Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Spatially explicit prioritization of invasive species control is a complex issue, requiring consideration of trade-offs between immediate and future benefits. This study aimed to prioritize management efforts to account for current and future threats from widespread invasions and examine the strength of the trade-off between these different management goals. As a case study, we identified spatially explicit management priorities for the widespread invasion of introduced willow into riparian and wetland habitats across a 102,145-km region in eastern Australia. In addition to targeting places where willow threatens biodiversity now, a second set of management goals was to limit reinfestation and further spread that could occur via two different mechanisms (downstream and by wind). A model of likely willow distribution across the region was combined with spatial data for biodiversity (native vegetation, threatened species and communities), ecological conditions, management costs, and two potential dispersal layers. We used systematic conservation planning software (Zonation) to prioritize where willow management should be focussed across more than 100,000 catchments for a range of different scenarios that reflected different weights between management goals. For willow invasion, we found that we could prioritize willow management to reduce the future threat of dispersal downstream with little reduction in the protection of biodiversity. However, accounting for future threats from wind dispersal resulted in a stronger trade-off with protection of threatened biodiversity. The strongest trade-off was observed when both dispersal mechanisms were considered together. This study shows that considering current and future goals together offers the potential to substantially improve conservation outcomes for invasive species management. Our approach also informs land managers about the relative trade-offs among different management goals under different control scenarios, helping to make management decisions more transparent. This approach can be used for other widespread invasive species to help improve invasive species management decisions.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eap.2982 | DOI Listing |