on planting & resources management decisions
- Questions & comments
BARC: L. Ziska
3:45 - 4:15
Systematics – What plants are here now?
- What do we know & need to know about cultivated plants in North America
- Questions & comments
Missouri Botanical: P. Raven
4:15 - 4:30
Wrap up & prepare for second day
- Overnight assignments? Things to think about?
- Plus/Delta (what went well today & what should we change for tomorrow)
Facilitators

Tuesday, March 4, 2008, Objective – Identify researchable targets
Time
Topic
Discussion Lead
8:30 - 9:00
Arrive & check in

9:00 - 9:30
Recap from Day 1 & Agenda overview of Day 2
Facilitators
9:30 - 10:30
What abilities do we have now? In the next 5-10 years?
- Current systematics, bredding & selection programs & methods
- Emerging technologies, new methods & opportunities, e.g. genetic sterility.
- Questions & comments
ARS: R. Olsen

10:30 - 10:45
Break

10:45 - 11:45
Small Group Discussions- Develop initial list of Researchable Targets (problems to be solved)
- Criteria for prioritizing targets (e.g. costs/impacts/importance of the problem, technical feasibility of solutions, strategic partnerships availability, duplication avoidance (is it already being done?), & etc.)
Each group will identify a facilitator & recorder
11:45 - 12:15
Small groups report back to full group
Facilitators will record on flip charts
12:15 - 1:15
Lunch

1:15 - 3:30
Identify Priority Researchable Targets: Link priority problems & potential approaches/opportunities.
- Criteria for identifying & prioritizing researchable targets
-Application of criteria to researchable targets
- Identify potential candidate targets
- Identify resource gaps, barriers and opportunities to complete target research & strategize about how to fill gaps (ie. leveraging resources through partnerships, other opportunities…)

Full group discussion
3:30 - 4:15
Identify roles, timetable & next steps
Facilitators
4:15 - 4:30
Wrap up & Plus/Delta
Facilitators



Appendix 3: Invasive Species Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper

Invasive Species Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper
Submitted by the Definitions Subcommittee of the
Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC)
Weeds As Examples
Weeds provide good examples to clarify what is meant by an invasive species because most people have a concept of what constitutes a “weed.”
Invasion can be thought of as a process that in our example, a plant must go through to become a successful, yet harmful invader. Several barriers must be overcome for a plant to be considered an invasive weed. Invasive weeds are invasive species.
Large-scale geographical barriers
First, a geographical barrier first must be overcome, which often occurs as a mountain range, ocean, or similar physical barrier to movement of seeds and other reproductive plant parts. Plants that overcome geographical barriers are known as alien plants or alien species. Alien plants are non-native plants and alien species are non-native species. Therefore, non-native plants are those that occur outside their natural range boundaries, and this most often is mediated by humans either deliberately or unintentionally.
Survival barriers
The second set of obstacles that a non-native plant must overcome is barriers to germination and survival in its new location. These typically are environmental barriers such as adequate moisture availability to allow successful germination and survival of seedlings that will continue to grow to maturity. Other physical barriers might be soil pH, nutrient availability, or competition for resources from neighboring plants.












Dispersal barriers

Established alien plants next must overcome barriers to dispersal if they are to continue on the process to become invasive weeds. Or simply put, they must spread from their site of establishment. For example, an established, terrestrial, alien plant that reproduces only by seed would be considered an invasive plant if it spreads from its establishment site more than 100 yards in about 5 years. Or, if an established, terrestrial, alien plant reproduces vegetatively, it would be considered an invasive plant if it spread more than 6 yards in 3 years from its establishment site. However, this movement or spread alone does not make this invasive plant a harmful invader or invasive weed.

Harm

To be labeled an invasive weed or harmful invader, the invasive plant must cause negative environmental effects and these may have associated negative economic effects. Just as importantly, however, the overall negative effects caused by an invasive plant must outweigh any beneficial effects to warrant designation as an invasive weed or invasive species. For example, we do not mean smooth brome, we do mean water hyacinth; we do not mean ?, we do mean zebra mussels.
Approved by ISAC April 27, 2006
Preamble: Executive Order 13112 – defines an invasive species as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” In the Executive Summary of the National Invasive Species Management Plan (NISMP) the term invasive species is further clarified and defined as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” To provide guidance for the development and implementation of the NISMP, the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) and the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) adopted a set of principles outlined in Appendix 6 of the NISMP. Guiding Principle #1 provides additional context for defining the term invasive species and states “many alien species are non-invasive and support human livelihoods or a preferred quality of life.” However, some alien species (non-native will be used in this white paper because it is more descriptive than alien), for example West Nile virus, are considered invasive and undesirable by virtually everyone. Other non-native species are not as easily characterized. For example, some non-native species are considered harmful, and therefore, invasive by some sectors of our society while others consider them beneficial. This discontinuity is reflective of the different value systems operating in our free society, and contributes to the complexity of defining the term invasive species.
NISC is engaged in evaluating and updating the 2001 NISMP and is developing comments for a revised action plan as required by the EO 13112. While there have been numerous attempts to clarify the term invasive species, there continues to be uncertainty concerning the use and perceived meaning of the term, and consequently over the prospective scope of actions proposed in the NISMP. Options related to private property use, pet ownership, agriculture, horticulture, and aquaculture enterprises may be affected depending upon the definition, use, and policy implications of the term.
Weeds As Examples (continued)
Establishment barriers
The third obstacle that a non-native plant must overcome to be considered an invasive weed, is to form a population that is self-sustaining and does not need re-introduction to maintain a population base such that it continues to
survive and thrive in its new environment. Once this occurs, this population of non-native plants is considered to be established. Environmental barriers to survival and establishment are similar.
Dispersal and spread barriers
Established non-native plants must overcome barriers to dispersal and spread from their site of establishment to be considered invasive plants. Additionally, the rate of spread must be relatively fast. However, this movement or spread alone does not necessarily make this non-native plant an invasive weed or invasive species.
Harm and impact
Finally, a plant is deemed to be invasive if it causes negative environmental, economic, or human health effects, which outweigh any beneficial effects. For example, yellow starthistle is a source of nectar for bee producers. But the displacement of native and other desirable plant species caused by yellow starthistle leads to dramatically decreased forage for wildlife and livestock, which severely disrupts the profitability of associated businesses. These negative effects greatly overshadow the positive effects and thus, define harm caused by yellow starthistle and explain why it is considered an invasive species.






In particular, the desire to consider a non-native species as ‘invasive’ may trigger a risk/benefit assessment process to determine whether regulatory action is warranted. All these uncertainties have stood and could continue to stand in the way of progress in actions and policy development to prevent new invasions and manage existing invasive species. While it is not the purpose of this white paper to define a risk/benefit assessment process, development of such a process must be open and efficient to minimize the uncertainties.

This white paper is intended to provide a non-regulatory policy interpretation of the term invasive species by identifying what is meant, and just as important, what is not meant by the term. ISAC recognizes that biological and ecological definitions will not precisely apply to regulatory definitions. We believe, however, that our clarification will apply to all taxa of invasive species in all habitats and furthermore, our explanation will be functional and acceptable to most stakeholders. ISAC simply wants to clarify what is meant and what is not meant by the term invasive species in the technical sense and to provide insight into those areas where societal judgments will be necessary to implement effective public policy.
The utility of our clarification should be in education, conflict resolution, and efficiency in the planning, prevention, control/eradication, and management of invasive species.
ISAC recommends that NISC adopt the clarifications presented in this white paper to foster progress for invasive species management in the United States.

Introduction
An invasive species is a non-native species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health. The National Invasive Species Management Plan indicates that NISC will focus on non-native organisms known to cause or likely to cause negative impacts and that do not provide an equivalent or greater benefit to society. In the technical sense, the term ‘invasion’ simply denotes the uncontrolled or unintended spread of an organism outside its native range with no specific reference about the environmental or economic consequences of such spread or their relationships to possible societal benefits. However, the policy context and subsequent management decisions necessitate narrowing what is meant and what is not meant by the term invasive species. Essentially, we are clarifying what is meant and not meant by “causing harm” by comparing negative effects caused by a non-native organism to its potential societal benefits.
Perception to Cause Harm
Complications concerning the concept of invasive species arise from differing human values and perspectives. Differing perceptions of the relative harm caused or benefit gained by a particular organism are influenced by different values and management goals. If invasive species did not cause harm, we would not be nearly as concerned. Perceptions of relative benefit and harm also may change as new knowledge is acquired, or as human values or management goals change.
For a non-native organism to be considered an invasive species in the policy context, the negative effects that the organism causes or is likely to cause are deemed to outweigh any beneficial effects. Many non-native introductions provide benefits to society and even among species that technically meet the definition of invasive, societal benefits may greatly exceed any negative effects (for example crops and livestock raised for food). However, in some cases any positive effects are clearly overshadowed by negative effects, and this is the concept of causing harm. For example, water hyacinth has been popular in outdoor aquatic gardens but its escape to natural areas where its populations have expanded to completely cover lakes and rivers has devastated water bodies and the life they support, especially in the southeastern U.S. And, there are some organisms, such as West Nile virus, that provide almost no benefits to society at all. Such organisms constitute a small fraction of non-native species, but as a consequence of their ability to spread and establish populations outside their native ranges, they can be disastrous for the natural environment, the economies it supports, and/or public health. Because invasive species management is difficult and often very expensive, these worst offenders are the most obvious and best targets for policy attention and management.
The negative impact to a native species caused by an invasive species might trigger additional negative interactions for other associated native species; i.e., there could be direct and indirect effects. For example, an invasive weed that is undesirable as a food source may outcompete and displace native grasses and broadleaf plants. These displaced native grasses and broadleaf plants may have been primary forage for animals, which subsequently would be displaced to a new location or have their populations reduced because the weed invasion decreased the availability of food in their native plant and animal community. However, negative effects are not always characterized by a cascade of impacts realized throughout the environment. For example, simple displacement of an endangered species by a non-native species might alone provide sufficient justification to consider the non-native organism an invasive species.
What We Do Not Mean, What We Do Mean, and the “Gray” Area
Native and Non-native Species
Invasive species are species not native to the ecosystem being considered. Canada geese are native to North America and most of their populations migrate annually. However, in some locations in the U.S. (e.g. suburban Maryland; the Front Range of Colorado) introduced, non-migratory populations of Canada Geese are causing problems – such as fouling lawns, sidewalks, grass parks, and similar areas. While non-migratory populations can cause problems, they are not considered an invasive species because they are native. Additionally, Canada geese are of significant financial value to many local economies through waterfowl hunting and simple enjoyment. Mute swans, however, are invasive. Mute swans are native to Europe and Asia but were introduced into North America where their populations have increased dramatically. They compete directly with native waterfowl for habitat, displacing them, and that is why they are considered an invasive species. Whitetail deer populations have increased dramatically in the northeastern U.S. and are problems in farms, yards, and natural areas because they consume plants valued by humans; but are not invasive because they are native. Nutria, on the other hand, are another classic example of an invasive species. Nutria are native to South America but were introduced into North America where their populations have soared. Nutria compete directly with native muskrats, beavers, and other similar native species for habitat; often causing the displacement of these native species.
Feral Populations
It is also essential to recognize that invasive species are not those under human control or domestication; that is, invasive species are not those that humans depend upon for economic security, maintaining a desirable quality of life, or survival. However, the essential test is that populations of these species must be under control. Escaped or feral populations of formerly domesticated plants and animals would be considered invasive species if all the concepts and conditions are met as outlined in “Weeds Are Examples.” Cereal rye being produced on a farm in Kansas is considered very desirable, but feral rye on the breaks of the Poudre River in Colorado would be considered an invasive species because it is displacing native plants and the native animal communities they support. Domesticated goats on a farm in Texas are considered highly desirable, but feral goats in Haleakala National Park on Maui are considered an invasive species. Feral goats have severely overgrazed areas and eliminated native Hawaiian plants, which were never adapted to grazing. Areas denuded by feral goats have led to increased soil erosion.
A Biogeographical Context
An invasive species may be invasive in one part of the country, but not in another. A biogeographical context must be included when assessing whether a non-native species should be considered an invasive species. Lake trout are highly desirable in the Great Lakes where they are native, but are considered an invasive species in Yellowstone Lake. They compete with native cutthroat trout for habitat, which decreases their populations. Atlantic saltmarsh cordgrass is an essential component of east coast salt marshes, but is highly invasive on the west coast where it covers mudflats and displaces native estuarine plants and the community of animals they support, including huge flocks of migrating waterfowl. Kentucky bluegrass would be considered an invasive species in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, but considered non-invasive a mere 60 miles away at a golf course in Denver. English ivy is considered a good ground cover species in the Great Plains and Midwest, but is a highly invasive weed in the forests of the Pacific Northwest and Eastern U.S. where it outcompetes native plants and displaces the associated animal communities.
The “Gray” Area
There are obvious examples of invasive species such as snakehead fish, yellow starthistle, or Phytophthora ramorum (the organism that causes sudden oak death); and there are obvious examples of species that are not invasive, namely native plants and animals. There are, however, non-native organisms for which it will be difficult to make a determination and these should be subject to assessment. Whether these non-native organisms will be considered invasive species will depend upon human values. For example, European honeybees are cultured to produce honey and pollination services, and even though they form wild populations in many parts of the country and occasionally create problems by building hives in the walls of homes or can be a human health problem for individuals that are highly allergic to their sting, most would not consider them an invasive species because they produce a desired food product.
Another gray area example would be native termites v. Formosan termites. No one wants termites in their homes but only Formosan termites would be considered an invasive species because they are non-native. Smooth brome also serves as another gray area example. It was imported from Russia in the 1890s for forage and was widely planted. It clearly has escaped cultivation and can be found in many natural areas particularly in the western U.S. but in most situations, smooth brome would not be considered an invasive species because of its forage value for wildlife and livestock.
Chinese or Oriental clematis serves as another gray area example. Chinese clematis (virgin’s bower, orange peel) is a popular ornamental that has been planted worldwide. However, it has escaped cultivation in several western states where its populations can spread, particularly in shrubland, on riverbanks, sand depressions, along roadsides, in gullies, and along riparian forests in hot dry valleys, deserts, and semi-desert areas. Escaped populations of Chinese clematis occur in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado but so far, it is considered an invasive species only in Colorado where it has spread dramatically from its site of introduction and displaced native plant species.
Environmental Harm
We use environmental harm to mean biologically significant decreases in native species populations, alterations to plant and animal communities or to ecological processes that native species and other desirable plants and animals and humans depend on for survival. Environmental harm may be a result of direct effects of invasive species, leading to biologically significant decreases in native species populations.
Examples of direct effects on native species include preying and feeding on them, causing or vectoring diseases, preventing them from reproducing or killing their young, out-competing them for food, nutrients, light, nest sites or other vital resources, or hybridizing with them so frequently that within a few generations, few if any truly native individuals remain. Environmental harm includes decreases in populations of Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, other rare or uncommon species and even in populations of otherwise common native species. For example, over three billion individual American chestnut trees were found in U.S. forests before the invasive chestnut blight arrived and virtually eliminated them. Environmental harm also can be the result of an indirect effect of invasive species, such as the decreases in native waterfowl populations that may result when an invasive wetland plant decreases the abundance of native plants and thus, decreases seeds and other food that they provide and that the waterfowl depend upon.
Environmental harm also includes significant changes in ecological processes, sometimes across entire regions, which result in conditions that native species and even entire plant and animal communities cannot tolerate. For example, some non-native plants can change the frequency and intensity of wildfires, or alter the hydrology of rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands and that is why they are considered invasive species. Others can significantly alter erosion rates. For example, trapping far more wind-blown sand than native dune species, or holding far less soil than native grassland species following rainstorms. Some invasive plants and micro-organisms can alter soil chemistry across large areas, significantly altering soil pH or soil nutrient availability. Environmental harm also includes significant changes in the composition and even the structure of native plant and animal communities. For example, the invasive tree Melaleuca quinquinervia, can spread into and take over marshes in Florida’s Everglades, changing them from open grassy marshes to closed canopy swamp-forests.
Environmental harm may also cause or be associated with economic losses and damage to human, plant and animal health. For example invasions by fire promoting grasses that alter entire plant and animal communities eliminating or sharply reducing populations of many native plant and animal species, can also lead to large increases in fire-fighting costs and sharp decreases in forage for livestock. West Nile virus is a well known human health problem caused by a non-native virus which is commonly carried by mosquitoes. West Nile Virus also kills many native bird species, causing drastic reduction in populations for some species including crows and jays.
Additional Examples of Impacts Caused by Invasive Species
Specific examples of the harm caused by invasive species are useful to further clarify the definition. The following list of examples is not meant to be comprehensive, but offers further explanation:
Impacts to Human Health
Respiratory infections: The outbreak of West Nile virus in the U.S. began in the Northeast in 1999 and has since spread throughout the country. Infections in humans may result in a flu-like illness and in some cases death. This outbreak has caused illness in thousands of citizens, increased medical costs for affected persons, and decreased productivity due to absence from work. West Nile virus also has affected horses and has caused widespread mortality in native birds (U.S. Centers for Disease Control, 2006).
Poisonous plants: Exposure to the sap of Tree-of-heaven/Chinese sumac tree has caused inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis) in workers charged to clear infested areas. Afflicted personnel experienced fever/chills, chest pain that radiated down both arms, and shortness of breath. Exposure occurred when sap from tree-of-heaven contacted broken skin. Such exposure has caused hospitalization, medical expense, and lost productivity due to absence from work (Bisognano et al. 2005).
Impacts to Natural Resources
Declines in wildlife habitat and timber availability: Chestnut blight is a disease of American chestnut caused by a non-native fungal pathogen that was introduced into eastern North America around 1910. The disease eliminated the American chestnut from eastern deciduous forests thereby decreasing timber harvests and wildlife that depended upon the American chestnut for habitat (USDA-APHIS/FS 2000).
European gypsy moth defoliates trees on millions of acres of northeastern and mid-western forests. It currently is found in 19 states causing an estimated $3.9 billion in tree losses and also decreased wildlife habitat (USDA-APHIS/FS 2000).
Decreased soil stabilization and interrupted forest succession: White pine blister rust is a disease of white pine species caused by the non-native fungal pathogen Cronartium ribicola. It was introduced into eastern North America around 1900 and western North America in 1920. It spread rapidly, killing off native white, whitebark, and limber pines, whose seeds are an important food source for birds, rodents and bears. Elimination of these trees caused by this pathogen alters forest ecosystems, eliminates wildlife forage, and decreases the soil stabilization effects of these trees, snowmelt regulation, and forest succession (Krakowski et al. 2003).
Changes in wildfire frequency and intensity: Cheatgrass decreases the interval between the occurrences of wildfires in the Great Basin region from once every 70 to 100 years to every 3 to 5 years because it forms dense stands of fine fuel annually. The decrease in interval between wildlfires causes increased risk to human life and property and also places at risk established communities of plants and animals that we consider desirable (Knapp 1996; Pimentel et al. 2000; USFWS 2003; Whisenant 1990).
Excessive use of resources: Tamarisk in the desert southwest use more than twice as much water annually as all the cities in southern California, which places this invasive weed in direct competition with humans for the most limiting resource in the southwestern U.S. (Friederici 1995; Johnson 1986).
Suppressors: Russian knapweed exudes toxins from its tissues that inhibit the growth of surrounding plants or eliminates them. Desirable plant communities are placed at risk from Russian knapweed invasion, which may result in decreased numbers of wildlife species or livestock that the invaded land otherwise could support. Russian knapweed also is very toxic to horses (Stevens 1986; Young et al. 1970a and 1970b).
Decreased carrying capacity for wildlife and livestock: Expansion of leafy spurge, yellow starthistle, or other unpalatable invasive weeds displace desirable forage plants and may allow fewer grazing animals to survive in infested areas (DiTomaso 2001; Lym and Messersmith 1985; Lym and Kirby 1987).
Impacts to Recreational Opportunities and Other Human Values
Decreased property values: Asian longhorned beetles first appeared in New York in 1996 and in Chicago in 1998. Larvae burrow into trees causing girdling of stems and branches, dieback of the crown, and can kill an entire tree. It infests many different tree species in the U.S. and is a threat to urban and rural forests (Cavey et al. 1998).
Emerald ash borers were first detected in the U.S. in 2002. They currently are found in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. Emerald ash borer larvae tunnel under bark of ash trees and could eliminate ash as a street, shade, and forest tree throughout the U.S. Estimated replacement cost in six Michigan counties is $11 billion and an additional $2 million in lost nursery sales (Chornesky et al. 2005).
Dutch elm disease was first introduced into the U.S. in 1927 and occurs in most states. Dutch elm disease has killed more than 60% of elms in urban settings and decreased the value of urban and suburban properties (Brasier and Buck 2001).
Spotted knapweed and leafy spurge expansion in the western U.S. have displaced desirable forage plants thereby decreasing the value and sales price of grazingland in the western U.S. (Maddox 1979; Weiser 1998).
Eurasian watermilfoil was introduced into the U.S in the 1940s and has since spread throughout much of the country. This submersed aquatic plant can form dense mats at the water surface limiting access, recreation, and aesthetics and thus, has decreased the values of shoreline properties in New Hampshire, the Midwest and elsewhere (Halstead et al. 2003).
Decreased sport fishing opportunities: Whirling disease is caused by a parasite (Myxobolus cerebralis) that most likely originated in Europe. It was first observed in the U.S. in 1958. The parasite attacks the soft cartilage of young trout causing spinal deformities and causes the fish to exhibit erratic tail-chasing behavior. Heavily infected young trout can die from Whirling disease and even if they recover, they remain carriers of the parasite. All species of trout and salmon may be susceptible and angling and the businesses supported by trout and salmon fishing may be at risk if this disease continues to spread (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force et al. 2005; Colorado Division of Wildlife 2006).
Smallmouth bass fishing in Lake Erie was closed during bass mating because of round goby predation of nests. Fishing was closed because male smallmouth bass aggressively guard nests from predators and are easier to catch by anglers during this time of year. Removal of males by anglers decreased the number of bass offspring because of increased round goby predation of unguarded nests (Steinhart et al. 2004). Businesses that smallmouth bass anglers patronize could be adversely affected by such closures.
Altered business opportunities: The concern over Sudden Oak Death Syndrome caused by the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum is causing drastic changes in available nursery stock by nurseries and landscape businesses. This clearly impacts the profitability of these businesses and choice by consumers and could devastate oak forests nationwide (Chornesky et al. 2005; Rizzo and Garbelotto 2003).
Annual harvests of oysters in Long Island Sound averaged over 680,000 bushels during 1991 through 1996. After Haplosporidium nelsonii (MSX) invaded in 1997 and 1998, oyster harvests decreased from 1997 through 2002 to an average annual harvest of 119,000 bushels with a low of 32,000 bushels in 2002. The overall ex-vessel value of oyster farming dropped 96% in 10 years from $45 million in 1992 to $2 million in 2002 (Sunila et al. 1999).
Non-native algae introduced into the Hawaiian Islands costs Maui alone about $20,000,000 annually due to algae fouling the beaches and subsequent lost tourism (Carroll 2004; Keeney 2004; Univ. Hawaii 2006).
Sea lampreys were introduced into Lakes Ontario and Erie during the construction of the Welland Canal and quickly spread to the other Great Lakes. The sea lamprey is a parasite that attaches itself to fish, eventually killing them, and has devastated commercial and recreational Lake Trout fishing in the Great Lakes (Lawrie 1970).
Australian spotted jellyfish were introduced into the Gulf of Mexico in 2000 and occurred in such massive numbers that shrimping operations were shut down because jellyfish clogged shrimp nets (Graham et al. 2003).
Altered ecosystems and recreational opportunities: The submersed aquatic plant hydrilla, forms dense canopies at the water surface that raise surface water temperatures, change pH, exclude light, and consume oxygen, resulting in native plant displacement and stunted sport fish populations. This example of an altered aquatic ecosystem caused by an invasive aquatic weed also negatively affects recreation and businesses that depend upon that human activity (Colle et al. 1987).
Summary
Invasive species are those that are not native to the ecosystem under consideration and that cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health. Plant and animal species under domestication or cultivation and under human control are not invasive species. Furthermore for policy purposes, to be considered invasive, the negative impacts caused by a non-native species will be deemed to outweigh the beneficial effects it provides. Finally, a non-native species might be considered invasive in one region but not in another. Whether or not a species is considered an invasive species depends largely on human values. By attempting to manage invasive species, we are affirming our economic and environmental values. Those non-native species judged to cause overall economic or environmental harm or harm to human health may be considered invasive, even if they yield some beneficial effects. Society struggles to determine the appropriate course of action in such cases, but in a democratic society that struggle is essential.
Many invasive species are examples of "the tragedy of the commons," or how actions that benefit one individual's use of resources may negatively impact others and result in a significant overall increase in damage to the economy, the environment, or public health. In ISAC’s review of Executive Order 113112, the public domain is specifically represented; however, the implementation of the NISMP has prompted concerns over the rights of personal and private property owners. Property rights are of great importance in the U.S. and one outcome of the NISMP should be to recognize the right to self determination by property owners and promote collaboration on invasive species management. The right to self determination is an important concept in a democratic society, however, with that right comes personal responsibility and stewardship, which includes being environmentally responsible. The natural environment that our society enjoys, recreates in, and depends upon to support commerce must be conserved and maintained. Effective invasive species management is just one aspect of conserving and maintaining our nation’s natural environment, the economies it supports, and the high quality of life our society enjoys.










References
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Coast Guard. 2005. Protect Your Waters. Harmful Aquatic Hitchikers: Others: Whirling Disease. [Online] http://protectyourwaters.net/hitchhikers/others_whirling_disease.php.
Bisognano, J.D., K.S. McGrody, and A.M. Spence. 2005. Myocarditis from the Chinese sumac tree. Annals Internal Medicine 143(2):159.
Brasier, C.M. and K.W. Buck. 2001. Rapid evolutionary changes in a globally invading fungal pathogen (Dutch elm disease). Biological Invasions 3:223-233.
Carroll, R. 2004. Maui battling seaweed invasion. Assoc. Press. [Online] http://thehonoluluadvertiser.com/artucke/jan/05/ln/ln10a.htm
Cavey, J.F., E. R. Hoebeke, S. Passoa, and S.W. Lingafelter. 1998. A new exotic threat to North American hardwood forests: an asian longhorned beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). I. Larval description and diagnosis. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 100 (2):373-381.
Chorensky, E.A., A.M. Bartuska, G.H. Aplet, K.O. Britton, J. Cummings-Carlson, F.W. Davis, J. Eskow, D.R. Gordon, K.W. Gottschalk, R.A. Haack, A.J. Hansen, R.N. Mack, R.J. Rahel, M.A. Shannon, L.A. Wainger, and T.B. Wigley. 2005. Science priorities for reducing the threat of invasive species to sustainable forestry. BioSci. 55(4):335-348.
Colle, D.E., J.V. Shireman, W.T. Haller, J.C. Joyce, and D.E. Canfield. 1987. Influence of Hydrilla on Harvestable Sport-Fish Populations, Angler Use, and Angler Expenditures at Orange Lake, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:410-417.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2006. Whirling disease and Colorado’s trout. http://wildlife.state.co.us/fishing/whirling.asp.
DiTomaso, J. 2001. Element stewardship abstract: Centaurea solstitialis L. Weeds on the web: The Nature Consevancy wildland invasive species program. ]tp://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/docmnts/centsols.htm
Friedercici, P. 1995. The alien saltcedar. Am. For. 101:45-47.
Graham, W.M., D.L. Martin, D.L. Fedder, V.L Asper, and H.M. Perry. 2003. Ecological and economic implications of a tropical jellyfish invader in the Gulf of Mexico. Biological Invasions 5(1-2) 53-69.
Halstead, J.M., J. Michaud, S. Hallas-Burt, and J.P Gibbs. 2003. Hedonic analysis of effects of a nonnative invader (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) on New Hampshire (USA) lakefront properties. Environmental Management 32(3): 391-398.
Johnson, S. 1986. Alien plants drain western waters. The Nature Conservancy News, Oct-Nov 1986.
Keeney, T.R.E. 2004. Written testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives. http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/testimon/108s/keeney0415.htm
Knapp, P.A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the Great Basin Desert: History, persistence, and influences to human activities. Global Environ. Change 6(1):37-52.
Krakowski , J., S.N. Aitken, Y.A. El-Kassaby. 2003. Inbreeding and conservation genetics in whitebark pine. Conservation Genetics 4:581-593.
Lawrie, A.H. 1970. The sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99:766-775.
Lym, R.G. and C.G. Messersmith. 1985. Cost effectiveness of leafy spurge control during a five-year management program. North Dakota Farm Res. 43(1)7-10.
Lym, R.G. and D.R. Kirby. 1987. Cattle foraging behavior in leafy spurge infested rangeland. Weed Technol. 1:314-318.
Maddox, D.M. 1979. The knapweeds: Their economics an biological control in the western states, U.S.A. Rangelands 1(4):139-141.
Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of non-indigenous species in the United States. Biosci. 50(1):53-65.
Richardson, D.M., P. Pysek, M. Rejmanek, M.G. Barbour. F.D. Panetta, and C.J. West. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6:93-107.
Rizzo, D.M. and M. Garbelotto. 2003. Sudden oak death: Endangering California and Oregon forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:197-204.
Steinhart, G.B., E.A. Marschall, and R.A. Stein. 2004. Round goby predation on smallmouth bass offspring in nests during simulated catch-and-release angling. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133: 121-131.
Stevens, K.L. 1986. Alleopathic polyacetylenes from Centaurea repens (Russian knapweed). J. Chem. Ecol. 12:1205-1211.
Sunila, I., J. Karolus, and J. Volk. 1999. A new epizootic of Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX), a haplosporidian oyster parasite, in Long Island Sound, Connecticut. Journal of Shellfish Research 18(1): 169-174.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003. Costly fires hurt wildlife habitat. [Online] http://www.fws.gov/deerflat/currfire.htm
Univ. of Hawaii. 2006. Invasive marine algae of Hawaii. [Online] http://www.hawaii.edu/reefalgae/invasive_algae/INDEX.HTM
U.S. Center for Disease Control. 2000. Fight the Bite. [Online] http://www.cdc.gov/nicdod/dvbid/westnile/index.htm
USDA-APHIS/FS. 2000. Draft pest risk assessment for importation of solid wood packing materials into the United States. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/swpm/
Weiser, C. 1998. Economic effects of invasive weeds on land values (From and agricultural banker’s standpoint). Proc. Colorado Weed Summit April 7-8, 1998. p. 35-38.
Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plain: Ecological and management implications. The Station. Nov. 1990 (276) Ogden, UT: General Technical Report INT – USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station.
Young, S, W.W. Brown, and B. Klinger. 1970a. Nigropallidal encephalomalacia in horses caused by ingestion of weeds of the genus Centaurea. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 157:1602-1605.
Young, S., W.W. Brown, and B. Klinger. 1970b. Nigropallidal encephalomalacia in horses fed Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens L.). Amer. J. Vet. Res. 31:1393-1404.
Appendix 4: On-line Resources
Weed Research and Information Center (WeedRIC) Pampasgrass and Jubatagrass Threaten California Coastal Habitats brochure: http://wric.ucdavis.edu/information/pampasgrass.html
California Horticultural Invasive Prevention partnership (CAL-HIP) PlantRight campaign www.plantright.org
Missouri Botanical Garden’s Exotic Plant Pests page: www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/mepp/welcome.shtml
American Nursery & Landscape Association (ANLA): www.anla.org/about/index.htm
Weed Science Society of America: www.wssa.net
The Nature Conservancy: www.nature.org
The Nature Conservancy Invasive Species Initiative: www.nature.org/initiatives/invasivespecies/?src=search
ISAC White Paper on Definition of Invasive Species: www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf
National Invasive Species Council: www.Invasivespecies.gov
USDA’s Agricultural Research Service: www.ars.usda.gov/main/main.htm
USDA’s National Arboretum: www.usna.usda.gov
USDA’a Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center: www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?MODECODE=12-00-00-00
USDA’s Agricultural Research Service’s Crop Production and Protection National Program: www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/locations/locations.htm?modecode=02-06-00-00
USDA’s Agricultural Research Service’s Technology Transfer Office: www.ars.usda.gov/Business/Business.htm
USDA’s Agricultural Research Service’s Research Project: Crop and Weed Responses to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=409030
USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service Plants Data Base: http://plants.usda.gov/
Plant Variety Protection Act: www.ams.usda.gov/science/PVPO/PVPO_Act/PVPA2005.pdf
Invasive.org: provides an archive of images related to invasive species, with particular emphasis on educational applications. www.invasive.org

[1] Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive species as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” Also see Appendix 3.

[2] Biological systematics is the study of the diversity of living organisms through time and includes determining their taxonomic identities.
[3] Work at the Missouri Botanical Garden to compile a comprehensive inventory of the cultivated plants in North America was presented.
[4] Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive species as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (also see Appendix 3).