Research Article |
Corresponding author: Brian W. van Wilgen ( bvanwilgen@sun.ac.za ) Academic editor: Curtis Daehler
© 2017 Brian W. van Wilgen, Jennifer M. Fill, Navashni Govender, Llewellyn C. Foxcroft.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
van Wilgen BW, Fill JM, Govender N, Foxcroft LC (2017) An assessment of the evolution, costs and effectiveness of alien plant control operations in Kruger National Park, South Africa. NeoBiota 35: 35-59. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.35.12391
|
Alien plants were first recorded in 1937 in the 2 million ha Kruger National Park (KNP, a savanna protected area in South Africa), and attempts to control them began in the mid-1950s. The invasive alien plant control program expanded substantially in the late 1990s, but its overall efficacy has not been determined. We present an assessment of invasive alien plant control operations over several decades in KNP. We based our assessment on available information from a range of control programs funded from various sources, including national public works programs, KNP operational funds, and foreign donor funds. Over ZAR 350 million (~ US$ 27 million) has been spent on control interventions between 1997 and 2016. We found evidence of good progress with the control of several species, notably Opuntia stricta, Sesbania punicea, Lantana camara and several aquatic weeds, often because of effective biological control. On the other hand, we found that over one third (40%) of the funding was spent on species that have subsequently been recognised as being of lower priority, most of which were alien annual weeds. The allocation of funds to non-priority species was sometimes driven by the need to meet additional objectives (such as employment creation), or by perceptions about relative impact in the absence of documented evidence. We also found that management goals were limited to inputs (funds disbursed, employment created, and area treated) rather than to ecological outcomes, and progress was consequently not adequately monitored. At a species level, four out of 36 species were considered to be under complete control, and a further five were under substantial control. Attempts to control five annual species were all considered to be ineffective.
On the basis of our findings, we recommend that more studies be done to determine impacts associated with individual invasive alien species; that the criteria used to prioritise invasive alien species be documented based on such assessments, so that management can justify a focus on priority species; and that funding be re-directed to those species that clearly pose greater threats, and for which other solutions (such as biological control) are not an option.
Biological control, invasion, protected area, savanna, Working for Water
The mitigation of threats to biodiversity is a principal aim of protected area management worldwide. Large sums of money are spent to address these threats (
Millions of dollars have been devoted to the management of invasive alien plants across the globe, including in protected areas, and robust assessments are needed to establish whether the objectives of management are being met. Several accounts of the ecology of alien plant invasions and the philosophy and history of their management in protected areas have been published (e.g.
The benefit of assessments lies primarily in their utility for informing the optimization of control approaches and procedures. Thus, assessments should evaluate not only the cost-effectiveness of programs in terms of money spent on alien species and the ecological outcomes, but also those aspects of the program goals, planning and implementation processes that influenced where and how money was allocated. Assessments should also note which species were prioritized for control, why they were targeted, whether management goals are being met and the constraints that may be limiting current approaches. Budget constraints that influence the choice of control options should also be noted, and the management goals which should guide control programs should be interpreted (
In this paper we assess the evolution, costs and effectiveness of alien plant control operations in Kruger National Park (KNP), South Africa. The KNP provides an example of a concerted effort to control invasive alien plants over a very large area, and over several decades. The objectives of this study were to 1) document the goals of alien plant management and the plans for achieving them; 2) identify the species targeted for control and the historical costs of their management; 3) document and assess the effectiveness of the management interventions in reducing the abundance or spread rates of the species; and 4) make recommendations for improving the control efforts.
The KNP (~2 million ha) became a protected area in 1898, and gained national park status in 1926. It is situated in the northeastern corner of South Africa, along the border with Mozambique. The mean annual rainfall varies between 350 mm in the north and 750 mm in the south. The vegetation is a well-wooded savanna, and seven major river systems traverse the park from west to east. The KNP is one of few protected areas in South Africa in which invasive alien species, particularly plants, have been managed for more than fifty years (
Our assessment was based on information and data from a range of sources. The control of invasive alien species in KNP has relied on several different funding streams, including KNP’s own sources for ecosystem management, government-sponsored public works programmes, and foreign donor funding. Each of these sources differed with regard to the goals to be achieved, the formats for data storage, and the requirements for progress reporting. Information on invasive alien plant control operations in KNP has generally been recorded for areas where the control teams worked, and these records include the species that were subjected to control, and the costs of control. However, the data were not always recorded consistently or clearly. For example, the boundaries of spatial units on which control teams worked were changed over time, or in some instances only a portion of the spatial unit on record was treated. In other cases, teams worked on alien plant control as well as on other activities, and the costs of each activity were not recorded separately. Some interventions were recorded as having targeted a certain species, whereas in reality several species were treated in the same operation. For these reasons it was often necessary to make assumptions about the distribution of costs, or species targeted, and we were consequently only able to make a broad-scale assessment of control interventions and their effectiveness. Where assumptions were made, these are stated in the descriptions of methods below. Nonetheless, we believe that reporting the outcome of this assessment in the scientific literature is warranted, given the scarcity of such accounts and their importance in terms of addressing the gaps between research, implementation and monitoring the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of control.
Planning and monitoring are essential elements of management, and clear goals and regular assessments of outcomes are necessary to guide interventions and to gauge progress. We reviewed the systems of planning, management and the monitoring of outcomes based on KNP’s management plans and protocols, and on published sources describing the development of management philosophy and its implementation (see, for example,
The prioritization of invasive alien plant species, and their assignment to management intervention categories, has been a fairly recent development in KNP. The initial priorities were only determined in 2008, using a multi-criteria decision-support method that prioritized invasive alien plant species in South Africa’s savanna biome (
Priorities assigned to invasive alien plant species in the Kruger National Park.
Priority | Description | Management approach |
Species of higher concern for which separate, dedicated control plans should be developed | Species identified as of sufficient importance to justify a species-specific management plan | Species-dependent. Plans are in development for Parthenium hysterophorus (aligned with the national-level approach to this species, outlined by |
Species of higher concern targeted for control through ongoing clearing and follow-up treatments | Species that have established significant invasive populations in KNP. | Control normally involves labour-intensive mechanical clearing conducted by teams funded by public works programmes. |
Incursions with scattered populations (either new species, or isolated outbreaks of species with established populations elsewhere in KNP) | Species targeted as a result of them exceeding a threshold (being noted as a new occurrence, and hence requiring immediate attention to prevent further spread). | Targeted clearing at sites where the species occurs at low densities. Control normally executed by teams funded by KNP Conservation Management operational funds. |
Species of lower concern | Invasive alien plant species not considered to be a priority for management | Species that should not normally be targeted for control unless they co-occur with priority species. |
Areas in which alien plant control operations were carried out inside and outside Kruger National Park, South Africa (2002-present). This illustrates the extent of preventative clearing intended to reduce the risk of ongoing invasion from outside of the protected area. The black line delineates the park boundary. Inset shows the location of Kruger National Park within South Africa.
Funding for alien plant management in the Kruger National Park. Funding sources and costs (1997–2016) are associated with five management intervention categories aimed at the control of alien plants in the Kruger National Park.
Management intervention category | Funding source | Description | Duration | Cost (millions of 2016-equivalent ZAR) |
Species-based intervention: Management of species with scattered populations | KNP management budget | Mobile team of workers employed by KNP to target isolated populations of invasive alien plants | 1982–present | 31.4 |
Species-based intervention: Integrated control of aquatic weeds | Mpumalanga Province | Application of aerial spraying of selected water bodies | 2002–present | 14.0 |
Species-based intervention: Biological control of certain species | Public works programs | Targeted programs aimed at the control of selected species | 1985–present | Overhead cost, not accounted for in records |
Area-based intervention: Labour-intensive piece work to clear perennial invasive alien plants on contract | Public works programs | Contract-based piece work, with the aim of creating employment as well as reducing the spread and extent of invasive alien plants ( |
1997–present | 180.8 |
Area-based intervention: Labour-intensive clearing by workers employed full-time | Donor funding (Royal Netherlands Government) | Foreign donor funds were used to supplement Public Works funds, with the same goals as for public works programmes | 1997–1999 | 8.3 |
Area-based intervention: Labour-intensive piece work to clear annual weeds on contract | Public works programs | Contract-based piece work (often with the aim of creating employment). | 1997–present | 105.6 |
The cost of invasive alien plant control was assessed for the period 1997–2016, as there were no reliable records for prior periods. We obtained the annual total amounts allocated each year to alien plant control in KNP from various funding sources. Alien plant control interventions associated with public works funding were contracted out to teams at an agreed cost based on the area that required control, the species present, and their cover (see
The amounts allocated to alien plant control contracts over the study period accounted for about 60% of the total funds spent. The remaining funds were used for overhead expenses, which included herbicides, training, equipment, supervision, administration and the establishment and operation of mass-rearing facilities for biological control agents. We accounted for overheads by increasing the recorded costs for each species by a percentage that would bring the total costs for each year up to the full amount spent in that year. To account for inflation, we used the annual consumer price index to inflate all monetary values to 2016 South African Rands (ZAR; 1 US$ ~ ZAR13.5).
The compilation of a management plan is a legislative requirement in South Africa for all protected areas (National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, Act 57 of 2003). The KNP management plan (
The KNP has also adopted an overarching philosophy of adaptive management. Under this framework, management interventions are initiated by responding to thresholds of potential concern (
In practice, however, the high-level goal in the KNP management plan has not been effectively carried forward to the 5-yr MUCPs. The MUCPs allocated funding to the control of particular species in particular areas, with goals that quantified the amounts to be spent, the number of people to be employed, and the areas to be treated. Monitoring of outcomes had a focus on these goals, and there were no goals that described the desired outcome in terms of reducing invasive alien plant invasions to manageable levels, what those manageable levels would be, and how long it would take to achieve them (Nicholas Cole, pers. comm.). In the absence of a monitoring program that is focussed on outcomes, it was not possible to objectively assess management effectiveness (see discussion).
By far the largest proportion of funds was sourced from the nationally-funded public works programs, and was used to fund labour-intensive piece work on contract. The other management intervention categories also made important contributions to the overall outcomes of alien plant management in KNP. These management intervention categories are not entirely mutually exclusive; for example, biological control can make labour-intensive mechanical clearing more effective, if the two are used in tandem. The protocols used in each category are described below.
Species with scattered populations. Once an alien species has invaded an area, targeting isolated or scattered populations delivers the most effective outcomes for containing or reducing the spread of invasions (
Integrated control of aquatic weeds. The management of aquatic invasive alien plants is characterised, in KNP as elsewhere, by a tension between chemical control using aerial spraying and biological control. Chemical control is effective for removing dense invasions on water bodies but needs to be applied repeatedly as surviving plants re-invade the cleared area. In addition, herbicides could have adverse environmental consequences. Biological control, on the other hand, is a more sustainable and benign solution, but it takes longer to become effective, and cannot deal rapidly with large infestations or highly variable seasonal changes (e.g. annual flushing of a river by floods followed by rapid reinvasion).
Before and after control of alien plant species in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Sunset Dam was heavily infested by Pistia stratiotes (A), which was effectively eliminated by a combination of biological and chemical control (B). Dense invasions of Lantana camara along the Sabie River (C) have required intensive mechanical and chemical control to clear (D). Populations of Opuntia stricta (E) have been effectively reduced to low numbers with biological control (F).
Biological control. Current policy in KNP recognises the imperative to utilize biological control, given that it is relatively cheap, sustainable, and safe (
Labour-intensive piece work to clear perennial alien plants on contract. This work was conducted by emerging entrepreneurs who were awarded contracts for “piece work”. The work itself differentiated between initial clearing or follow-up clearing, to be conducted on a defined area of land and focusing on specific species. Perennial re-sprouting species were typically subjected to an initial clearing in which mature plants were cut at the base and the stumps treated with herbicide to prevent re-sprouting. Treated areas were then revisited on an annual basis to control any re-sprouting stumps with herbicides and to remove or spray emerging seedlings. The total price awarded to each contract was estimated based on the particular species and their density (
Clearing of annual weeds. Annual invasive alien weeds have been extensively targeted in KNP (Table
Costs and effectiveness of control for selected alien plant taxa in the Kruger National Park. Costs are listed in order of total funds expended per species by public works programs alone between 1997 and 2015 in the Kruger National Park. Cost estimates were not available for aquatic weeds. A proportion of funds were expended outside of the KNP within roughly 10-km of the park boundary. See Table
Taxon | Life form | Date first recorded in KNP | Priority | Cost (millions of 2016-equivalent ZAR) | Effectiveness of control | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inside KNP | Outside KNP | |||||
Lantana camara L. | Perennial shrub | 1940 | Higher concern (ongoing clearing) | 17.4 | 49.2 | Substantial |
Ricinus communis L. | Annual shrub | 1953 | Higher concern (ongoing clearing) | 12.8 | 23.9 | Ineffective |
Xanthium species, mainly X. spinosum L. | Annual forb | 1953 | Lower concern | 15.4 | 11.6 | Ineffective |
Senna species, mainly S. didymobotrya | Perennial shrub | 1952 | Lower concern | 9.1 | 11.5 | Unknown |
Argemone mexicana L. | Annual forb | 1932 | Lower concern | 10.6 | 7.7 | Ineffective |
Chromolaena odorata (L.) King & H.E. Robins | Perennial shrub | 1997 | Higher concern with dedicated control plan | 3.6 | 8.2 | Moderate |
Datura species | Annual herbs | 1953 | Lower concern | 6.4 | 5.4 | Ineffective |
Parthenium hysterophorus L. | Annual herb | 2003 | Higher concern with dedicated control plan | 8.3 | 3.5 | Ineffective |
Cardiospermum species, mainly C. grandiflorum Sw. | Variable vine | 1995 | Higher concern (ongoing clearing) | 5.3 | 4.9 | Unknown |
All other non-priority species | Variable | Variable | Lower concern | 3.0 | 6.3 | - |
Agave sisalana Perrine | Perennial succulent shrub | 1965 | Lower concern | 0.02 | 8.1 | Substantial |
Nicotiana species, mainly N. glauca Graham | Perennial shrub | 1958 | Higher concern (ongoing clearing) | 4.9 | 3.2 | Unknown |
Solanum seaforthianum Andrews | Perennial vine | 1991 | Species with scattered populations | 2.6 | 4.5 | Unknown |
Tecoma stans (L.) Juss. ex Kunth | Perennial shrub or small tree | 1950 | Lower concern | 0.04 | 5.9 | Unknown |
Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.)A. Gray | Variable herb or shrub | 1953 | Higher concern (ongoing clearing) | 1.5 | 3.9 | Unknown |
Opuntia species (other than O. stricta) | Perennial succulent shrubs | 1950s | Lower concern | 3.8 | 1.3 | - |
Melia azedarach L. | Perennial tree | 1948 | Higher concern (ongoing clearing) | 1.0 | 3.9 | Substantial |
Psidium guajava L. | Perennial shrub or small tree | 1949 | Lower concern | 0.4 | 4.2 | Unknown |
Sesbania species, mainly S. bispinosa (Jacq.) W.F. Wight | Perennial tree | 1984 | Lower concern | 1.7 | 2.3 | Complete for Sesbania punicea (Cav.) Benth. (biological control); unknown for S. bispinosa |
Solanum mauritianum Scop. | Perennial shrub or small tree | 1954 | Higher concern (ongoing clearing) | 0.5 | 3.4 | Unknown |
Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw | Perennial succulent shrub | 1953 | Higher concern with dedicated control plan | 1.1 | 0.4 | Complete (biological control agents redistributed when necessary) |
Arundo donax L. | Perennial tall grass | 1953 | Species with scattered populations | 0.3 | 1.0 | Unknown |
Agave americana L. | Perennial succulent shrub | ? | Higher concern (ongoing clearing) | 0.02 | 0.8 | Unknown |
Cereus jamacaru DC. | Perennial succulent shrub | 1988 | Species with scattered populations | 0.08 | 0.4 | Complete (biological control) |
Dolichandra unguis-cati (L.) L.G. Lohmann | Perennial vine | 1965 | Species with scattered populations | 0.2 | 0.08 | Unknown |
Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit | Perennial tree | 1995 | Species with scattered populations | 0 | 0.09 | Unknown |
Thevetia peruviana (Pers.) | Perennial shrub or tree | 1950 | Higher concern (ongoing clearing) | 0.05 | 0.03 | Unknown |
Nerium oleander L. | Perennial shrub | 1988 | Higher concern (ongoing clearing) | 0.03 | 0.04 | Unknown |
Passiflora species, mainly P. edulis Sims | Perennial vine | 2003 | Species with scattered populations | 0.0 | 0.05 | Unknown |
Cylindropuntia imbricata (Haw.) F.M. Knuth | Perennial succulent shrub | 1996 | Higher concern with dedicated control plan | 0.01 | 0.01 | Substantial (biological control) |
Bryophyllum delagoense (Eckl. & Zeyh.) Druce | Perennial succulent shrub | 1988 | Species with scattered populations | <0.01 | <0.01 | Unknown |
Eichhornia crassipes (C.Mart.) Solms | Aquatic weed | 1977 | Higher concern | Not available | Not available | Moderate |
Pistia stratiotes L. | Aquatic weed | 1977 | Higher concern | Not available | Not available | Substantial (biological control) |
Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitch. | Aquatic weed | 1974 | Higher concern | Not available | Not available | Complete (biological control agents redistributed when necessary) |
Azolla filiculoides Lam. | Aquatic weed | 1977 | Lower concern | Not available | Not available | Complete (biological control) |
Total | 110.7 | 175.8 |
In the case of KNP, we were not able to systematically assess the effectiveness of control interventions, as these were not effectively monitored. No clear goals were set out in the 5-yr plans (MUCPs), and monitoring was limited to recording the species that were targeted, and the costs of control and follow-up. Nonetheless, there are several approaches that can be used to gauge effectiveness at a broad level. These are discussed briefly below.
Anecdotal evidence of progress: KNP staff and field rangers are generally of the opinion that mechanical and chemical control interventions have been effective in reducing the density of many species, even though there are almost no quantitative data to substantiate this impression. For example, long-serving staff can recall very dense stands of Lantana camara along the Sabie River, with impenetrable stands of over 2 m high (K. Maggs, W. Lotter, pers. comm), and these stands are not present today (Fig.
Assessments of the effectiveness of biological control: The effectiveness of biological control in reducing O. stricta invasions is among the most documented of control operations in KNP. Within six years of biological control agents being released in 1988, plant biomass declined by about 90% and has since remained at low levels (
Short-term studies of effectiveness: In a short-term survey of twelve management units in 2007,
Genetic studies of source populations:
Effectiveness of control of individual species: Based on the experience of the authors, and on the approaches outlined above, it was possible to assign individual species to categories of control effectiveness. Of the 36 species listed in Table
Over the past 20 years, various organizations have expended almost ZAR350 million (2016 equivalent) on alien plant control operations in KNP (Table
Invasive alien species are regarded as one of the most significant threats to the integrity of KNP (
In addition, although control of invasive alien plants is being achieved within the boundaries for KNP, areas outside of the park remain highly invaded in places (
The practice of setting realistic and achievable goals, based on an agreed set of priorities, the development of plans to achieve these goals, and regular monitoring of outcomes are widely accepted as essential elements of management (Genovesi and Monaco 2013). However, aside from a general goal of maintaining native biodiversity by preventing or controlling alien plant invasions, the KNP’s management plans contain no specific measurable objectives or detailed plans for achieving them. The system of using of thresholds of potential concern to guide management interventions is largely aimed at highlighting any changes to a species’ situation, and triggering action in response, but it is not designed to guide the management of alien plant invasions that require systematic treatment over multiple years. The practice of allocating available funds to different areas and species without setting clear goals is a widespread shortcoming that has been reported in other parts of the country (
While KNP has assigned priorities to a number of alien plant species, the allocation of funds to these species did not always reflect these priorities. In particular, a substantial proportion of funding was expended on annual weeds, many of which were later recognised as being of lower priority. Most annual weeds (with the possible exception of P. hysterophorus) have not been demonstrated to be harmful, and are only invasive in disturbed areas, including naturally dynamic habitats such as riparian zones or heavily grazed sites. The fact that there are so few studies that document the harmful effects of invasive alien plant species (Jeschke et al. 2013) makes it very difficult to arrive at consensus regarding priorities, and prioritization exercises are consequently influenced predominantly by perceptions. Alien species are regarded as undesirable because they can change biotic interactions and processes in their new range, but many alien species apparently have little or no detectable effects of their new environment (
Three responses to this situation seem appropriate. First, it is clear that more studies need to be done to assess the degree of impact associated with individual invasive alien species on which substantial funds are being expended. The resources for conducting these impact assessments should not be sourced from management funds, but rather from the KNP research budget (
This work was funded by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, the Working for Water Programme through their collaborative research project on “Integrated Management of invasive alien species in South Africa”, and the National Research Foundation (grant 87550 to BWvW; and projects IFR2010041400019 and IFR160215158271 to LCF). We thank the Kruger National Park Conservation Management Department, South African National Parks’ Biodiversity Social Program and Nicholas Cole for data.