Approach
EASTERN:
Hundreds of nonnative invasive plant species are currently present in the Midwest and Northeast (Chornesky et al. 2005, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). Climate change is expected to increase habitat for many of these species, which may be poised to outcompete native species (Chornesky et al. 2005, Millar et al. 2007). Current methods for controlling nonnative invasive species emphasize early detection and rapid response to new infestations (Hellmann et al. 2008). Management of highly mobile nonnative invasive species may require increased coordination across property boundaries and over larger geographic areas, and is likely to require an increasing budget for eradication efforts. As a resistance or resilience strategy, this approach may work for a while. Over the long term, limitations in available
resources may require managers to prioritize which species to eradicate and which species to allow to occupy a site (1).
WESTERN:
Over 1,000 nonnative invasive plant species are currently present in California (Bossard et al. 2000, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). Climate change is expected to change habitat conditions and increase opportunities for establishment for many of these species, which may be able to outcompete native species (Chornesky et al. 2005, Bossard et al. 2000, Millar et al. 2007, Dey et al. 2018). Current methods for controlling nonnative invasive species emphasize early detection and rapid response to new infestations (Hellmann et al. 2008 and see www.cal-ipc.org/). Management of highly mobile nonnative invasive species may require increased coordination across property boundaries and over larger geographic areas and is likely to require a larger budget for eradication and control efforts. As a resistance or resilience strategy, this approach may work temporarily. Over the long term, limitations in available resources may require managers to make difficult choices to prioritize species for eradication efforts (2).
Hundreds of nonnative invasive plant species are currently present in the Midwest and Northeast (Chornesky et al. 2005, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). Climate change is expected to increase habitat for many of these species, which may be poised to outcompete native species (Chornesky et al. 2005, Millar et al. 2007). Current methods for controlling nonnative invasive species emphasize early detection and rapid response to new infestations (Hellmann et al. 2008). Management of highly mobile nonnative invasive species may require increased coordination across property boundaries and over larger geographic areas, and is likely to require an increasing budget for eradication efforts. As a resistance or resilience strategy, this approach may work for a while. Over the long term, limitations in available
resources may require managers to prioritize which species to eradicate and which species to allow to occupy a site (1).
WESTERN:
Over 1,000 nonnative invasive plant species are currently present in California (Bossard et al. 2000, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012). Climate change is expected to change habitat conditions and increase opportunities for establishment for many of these species, which may be able to outcompete native species (Chornesky et al. 2005, Bossard et al. 2000, Millar et al. 2007, Dey et al. 2018). Current methods for controlling nonnative invasive species emphasize early detection and rapid response to new infestations (Hellmann et al. 2008 and see www.cal-ipc.org/). Management of highly mobile nonnative invasive species may require increased coordination across property boundaries and over larger geographic areas and is likely to require a larger budget for eradication and control efforts. As a resistance or resilience strategy, this approach may work temporarily. Over the long term, limitations in available resources may require managers to make difficult choices to prioritize species for eradication efforts (2).
Tactics
- Increasing monitoring for known or potential invasive species to ensure early detection, especially at trailheads, along roads, and along other pathways known for infestation (1, 2)
- Eradicating existing populations or seed sources (e.g., upstream) of invasive plants through physical or chemical treatments (1, 2)
- Cleaning equipment prior to forest operations in order to prevent the spread of invasive plants during site preparation, harvesting, or other activities (1, 2)
- Maintaining closed-canopy conditions to reduce the ability of light-loving invasive species to enter the understory (1)
- Educating staff and volunteers on identification and eradication of current and potential invasive species (1).
- Promoting an abundant and diverse native species understory (i.e., herbaceous plants, shrubs, and tree regeneration) that may limit the potential for invasive species’ spread (2).
- Educating staff and volunteers on identification and eradication of current and potential invasive species, including the use of citizen science in monitoring and removal of invasive species within targeted areas (2).
Strategy Text
Even modest changes in climate may cause substantial increases in the distribution and abundance of many insects and pathogens, including mostly native species, potentially leading to reduced forest productivity or increased tree stress and mortality (Ayres and Lombardero 2000, Dukes et al. 2009, Seidl et al. 2017). Impacts may be exacerbated where site conditions, climate, other stressors, and interactions among these factors increase the vulnerability of forests to these agents (Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003, Cartwright 2018, Comer et al. 2019). Actions to manipulate the density, structure, or species composition of a forest may reduce susceptibility to some insect pests and pathogens (Spies et al. 2010, Hessburg et al. 2016). Assessments that compare topographic features and site conditions can help identify forest stands with higher and lower vulnerabilities, especially for insects and pathogens favored by drought (Cartwright 2018, Krawchuk et al. 2020). (2)
Citation
1. Swanston, C.W.; Janowiak, M.K.; Brandt, L.A.; Butler, P.R.; Handler, S.D.; Shannon, P.D.; Derby Lewis, A.; Hall, K.; Fahey, R.T.; Scott, L.; Kerber, A.; Miesbauer, J.W.; Darling, L.; 2016. Forest Adaptation Resources: climate change tools and approaches for land managers, 2nd ed. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 161 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-87-2
2. Swanston, C.W.; Brandt, L.A.; Butler-Leopold, P.R.; Hall, K.R.; Handler, S.D.; Janowiak, M.K.; Merriam, K.; Meyer,
M.; Molinari, N.; Schmitt, K.M.; Shannon, P.D.; Smith, J.B.; Wuenschel, A.; Ostoja, S.M 2020. Adaptation Strategies
and Approaches for California Forest Ecosystems. USDA California Climate Hub Technical Report CACH-2020-1.
Davis, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Climate Hubs. 65 p.
M.; Molinari, N.; Schmitt, K.M.; Shannon, P.D.; Smith, J.B.; Wuenschel, A.; Ostoja, S.M 2020. Adaptation Strategies
and Approaches for California Forest Ecosystems. USDA California Climate Hub Technical Report CACH-2020-1.
Davis, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Climate Hubs. 65 p.