Priority threat management of invasive plant species in the Lake Eyre Basin

This project is led by scientists in conservation decision appraisal and brings together a group of experts working across the Lake Eyre Basin (LEB). The LEB covers a sixth of Australia, with an array of globally significant natural values that are threatened by invasive plants, among other things. Managers at various levels are investing in attempts to control, contain and eradicate these invasive plant species, under severe time and resources limitations. To date there has been no basin-wide assessment of which weed management strategies and locations provide the best investments for maximising outcomes for biodiversity per unit cost. Further, there has been no assessment of the extent of ecosystem intactness that may be lost without effective invasive plant species management strategies. Given that there are insufficient resources to manage all invasive plant species everywhere, this information has the potential to improve current investment decisions. Here, we provide a prioritisation of invasive plant management strategies in the LEB. Prioritisation was based on cost-effectiveness for biodiversity benefits. We identify the key invasive plant species to target to protect ecosystem intactness across the bioregions of the LEB, the level of investment required and the likely reduction in invasive species dominance gained per dollar spent on each strategy. Our focus is on strategies that are technically and socially feasible and reduce the likelihood that high impact invasive plant species will dominate native ecosystems, and therefore change their form and function. The outputs of this work are designed to help guide decision-making and further planning and investment in weed management for the Basin. Experts in weed management, policy-making, community engagement, biodiversity and natural values of the Basin, attended a workshop and agreed upon 12 strategies to manage invasive plants. The strategies focused primarily on 10 weeds which were considered to have a high potential for broad, significant impacts on natural ecosystems in the next 50 years and for which feasible management strategies could be defined. Each strategy consisted of one or more supporting actions, many of which were spatially linked to IBRA (Interim Biogeographical Regionalisation of Australia) bioregions. The first strategy was an over-arching recommendation for improved mapping, information sharing, education and extension efforts in order to facilitate the more specific weed management strategies. The 10 more specific weed management strategies targeted the control and/or eradication of the following high-impact exotic plants: mesquite, parkinsonia, rubber vine, bellyache bush, cacti, mother of millions, chinee apple, athel pine and prickly acacia, as well as a separate strategy for eradicating all invasive plants from one key threatened ecological community, the GAB (Great Artesian Basin dependant) mound springs. Experts estimated the expected biodiversity benefit of each strategy as the reduction in area that an invasive plant species is likely to dominate in over a 50-year period, where dominance was defined as more than 30% coverage at a site. Costs were estimated in present day terms over 50 years largely during follow up discussions post workshop. Cost-effectiveness was then calculated for each strategy in each bioregion by dividing the average expected benefit by the average annual costs. Overall, the total cost of managing 12 invasive plant strategies over the next 50 years was estimated at $1.7 billion. It was estimated that implementation of these strategies would result in a reduction of invasive plant dominance by 17 million ha (a potential 32% reduction), roughly 14% of the LEB. If only targeting Weeds of National Significance (WONS), the total cost was estimated to be $113 million over the next 50 years. Over the next 50 years, $2.3 million was estimated to eradicate all invasive plant species from the Great Artesian Basin Mound Springs threatened ecological community. Prevention and awareness programs were another key strategy targeted across the Basin and estimated at $17.5 million in total over 50 years. The cost of controlling, eradicating and containing buffel grass were the most expensive, over $1.5 billion over 50 years; this strategy was estimated to result in a reduction in buffel grass dominance of a million ha in areas where this species is identified as an environmental problem. Buffel grass has been deliberately planted across the Basin for pasture production and is by far the most widely distributed exotic species. Its management is contentious, having economic value to many graziers while posing serious threats to biodiversity and sites of high cultural and conservation interest. The strategy for containing and locally eradicating buffel grass was a challenge to cost based on expert knowledge, possibly because of the dual nature of this species as a valued pastoral grass and environmental weed. Based on our conversations with experts, it appears that control and eradication programs for this species, in conservation areas, are growing rapidly and that information on the most cost-effective strategies for this species will continue to develop over time. The top five most cost-effective strategies for the entire LEB were for the management of: 1) parkinsonia, 2) chinee apple, 3) mesquite, 4) rubber vine and 5) bellyache bush. Chinee apple and mother of millions are not WONS and have comparatively small populations within the semi-arid bioregions of Queensland. Experts felt that there was an opportunity to eradicate these species before they had the chance to develop into high-impact species within the LEB. Prickly acacia was estimated to have one of the highest benefits, but the costs of this strategy were high, therefore it was ranked 7th overall. The buffel grass strategy was ranked the lowest (10th) in terms of cost effectiveness. The top five most cost-effective strategies within and across the bioregions were the management of: 1) parkinsonia in the Channel Country, 2) parkinsonia in the Desert Uplands, 3) mesquite in the Mitchell Grass Downs, 4) parkinsonia in the Mitchell Grass Downs, and 5) mother of millions in the Desert Uplands. Although actions for several invasive plant species like parkinsonia and prickly acacia were concentrated in the Queensland part of the LEB, the actions involved investing in containment zones to prevent the spread of these species into other states. In the NT and SA bioregions of the LEB, the management of athel pine, parkinsonia and cacti were the main strategies. While outside the scientific research goals of study, this work highlighted a number of important incidental findings that led us to make the following recommendations for future research and implementation of weed management in the Basin: • Ongoing stakeholder engagement, extension and participation is required to ensure this prioritisation effort has a positive impact in affecting on-ground decision making and planning. • Short term funding for weed management was identified as a major reason for failure of current efforts, hence future funding needs to be secure and ongoing. • Improved mapping and information sharing is essential to implement effective weed management. • Due to uncertainties in the outcomes and impacts of management options, strategies should be implemented as part of an adaptive management program. The information provided in this report can be used to guide investment for controlling high-impact invasive plant species for the benefits of biodiversity conservation. We do not present a final prioritisation of invasive plant strategies for the LEB, and we have not addressed the cultural, socio-economic or spatial components necessary for an implementation plan. Cost-effectiveness depends on the objectives used; in our case we used the intactness of ecosystems as a surrogate for expected biodiversity benefits, measured by the extent that each invasive plant species is likely to dominate in a bioregion. When other relevant factors for implementation are considered the priorities may change and some actions may not be appropriate in some locations. We present the costs, ecological benefits and cost-effectiveness of preventing, containing, reducing and eradicating the dominance of high impact invasive plants through realistic management actions over the next 50 years. In doing so, we are able to estimate the size of the weed management problem in the LEB and provide expert-based estimates of the likely outcomes and benefits of implementing weed management strategies. The priorities resulting from this work provide a prospectus for guiding further investment in management and in improving information availability.

Priority threat management of invasive animals to protect biodiversity under climate change

Climate change is a major threat to global biodiversity, and its impacts can act synergistically to heighten the severity of other threats. Most research on projecting species range shifts under climate change has not been translated to informing priority management strategies on the ground. We develop a prioritization framework to assess strategies for managing threats to biodiversity under climate change and apply it to the management of invasive animal species across one-sixth of the Australian continent, the Lake Eyre Basin. We collected information from key stakeholders and experts on the impacts of invasive animals on 148 of the region's most threatened species and 11 potential strategies. Assisted by models of current distributions of threatened species and their projected distributions, experts estimated the cost, feasibility, and potential benefits of each strategy for improving the persistence of threatened species with and without climate change. We discover that the relative cost-effectiveness of invasive animal control strategies is robust to climate change, with the management of feral pigs being the highest priority for conserving threatened species overall. Complementary sets of strategies to protect as many threatened species as possible under limited budgets change when climate change is considered, with additional strategies required to avoid impending extinctions from the region. Overall, we find that the ranking of strategies by cost-effectiveness was relatively unaffected by including climate change into decision-making, even though the benefits of the strategies were lower. Future climate conditions and impacts on range shifts become most important to consider when designing comprehensive management plans for the control of invasive animals under limited budgets to maximize the number of threatened species that can be protected.

Editoral : Correspondence regarding Anker SD, Koehler F, Abraham WT. Telemedicine and remote management of patients with heart failure. The Lancet 2011; 378: 731–39. Published 20 August 2011.

We read the excellent review of telemonitoring in chronic heart failure (CHF)1 with interest and commend the authors on the proposed classification of telemedical remote management systems according to the type of data transfer, decision ability and level of integration. However, several points require clarification in relation to our Cochrane review of telemonitoring and structured telephone support2. We included a study by Kielblock3. We corresponded directly with this study team specifically to find out whether or not this was a randomised study and were informed that it was a randomised trial, albeit by date of birth. We note in our review2 that this randomisation method carries a high risk of bias. Post-hoc metaanalyses without these data demonstrate no substantial change to the effect estimates for all cause mortality (original risk ratio (RR) 0·66 [95% CI 0·54, 0·81], p<0·0001; revised RR 0·72 [95% CI 0·57, 0·92], p=0·008), all-cause hospitalisation (original RR 0·91 [95% CI 0·84, 0·99] p=0·02; revised RR 0.92 [95% CI 0·84, 1·02], p=0·10 ) or CHF-related hospitalisation (original RR 0·79 [95% CI 0·67, 0·94] p=0·008; revised RR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60, 0·94] p=0·01). Secondly, we would classify the Tele-HF study4, 5 as structured telephone support, rather than telemonitoring. Again, inclusion of these data alters the point-estimate but not the overall result of the meta-analyses4. Finally, our review2 does not include invasive telemonitoring as the search strategy was not designed to capture these studies. Therefore direct comparison of our review findings with recent studies of these interventions is not recommended.

Impacts of invasive plants on Australian rangelands

In Australia, the spread and dominance of non-native plant species has been identified as a serious threat to rangeland biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Rangelands extend over 70% of Australia’s land mass or more than 6 million km2. These rangelands consist of a diverse set of ecosystems including grasslands, shrub-lands, and woodlands spanning numerous climatic zones, ranging from arid to mesic. Because of the high economic, social, and environmental values, sustainable management of these vast landscapes is critical for Australia’s future. More than 2 million people live in these areas and major industries are ranching, mining, and tourism. In terms of biodiversity values, 53 of 85 of Australia’s biogeographical regions and 5 of 15 identified biodiversity hotspots are found in rangelands.

The epidemiology of invasive group A streptococcal disease in Victoria, Australia

Objective To estimate the incidence and severity of invasive group A streptococcal infection in Victoria, Australia. Design Prospective active surveillance study. Setting Public and private laboratories, hospitals and general practitioners throughout Victoria. Patients eople in Victoria diagnosed with group A streptococcal disease notified to the surveillance system between 1 March 2002 and 31 August 2004. Main outcome measure Confirmed invasive group A streptococcal disease. Results We identified 333 confirmed cases: an average annualised incidence rate of 2.7 (95% CI, 2.3-3.2) per 100000 population per year. Rates were highest in people aged 65 years and older and those younger than 5 years. The case-fatality rate was 7.8%. Streptococcal toxic shock syndrome occurred in 48 patients (14.4%), with a case-fatality rate of 23%. Thirty cases of necrotising fasciitis were reported; five (17%) of these patients died. Type 1 (23%) was the most frequently identified emm sequence type in all, age groups. All tested isolates were susceptible to penicillin and clindamycin. Two isolates (4%) were resistant to erythromycin. Conclusion The incidence of invasive group A streptococcal disease in temperate Australia is greater than previously appreciated and warrants greater public health attention, including its designation as a notifiable disease.

Cost-effective suppression and eradication of invasive predators

Introduced predators can have pronounced effects on naïve prey species; thus, predator control is often essential for conservation of threatened native species. Complete eradication of the predator, although desirable, may be elusive in budget-limited situations, whereas predator suppression is more feasible and may still achieve conservation goals. We used a stochastic predator-prey model based on a Lotka-Volterra system to investigate the cost-effectiveness of predator control to achieve prey conservation. We compared five control strategies: immediate eradication, removal of a constant number of predators (fixed-number control), removal of a constant proportion of predators (fixed-rate control), removal of predators that exceed a predetermined threshold (upper-trigger harvest), and removal of predators whenever their population falls below a lower predetermined threshold (lower-trigger harvest). We looked at the performance of these strategies when managers could always remove the full number of predators targeted by each strategy, subject to budget availability. Under this assumption immediate eradication reduced the threat to the prey population the most. We then examined the effect of reduced management success in meeting removal targets, assuming removal is more difficult at low predator densities. In this case there was a pronounced reduction in performance of the immediate eradication, fixed-number, and lower-trigger strategies. Although immediate eradication still yielded the highest expected minimum prey population size, upper-trigger harvest yielded the lowest probability of prey extinction and the greatest return on investment (as measured by improvement in expected minimum population size per amount spent). Upper-trigger harvest was relatively successful because it operated when predator density was highest, which is when predator removal targets can be more easily met and the effect of predators on the prey is most damaging. This suggests that controlling predators only when they are most abundant is the "best" strategy when financial resources are limited and eradication is unlikely. © 2008 Society for Conservation Biology.

Priority threat management of non-native plants to maintain ecosystem integrity across heterogeneous landscapes

Invasive non-native plants have negatively impacted on biodiversity and ecosystem functions world-wide. Because of the large number of species, their wide distributions and varying degrees of impact, we need a more effective method for prioritizing control strategies for cost-effective investment across heterogeneous landscapes. Here, we develop a prioritization framework that synthesizes scientific data, elicits knowledge from experts and stakeholders to identify control strategies, and appraises the cost-effectiveness of strategies. Our objective was to identify the most cost-effective strategies for reducing the total area dominated by high-impact non-native plants in the Lake Eyre Basin (LEB). We use a case study of the ˜120 million ha Lake Eyre Basin that comprises some of the most distinctive Australian landscapes, including Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. More than 240 non-native plant species are recorded in the Lake Eyre Basin, with many predicted to spread, but there are insufficient resources to control all species. Lake Eyre Basin experts identified 12 strategies to control, contain or eradicate non-native species over the next 50 years. The total cost of the proposed Lake Eyre Basin strategies was estimated at AU$1·7 billion, an average of AU$34 million annually. Implementation of these strategies is estimated to reduce non-native plant dominance by 17 million ha – there would be a 32% reduction in the likely area dominated by non-native plants within 50 years if these strategies were implemented. The three most cost-effective strategies were controlling Parkinsonia aculeata, Ziziphus mauritiana and Prosopis spp. These three strategies combined were estimated to cost only 0·01% of total cost of all the strategies, but would provide 20% of the total benefits. Over 50 years, cost-effective spending of AU$2·3 million could eradicate all non-native plant species from the only threatened ecological community within the Lake Eyre Basin, the Great Artesian Basin discharge springs. Synthesis and applications. Our framework, based on a case study of the ˜120 million ha Lake Eyre Basin in Australia, provides a rationale for financially efficient investment in non-native plant management and reveals combinations of strategies that are optimal for different budgets. It also highlights knowledge gaps and incidental findings that could improve effective management of non-native plants, for example addressing the reliability of species distribution data and prevalence of information sharing across states and regions.