Carson, Walter P.

Hovick, Stephen M.

Maron, John L.

Pearson, Dean E.

English

University of Montana

University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Biological Sciences Faculty Publications Biological Sciences 4-2010 Funding Needed for Assessments of Weed Biological Control John L. Maron University of Montana - Missoula, john.maron@mso.umt.edu Dean E. Pearson Stephen M. Hovick Walter P. Carson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/biosci_pubs  Part of the Biology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Maron, John L.; Pearson, Dean E.; Hovick, Stephen M.; and Carson, Walter P., "Funding Needed for Assessments of Weed Biological Control" (2010). Biological Sciences Faculty Publications. 241. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/biosci_pubs/241 This Letter to the Editor is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact scholarworks@mso.umt.edu. 122www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of AmericaWrite BackUse of dose-response in place of anANOVA-based approach requiresthinking a bit differently about exper-imental design and analysis. Suchstudies often begin with a range-find-ing experiment, in order to efficientlybracket test-subject response betweendoses that produce low response ratesand doses that produce responses inall test subjects. Whereas differencesin survival are typically tested withANOVA, it is mortality that is ana-lyzed in dose-response. Ecologists could use a dose-responsemodel at scales not typically seen intoxicology. The response of wholecommunities or ecosystems to varyingdoses of large-scale, non-traditionalstressors could be examined – evaluat-ing the presence of tipping points andproviding hypotheses for temporalresponses to increasing levels of stress.Such applications would not be with-out caveats, of course. In the case oflarge-scale ecological application ofdose-response designs, there may bepractical limits to maximum dosesthat can be produced in the field,resulting in truncated response curves.As a “classically” trained ecologist,I was biased toward ANOVA until Iconducted my own toxicologicalstudies as a postdoc. I suspect thatunderappreciation or ignorance of thedose-response design is a product ofcanalization between training in basicand applied fields of study. Yet basicand applied ecology increasinglyoverlap, as the importance of the sci-ence underlying environmental issuesincreases. Thus, as ecologists – nototherwise trained as toxicologists –lead studies that blur the distinctionsbetween ecology and toxicology,appropriate quantitative methodol-ogy should follow.David F RaikowUS Environmental Protection Agency,Cincinnati, OH (raikow.david@epa.gov)Cottingham KL, Lennon JT, and BrownBL. 2005. Knowing when to draw theline: designing more informative eco-logical experiments. Front Ecol Environ3: 145–52.No Agency positions are established in thisexpression of the author’s views.doi:10.1890/10.WB.011A disappointing end In the Dispatches section of theSeptember issue of Frontiers (FrontEcol Environ 2009; 7[7]: 349),Virginia Gewin’s article, “FACE fac-ing the end”, discussed the termina-tion of the Free Air Carbon DioxideEnrichment (FACE) experimentsand the unique insights into theinfluences of increased levels ofatmospheric CO2 on forest carbondynamics gained as a result of thatresearch. Although there is undoubt-edly much to be learned by endingthe experiments, harvesting thetrees, and excavating soils and roots– the results of those measurementswill certainly be enlightening – itseems as though the results of theFACE experiments themselves todate have demonstrated that its con-tinuation is scientifically valuableand justified. Indeed, a number ofresults have shown unexpected tem-poral shifts in ecological responses,thus raising questions concerning thecontinued evolution of these ecosys-tems over the longer term, under ele-vated atmospheric CO2 conditions.That being said, what is the “long-term” value of this type of ecologicalsystems research, and should experi-ments such as FACE be extended?To answer the first question, weneed look no further than the LongTerm Ecological Research (LTER)network to understand the benefitsand scientific value in creating andmaintaining a permanent network ofresearch sites and experiments. Whilethe scope and mission of the FACEexperiments are fundamentally differ-ent from those of the LTER network,they are nevertheless a distinctiveand critical set of experiments thatshould be maintained indefinitely,lest a landmark project on climate-change research be shuttered. Thetemporal scale and ingenuity of theFACE experiments have provided, ifnothing else, a unique opportunity forscientific inquiry. An answer, or rather an opinion, onthe second question is that FACE andsimilar long-term investigationsshould indeed be continued. Long-term research is an invaluable asset innatural systems science and “in theabsence of the temporal context pro-vided by long-term research, seriousmisjudgments can occur…in ourattempts to understand and predictchange in the world around us”(Magnuson 1990). Without the con-tinuation of the FACE experiments,even on a limited scale, it seems avaluable temporal perspective hasbeen sacrificed, thereby limiting ourlong-term understanding of terrestrialecosystems in a changing climate.James E BedisonDepartment of Earth & EnvironmentalScience, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA(jbedison@sas.upenn.edu)Magnuson JJ. 1990. Long-term ecologicalresearch and the invisible present.BioScience 40: 495–501.doi:10.1890/10.WB.012Funding needed forassessments of weedbiological control Invasive non-native plants are a seri-ous economic and ecological prob-lem worldwide, and major efforts aretherefore devoted to reducing weedabundance in agricultural and nat-ural settings. Effective options forreducing invasive abundance andspread are few, although one com-mon approach is biological control –the introduction of specialist herbi-vores or pathogens from a weed’snative range to suppress weed abun-dance in the introduced range.Biocontrol is a crucial tool in inva-sive species management because,once biocontrol agents establish,they are often self-sustaining and cangreatly reduce invasive populations. Yet, as with all weed control efforts,biocontrol has its costs. Establishing anew biocontrol program is expensive,costing well over US$1 000 000 forthe discovery, testing, rearing, andrelease of specialist enemies against asingle target weed (Page and Lacey2006). Weed biocontrol has also been123© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.orgWrite Backcontroversial because of the ecologicalrisks associated with releasing exoticenemies into recipient communities. Aswith many controversies, this one isfueled by a fundamental lack of informa-tion. Few rigorous scientific assessmentshave evaluated the amount and extentof target weed suppression and the sideeffects that can occur following therelease of biocontrol agents. Whetherreductions in target-weed abundancelead to invasion by secondary invadersor recovery by desired plants has alsobeen poorly documented. The issue isn’twhether biocontrol can work; it clearlycan (Gurr and Wratten 2000). Rather,the issue is how often does it work andunder what circumstances? Answeringthese questions requires rigorous post-release evaluations in order to advancethe science and improve the efficacy offuture programs.Despite often heated debate aboutthe relative merits of biological con-trol, all parties would agree that quan-tifying biocontrol outcomes is essen-tial (Müller-Schärer and Schaffner2008). Current regulations not onlyrequest detailed pre-release studies,addressing the host specificity andimpact of potential biocontrol agents,but they also require that post-releasemonitoring plans be in place. Yet, thereality is that careful quantitativeassessment of biocontrol outcomesoften falls through the cracks. Whenprudent evaluation does happen, it isoften through the fortuitous collabo-ration of academic scientists with bio-control practitioners. There areexceptions (Shea et al. 2005), but pastefforts documenting biocontrol out-comes in weeds have mostly been cor-relative, where treatment populationsreceiving biocontrol agents are moni-tored but control populations are not(Julien and Griffiths 1998). The crux of the issue is simple:although funds can be obtained tosearch for new biocontrol agents, testfor their host-plant specificity, and rearand release them, money for post-release assessment is usually lacking.This does not reflect a failure on thepart of the land managers and biocon-trol scientists, who are struggling tocope with an expanding weed prob-lem. Rather, it highlights a crucial lim-itation of the current funding and reg-ulatory structure for biological control,which encourages and funds new bio-control efforts without having a mech-anism to ensure that their outcomesare rigorously assessed. Changing cur-rent practices will require concertedlobbying on behalf of the scientificcommunity. The federal governmentand states must mandate that out-comes from biocontrol introductionsbe assessed and should fund thoseassessments as well as their documen-tation. This will provide benefitsbeyond simply quantifying when andwhere target weeds are suppressed:they may help identify the mecha-nisms by which weed control occurs incommunity “recovery”, elucidate theconditions that increase the likelihoodof biocontrol success, and reveal thereasons for failure. Mandating clearmonitoring guidelines, having unam-biguous definitions for what consti-tutes “success”, and providing ade-quate funding to assess whetherbiological control is safe, effective, andnecessary are essential for advancingthe science underlying this crucialweed management tool.John L Maron1*, Dean E Pearson2,Stephen M Hovick3, andWalter P Carson41Division of Biological Sciences,University of Montana, Missoula, MT*(john.maron@mso.umt.edu);2Rocky Mountain Research Station,US Forest Service, Missoula, MT;3Department of Ecology andEvolutionary Biology, Rice University,Houston, TX; 4Department ofBiological Sciences, University ofPittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PAGurr G and Wratten S. 2000. Biologicalcontrol: measures of success. Dordrecht,Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pub-lishers.Julien MH and Griffiths MW. 1998.Biological control of weeds: a worldcatalogue of agents and their targetweeds, 4th edn. Wallingford, UK:CABI Publishing.Müller-Schärer H and Schaffner U. 2008.Classical biological control: exploitingenemy escape to manage plant inva-sions. Biol Invasions 10: 859–74.Page AR and Lacey KC. 2006. CRC forAustralian weed management #10.Glen Osmond, Australia: CRC forAustralian Weed Management.Shea K, Kelly D, Sheppard AW, andWoodburn TL. 2005. Context-depen-dent biological control of an invasivethistle. Ecology 86: 3174–81.doi:10.1890/10.WB.013Erratum In the letter from David Pimentel(2010: 8[2]: 66) the text shouldread, “based on its current growthrate, [Earth’s] population willdouble within 58 years.” (not 13years, as stated). TAKE THIS JOURNAL TO YOUR LIBRARIAN, PLEASEAre you enjoying this issue of Frontiers?If your library had a subscription, colleagues and students could enjoy it too.Please consider recommending Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment to your library(ISSN 1540-9295).Thank you for your supportYou can obtain a subscription to Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment by contacting ESAHeadquarters (+1 202 833 8773), online at www.esa.org, or through your subscription agent.To request a free sample issue, call or email Eric Gordon (eric@esa.org).

Funding Needed for Assessments of Weed Biological Control

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1245&amp;context=biosci_pubs

Funding Needed for Assessments of Weed Biological Control

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Montana