In order to investigate whether there were differences in attitudes and perceptions within the University of California regarding the impact of introduced ornamental plants, we conducted a survey of academics with assignments in natural resource programs or ornamental horticulture. In general, the ornamental horticulture academics did not view the problem of invasive species as severely as the natural resource academics, but the both groups recognize that non-native landscape ornamentals now occur and can affect California\u27s wildlands. These data can be used to provide training to academics on this issue and help facilitate discussion between the different groups

Bell, Carl E

Grieshop, James I

Robb, Karen L

Wilen, Cheryl A

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 44 Number 1 Article 11 2-1-2006 Survey of University of California Academics' Attitudes Regarding the Impact of Escaped Horticultural Introductions on Wildlands Cheryl A. Wilen UC Statewide IPM Program and UC Cooperative Extension, cawilen@ucdavis.edu Carl E. Bell University of California Cooperative Extension, cebell@ucdavis.edu James I. Grieshop University of California, jigrieshop@ucdavis.edu Karen L. Robb University of California Cooperative Extension, klrobb@ucdavis.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Wilen, C. A., Bell, C. E., Grieshop, J. I., & Robb, K. L. (2006). Survey of University of California Academics' Attitudes Regarding the Impact of Escaped Horticultural Introductions on Wildlands. The Journal of Extension, 44(1), Article 11. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol44/iss1/11 This Research in Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesFebruary	2006	//	Volume	44	//	Number	1	//	Research	in	Brief	//	1RIB1Survey	of	University	of	California	Academics'	AttitudesRegarding	the	Impact	of	Escaped	Horticultural	Introductions	onWildlandsAbstractIn	order	to	investigate	whether	there	were	differences	in	attitudes	and	perceptions	within	theUniversity	of	California	regarding	the	impact	of	introduced	ornamental	plants,	we	conducted	asurvey	of	academics	with	assignments	in	natural	resource	programs	or	ornamental	horticulture.In	general,	the	ornamental	horticulture	academics	did	not	view	the	problem	of	invasive	speciesas	severely	as	the	natural	resource	academics,	but	the	both	groups	recognize	that	non-nativelandscape	ornamentals	now	occur	and	can	affect	California's	wildlands.	These	data	can	be	usedto	provide	training	to	academics	on	this	issue	and	help	facilitate	discussion	between	thedifferent	groups.	IntroductionIn	the	United	States,	85%	of	purposeful	introductions	of	non-native	plants	have	been	forornamental	plants,	creation	of	wildlife	habit,	and	mitigating	soil	erosion	(Reichard,	1996).	Themajority	of	these	plants	have	been	environmentally	benign,	but	significant	numbers	have	becomeinvasive.	Of	the	78	plants	considered	the	most	invasive	in	California	(Bossard,	Randall,	&Horshovsky,	2000),	41	were	introduced	as	ornamentals.	Invading	non-native	plants	displace	thenative	flora,	which	then	reduces	or	eliminates	the	habitat	for	wildlife,	birds,	and	insects,	and	canalter	physical	properties	of	invaded	habitats	(Bossard	et	al.,	2000).Ornamental	plants	sold	by	nurseries	have	marketable	aesthetic	qualities	and	agronomiccharacteristics	that	make	them	commercially	successful	for	nursery	production	and	landscape	use.These	traits	include	ease	of	propagation,	rapid	growth	and	spread,	and	disease	tolerance.	Whilethese	characteristics	are	valuable	for	horticultural	production,	they	also	increase	the	propensity	ofCheryl	A.	WilenArea	Integrated	Pest	Management	AdvisorUC	Statewide	IPM	Program	and	UC	Cooperative	ExtensionSan	Diego	Californiacawilen@ucdavis.eduCarl	E.	BellRegional	AdvisorUniversity	of	California	Cooperative	ExtensionSan	Diego,	Californiacebell@ucdavis.eduJames	I.	GrieshopEducation	SpecialistUniversity	of	CaliforniaDavis,	Californiajigrieshop@ucdavis.eduKaren	L.	RobbCounty	Director	and	Farm	AdvisorUniversity	of	California	Cooperative	ExtensionMariposa,	Californiaklrobb@ucdavis.eduplants	to	survive	without	human	assistance	and	become	established	in	natural	habitats.	Plants	thatare	well	adapted	to	local	conditions	may	become	invasive.Many	land	grant	institutions	have	academic	fields	supporting	ornamental	horticulture	and	naturalresources.	There	may	be	different	and	possibly	incongruous	philosophies	between	academicswanting	to	introduce	new	plants	and	those	trying	to	control	invasive	plants	and	restrict	theirintroduction.	For	example,	within	the	University	of	California	(UC),	Agriculture	Experiment	Station(AES)	and	Cooperative	Extension	(CE)	academics	conduct	research	and	extension	programs	toevaluate	new	ornamental	varieties	and	promote	urban	forestry.	However,	academics	in	weedscience,	forestry,	rangeland	management,	and	natural	resources	are	increasingly	focusing	theirefforts	on	managing	invasive	species.To	investigate	this	issue	within	UC,	we	conducted	a	survey	of	academics	with	assignments	innatural	resource	(NR)	programs	or	ornamental	horticulture	(OH)	regarding	perceptions	andattitudes	about	invasive	plants	of	horticultural	origin.	These	data	can	be	used	to	facilitatediscussion	between	the	different	groups.We	selected	four	plant	species	or	plant	groupings	to	focus	the	survey	questions:	Pampasgrass(Cortaderia	selloana),	Tasmanian	blue	gum	(Eucalyptus	globulus	Labill.),	fountaingrass(Pennisetum	setaceum),	and	brooms	(Scotch	broom	[Cytisus	scoparius]),	(French	broom	[Genistamonspessulanus]),	(Spanish	broom	[Spartium	junceum	L.]).	We	selected	these	species	becausethey	were:	1)	originally	introduced	for	landscape	use,	2)	with	the	exception	of	French	broom,	canstill	be	purchased	from	nurseries	or	catalogs,	and	3)	are	considered	invasive	by	the	CaliforniaDepartment	of	Food	and	Agriculture	or	by	the	California	Invasive	Plant	Council.Materials	and	MethodsA	12-question	survey	was	distributed	to	members	of	the	UC	Natural	Resources	(NR)	Workgroupand	the	Floriculture	and	Nursery	(OH)	Workgroup.	These	workgroups	include	AES	faculty,specialists,	and	farm	advisors.	Sixty-one	surveys	were	sent	to	the	OH	workgroup	and	60	to	the	NRworkgroup.	Questions	were	designed	to	determine	respondents'	awareness	of	invasive	plants	inCalifornia	and	their	attitudes	regarding	the	risks	of	invasive	ornamental	plants.	Responses	wereanonymous.	Data	were	tabulated	and	analyzed	using	Chi-square	test	of	independence	(CoHortSoftware,	Pacific	Grove,	Ca).Results	and	DiscussionDemographicsA	total	of	42	surveys	were	returned,	27	(45%)	from	NR	and	15	(24.6%	response)	from	OH.	Themajority	of	the	respondents	(82.5%)	have	100%	CE	assignments.	Ten	percent	of	the	respondentshave	appointments	that	include	both	CE	and	AES	research	or	education.	The	remainingrespondents	(7.5%)	are	AES	faculty.	Because	the	surveys	were	distributed	via	workgroups	and	thebulk	of	workgroup	members	have	CE	appointments,	the	sampled	population	is	skewed	towards	CE.Most	(61.9%)	are	county-based,	33.3%	are	campus-based,	and	4.8%	are	located	on	a	naturalreserve.	There	are	three	UC	campuses	that	are	part	of	the	Land	Grant	System	(Berkeley,	Davis,and	Riverside).	The	state	is	also	divided	into	three	regions,	Central	and	South	Coast,	CentralValley,	and	North	Coast	and	Mountain,	for	the	purpose	of	administration	of	the	county-basedadvisors	(Figure	1).Figure	1.Regional	Breakdown	of	Campuses	and	County-Based	Cooperative	Extension	AdvisorsAwareness	of	Non-Native	Ornamental	Plants	in	WildlandsNearly	all	(97.6%)	of	the	respondents	recognized	that	non-native	ornamentals	occur	in	California'swildlands.	One	hundred	percent	responded	that	non-native	landscape	ornamentals	are	problematicin	some	manner	in	California's	wildlands,	although	there	is	a	nearly	equal	spilt	between	those	whobelieve	that	the	problem	is	widespread	and	those	who	believe	non-native	ornamentals	affectwildlands	in	fewer	areasParticipants	were	asked	to	indicate	their	level	of	agreement	on	whether	the	plants	in	question	aresignificant	problems.	The	majority	felt	that	brooms	and	pampasgrass	are	significant	problems,	withover	90%	of	the	respondents	either	agreeing	or	strongly	agreeing	with	the	statement	(Table	1).The	majority	(62.8%)	of	the	respondents	also	agreed	or	strongly	agreed	that	fountaingrass	is	asignificant	problem.	Only	a	slight	majority	(52.5%)	agreed	or	strongly	agreed	with	the	statementfor	eucalyptus.	This	may	be	due	to	the	long	ornamental	history	of	eucalyptus	in	California	and	itsslower	speed	of	invasion	in	relation	to	the	other	species.Table	1.Level	of	Agreement	to	the	Statement	"These	plants	are	regarded	as	significantproblems	in	California	wildlands"	for	Eucalyptus	spp.,	Brooms,	Pampasgrass,and	Fountaingrass	StronglyAgree%Agree%NeitherAgreenorDisagree%Disagree%Stronglydisagree%Eucalyptus	spp. 12.5 40.0 25.0 20.0 2.5Brooms 53.9 38.5 7.7 0.0 0.0Pampasgrass 50.0 42.5 7.5 0.0 0.0Fountaingrass 25.7 37.1 34.3 2.9 0.0	Respondents	who	agreed	or	strongly	agreed	with	the	previous	statement	were	asked	to	indicatetheir	perception	of	the	geographical	impact	of	these	plants.	It	was	interesting	to	find	that	none	ofthe	species	were	perceived	by	most	respondents	to	be	widespread	problems	in	California	(Table2).	For	each	species,	the	majority	of	the	respondents	indicated	that	these	plants	were	problematicin	several	or	fewer	areas	in	California.	This	shows	that	the	respondents	feel	that	the	negativeimpact	of	the	species	on	California	wildlands	is	regionalized.Table	2.Geographical	Impact	of	Eucalyptus	spp.,	Brooms,	Pampasgrass,	andFountaingrass	as	Perceived	by	Respondents	who	Agreed	or	Strongly	Agreedthat	These	Plants	Are	Significant	Problems	in	California	Wildlands	(percent	ofrespondents)Plants	Regarded	asSignificant	Problem	inCA	WildlandsIn	LimitedAreas	ofCA%In	SeveralAreas	ofCA%In	MostAreas	ofCA%In	NearlyAll	of	CA%Eucalyptus	spp. 26.7 53.3 20.0 0.0Brooms 0.0 62.9 28.6 8.6Pampasgrass 2.6 73.7 23.7 0.0Fountaingrass 30.8 57.7 3.8 7.7	However,	when	asked	about	the	rate	of	non-native	plants	moving	into	wildlands,	73.8%	felt	thatthe	rate	was	increasing,	and	14%	were	not	sure.	Therefore,	there	is	the	perception	that	non-nativeplants	are	spreading	more	rapidly	in	wildlands.	This	may	be	due	to	increased	awareness	of	thepresence	of	non-native	plants	in	natural	areas	of	California.The	majority	of	the	respondents	indicated	that	there	should	be	some	limits	to	plant	importationinto	California	(Table	3),	with	84.7%	disagreeing	or	strongly	disagreeing	to	the	statement	that"Plant	importation	should	not	be	limited."A	similar	percent	(83%)	also	disagreed	or	strongly	disagreed	with	the	statement	"All	new	plantspecies	should	be	excluded	from	being	used	in	California	landscapes."	It	is	interesting	to	note	that7.3%	of	the	respondents	agreed	or	strongly	agreed	to	that	statement,	while	12.9%	felt	that	plantimportation	should	not	be	limited.	Although	the	numbers	are	small,	they	do	indicate	that	there	aremembers	of	ANR	who	have	strongly	opposing	viewpoints	regarding	the	importation	of	non-nativesinto	California.Table	3.Level	of	Agreement	with	Statements	Related	to	Potential	Risk	or	ConcernAbout	Importation	of	New	Plant	Species	into	California	(percent)Statement StronglyAgree AgreeNeitherAgreenorDisagreeDisagree StronglyDisagreePlant	importationshould	not	be	limited 2.6 10.3 2.6 38.5 46.2All	new	plant	speciesshould	be	excludedfrom	being	used	inCalifornia	landscapes2.4 4.9 9.8 41.5 41.5	The	majority	of	the	respondents	(83%)	indicated	that	California	landscapes	should	not	be	limited	toplanting	native	species,	but	they	also	felt	that	plants	should	have	a	minimal	risk	of	escaping	fromthe	planted	area	(Table	4).	From	the	responses	regarding	the	impact	of	invasive	plants,	it	wassurprising	that	high	percentages	of	the	respondents	indicated	that	non-natives	could	or	should	begrown	near	sensitive	areas	and	that	they	felt	that	non-natives	contribute	to	the	aesthetic	value	ofwildlands.Table	4.Level	of	Agreement	with	Statements	Related	to	the	Use	of	Native	or	Non-Native	Plants	as	Ornamental	Plants	in	California	(percent)Statement StronglyAgree AgreeNeitherAgreenorDisagreeDisagree StronglyDisagreeOnly	natives	should	begrown	in	Californialandscapes2.4 7.3 7.3 48.8 34.2Only	non-natives	thathave	minimal	risk	ofescaping	should	beplanted	in	landscapes17.1 56.1 9.8 17.1 0.0Non-native	plants	can	begrown	(planted)	nearnative	wildlands	if	actionis	taken	to	reduce	theirlikelihood	of	spread2.5 42.5 37.5 17.5 0.0Only	natives	should	begrown	(planted)	nearsensitive	habitats	(e.g.freshwater	marshes,rivers,	shorelines,	oakwoodlands,	etc.)5.0 35.0 17.5 40.0 2.5Non-native	plantscontribute	to	the	naturalbeauty	of	Californiawildlands4.8 35.7 23.8 26.2 9.5	Respondents	were	asked	to	indicate	their	level	of	agreement	to	a	series	of	statements	regardinglevels	of	restriction	for	imports	of	plants	into	California.	Only	the	most	restrictive	statement,	"Allnew	plant	species	should	be	excluded	from	being	used	in	California	landscapes,"	had	a	significantchi-square	statistic	(0.0028).	None	of	respondents	who	held	a	full	CE	appointment	agreed	orstrongly	agreed	with	the	statement,	but	20%	those	with	a	full	or	partial	AES	assignment	felt	thatnew	plant	species	should	not	be	allowed	in	California	landscapes	(Table	5).Table	5.Frequency	Table	for	"All	new	plant	species	should	be	excluded	from	being	usedin	California	landscapes"	by	AssignmentResponseAES	(N=6) Both	(N=4) CE	(N=32)Frequency%	ofTable Frequency%	ofTable Frequency%	ofTableStrongly	agree 1 2.56 0 0.00 0 0.00Agree 0 0.00 1 2.56 0 0.00Neither	agreenor	disagree 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 7.69Disagree 5 5.13 1 2.56 14 35.90Stronglydisagree 0 0.00 2 5.13 15 38.46N=42	Similarly,	when	asked	to	indicate	their	level	agreement	with	the	statement	"Only	natives	should	begrown	in	California	landscapes,"	those	with	a	full	CE	assignment	were	more	likely	to	disagree	withthe	statement	than	those	with	a	full	or	partial	AES	assignment	(chi	square=	0.0127)	(data	notshown).Awareness	of	Non-Native	Ornamental	Plants	by	Program	AreaThere	were	few	significant	chi-square	statistics	when	testing	for	independence	betweenrespondents	in	OH	and	NR.	This	indicates	that	there	are	similar	opinions	regarding	the	impact	ofnon-native	ornamental	plants	on	California	wildlands.There	was	a	significant	relationship	(p=0.002)	only	between	"Program	Area"	and	the	level	ofagreement	with	the	statement	of	eucalyptus	as	a	significant	problem.	Interestingly,	there	appearsto	be	more	variation	in	opinion	among	the	respondents	in	the	OH	group	than	between	the	twoprograms.	Roughly	half	(47%)	of	those	in	OH	agreed	or	strongly	agreed	that	eucalyptus	was	aproblem	but	54%	also	disagreed	or	strongly	disagreed	with	the	statement.	Of	the	NR	group,	52%agreed	and	40%	did	not	agree	or	strongly	disagreed	with	the	statement.Both	groups	felt	that	eucalyptus	was	a	problem	in	several	areas,	brooms	in	limited	areas,	andfountaingrass	in	limited	to	several	areas	of	California	(data	not	shown).There	was	a	significant	relationship	between	program	area	and	opinion	of	geographic	spread	ofpampasgrass	(p=0.0191).	While	100%	of	the	OH	group	felt	that	pampasgrass	was	a	problem	inseveral	areas	of	California,	38%	of	the	NR	group	felt	that	it	was	a	problem	in	most	of	the	state(Table	6).	This	indicates	that	there	is	a	difference	in	perception	between	the	two	groups	in	regardto	the	geographic	impact	of	pampasgrass.	Neither	group	had	respondents	that	felt	thatpampasgrass	was	a	significant	problem	in	most	of	California.Table	6.Geographical	Impact	of	Pampasgrass	by	Program	AreaResponseOrnamental	Horticulture(N=14)Natural	Resources(N=24)Frequency %	ofColumn%	ofTable Frequency%	ofColumn%	ofTableProblem	inlimited	areas	ofCalifornia0 0 0 1 4 3Problem	inseveral	areas	ofCalifornia14 100 37 14 58 37Problem	in	mostareas	ofCalifornia0 0 0 9 38 24N=38	ConclusionsIn	general,	OH	academics	did	not	view	the	problem	of	invasive	species	as	severely	as	did	NRacademics.	However,	results	do	indicate	that	academics,	regardless	of	assignment,	recognize	thatnon-native	landscape	ornamentals	occur	in	California's	wildlands.Responses	varied	over	which	species	were	most	troublesome,	on	the	impact	of	these	plants	onnatural	areas,	and	about	what	should	be	done	about	the	problem.	These	groups	should	continue	todialog	both	formally	and	informally	in	order	to	have	cooperative,	rather	than	conflicting,	goals.	Asrepresentatives	of	the	university,	the	message	presented	to	clientele	should	be	consistent	ratherthan	confusing.OH	Advisors	should	continue	to	work	with	nurseries	to	develop	production	and	marketing	practicesfor	plants	that	are	less	invasive	as	well	as	educate	nurseries	and	their	customers	aboutappropriate	plant	selection.	NR	Advisors	should	continue	to	educate	stakeholders	such	as	theCalifornia	Invasive	Plant	Council	about	their	criteria	for	deciding	which	plant	are	invasive	and	helpthem	develop	appropriate	protocols	by	region	for	testing	or	validation.ReferencesBossard,	C.	C.,	Randall,	J.	M.,	&.	Horshovsky,	M.C.	(Eds.)	(2000).	Invasive	plants	of	California'swildlands.	Berkeley	and	Los	Angeles,	California:	Univ.	of	Calif.	Press.Reichard,	S.E.	(1996).	Prevention	of	invasive	plant	introductions	on	national	and	local	levels.	In:J.O.	Luken	&	J.W.	Thiere	(Eds.),	Assessment	and	management	of	plant	invasions	(	pp.	215-227).New	York:	Springer-Verlag.Copyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

Survey of University of California Academics\u27 Attitudes Regarding the Impact of Escaped Horticultural Introductions on Wildlands

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4384&context=joe

Survey of University of California Academics\u27 Attitudes Regarding the Impact of Escaped Horticultural Introductions on Wildlands

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints