Assessment of functional forms of crop yield loss models of invasive plant species applied in decision support tools and bioeconomic modelling

AbstractObjectives Decision support tools (DSTs) for invasive species management have had limited success in producing convincing results and meeting users' expectations. The problems could be linked to the functional form of model which represents the dynamic relationship between the invasive species and crop yield loss in the DSTs. The objectives of this study were: a) to compile and review the models tested on field experiments and applied to DSTs; and b) to do an empirical evaluation of some popular models and alternatives. Design and methods This study surveyed the literature and documented strengths and weaknesses of the functional forms of yield loss models. Some widely used models (linear, relative yield and hyperbolic models) and two potentially useful models (the double-scaled and density-scaled models) were evaluated for a wide range of weed densities, maximum potential yield loss and maximum yield loss per weed. Results Popular functional forms include hyperbolic, sigmoid, linear, quadratic and inverse models. Many basic models were modified to account for the effect of important factors (weather, tillage and growth stage of crop at weed emergence) influencing weed–crop interaction and to improve prediction accuracy. This limited their applicability for use in DSTs as they became less generalized in nature and often were applicable to a much narrower range of conditions than would be encountered in the use of DSTs. These factors' effects could be better accounted by using other techniques. Among the model empirically assessed, the linear model is a very simple model which appears to work well at sparse weed densities, but it produces unrealistic behaviour at high densities. The relative-yield model exhibits expected behaviour at high densities and high levels of maximum yield loss per weed but probably underestimates yield loss at low to intermediate densities. The hyperbolic model demonstrated reasonable behaviour at lower weed densities, but produced biologically unreasonable behaviour at low rates of loss per weed and high yield loss at the maximum weed density. The density-scaled model is not sensitive to the yield loss at maximum weed density in terms of the number of weeds that will produce a certain proportion of that maximum yield loss. The double-scaled model appeared to produce more robust estimates of the impact of weeds under a wide range of conditions. Conclusions Previously tested functional forms exhibit problems for use in DSTs for crop yield loss modelling. Of the models evaluated, the double-scaled model exhibits desirable qualitative behaviour under most circumstances.

Multijurisdictional fisheries performance reporting: How Australia’s nationally standardised approach to assessing stock status compares

Australian marine wild-capture fisheries are managed by eight separate jurisdictions. Traditionally, fishery status reports have been produced separately by most of these jurisdictions, assessing the fish stocks they manage, and reporting on the effectiveness of their fisheries management. However, the format, the type of stock status assessments, the thresholds and terminology used to describe stock status and the classification frameworks have varied over time and among jurisdictions. These differences complicate efforts to understand stock status on a national scale. They also create potential misunderstanding among the wider community about how to interpret information on the status of fish stocks, and the fisheries management and science processes more generally. This is especially true when considering stocks that are shared across two or more jurisdictional boundaries. A standardised approach was developed in 2011 leading to production of the first national Status of key Australian fish stocks reports in 2012, followed by a second edition in 2014 (www.fish.gov.au). Production of these reports was the first step towards a broader national approach to reporting on the performance of Australian fisheries for target species and for wider ecosystem and socioeconomic consequences. This paper outlines the challenges associated with moving towards national performance reporting for target fish stocks and Australia’s successes so far. It also outlines the challenges ahead, in particular those relating to reporting more broadly on the status of entire fisheries. Comparisons are drawn between Australia and New Zealand and more broadly between Australia and other countries.