Eradication: Pipe Dream or Real Option?

Abstract

Invasive alien plant populations have often been eradicated from very small areas, but pessimism about eradication of widely distributed plants pervades the management community. Contributing to this view are several legendary and expensive failed eradication campaigns, the inconspicuous nature of many plants, the existence of soil seed banks, and the perceived expense of eradication over large areas. However, if several years’ worth of the cost of maintenance management campaigns could instead be devoted to a one-shot, well-funded eradication effort, projects that currently seem impossible might be brought within the range of feasibility. Factors in addition to cost that must be considered are whether adequate lines of authority can compel cooperation and prevent sabotage, whether there is sufficient knowledge of the target species to have identified a feasible approach to eradication that advances the goal of restoration, and the need for intensive monitoring and possible follow-up operations. Especially for PAs, the likelihood of reinvasion from nearby sites is a concern. If an eradication campaign would employ the same general methods as those that would have been used if the goal was maintenance control, there is likely little cost and much potential benefit to attempting eradication. Gradual improvement has occurred in plant eradication programmes through accumulated experience and incremental improvement of longstanding methods. However, the field of invasive plant management (including eradication) has not seen the advent of remarkably innovative new approaches and greatly improved records of eradication success that currently foster optimism and enthusiasm among managers dealing with invasive animals.