Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:35:08.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The implications of variable or constant expansion rates in invasive weed infestations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

H. Arlen Smith,
Wayne S. Johnson,
J. Scott Shonkwiler and
Sherm R. Swanson
Wayne S. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557
J. Scott Shonkwiler
Affiliation:
Applied Economics and Statistics, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557
Sherm R. Swanson
Affiliation:
Extension Range Specialist, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Data on the spread of invasive weeds into arid western lands are used to evaluate the environmental and economic importance of controlling invasive weed infestations early. Variable rate and constant rate infestation expansion paths are estimated. The implications of variable vs. constant infestation growth rates for projecting both biophysical and economic effects are illustrated. The projections derived from both constant and variable growth rate expansion paths support the contention that it is expedient to control new infestations early.

Keywords

Invasive weedsinfestation expansion pathseradication and revegetation costspresent value

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , February 1999, pp. 62 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Asher, J. 1985. Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program: Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix C1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, p. 152.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. and Evans, J. 1991. Weed dynamics on rangeland. Pages 55–61 in James, L. F., Evans, J. O., Ralphs, M. E., and Childs, R. D., eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–54.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1985. Final distribution is related to rate of spread in alien weeds. Weed Res. 25: 181–191.Google Scholar
Roche, B., Lacey, J., Bedell, T., and Sanders, K. 1994. Knapweed. Pages 1–4 in Washington Interagency Knapweed Committee Newsletter. Volume 8, No. 1, Pullman, WA: Washington State Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Sheley, R., Svejcar, T., Maxwell, B., and Jacobs, J. 1996. Successional rangeland weed management. Rangelands 18: 155–159.Google Scholar