Evaluating progress in weed eradication programs

Evaluating progress towards eradication is critically important because weed eradication programs are very expensive and may take more than 10 years to complete. The degree of confidence that can be placed in any measure of eradication progress is a function of the effort that has been invested in finding new infestations and in monitoring known infestations. Determining eradication endpoints is particularly difficult, since plants may be extremely difficult to detect when at low densities and it is virtually impossible to demonstrate seed bank exhaustion. Recent work suggests that an economic approach to this problem should be adopted. They propose some rules of thumb to determine whether to continue an eradication program or switch to an alternative management strategy.

Optimal eradication: when to stop looking for an invasive plant

The notion of being sure that you have completely eradicated an invasive species is fanciful because of imperfect detection and persistent seed banks. Eradication is commonly declared either on an ad hoc basis, on notions of seed bank longevity, or on setting arbitrary thresholds of 1% or 5% confidence that the species is not present. Rather than declaring eradication at some arbitrary level of confidence, we take an economic approach in which we stop looking when the expected costs outweigh the expected benefits. We develop theory that determines the number of years of absent surveys required to minimize the net expected cost. Given detection of a species is imperfect, the optimal stopping time is a trade-off between the cost of continued surveying and the cost of escape and damage if eradication is declared too soon. A simple rule of thumb compares well to the exact optimal solution using stochastic dynamic programming. Application of the approach to the eradication programme of Helenium amarum reveals that the actual stopping time was a precautionary one given the ranges for each parameter.

A scientific approach to agent selection

The prioritisation of potential agents on the basis of likely efficacy is an important step in biological control because it can increase the probability of a successful biocontrol program, and reduce risks and costs. In this introductory paper we define success in biological control, review how agent selection has been approached historically, and outline the approach to agent selection that underpins the structure of this special issue on agent selection. Developing criteria by which to judge the success of a biocontrol agent (or program) provides the basis for agent selection decisions. Criteria will depend on the weed, on the ecological and management context in which that weed occurs, and on the negative impacts that biocontrol is seeking to redress. Predicting which potential agents are most likely to be successful poses enormous scientific challenges. 'Rules of thumb', 'scoring systems' and various conceptual and quantitative modelling approaches have been proposed to aid agent selection. However, most attempts have met with limited success due to the diversity and complexity of the systems in question. This special issue presents a series of papers that deconstruct the question of agent choice with the aim of progressively improving the success rate of biological control. Specifically they ask: (i) what potential agents are available and what should we know about them? (ii) what type, timing and degree of damage is required to achieve success? and (iii) which potential agent will reach the necessary density, at the right time, to exert the required damage in the target environment?