Search

The opportunity of agricultural management practices to sequester soil organic carbon (SOC) is recognized as an important strategy for mitigating climate change. However, there is low confidence when it comes to understanding the magnitude of the climate benefit we can expect from SOC sequestration or how best to achieve it. Several issues are often confounded when it comes to the mitigation potential of SOC sequestration and greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from agriculture, creating confusion and making it difficult to clearly identify the knowns, unknowns and risks to implementing policy and practice recommendations. Here, we identify and explain four major areas of uncertainty: (1) the expected changes in soil carbon or GHG emissions resulting from agricultural management practice changes; (2) the extent to which social, environmental and economic factors constrain mitigation potential; (3) the ability to execute reliable measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification (MMRV) frameworks; and (4) the perception of risk associated with different ways of promoting practice adoption (e.g., voluntary carbon markets fueled by the private sector, pay-for-practice programs funded by public investment). We aim to pinpoint knowledge gaps and areas of disagreement to help right-size expectations and guide effective investment in GHG removals and reductions from agriculture.

Extensions of harvest rotation length are a commonly proposed method to increase carbon sequestration in forests that are managed for timber. However, several limitations constrain realistic storage potential in intensively managed forests. We present an analysis of the realistic potential for additional carbon sequestration via rotation extension across the Pacific Northwest of the United States, an important timber-producing region, taking into account specific limitations. We first assess the limitations on rotation length imposed by the stand age at which wood production would decline over the long term, and then incorporate the age at which trunk diameter surpasses a reasonable threshold for logging. Using publicly available forest survey data, we empirically model growth parameters across this region for use in this analysis. Despite uncertainties, we find some opportunities for rotation length extension in western Washington with variation by sub-region and timber species, emphasizing the importance of geography- and species-specific growth parameters for forest carbon management even within a general region. However, the total realistic potential for sequestration under this improved forest management scenario is small relative to gross emissions: the estimated cumulative additional sequestration in aboveground live biomass would offset one year of gross emissions in the case of Washington state, while a decadal-scale rotation extension implemented gradually over the landscape to avoid a total pause on commercial timber production would take on the scale of a century to achieve. Overall, practical considerations greatly limit the realistic potential of this carbon sequestration strategy.

Abstract Managing invasive species with prevention and early‐detection strategies can avert severe ecological and economic impacts. Horizon scanning, an evidence‐based process combining risk screening and consensus building to identify threats, has become a valuable tool for prioritizing invasive species management and prevention. We assembled a working group of experts from academic, government, and nonprofit agencies and organizations, and conducted a multi‐taxa horizon scan for Florida, USA, the first of its kind in North America. Our primary objectives were to identify high‐risk species and their introduction pathways, to detail the magnitude and mechanism of potential impacts, and, more broadly, to demonstrate the utility of horizon scanning. As a means to facilitate future horizon scans, we document the process used to generate the list of taxa for screening. We evaluated 460 taxa for their potential to arrive, establish, and cause negative ecological and socioeconomic impacts, and identified 40 potential invaders, including alewife, zebra mussel, crab‐eating macaque, and red swamp crayfish. Vertebrates and aquatic invertebrates posed the greatest invasion threat, over half of the high‐risk taxa were omnivores, and there was high confidence in the scoring of high‐risk taxa. Common arrival pathways were ballast water, biofouling of vessels, and escape from the pet/aquarium/horticulture trade. Competition, predation, and damage to agriculture/forestry/aquaculture were common impact mechanisms. We recommend full risk analysis for the high‐risk taxa; increased surveillance at Florida's ports, state borders, and high‐risk pathways; and periodic review and revision of the list. Few horizon scans detail the comprehensive methodology (including list‐building), certainty estimates for all scoring categories and the final score, detailed pathways, and the magnitude and mechanism of impact. Providing this information can further inform prevention efforts and can be efficiently replicated in other regions. Moreover, harmonizing methodology can facilitate data sharing and enhance interpretation of results for stakeholders and the general public.

Early detection and eradication of invasive plants are more cost-effective than managing well-established invasive plant populations and their impacts. However, there is high uncertainty around which taxa are likely to become invasive in a given area. Horizon scanning that combines a data-driven approach with rapid risk assessment and consensus building among experts can help identify invasion threats. We performed a horizon scan of potential invasive plant threats to Florida, USA—a state with a high influx of introduced species, conditions that are generally favorable for plant establishment, and a history of negative impacts from invasive plants. We began with an initial list of 2128 non-native plant taxa that are known invaders or crop pests. We built on previous invasive species horizon scans by developing data-based criteria to prioritize 100 taxa for rapid risk assessment. The semi-automated prioritization process included selecting taxa “on the horizon” (i.e., not yet in the target location and not on a noxious weed list) with climate matching, naturalization history, “weediness” record, and global commonness. We derived overall invasion risk scores with rapid risk assessment by evaluating the likelihood of each of the taxa arriving, establishing, and having an impact in Florida. Then, following a consensus-building discussion, we identified six plant taxa as high risk, with overall risk scores ranging from 75 to 100 out of a possible 125. The six taxa are globally distributed, easily transported to new areas, found in regions with climates similar to Florida’s, and can impact native plant communities, human health, or agriculture. Finally, we evaluated our initial and final lists for potential biases. Assessors tended to assign higher risk scores to taxa that had more available information. In addition, we identified biases towards four plant families and certain geographical regions of origin. Our horizon scan approach identified taxa conforming to metrics of high invasion risk and used a methodology refined for plants that can be applied to other locations.

Abstract In June 2020, Revive & Restore hosted the Intended Consequences Workshop to explore how the field of conservation can realize the benefits of genetic interventions and address concerns about unintended consequences of these actions. A group of 57 participants from eight countries representing government, academia, and conservation practice discussed how implementation of genetic interventions designed to achieve conservation objectives can be optimized to both address concerns about risk and achieve the intended consequences. Genetic interventions are efforts designed to manipulate the genetic composition of a conservation target at a species or population level. The planning and implementation of genetic interventions in conservation raises questions about how key constituencies are involved in the process and how risks and benefits are characterized and evaluated. Governance frameworks are critical to structuring dialogue and decision‐making among interested parties around the development of these conservation efforts in a manner that addresses risks, benefits, and equity considerations. In this article, we explore related issues of policy and governance, key constituencies, and risk as raised during discussions at a 2020 workshop on “Intended Consequences” of conservation interventions. We examine how different constituencies characterize risks of genetic interventions within particular sociocultural contexts. We then revisit the characterization and framing of risks to suggest ways that the perspectives of different constituencies can be visualized in a manner to inform resulting policy decisions.

In 2021, the Biden administration signed an executive order to protect 30% of American lands by 2030. Accomplishing this ambitious goal in the U.S. requires understanding the relative contribution of public and private lands toward supporting biodiversity. New approaches are needed because existing approaches focus on quantity of habitat without incorporating quality. To fill this need, we developed a 30 m resolution national habitat condition index (HCI) that integrates quality and quantity measures of habitat. We hypothesized that including an evaluation of the quality of habitat at landscape scales, both in conservation-focused preserves and working lands would provide a better assessment of the value of geographies for conservation. We divided the conterminous U.S. by major land cover type and into natural and cultivated lands and then spatially mapped multiple anthropogenic stressors, proximity to aquatic habitat, and vegetation departure from expected natural disturbance regimes. Each map layer was then scored for site impact and distance decay and combined into a final national index. Field observations providing scored relative ecological conditions were used for HCI calibration and validation at both CONUS and regional scales. Finally, we evaluate lands by management (conservation versus working lands) and ownership (public versus private) testing the value of these lands for conservation. While we found regional differences across CONUS, functional habitat was largely independent of protection status: working lands provide clear habitat and other values. These results are relevant for guiding strategies to achieve the U.S. 30 by 30 goals. Where similar data exist in other countries, analogous modeling could be used to meet their national conservation commitments.

Abstract Although the ecological impacts of biological invasions are well studied, comprehensive analyses of spending on invasive species management are lacking. Such analyses could inform both effective resource allocation and management planning. We evaluated long‐term invasive plant management expenditures and their potential geographic, economic, and ecological drivers for freshwater and terrestrial conservation areas in Florida, USA. Average expenditures for managing invaders were approximately US$45M annually, with over 90% of funding provided by the state. Our model showed that expenditures were best predicted by the prevalence of waterways and abundance of invaders, indicating that funding was allocated towards asset protection in highly invaded aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Higher spending was directly correlated with reduced area invaded for the costliest invader (Hydrilla verticillata, ~$10M/year), demonstrating management efficacy and constructive use of resources. Our study highlights that significant funding is required to manage plant invaders in Florida and that greater funding would likely limit the extent of invasions. Additional analyses of management cost‐effectiveness for Florida and other regions would benefit from consistent collection and reporting of high‐resolution management data. Given the exponential rate of spread of many invaders, additional and sustained management funding is needed for early detection and rapid, effective control of invasive species.

The Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) was applied at six major estuaries along Florida's Gulf Coast (Pensacola Bay, St. Andrews/Choctawhatchee Bays, Apalachicola Bay, Southern Big Bend, Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor) to provide quantitative and spatial information on how coastal ecosystems may change with sea level rise (SLR) and to identify how this information can be used to inform adaption planning. High resolution LiDAR-derived elevation data was utilized under three SLR scenarios: 0.7 m, 1 m and 2 m through the year 2100 and uncertainty analyses were conducted on selected input parameters at three sites. Results indicate that the extent, spatial orientation and relative composition of coastal ecosystems at the study areas may substantially change with SLR. Under the 1 m SLR scenario, total predicted impacts for all study areas indicate that coastal forest (-69,308 ha; -18%), undeveloped dry land (-28,444 ha; -2%) and tidal flat (-25,556 ha; -47%) will likely face the greatest loss in cover by the year 2100. The largest potential gains in cover were predicted for saltmarsh (+32,922 ha; +88%), transitional saltmarsh (+23,645 ha; na) and mangrove forest (+12,583 ha; +40%). The Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay study areas were predicted to experience the greatest net loss in coastal wetlands The uncertainty analyses revealed low to moderate changes in results when some numerical SLAMM input parameters were varied highlighting the value of collecting long-term sedimentation, accretion and erosion data to improve SLAMM precision. The changes predicted by SLAMM will affect exposure of adjacent human communities to coastal hazards and ecosystem functions potentially resulting in impacts to property values, infrastructure investment and insurance rates. The results and process presented here can be used as a guide for communities vulnerable to SLR to identify and prioritize adaptation strategies that slow and/or accommodate the changes underway.

Nonnative invasive plant species pose a significant threat to Florida’s natural areas. The UF/IFAS Assessment of Nonnative Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas (hereafter, UF/IFAS Assessment) uses literature-based risk assessment tools to predict the invasion risk of both nonnative species that occur in the state as well as species proposed for introduction. The UF/IFAS Assessment team has evaluated more than 770 species, including 97 species proposed for introduction or new uses. The team is actively identifying and evaluating potentially problematic nonnative species (and sub-specific or hybrid taxa). Recommendations and supporting information from the UF/IFAS Assessment can be found at http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/assessment. This 6-page fact sheet was written by Deah Lieurance, S. Luke Flory, Aimee L. Cooper, Doria R. Gordon, Alison M. Fox, Joan Dusky, and Linda Tyson, and published by the UF Department of Agronomy, November 2013. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag376

Nonnative invasive plant species pose a significant threat to Florida’s natural areas. The UF/IFAS Assessment of Nonnative Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas (hereafter, UF/IFAS Assessment) uses literature-based risk assessment tools to predict the invasion risk of both nonnative species that occur in the state as well as species proposed for introduction. The UF/IFAS Assessment team has evaluated more than 770 species, including 97 species proposed for introduction or new uses. The team is actively identifying and evaluating potentially problematic nonnative species (and sub-specific or hybrid taxa). Recommendations and supporting information from the UF/IFAS Assessment can be found at http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/assessment. This 6-page fact sheet was written by Deah Lieurance, S. Luke Flory, Aimee L. Cooper, Doria R. Gordon, Alison M. Fox, Joan Dusky, and Linda Tyson, and published by the UF Department of Agronomy, November 2013. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag376

Nonnative invasive plant species pose a significant threat to Florida’s natural areas. The UF/IFAS Assessment of Nonnative Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas (hereafter, UF/IFAS Assessment) uses literature-based risk assessment tools to predict the invasion risk of both nonnative species that occur in the state as well as species proposed for introduction. The UF/IFAS Assessment team has evaluated more than 770 species, including 97 species proposed for introduction or new uses. The team is actively identifying and evaluating potentially problematic nonnative species (and sub-specific or hybrid taxa). Recommendations and supporting information from the UF/IFAS Assessment can be found at http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/assessment. This 6-page fact sheet was written by Deah Lieurance, S. Luke Flory, Aimee L. Cooper, Doria R. Gordon, Alison M. Fox, Joan Dusky, and Linda Tyson, and published by the UF Department of Agronomy, November 2013. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag376

We tested the accuracy of an invasive aquatic plant risk assessment system in the United States that we modified from a system originally developed by New Zealand's Biosecurity Program. The US system is comprised of 38 questions that address biological, historical, and environmental tolerance traits. Values associated with each response are summed to produce a total score for each species that indicates its risk of invasion. To calibrate and test this risk assessment, we identified 39 aquatic plant species that are major invaders in the continental US, 31 species that have naturalized but have no documented impacts (minor invaders), and 60 that have been introduced but have not established. These species represent 55 families and span all aquatic plant growth forms. We found sufficient information to assess all but three of these species. When the results are compared to the known invasiveness of the species, major invaders are distinguished from minor and non-invaders with 91% accuracy. Using this approach, the US aquatic weed risk assessment correctly identifies major invaders 85%, and non-invaders 98%, of the time. Model validation using an additional 10 non-invaders and 10 invaders resulted in 100% accuracy for the former, and 80% accuracy for the latter group. Accuracy was further improved to an average of 91% for all groups when the 17% of species with scores of 31-39 required further evaluation prior to risk classification. The high accuracy with which we can distinguish non-invaders from harmful invaders suggests that this tool provides a feasible, pro-active system for pre-import screening of aquatic plants in the US, and may have additional utility for prioritizing management efforts of established species.

Many agricultural species have undergone selection for traits that are consistent with those that increase the probability that a species will become invasive. However, the risk of invasion may be accurately predicted for the majority of plant species tested using the Australian Weed Risk Assessment (WRA). This system has been tested in multiple climates and geographies and, on average, correctly identifies 90% of the major plant invaders as having high invasion risk, and 70% of the noninvaders as having low risk. We used this tool to evaluate the invasion risk of 38 Eucalyptus taxa currently being tested and cultivated in the USA for pulp, biofuel, and other purposes. We predict 15 taxa to have low risk of invasion, 14 taxa to have high risk, and 9 taxa to require further information. In addition to a history of naturalization and invasiveness elsewhere, the traits that significantly contribute to a high invasion risk conclusion include having prolific seed production and a short generation time. Selection against these traits should reduce the probability that eucalypts cultivated in the USA will become invasive threats to natural areas and agricultural systems.

Revised! SS-AGR-86, an 8-page fact sheet by A. M. Fox, D. R. Gordon, J. A. Dusky, L. Tyson, R. K. Stocker, K. A. Langeland, and A. L. Cooper, provides a history, justification, and summary of the IFAS Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas. Includes references. Published by the UF Department of Agronomy, November 2009.

Revised! SS-AGR-225, a 14-page publication by Alison M. Fox, Doria R. Gordon, Joan A. Dusky, Linda Tyson, Randall K. Stocker, Kenneth A. Langeland, and Aimee L. Cooper, is the component of the IFAS Assessment that provides evaluations of plants that currently occur within Florida. designed to identify those non-native plant species that are invasive in areas of Florida where designated management objectives include the conservation of native biodiversity. Includes references. Published by the UF Department of Agronomy, April 2009.

Revised! SS-AGR-86, an 8-page fact sheet by A. M. Fox, D. R. Gordon, J. A. Dusky, L. Tyson, R. K. Stocker, K. A. Langeland, and A. L. Cooper, provides a history, justification, and summary of the IFAS Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas. Includes references. Published by the UF Department of Agronomy, November 2009.

Revised! SS-AGR-225, a 14-page publication by Alison M. Fox, Doria R. Gordon, Joan A. Dusky, Linda Tyson, Randall K. Stocker, Kenneth A. Langeland, and Aimee L. Cooper, is the component of the IFAS Assessment that provides evaluations of plants that currently occur within Florida. designed to identify those non-native plant species that are invasive in areas of Florida where designated management objectives include the conservation of native biodiversity. Includes references. Published by the UF Department of Agronomy, April 2009.

Revised! SS-AGR-86, an 8-page fact sheet by A. M. Fox, D. R. Gordon, J. A. Dusky, L. Tyson, R. K. Stocker, K. A. Langeland, and A. L. Cooper, provides a history, justification, and summary of the IFAS Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas. Includes references. Published by the UF Department of Agronomy, November 2009.

Revised! SS-AGR-225, a 14-page publication by Alison M. Fox, Doria R. Gordon, Joan A. Dusky, Linda Tyson, Randall K. Stocker, Kenneth A. Langeland, and Aimee L. Cooper, is the component of the IFAS Assessment that provides evaluations of plants that currently occur within Florida. designed to identify those non-native plant species that are invasive in areas of Florida where designated management objectives include the conservation of native biodiversity. Includes references. Published by the UF Department of Agronomy, April 2009.

The purpose of this assessment is to provide a well-defined mechanism by which all IFAS Extension publications can conform in their description and categorization of non-native plants that are invading natural areas in Florida. The objective of this assessment is to summarize relevant ecological, management and economic value information on species. The intention is to provide a level of information divided into relevant categories that is greater and more functional than that indicated by simple presence or absence from an “Invasive Species List.” This document is SS-AGR-225, one of a series of the Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Revised publication date: July 2004. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag234

The purpose of this assessment is to provide a well-defined mechanism by which all IFAS Extension publications can conform in their description and categorization of non-native plants that are invading natural areas in Florida. The objective of this assessment is to summarize relevant ecological, management and economic value information on species. The intention is to provide a level of information divided into relevant categories that is greater and more functional than that indicated by simple presence or absence from an “Invasive Species List.” This document is SS-AGR-225, one of a series of the Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Revised publication date: July 2004. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag234

The purpose of this assessment is to provide a well-defined mechanism by which all IFAS Extension publications can conform in their description and categorization of non-native plants that are invading natural areas in Florida. The objective of this assessment is to summarize relevant ecological, management and economic value information on species. The intention is to provide a level of information divided into relevant categories that is greater and more functional than that indicated by simple presence or absence from an “Invasive Species List.” This document is SS-AGR-225, one of a series of the Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Revised publication date: July 2004. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag234

There is growing concern that non-native plants cultivated for bioenergy production might escape and result in harmful invasions in natural areas. Literature-derived assessment tools used to evaluate invasion risk are beneficial for screening, but cannot be used to assess novel cultivars or genotypes. Experimental approaches are needed to help quantify invasion risk but protocols for such tools are lacking. We review current methods for evaluating invasion risk and make recommendations for incremental tests from small-scale experiments to widespread, controlled introductions. First, local experiments should be performed to identify conditions that are favorable for germination, survival, and growth of candidate biofuel crops. Subsequently, experimental introductions in semi-natural areas can be used to assess factors important for establishment and performance such as disturbance, founder population size, and timing of introduction across variable habitats. Finally, to fully characterize invasion risk, experimental introductions should be conducted across the expected geographic range of cultivation over multiple years. Any field-based testing should be accompanied by safeguards and monitoring for early detection of spread. Despite the costs of conducting experimental tests of invasion risk, empirical screening will greatly improve our ability to determine if the benefits of a proposed biofuel species outweigh the projected risks of invasions.