Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T08:47:45.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Reaction to Invasive Plant Species in a Disturbed Colorado Landscape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael T. Daab  and
Courtney G. Flint
Michael T. Daab*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 1102 S Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Courtney G. Flint
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 1102 S Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mdaab@ccfpd.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Invasive plant species degrade ecosystems in many ways. Controlling invasive plants is costly for government agencies, businesses, and individuals. North central Colorado is currently experiencing large-scale disturbance, and millions of acres are vulnerable to invasion because of natural and socioeconomic processes. Mountain pine beetles typically endemic to this region have reached epidemic proportions, with up to 80% tree mortality, which opens growing space for invasive plants. In socioeconomic terms, the popularity of this amenity-rich region for tourists and in-migrants has resulted in increased development, often bordering the public land that is common in the American West. Increased recreational access and the construction of new roads and infrastructure disturb ecosystems in an increasingly fragmented landscape. A survey was mailed to more than 4,000 households in a five-county region of north central Colorado to gauge public awareness and attitudes regarding invasive plant species, helping to illuminate whether the public shows a capacity to help land managers detect and respond to invasive plants before they profoundly alter the local ecosystem. Although 88% of respondents had heard or read about invasive plant species, far fewer were familiar with specific, locally targeted species, and fewer still had taken any action to control these species. The overall awareness and concern about invasive plants in the area indicated a capacity for more public participation in management.

Keywords

Mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae HopkinsAmenity-based communitiesinvasive plantsdisturbanceinvasive awareness
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 390 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, L. W. J. 2005. California's reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biol. Invasions 7:1003–1016.Google Scholar
Baker, B. 2001. National management plan maps strategy for controlling invasive species. Bioscience 51:92.Google Scholar
Baker, H. G. 1986. Patterns of plant invasion in North America. Pages 44–57. In Mooney, H. A. and Drake, J. A. eds. Ecology of Biological Invasions in North America and Hawaii. New York Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bamberg, S. 2003. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol 23:21–32.Google Scholar
Bebi, P., Kulakowski, D., and Veblen, T. T. 2003. Interactions between fire and spruce beetles in a subalpine Rocky Mountain forest landscape. Ecology 84:362–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, G. K. 1994. How do weeds affect us all?. Pages. 3–4. in. 1994 Leafy Spurge Symposium. Bozeman, MT United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service.Google Scholar
Benninger-Truax, M., Vankat, J. L., and Schaefer, R. L. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Landsc. Ecol 6:269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, M. L., D'Antonio, C. M., Richardson, D. M., Grace, J. B., Keeley, J. E., DiTomaso, J. M., Hobbs, R. J., Pellant, M., and Pyke, D. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience 54:677–688.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S. III, Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., et al. 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colorado Noxious Weed Act 1996. Colorado Revised Statutes. Title 35, Article 5.5, Section 103.Google Scholar
Colton, T. F. and Alpert, P. 1998. Lack of public awareness of biological invasions by plants. Nat. Area J 18:262–266.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. M., Jackson, N. E., Horvitz, C. C., and Hedberg, R. 2004. Invasive plants in wildland ecosystems: merging the study of invasion processes with management needs. Front. Ecol. Environ 2:513–521.Google Scholar
Dewey, S. A. and Andersen, K. A. 2004. Strategies for early detection: using the wildfire model. Weed Technol 18 (Invasive Weed Symposium):1396–1399.Google Scholar
Dewey, S. A., Jenkins, M. J., and Tonioli, R. C. 1995. Wildfire suppression: a paradigm for noxious weed management. Weed Technol 9:621–627.Google Scholar
DeYoung, R. 1989. Exploring the difference between recyclers and non-recyclers: the role of informaton. J. Environ. Syst 18:341–351.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M., Kyser, G. B., Orloff, S. B., and Enloe, S. F. 2000. Integrated strategies offer site-specific control of yellow starthistle. Calif. Agric 54:30–36.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. A., Jachetta, J. J., Brown, M. L., et al. 2004. Assessing the economic, environmental, and societal losses from invasive plants on rangeland and wildlands. Weed Technol 18 (Invasive Weed Symposium):1411–1416.Google Scholar
Dyckman, L. J. 2001. Invasive Species: Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat. Washington, DC United States General Accounting Office GAO-01-724.Google Scholar
Guagnano, G. 1995. Locus of control, altruism and agentic disposition. Popul. Environ 17:63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackett, J. 2007. Colorado's mountain pine beetle infestation offers important lessons about managing future forests. Colo, Conservator 23 (2):8–9.Google Scholar
Harrod, R. J. and Reichard, S. H. 2001. Fire and invasive species within the temperate and boreal coniferous forests of western North America. Pages 95–101. In Galley, K. E. M. and Wilson, T. P. eds. Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: The Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Tallahassee, FL Tall Timbers Research Station. Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous Publication 11.Google Scholar
Hirsch, S. A. and Leitch, J. A. 1996. The Impact of Knapweed on Montana's Economy. North Dakota State University Agricultural Economic Report 355. 23 p.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. 1989. The nature and effects of disturbance relative to invasion. Pages 389–405. In Drake, J. A., Mooney, H. A., di Castri, F., Groves, R. H., Kruger, F. J., Rejmanek, M., and Williamson, M. eds. Biological Invasions: A global Perspective. Chichester, UK Wiley.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. 1991. Disturbance as a precursor to weed invasion in native vegetation. Plant Prot. Q 6 (3):99–104.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. 2000. Land-use changes and invasions. Pages 55–93. In Mooney, H. A. and Hobbs, R. J. eds. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Washington, DC Island Press.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Huenneke, L. F. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conserv. Biol 6:324–337.Google Scholar
Jenkins, P. and Mooney, H. 2006. The United States, China, and invasive species: present status and future prospects. Biol. Invasions 8:1589–1593.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. M. and Beale, C. L. 2002. Nonmetro recreation counties: their identification and rapid growth. Rural Am 17:12–19.Google Scholar
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., and Ratick, S. 1988. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal (8) (2):177–187.Google Scholar
Keeley, J. E., Lubin, D., and Fotheringham, C. J. 2003. Fire and grazing impacts on plant diversity and alien plant invasions in the southern Sierra Nevada. Ecol. Appl 13:1355–1374.Google Scholar
Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J. 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res 8:239–260.Google Scholar
Kulakowski, D., Veblen, T. T., and Bebi, P. 2003. Effects of fire and spruce beetle outbreak legacies on the disturbance regime of a subalpine forest in Colorado. J. Biogeogr 30:1445–1456.Google Scholar
Lacey, J. R., Marlow, C. B., and Lane, J. R. 1989. Influence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on surface runoff and sediment yield. Weed Technol 3:627–631.Google Scholar
Leung, B., Lodge, D. M., Finnoff, D., Shogren, J. F., Lewis, M. A., and Lamberti, G. 2002. An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond 269:2407–2413.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M. 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522–1536.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M. and Lane, A. M. 1994. Tourist vehicles as vectors of weed seeds in Kakadu National Park, northern Australia. Biol. Conserv 69:277–283.Google Scholar
Lorah, P. and Southwick, R. 2003. Environmental protection, population change, and economic development in the rural western United States. Popul. Environ 24:255–272.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N. 2001. Motivations and consequences of the human dispersal of plants. Pages 23–34. In McNeely, J. A. ed. The great reshuffling: human dimensions in invasive alien species. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK IUCN, Biodiversity Policy Coordination Divison.Google Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl 10:689–710.Google Scholar
Maestas, J. D., Knight, R. L., and Gilgert, W. C. 2001. Biodiversity and land-use change in the American mountain west. Geogr. Rev 91:509–524.Google Scholar
Maestas, J. D., Knight, R. L., and Gilgert, W. C. 2002. Cows, condos, or neither: what's best for rangeland ecosystems? Rangelands 24:36–42.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A. and Sheley, R. L. 2001. Principles and practices for managing rangeland invasive plants. J. Range Manage 54:502–517.Google Scholar
McCambridge, W. F., Hawksworth, F. G., Edminster, C. B., and Laut, J. G. 1982. Ponderosa Pine Mortality Resulting from a Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak. Fort Collins, CO U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station RM-235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullough, D. G., Werner, R. A., and Neumann, D. 1998. Fire and insects in northern and boreal forest ecosystems of North America. Annu. Rev. Entomol 43:107–127.Google Scholar
McGranahan, D. 1999. Natural amenities drive rural population change. Washington D.C. Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture AER781.Google Scholar
Myers, J. H. and Bazely, D. 2003. Ecology and Control of Introduced Plants. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nyamwange, M. 1996. Public perception of strategies for increasing participation in recycling programs. J. Environ. Educ 27:19–22.Google Scholar
Parendes, L. A. and Jones, J. A. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conserv. Biol 14:64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, D. L. and Stipe, L. E. 1993. A Sequence of Destruction: Mountain Pine Beetle and Wildfire. Washington DC U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region.Google Scholar
Pauchard, A. and Alaback, P. B. 2004. Influence of elevation, land use, and landscape context on patterns of alien plant invasions along roadsides in protected areas of south-central Chile. Conserv. Biol 18:238–248.Google Scholar
Pauchard, A., Alaback, P. A., and Edlund, E. G. 2003. Plant invasions in protected areas at multiple scales: Linaria vulgaris (Scrophulariaceae) in the west Yellowstone area. West. N. Am. Nat 63:416.Google Scholar
Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. E., and Slovic, P. 2003. The social amplification of risk. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. 448 p.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ 52:273–288.Google Scholar
Qin, H. and Flint, C. G. 2010. Capturing community context of human response to forest disturbance by insects: a multi-method assessment. Hum. Ecol. Published Online First: 25 May. DOI: 10.1007/s10745-010-9334-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichard, S. H. 1997. Prevention of invasive plant introduction on national and local levels. Pages 215–227. In Luken, J. O. and Theiret, J. W. eds. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York Springer.Google Scholar
Reichard, S. H. and White, P. 2001. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States. Bioscience 51:103.Google Scholar
Riebsame, W. E., Gosnell, H., and Theobald, D. M. 1996. Land use and landscape change in the Colorado mountains I: theory, scale, and pattern. Mt. Res. Dev 16:395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, W. P., Oskamp, S., and Mainieri, T. 1995. Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. J. Environ. Psychol 15:105–121.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. 1977. Normative influences on altruism. Pages 221–279. In Berkowitz, L. ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York Academic Press.Google Scholar
Scott, D. and Willits, F. K. 1994. Environmental attitudes and behavior: a Pennsylvania survey. Environ. Behav 26:239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shine, C., Williams, N., and Burhenne-Guilmin, F. 2005. Legal and institutional frameworks for invasive alien species. Pages 233–284. In Mooney, H. A., Mack, R. N., McNeely, J. A., Neville, L. E., Schei, P. J., and Waage, J. K. eds. Invasive Alien Species. Washington, DC Island Press.Google Scholar
Shumway, J. M. and Otterstrom, S. M. 2001. Spatial patterns of migration and income change in the mountain west: the dominance of service-based, amenity-rich counties. Professional Geogr 53:492–502.Google Scholar
Smith, C. S., Lonsdale, W. M., and Fortune, J. 1999. When to ignore advice: invasion predictions and decision theory. Biol. Invasions 1:89–96.Google Scholar
Smith, J. 2009. Colorado pine beetle infestation swells to almost 2 million acres. Rocky Mountain News [Internet]. [cited 2010 June 17]. Available from: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/17/colorado-pine-beetle-infestation-swells-to-2/.Google Scholar
Steele, J., Chandran, R. S., Grafton, W. N., Huebner, C. D., and McGill, D. W. 2006. Awareness and management of invasive plants among West Virginia woodland owners. J. For 104:248–253.Google Scholar
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., and Black, J. S. 1985. Support for environmental protection: the role of moral norms. Popul. Environ 8:204–222.Google Scholar
Travis, W. R. 2007. New Geographies of the American West. Washington, DC Island Press. 291 p.Google Scholar
Tyser, R. W. and Worley, C. A. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conserv. Biol 6:253–262.Google Scholar
Usher, M. B. 1988. Biological invasions of nature reserves: a search for generalisations. Biol. Conserv 44:119–135.Google Scholar
Venturoni, L., Long, P., and Perdue, R. R. 2005. The economic and social impacts of second homes in four mountain resort counties of Colorado, prepared for Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers. Denver, CO Association of American Geographers.Google Scholar
Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. 1990. What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environ. Behav 22:55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. 1992. Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol 22:1580–1607.Google Scholar
Vitousek, P. M., D'Antonio, C. D., Loope, L. L., Rejmanek, M., and Westbrooks, M. 1997. Introduced species: a significant component of human caused global change. N. Z. J. Ecol 21:1.Google Scholar
Walker, L. R. and Smith, S. D. 1997. Impacts of invasive plants on community and ecosystem properties. Pages 69–86. In Luken, J. O. and Theiret, J. W. eds. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York Springer.Google Scholar
Wells, F. H. and Lauenroth, W. K. 2007. The potential for horses to disperse alien plants along recreational trails. Range. Ecol. Manag 60:574–577.Google Scholar
White, P. S. and Pickett, S. T. A. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. Pages 3–13. In Pickett, S. T. A. and White, P. S. eds. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. New York Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., and Losos, E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607.Google Scholar
With, K. A. 2004. Assessing the risk of invasive spread in fragmented landscapes. Risk Anal 24:803–815.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, R. and Cock, M. J. W. 2005. Best practices for the prevention and management of invasive alien species. Pages 209–232. In Mooney, H. A., Mack, R. N., McNeely, J. A., Neville, L. E., Schei, P. J., and Waage, J. K. eds. Invasive Alien Species: A New Synthesis. Washington, DC Island Press.Google Scholar
Zavaleta, E. S. 2000. Valuing ecosystem services lost due to Tamarix invasion in the United States. Pages 261–302. In Mooney, H. A. and Hobbs, R. J. eds. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Washington, DC Island Press.Google Scholar