Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeEradication, control etc
Posted by cbuddenhagen on 04 Apr 2012 at 03:15 GMT
I agree that much money has been wasted on control of widespread invasive species, and this is because of a lack of focus on achievable objectives. The authors should be clear from the outset that eradication has taken on specific meaning in invasive plant management and science. This seems to have been ignored, and presented as new. Cutting, spraying, burning or otherwise attempting to kill, or reduce vigor or do biocontrol do not constitute an eradication attempt. The term however <i>was</i> used to refer to any of those other behaviors before. Now it seems it is only used if the doers plan to put all individuals (and seeds/seedlings) at risk (see Panetta and Timmins 2004 and other references). The term was used differently before but I don't think that people necessarily thought eradication was feasible when the problem was first recognized. Often weed control is/was seen as something you do/did so your neighbors cannot claim your land is the source of their weed problem. Eradication has long been considered infeasible, or irrelevant for widespread species. The benefits of control can be local or temporary but valid, e.g. a farmer preventing illness in cattle, or restoration to protect native shrubs. I guess the transition from eradication to "adaptive" management is not as much of a revelation as you imply.