Category: Invasive Species

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

June 22, 2019

Written by IGC Fellows Hye-jeong Seo, Becky Fletcher, Vasiliy Lakoba, Rachel Brooks, Ariel Heminger, Lauren Maynard

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator style=”dotted”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Nature’s special issue about interdisciplinarity in 2015 referred to interdisciplinary research as an attempt to save the world by solving the grand challenges we are facing, such as energy, water, and climate (Nature News, 2015). Although saving the world might be too ambitious of a goal, our group of six IGC fellows from diverse disciplines gave it a shot! Our aim was to save Virginia’s natural and economic resources by adding a harmful invasive plant to Virginia’s noxious weeds list for better regulation. We completed a Virginia Noxious Weed Assessment Tool evaluating non-native plants for their environmental and economic impact. The process for the noxious weed application consists of collecting and summarizing existing scientific knowledge about a target plant (in our case, Asian lady’s thumb) to determine the ecological and economic impact of the plant. The completed application is then submitted to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services who decide whether or not to recommend that the plant be listed as a noxious weed in Virginia (See our blog titled “IGC Fellows get first-hand experience arbitrating scientific knowledge for policymakers” for more information).

The noxious weed application requires interdisciplinary efforts as its two main parts – completing a form and getting it reviewed by Noxious Weeds Advisory Committee – are all about linking ecological knowledge to socioeconomic aspects. Although an assessment mainly needs plant science to understand the ecology of target species, information influences policy and management decisions is not limited to scientific knowledge. Conservation decision-making is a “tournament of value” where diverse participants, including landowners, state government, natural and social scientists in the case of listing noxious weeds, construct pertinent information and negotiate competing values relevant to policy actions and allocation of resources (Robertson & Hull, 2001). By going through the process, our group learned the key factors for the successful interdisciplinary project: Communication, Delegation, and Trust.

Communication

Members of our group have varying levels of knowledge about noxious weeds with diverse disciplinary backgrounds from natural sciences to social sciences. Thus, our first step as an interdisciplinary team was to reach a level of shared understanding about what types and depth of knowledge the noxious weed assessment tool requires and how we could collect and interpret that information to complete the assessment form. We created a shared Google document that contains all the basic information about noxious weed application, including the state’s relevant webpages, both a blank and filled out sample form of the assessment tool, and a spreadsheet helping to calculate whether a candidate species qualifies. This document became a go-to page to revisit whenever there is any confusion or ambiguity regarding the process. As we referenced terminologies and information from the Google document when we needed to communicate or clarify, it constructed a common language across disciplines.

Delegation

We carefully delegated a leading role of each part to the best of effectiveness. Rachel, who has the experience of submitting the noxious weed application before, took a leadership role. She generated the Google document mentioned above and shared detailed information about her previous experience. With her guidance, we broke down the process into searching the literature, reviewing papers individually, putting the information together, arranging and interpreting the collective information to answer the questionnaire in the noxious weed form, and examining the document before submission.

Concurrently, Hye-jeong reviewed the literature on interdisciplinary team-building to reflect our team’s current status and develop future strategies, mainly focused on how to integrate social and natural sciences in a multidisciplinary project as she herself has a social science background. One of the issues often raised about interdisciplinary collaborations is that social scientists mostly play a service role rather than substantially contribute to knowledge production because of disciplinary barriers and hard-soft science dichotomy. However, biological problems, such as invasive species, not only have impacts on ecosystems, they also have substantial human impacts, and require broader perspectives on social systems and human dimensions to address those problems (Freudenburg & Gramling, 2002). As such, we designed our process to involve all team members from different disciplines equally in the paper review and information gathering tasks. This provided us the perfect opportunity to become conversant with other disciplines and share different views on interpreting science papers and research results.

We delegated the literature search task to Vasiliy and Ariel from the School of Plant and Environmental Sciences as they have relevant knowledge about plant science. After papers pertinent to the target plant were collected through literature search by two of them, we collectively started to review papers assigned to each member and pull out information helping to fill out the noxious weed form. We put the information from literature together into the application shared via Google Drive and communicated by commenting on the document. Unlike the literature search part where we delegated the task to the members whose backgrounds are most pertinent to the task, arrangement and interpretation task was delegated to Becky and Lauren from two different science disciplines, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences and Biological Sciences, with the purpose of making the result more universally acceptable across the various disciplines. The process went effectively as each member was not only aware of what tasks they were doing but also understood why those tasks were delegated to them.

Trust

In addition to the carefully delegated tasks, trust also plays a vital role throughout the project. Delegation inevitably requires trust as it is impossible to micro-manage everything each of the group members is doing. For instance, we could have searched and reviewed papers individually and filled out the form by discussing the information line by line together instead of delegating the tasks if we felt we could not trust each other. However, that obviously would have been an inefficient and time-consuming way compared to what we have done. A field guide for collaboration and team science published by National Institutes of Health emphasizes the importance calculus-based trust in interdisciplinary team-building, which is fostered by “having process and procedures in place that guides behavior and actions” (Bennett, Gadlin, & Levine-Finley, 2010). We fostered the calculus-based trust among group members by defining the specific role of each person, yet developing shared an understanding of the process and keeping the procedures open via shared google docs tracking revisions and edits.

Working as an interdisciplinary team is easier said than done, but it is worth trying to cross the disciplinary boundaries. By working together, our noxious weed application integrated not only ample scientific information but also diverse perspectives and values that help to decide whether or not to put resources and efforts into removing invasive species. We believe that this is a small but important step towards solving big problems that the world is facing.

[hr]

Reference

Bennett, LM, Gadlin, H., & Levine-Finley, S. (2010). Collaboration & team science: A Field Guide. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.

Freudenburg, W. R., & Gramling, R. (2002). Scientific expertise and natural resource decisions: social science participation on interdisciplinary scientific committees. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 119-136.

Robertson, D. P., & Hull, R. B. (2001). Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for conservation. Conservation Biology, 15(4), 970-979.

Why interdisciplinary research matters (2015). Nature News, 525(7569), 305.

 

[hr_shadow]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

June 10, 2019

Written by IGC Fellows Rachel Brooks, Hye-jeong Seo, Ariel Heminger, Becky Fletcher, Lauren Maynard, Vasiliy Lakoba

The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) regulates harmful plants, or “noxious weeds”, in our state (Code of Virginia, Title 3.2 Subtitle I, Chapter 8). Many of these harmful plants are also invasive species — a part of global change which is accelerating hand-in-hand with climate change and habitat degradation¹. Once regulated, the movement of these species is only possible with a permit. Currently, there are only 8 species listed as noxious in Virginia (a small number, especially when compared to California’s 200+ listed noxious weeds).

Virginia regulation requires these species to be non-native and not commercially propagated in Virginia, but how else is this list determined?

It turns out that proposals for noxious weeds can be submitted by anyone (yes, even you can do it!) by completing a questionnaire called the “Noxious Weed Assessment Tool.” This 23-question application ultimately requires processing all current scientific knowledge regarding a plant (similar to a literature review you might be more familiar with) into categories relevant to policymakers. These categories include the plant’s ecological impact, current distribution and abundance, changes in distribution and abundance, economic impacts, and management difficulty.

When we (a group of six IGC Fellows) became aware of the transparency and accessibility of this process, we decided to use this opportunity to apply what we’ve learned so far in the IGC to the “real world.” We partnered with Blue Ridge PRISM, a Virginia non-profit, that has been coordinating efforts to submit noxious weed applications (including applications for the tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima and autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata). They asked that we help complete the application for the non-native plant Persicaria longiseta (Bruijn) Kitagawa, commonly known as the bristly lady’s thumb.

First, we identified all taxonomic synonyms of our plant species and compiled the latest scientific literature (note: having access to scientific publications is a must, and those unassociated with a university likely would face a large paywall and have difficulties successfully filling out this application). Second, we started to process the information and fill out the application form. We soon discovered that these applications can only be thoroughly completed if there is a clear and detailed understanding of a plant’s ecological, economic, and societal impacts. If the research on a species is limited, it is difficult to answer all the questions. Unfortunately for our application, but fortunately for honest science arbitration, there are large gaps in our understanding of this species’ economic impact, leaving a handful of these questions unanswerable (for now).

Regardless of the questions that were unanswerable, we were able to gain insights into the noxious weed listing process and submit our application to VDACS for review. After VDACS receives and confirms that this paperwork is complete, the application is reviewed by Virginia’s Noxious Weed Advisory Committee, an ad-hoc group that includes individuals from universities (including GCC’s Dr. Jacob Barney, who provided us with insights into this process), government agencies, the VA Farm Bureau, and other interest groups. Based on the provided information, this group determines if they support or reject listing the species as noxious, and makes a recommendation to the VA Commissioner of Agriculture, who ultimately has the final say. The application then makes its slow journey (~2 years, including a public comment period) to the governor’s desk to be signed into regulation.

The road to getting a species listed as “noxious” in Virginia can be initiated by anyone but has to be based on available and extensive scientific literature. So, for all of those conducting research that involves a non-native species, remember that your work can have important and long-lasting impacts in all sorts of unexpected places, including helping policymakers determine if a species should be considered “noxious” in their jurisdiction.

[hr]

¹ Bradley, B. A., Blumenthal, D. M., Wilcove, D. S., & Ziska, L. H. (2010). Predicting plant invasions in an era of global change. Trends in ecology & evolution, 25(5), 310-318.

[hr_shadow][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1600800883121{margin-bottom: 2px !important;}”]

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]

Header image caption:

Women removing Opuntia stricta, an invasive species which rapidly renders natural and agricultural landscapes impassable to people and large animals (available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofRtR9pH2Ow).

[hr]

June 1, 2019

Written by IGC Fellows Vasiliy Lakoba, Rachel Brooks, Hye-jeong Seo, Ariel Heminger, Becky Fletcher, Lauren Maynard

 

[/vc_column_text][vc_separator style=”dotted”][vc_column_text]

Invasive species are one of the principal facets of Global Environmental Change. As with other crises such as climate change, pollution, and habitat destruction, the biological implications of invasive species are closely entwined with their socio-cultural contexts. As defined by Executive Order 13112, an invasive species is one “whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” (Clinton, 1999). The understanding that invasive species are at least as much a social issue as they are an ecological one is baked into this definition. Those of us in the natural sciences typically engage invasive species policy through a technical lens. Fortunately, IGC and the broader VT community provide us with a host of connections to experts in the social and human dimensions of environmental policy.

Our group – six IGC fellows with an array of interests in invasive species policy – reached out across campus to organize a transdisciplinary discussion hosted by students in the Community Change Collaborative (CCC), an organization in the School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA). Faculty and administrators from four departments — Max Stephenson (SPIA), Todd Schenk (SPIA), Scott Salom (Entomology), David Haak (SPES), Jacob Barney (SPES), and Cathy Grimes (Graduate School) — were also vital in enriching our discussion with their expertise. The aim of our meeting was to explore how the conversation around invasive species can incorporate perspectives from community engagement and development in ways that may inform policy and scientific research.

Our discussion was stimulated by three readings addressing the theme from different angles. IGC fellows provided a text which argued that overly simplified and combative language drains the nuance from the complexity of biological invasions (Lidstrom et al. 2015). While other environmental studies writers claim that the “slow violence” of gradually compounding ecological threats requires distillation of clear imperatives to spur action, Lidstrom et al. (2015) counter that “fast narratives” can cause more harm than good, particularly with invasive species. These narratives create a black-and-white image, which does not consider ecological, economic, or cultural realities where many invaders have redeeming qualities. They also perpetuate linear thinking when it comes to solutions and hamper researchers’, land managers’, and citizens’ potential for novel and creative solutions.

CCC member Katherine Santizo, a PhD candidate in Civil and Environmental Engineering, provided a document published by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) which underscores that communities bearing the brunt of environmental crisis impacts are often those which have the least access to technical expertise and relevant resources (UCS 2016). According to UCS, these communities are looking for scientists who can lend technical expertise, help write grants to mitigate the problems, and help shape and lobby for policy which will ease their burdens. Scientists who want to engage locally must learn to listen to the public and facilitate processes which gain community members’ trust and lead to solutions which are tailored to their needs, not pre-determined.

IGC faculty member Jacob Barney provided a 2013 invasive plant policy paper by Quinn et al. which proposes regulatory reforms aimed at helping natural areas conservation as well as the bioenergy industry. The authors presented a unifying framework which (1) assesses invasion risk based on data, (2) determines whether a plant can be introduced safely as is or requires modification, and (3) bases liability on whether the party introducing the plant followed parts 1 and 2 of this procedure. Quinn et al. (2013) also wrote in favor of allowing invasive plant/species councils (IPCs) to propose invasive plants for listing so that they are represented alongside agricultural weeds.

Much of the IGC-CCC discussion was framed in socio-economic and cultural terms – something that our CCC and SPIA colleagues helped us grapple with through case studies and theoretical frameworks. The four IGC faculty in the discussion also brought their years of experience in invasive species regulation, extension, public outreach, and the science-policy interface. IGC and CCC students shared thoughts on species which cannot be regulated without considering social implications, such as invasive plants used as fuel by lower income communities in Nepal or smelt in Lake Superior which have become a cultural staple over the decades. We also discussed the merits and pitfalls of the precautionary principle as used to regulate introductions in Australia but not exclusively in the United States. Preventing invasion by placing the burden of proof on those who introduce species is something which can be technically and economically difficult, but vital to protecting our ecosystems and livelihoods. Several of our participants expanded on this point to address the role of environmental justice as there is an unequal distribution of risks and benefits of introducing invasive species as well as solutions to them. Solutions to invasion must engage the internal motivations of communities, rather than assign band-aid fixes which many cannot sustain economically. In this vein, when we choose to confront invasive species we must learn not to “other” those who have been saddled with a problem they can’t afford by those who can (e.g. “ghetto palm” vs. “tree-of-heaven” for Ailanthus altissima).

We also came away from the meeting with pressing questions. Where does invasions exist in terms of human geography? Is it a problem like pollution whose sources and sinks are inequitably distributed across demographics or industries? Does this differ across taxa? Given that eradication is an idea more so than a practice, what is a “tolerable” amount of invasive species? How will this be determined and by whom? How do scientists and policymakers communicate the quality of a solution? This last question is one that will require us to step outside our fields and “connect across differences” – a call which Patty Raun impresses upon IGC fellows through coursework and events at the Center for Communicating Science. To this end, participants shared resources for practicing our interdisciplinary science via Virginia Cooperative Extension, upcoming citizen science conferences, and scientist-community placement through the AAAS.

Perspectives from CCC members and the participating faculty helped us see invasive species in a broader social context. Most of us tend to study invasion through our technical domains. Given the scientific information we regularly work with, it can be baffling why regulation of this crisis is so underfunded and under-enforced. Viewing it as a confluence of social, economic, and political interests, however, we can begin to understand the complex web of stakeholders we will need to navigate as researchers and advocates to be effective but also sensitive to the needs of communities of all stripes.

[hr_shadow]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]