A new study from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign found that privately owned forests make removing invasive species much more difficult, though economic incentives could encourage landowners to get rid of pests.
What's happening?
According to a news release from the university's College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, many forests in the United States are privately owned, meaning invasive plants can easily grow uncontrollably if landowners don't coordinate efforts to manage them.
The study, published in Land Economics, found that forest landowners' willingness to control invasive species depends on how they use the land and, in some cases, how much money they're offered to eliminate pests.
"Some own the land for recreational purposes, some own it because they want to produce timber, and some are a combination of both," study author and associate professor Shadi Atallah told ACES News. "If one landowner controls invasive species but their neighbor does not for some reason, that could be problematic because the bioinvasion will spread over space and time."
While conservation cost-share programs compensate landowners for up to 75% of the cost of controlling invasive species, Atallah said the funds could be allocated more efficiently by reimbursing landowners who wouldn't otherwise manage invasives.
"The idea is to consider any two different motivations to own the resource and how that could lead to different decisions in terms of controlling bioinvasion spread, and thinking about prioritizing those who would not control without subsidies," Atallah explained.
Why is it important to control invasive species?
Whether in a privately owned forest or someone's backyard, invasive species outcompete native plants for resources, making it harder for them to survive. In a forest, this can cause tree die-offs, reduce biodiversity and habitat for native species, and disrupt the ecosystem. The U.S. Forest Service said invasive forest plants can also make the land less valuable and impact recreational opportunities in public forests.
Controlling invasive species ensures that native animals and plants have a healthy habitat and plenty of resources and that people can enjoy the land without worrying about invasives blocking hiking trails or wildlife viewing areas.
When forest owners collaborate to manage invasive species, even if one isn't subsidized, they both benefit in the long run. Atallah used the theoretical example of a recreationist and a timber producer coordinating efforts to control glossy buckthorn — an aggressive shrub that forms dense thickets in Eastern U.S. white pine forests.
|
Should the government be able to control how we heat our homes? Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. |
Definitely 👍 He theorized that the hiking enthusiast would be less willing to pay for invasive species control and should receive government subsidies. However, the timber producer would end up paying less to manage invasives on their land since the recreationist would contain them earlier and prevent them from spreading into neighboring forests. Therefore, the timber owner could earn greater profits from having more trees grow to maturity.
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
What's being done to improve invasive species management?
Government agencies and scientists have come up with genius ways to combat destructive invasive plants. The Forest Service invested $16 million to monitor and restore ecosystems in 37 states and two territories, and scientists have used drones to drop "bug bombs" on invasive plants in West Virginia.
If you want to keep your backyard free of invasive plants, consider upgrading to a natural lawn or planting low-maintenance native species, such as clover or buffalo grass.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Cool Picks
