`
Report Number: CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2011/0036/B
For comment by SANParks only
PRIORITISING NATIONAL PARKS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE ALIEN PLANTS: REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS TO PRIORITISE INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT CONTROL OPERATIONS March 2011
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations Greg G. Forsyth and David C. Le Maitre
CSIR Natural Resources and the Environment P.O. Box 320 Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa.
Report number: CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2011/0036/B March 2011
Prepared for: Andrew Wannenburgh Working for Water Programme Private Bag X4390 Cape Town 8000 Tel: 021 441-2738 E-Mail:
[email protected]
Contact person: Gregory Forsyth Tel: 021 888-2406 Fax: 021 888-2684 Email:
[email protected]
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Executive Summary Introduction South African National Parks receive funds from the Working for Water programme budget to enable them to control invading alien species on their properties as well as on contractual land and in other areas that are deemed appropriate. This funding has, historically, been allocated to the different parks but the application of these funds to date has not been based on an objective and transparent assessment of the impacts alien plant species have and the threats they pose. There already is a process for allocating funds between parks nationally so this study focused on groups of parks where the same prioritization models could be applied or on individual parks where appropriate. The CSIR recently completed studies on the prioritisation of species and primary catchments for the purposes of guiding invasive alien plant control operations by the Working for Water programme in the terrestrial biomes of the whole of South Africa. The South African National Parks (SANParks) present a different challenge as they are a diverse group spread across a range of biomes and some include multiple biomes. This report covers the progress made during the 2010/11 financial year in developing an approach to a transparent and objective allocation of funds within parks.
Development of species and area prioritisation model Four workshops were held and focused on the: • Savanna Parks – Kruger, Mapungubwe and Marakele •
Arid Zone Parks – Kalahari Gemsbok, Mokala, Aughrabies Falls, Mountain Zebra, Camdeboo, Richtersveld, Namaqua and Tankwa Karoo and including the Addo Elephant
•
Forest and fynbos - Garden Route
•
Fynbos (Cape Cluster) – Bontebok, Table Mountain and West Coast
Each of these workshops compiled lists of the priority species by biome, developed criteria and weights for weighting species and some criteria for weighting areas to establish priorities. The original intention was to fully develop and weight models that could then be used to establish priorities for clearing between the groups of parks. This required more time and resources to complete than was initially envisaged. The main factors that affected progress were the complexity of the issues in many of the parks, the ecological diversity between the parks (and also within some parks), and time required to inform and get the full participation of the parks staff in the process. In addition, some of the spatial data required to implement the models is still being collected by SANParks so those components of the models could not be completed. We have determined the criteria and their sub-divisions, together with their relative importance or weights, which are required for prioritising the clearing of invasive alien plants from the national parks that were assessed. We also developed a generic set of criteria for prioritising areas and species that could be applied across all parks.
Conclusion and way forward It is clear that certain parks have to deal with significant invasion problems and have not got adequate strategies for prioritising their operations, namely the Addo Elephant, Garden Route and Table Mountain National Parks. These parks need to get their prioritisations completed and implemented as soon as possible. It is apparent that there has been a strong focus on prioritization using species but from the workshops that criteria relating to the occurrence of invasive alien plant species have revived relatively low weights in the area prioritization models. The
p. i
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
generic lists are lengthy and, based on the outputs form the workshops, many of these will contribute very little to the decision as they have low weights. We believe it would be useful to remove many of these criteria from the generic models.
•
Develop an approach to the allocation of the funds between parks, or appropriate clusters of parks, at the national level based on the generic models; this includes assessing the use of biomes and other factors in establishing national priorities
•
Assess the inclusion of buffer zones in parks, possibly with additional off-parks criteria
The next steps are to: •
Finalise the generic lists of criteria for species and area-based prioritisation, with emphasis on the area-based criteria
•
Complete the development of weighted criteria for prioritisation for all the parks using the generic models, particularly those not yet included (Golden Gate, Tankwa, Namaqua and Richtersveld)
•
Complete the process of populating and implementing these generic models for the different parks with priority given to the Table Mountain, Addo Elephant and Garden Route National Parks
This will be done in close collaboration with Nicholas Cole of SANParks’ Invasive Species Control Unit.
p. ii
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Acknowledgements We thank the Working for Water Programme of the Department of Water and Environment Affairs for funding this work. We thank Mr Nicholas Cole and Ms Mavis Mayo of South African National Parks for and Mr Andrew Wannenburgh of the Working for Water Programme of the Department of Water and Environment Affairs for supporting the project and serving on the reference group. The following managers, implementing agents and researchers are thanked for their informed and enthusiastic participation in the workshops aimed at developing models for assessing the priorities within the national parks: •
SANparks: Nicholas Cole, Mavis Moyo, Llewellyn Foxcroft, Nick Zambatis, Constance Mafuwane, Evans Mkansi, Jealous Mclaka, Walter Mzimba, Stefanie Ronaldson, Bonny Bridgeford, Rina Grant, Zesulou Hlungwani, Ezekiel Xhosa, Marna Herbst, Bruce Taplin, Marius Peters, Hugo Bezuidenhout, Megan McCarthy, John Adendorff, Angela Gaylard, Fezile Dyosi, Robyn Woods, Maryke Stern, Carel van der Merwe, Tineke Kraaij, Johan Baard, Wessel Vermeulen, Waldo Erfmann, N.C. Havenga, N. Euginia Bizani, Lizette Moolman, Len du Plessis, Jonathan Britton, Nellie Grootendorst, Khathutshelo Nelukalo, Bruce Halana, Owen Govender, Carol Whitcher, Henry Cunningham, Dominique du Toit, Patrick Marsh, Godiragetse Pitseng, Nicola van Wilgen, Dian Spear, Paddy Gordon, Jason de Smidt, Carlo de Kock, Thys Ahrends, Jaclyn Smith, Alfred Nemahlinguyi, Justin Buchmann, Ettienne Fourie
•
CSIR: Patrick O’ Farrell, Hlengiwe Mbatha, Ilse Kotzee
•
SANBI: Tony Rebelo
•
Garden Route Initiative: Andrew Brown
We thank Brian van Wilgen of the CSIR for reviewing this report and for his constructive and useful comments and suggestions.
p. iii
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................................................iii Contents ...........................................................................................................................................................................iv Figures..............................................................................................................................................................................vi Tables..............................................................................................................................................................................vii 1. INTRODUCTION
1
2. SCOPE OF WORK
2
2.1
RELEVANCE TO THE WORKING FOR WATER PROGRAMME
2
2.2
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
2
3. DETERMINING RANKING CRITERIA
3.1 3.2
GENERAL BACKGROUND AND WORKSHOP FORMAT
3
SKUKUZA WORKSHOP: MOIST SAVANNA PARKS
4 4 7
3.2.1 3.2.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3
Species based model Area-based model
3.3.1 Addo Elephant National Park 3.3.1.1 Species-based criteria 3.3.1.2 Species-based criteria for Arid zone parks 3.3.2 Area-based criteria for Addo Elephant and the arid parks
ADDO WORKSHOP: THICKET AND ARID PARKS
8 9 10 14 17
GARDEN ROUTE 3.4.1 Species-based criteria 3.4.2 Area-based criteria
17 17 20
CAPE CLUSTER PARKS
22 22 24
3.5.1 3.5.2
Species-based criteria Area-based criteria
4. DEVELOPMENT OF GENERIC CRITERIA
27
4.1
SPECIES CRITERIA
27
4.2
AREA CRITERIA
29
5. CONCLUSIONS
31
6. NEXT STEPS
31
7. REFERENCES
32
p. iv
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Appendix 1:
Generic agenda for parks workshops
Appendix 2:
Participants in the moist savanna expert workshop
Appendix 3:
Priority invasive alien plants in moist savanna parks
Appendix 4:
Participants in the Addo workshops
Appendix 5:
Priority species for Addo and arid parks
Appendix 6:
Participants in the Garden route workshop
Appendix 7:
Priority species for the Garden route national park
Appendix 8:
Participants in the Western Cape parks workshop
Appendix 9:
Priority species for the Western Cape cluster
Appendix 10:
Data sources and approaches for weighting species-based models
p. v
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Figures Figure 1:
A map showing the Working for Water biomes and the boundaries of the moist savanna parks. Part of Marakele is located in the Grassland Biome and there are some riparian forests in the Forest Biome at the northern end of the Kruger National Park.__________________________________________________________ 5
Figure 2:
Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species in Moist Savanna parks for the clearing of invasive alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. _____________________ 6
Figure 3:
Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising areas in the Moist Savanna parks for the clearing of invasive alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. NFEPA = National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. IAP = Invasive Alien Plants ________________ 8
Figure 4:
A map showing the Working for Water biomes and the boundaries of the Thicket and arid biome parks. _____________________________________________ 9
Figure 5:
A map showing the biomes and the boundaries of properties the Addo Elephant National Park._________________________________________________________ 10
Figure 6:
Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the species invading the Albany thicket biome in Addo for the clearing of invasive alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. _____________________________________________________________ 11
Figure 7:
Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the species invading the Fynbos biome in Addo for the clearing of invasive alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. _______ 13
Figure 8:
Ranked criteria identified as significant for prioritising species invading the Nama and Succulent Karoo biomes in arid parks for the clearing of invasive alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. _____________________________________________________________ 14
Figure 9:
Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the species invading the Arid Savanna biome in arid parks for the clearing of invasive alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion._________________________________________________________ 16
Figure 10:
A map showing the biomes and the boundaries of the Garden Route National Park.________________________________________________________________ 18
Figure 11:
Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the species invading the Garden Route National Park for clearing. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. ____________________ 19
Figure 12:
Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the areas with the Garden Route National Park for clearing. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. ____________________________________ 21
Figure 13:
A map showing the Working for Water biomes and the boundaries of the Cape cluster parks. _________________________________________________________ 22
Figure 14:
Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the species in the Cape cluster parks for clearing. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. ________________________________________ 23
p. vi
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Figure 15:
Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising areas in the Cape cluster parks for clearing. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. ______________________________________________ 25
Tables Table 1:
Selected criteria that will be used to prioritise invasive alien plant species in Moist Savanna parks, and the basis on which this comparison will be done _________ 6
Table 2:
Nested criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising parks within the moist savanna biome. Higher-level criteria are divided into subcriteria, and sub-sub-criteria, and relative weightings are shown.__________________ 7
Table 3:
Selected criteria that will be used to prioritise invasive alien plant species in the Albany Thicket and Fynbos biomes in the Addo Elephant National Park, and the basis for these comparisons. __________________________________________ 11
Table 4:
Relative weights assigned criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species for clearing in the Albany Thicket biome. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria and relative weightings are shown. ______________________________________________________________ 12
Table 5:
Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species for clearing in the Fynbos biome. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria and relative weightings are shown. ______________________________________________________________ 13
Table 6:
Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising invasive alien plant species for clearing in the Nama and Succulent Karoo biomes in the arid parks. Higher-level criteria are divided into subcriteria, and sub-sub-criteria and relative weightings are shown. _________________ 15
Table 7:
Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species for clearing in the Arid Savanna biome. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria and relative weightings are shown. ______________________________________________________________ 16
Table 8:
A preliminary set of area-based criteria for the Addo Elephant and other arid parks. _______________________________________________________________ 17
Table 9:
Selected criteria that will be used to prioritise invasive alien plant species in the Garden Route National Park and the basis on which this comparison will be done. _______________________________________________________________ 19
Table 10:
Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species for clearing in the Garden Route National Park. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria and relative weightings are shown. ___________________________________________________________ 20
Table 11:
Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising areas for clearing in the Garden Route National Park. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria and the relative weightings are shown. _________ 21
Table 12:
Selected criteria that will be used to prioritise invasive alien plant species in the Cape cluster parks, and the basis for the comparisons. ________________________ 23
Table 13:
Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species for clearing in the Cape cluster parks. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria and the relative weightings are shown. _______________ 24
Table 14:
Selected criteria that will be used to prioritise invasive alien plant species in the Cape cluster parks, and the basis for the comparisons. ________________________ 25
p. vii
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Table 15:
Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising areas for clearing in the Cape cluster parks. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria, and the basis for the comparisons._____________________ 26
Table 16:
Descriptions of criteria and their subdivisions for the prioritization of invasive alien species that need to be controlled in South African national parks. ___________ 27
Table 17:
Descriptions of criteria and their subdivisions for the prioritization of areas or management units within parks where there are alien plant invasions. ____________ 30
p. viii
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
1. INTRODUCTION South African National Parks receive funds from the national Working for Water programme budget to enable them to control invading alien species on their properties as well as on contractual land and in other areas that are deemed appropriate. This funding has, historically, been allocated to the different parks but the application of these funds to date has not been based on an objective and transparent assessment of the impacts alien plant species have and the threats they pose. This report covers the progress made during the 2010/11 financial year in developing an approach to a transparent and objective allocation of funds for clearing of invasive alien plants within the parks. There is already a process in place to allocate funds between parks nationally so this study focused on groups of parks where the same prioritization models could be applied or on individual parks where appropriate. The CSIR recently completed a study on the prioritisation of species and primary catchments for the purposes of guiding invasive alien plant control operations by the Working for Water programme in the terrestrial biomes of the whole of South Africa (van Wilgen, Forsyth and Le Maitre, 2008). This project developed an approach that enables managers and planners in the Working for Water Programme to prioritise their activities in a way that is transparent, logical and defensible. The study developed methods for the identification of a priority list of: (i) invasive alien plants; and (ii) areas (primary catchments) within the terrestrial biomes of South Africa that should be targeted for control by the Working for Water programme. The biomes included the Fynbos, Grassland, Savanna (split into Moist and Arid), Succulent Karoo and Nama Karoo. The same approach has been used to prioritise clearing of alien invasive plants at a quaternary catchment scales within the Working for Water regions (roughly equivalent to provinces). The South African National Parks (SANParks) present a different challenge as their parks are very diverse and spread across a range of biomes, and some include multiple biomes. Biomes remain logical units to use in the prioritisation of the parks because they have particular suites of invaders, patterns and impacts of invasion and requirements for control. The national-scale, biome-based prioritization developed by Van Wilgen et al. (2010) cannot be simply applied to the parks as the relative priorities given to, for example water resources and biodiversity, are set by the SANPark’s mandate and differ from those set by the Working for Water programme. The objectives set for parks, or management units within parks, are biodiversity and conservation issue driven and are very different from those set for quaternary catchments at the regional scales for Working for Water. The biome-based approach needs, therefore, to be adapted to deal with the particular features and circumstances of the parks and their priorities as set out in their mandate. This work focused on determining (a) the criteria and (b) the relative weighting of the criteria that will be used in prioritising the clearing of invasive alien plants from SANParks across South Africa. The aim is to develop both species- and area-based models for use in this prioritization. Speciesbased models use information about the impacts of the species, and are used to prioritise the species identified as problems in the parks so that the focus is on the species that have the greatest impacts. Area-based models use information on areas or ecosystems with attributes that require protection from invasions, or are particularly susceptible to the impacts of invaders, to identify areas that should be given priority for clearing. The two are linked because the priority species may have greater impacts in certain areas than in others, and more potential to invade in certain areas and this is incorporated in the area-based model.
Page 1
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
The project is conducted as part of a collaborative agreement between the Working for Water Programme and the CSIR. We are working closely with Working for Water Programme and with Nicholas Cole (SANParks invasive species control unit) to assist them and effectively transfer knowledge relating to setting priorities and implementing them. This report records the progress made from the inception meeting on 25 May 2010 till 31 March 2011. It presents a summary of the workshops held to date, the species and area criteria developed and (in most cases weighted) during the different workshops and the generic sets of criteria for species and areas that were derived from the individual workshop outputs. Further discussions were held with Nicholas Cole in December 2010 and January 2011 on how to take this work further and the recommended next steps are spelt out briefly in a section at the end of the report. During this period workshops were held at Skukuza (Savanna biome), Addo (Arid biomes), Knysna (Fynbos and Forest biomes) and Tokai (Fynbos biome) to determine ranking criteria and identify suitable datasets for criteria where necessary. The original aim was to complete the full prioritisation during the 2010/11 financial year but the team, in consultation with Mr Nicholas Cole, realised that the original plan was too ambitious. The main factors that affected progress were the complexity of the issues in many of the parks, the ecological diversity between the parks (and also within some parks), and time required to inform and get the full participation of the parks staff in the process. In addition, certain of the data sets are still being collected by SANParks so those models could not be completed.
2. SCOPE OF WORK 2.1 RELEVANCE TO THE WORKING FOR WATER PROGRAMME The Working for Water programme’s strategic plan for 2008 – 2012 lists “the reduction of impact of existing priority invasive alien plant problems” as one of three primary goals relating to natural resource management. The other two relate to preventing problems, and building capacity to address problems. Some of their funding is channelled through the South African National Parks to support clearing within the parks as well as in adjacent areas where appropriate. This project will assist in the identification of priorities for allocating the funds to the national parks, either individually or as groups. A project reference group has been established to guide this project. Members of the project reference group are: •
Mr Andrew Wannenburgh (Working for Water Programme)
•
Mr Nicholas Cole (South African National Parks)
•
Ms Mavis Mayo (South African National Parks)
2.2 PROJECT ACTIVITIES The project inception meeting was held via a tele-conference on Tuesday 25 May 2010 between SANParks’ Head Office in Pretoria and Working for Water’s National Office in Cape Town. Messrs
Page 2
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Andrew Wannenburgh (WfW), Greg Forsyth and Quinton de Swartz (WfW) attended in Cape Town while Mr Nicholas Cole and Ms Mavis Moyo of SANParks were in Pretoria. The aim of the inception meeting was to: •
review and confirm the terms of reference and delivery time frames
•
present an overview of the study approach
•
finalise the work plan and deliverables
•
plan the consultative expert workshops
•
agree on an invoicing schedule
The following activities were agreed to: 1. Convene workshops for each of the SANParks clusters during 2010 (Northern cluster, Arid cluster, Thicket cluster, Cape cluster) 2. Determine the criteria to be used for ranking parks in each cluster based on staff inputs at the workshops 3. Prepare a report summarising the outcomes of the workshops 4. Develop generic models for species and areas
3. DETERMINING RANKING CRITERIA 3.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND AND WORKSHOP FORMAT The prioritisation was done using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (Saaty 1990) and species- and area-based prioritization models were developed during a series of one or two day workshops. These were held in Skukuza (Moist Savanna parks), Addo (Addo and arid parks), Knysna (Garden Route) and Tokai (Cape Cluster) between August and September 2010. Each workshop followed a standard agenda (Appendix 1) and followed the same general process. The topics addressed at each workshop included: •
A review of past prioritization studies that adopted the Analytic Hierarchy Process undertaken for the Working for Water Programme
•
Identification of alien invasive species in the relevant biomes
•
Setting of goals and establishing criteria for alien clearing
•
Discussing data requirements for ranking the parks or management sub-units within the parks
Each workshop began with a presentation of past approaches to prioritising areas for alien plant clearing that had been adopted in both the Western and Northern Cape. Both these previous studies used the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) because it provides a transparent and negotiated outcome which all workshop participants are able to engage with and follow. This presentation provided the background and rationale and approach to be followed in this
Page 3
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
prioritisation exercise. A species verification exercise was then under taken at each workshop where the participants verified and commented on the lists of invasive species identified for each biome by van Wilgen et. al. (2008; 2010).
3.2 SKUKUZA WORKSHOP: MOIST SAVANNA PARKS The workshop to determine prioritisation criteria was held at Skukuza on Tuesday 10 August 2010. A total of 14 SANParks staff members were represented (see Appendix 2). The workshop covered the following parks: Kruger, Mapungubwe and Marakele which are located primarily in the Moist Savanna biome. The Savanna biome as defined by Mucina and Rutherford (2006) includes a very wide range of vegetation types which differ in their dynamics and in the composition and ecology of the important invading plant species (Van Wilgen et al. 2008; 2010). There is a natal biogeographical divide between the savanna vegetation types comprising the Southern Kalahari and Ghaap Plateaux bioregions (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006) and the remaining savanna vegetation types. We refer to these groups as the Arid and Moist Savanna biome, respectively. The Azonal vegetation types of Mucina and Rutherford (2006) such as the Sub-tropical Alluvial Vegetation types along the major rivers and wetlands were also grouped with the biomes they are embedded in.
3.2.1
Species based model
A species verification exercise was then under taken where the staff verified and commented on the lists of invasive species identified by van Wilgen et. al. (2008; 2010) for the Moist Savanna biome. A consolidated list was created which included those verified species as well as additional species which they felt where problematic. The result was a complete list of the most important alien species for the Moist Savanna parks. The final species list is provided in Appendix 3.
Page 4
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Figure 1: A map showing the Working for Water biomes and the boundaries of the moist savanna parks. Part of Marakele is located in the Grassland Biome and there are some riparian forests in the Forest Biome at the northern end of the Kruger National Park. The workshop participants then proceeded to develop a goal to focus and guide the species and area prioritisations. This goal was based on the alien impact objective set out in the Kruger Management Plan (KNP 2005 in Foxcroft 2009) which is ‘to anticipate, prevent entry and where feasible and/or necessary control IAS in an effort to minimize the impact on, and maintain the integrity of indigenous biodiversity’. During the ensuing discussion the issue of ecosystem services was raised and debated at length. The agreed goal for both the species and area-based models extends the original management goal and reads as follows:
To anticipate, prevent entry and where feasible and/or necessary control IAS in an effort to minimize the impact on, and maintain the integrity of indigenous biodiversity and ecosystem services. This was followed by the identification of criteria for prioritising the clearing of these parks. Descriptions of these criteria are provided in Table 1.
Page 5
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Table 1:
Selected criteria that will be used to prioritise invasive alien plant species in Moist Savanna parks, and the basis on which this comparison will be done
Criterion
Basis for comparison of invasive alien species
Impacts on biodiversity
Invasive alien plant species will be compared to each other with respect to the degree to which the species can: • transform habitats, and compromise their integrity and functioning; • alter the fuel amount and structure, and thereby alter the fire regime to which local biota are adapted; • displace fauna; and • reduce forage availability.
Impacts on ecosystem services
Invasive alien plant species will be compared to each other with respect to: • Their relative impact on surface water runoff and on water quality; • Their relative impact on the tourism experience; and • The degree to which they will disrupt any active research programme.
Ease of control
Invasive alien plant species will be compared to each other with respect to: • The degree to which the species is able to re-invade or persist in the face of clearing; • The effectiveness of biological control; and • The relative costs of clearing per unit area.
Dispersal potential
Invasive alien plant species will be compared to each other with respect to the ability of the species to disperse across landscapes. Wind and bird-dispersed species will receive higher priority than species with soil-stored seeds, or whose dispersal is mainly by means of vegetative spread.
The AHP (Saaty, 1990) uses comparisons between criteria and their sub-criteria to assign weights to each of these according to their relative importance. Expert Choice software (Anon. 2002) was used to facilitate this process, and to produce the final weightings (Figure 2).
Impact on biodiversity Impacts on ecosystem services Ease of control Dispersal potential
.465 .335 .130 .070
Figure 2: Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species in Moist Savanna parks for the clearing of invasive alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. The most important criterion to be identified was the impact on biodiversity which was given a weighting of 46.5%, followed by impacts on ecosystem services (33.5%) and the ease of control (13.0). These three criteria accounted for 93% of the weighting in achieving the goal. Many of the criteria were further divided into sub-criteria, for example, the secure and sustainable water provision was divided into the sub-criteria of securing water quantity and securing water quality. These sub-criteria were further divided into sub-sub-criteria where appropriate. The final ranking for prioritisation, considering all the criteria, sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria is provided Table 2.
Page 6
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Table 2:
Nested criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising parks within the moist savanna biome. Higher-level criteria are divided into subcriteria, and sub-sub-criteria, and relative weightings are shown.
Criterion
Weighting assigned
Sub-criterion
(%)
Impact on biodiversity
Impacts on ecosystem services
Ease of control
Dispersal potential
0.465
0.335
0.130
0.070
Weighting assigned
Sub-sub-criterion
(%)
Weighting assigned (%)
Transformation of habitat
0.216
None
Impact on fire behaviour
0.156
None
Displacement of fauna
0.061
None
Impact on foraging
0.032
None
Impact on water resources
0.253
Impact on tourism experience
0.062
None
Impact on the natural laboratory
0.021
None
Seed bank longevity
0.053
None
Aggressiveness
0.049
None
Effectiveness of biocontrol agents
0.016
None
Simple control method
0.013
None
Impact on quantity
0.042
Impact on quality
0.210
Water
0.035
None
Bird/animal
0.017
None
Wind
0.013
None
Human
0.004
None
The single most important sub-criterion identified overall is the impact on water resources which contributes 25.3% to the overall model (Table 2). Next in order of importance is the transformation of habitat (21.6%) and impact on fire behaviour (15.6%). As the time was limited, the pairwise weighting of the species in terms of the sub- and sub-subcriteria was completed for some of them. This is not a problem because the next stage in the overall process will include the development and weighting of a generic species-based model which takes in account the outputs from all the workshops. We plan to this during 2011/12.
3.2.2
Area-based model
The group then identified three criteria for prioritising areas (Figure 3) as well as some data sets that could potentially be used as follows: •
Conservation status
Page 7
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
o
o o •
Freshwater ecosystems (National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA 2010)) o o
•
Threatened vegetation types (South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) & Gertenbach’s land-type based vegetation map of the Kruger National Park (Gertenbach 1983)) Vegetation types with a limited representation – gallery forest, koppie habitats Concentrations of threatened plant and animal species
Integrity Conservation status
Presence of priority invasive alien plant species o o
Current Potential (e.g. Rouget et al. 2004)
The criteria were then put into an AHP area-based model and subjected to cross comparisons to determine the relative weight on each criterion. The goal for the area model was the same as the one used for the species prioritisation model.
NFEPA rivers
.692
Conservation status Presence of priority IAP
.231 .077
Figure 3: Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising areas in the Moist Savanna parks for the clearing of invasive alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. NFEPA = National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. IAP = Invasive Alien Plants
3.3 ADDO WORKSHOP: THICKET AND ARID PARKS The workshops to determine prioritisation criteria was held at Addo Elephant National Park on Tuesday 24 and Wednesday 25 August 2010. A total of 9 SANParks staff attended on the first day and 11 on the second day (see Appendix 4). The workshop covered the following parks: Addo Elephant, Karoo, Camdeboo, Mountain Zebra, Kalahari Gemsbok, Mokala, Augrabies Falls, Richtersveld, Namaqua and Tankwa Karoo which are located primarily in the Arid Savanna, Nama Karoo, Succulent Karoo and Albany Thicket biomes (Figure 4). The managers of the Tankwa, Namaqua and Richtersveld National Parks were not present at the workshop so their parks could not be adequately evaluated in this exercise. We plan to complete this evaluation in the coming financial year.
Page 8
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Figure 4: A map showing the Working for Water biomes and the boundaries of the Thicket and arid biome parks. A species verification exercise was then undertaken for the Addo Elephant National Park and the arid biomes (see 3.1 above). A consolidated list was created which included the species as well as additional species which the staff knew were problems in the park. The result was complete lists of the most important alien species for the Addo Elephant National Park and for the arid parks (grouped into those in the Arid Savanna and those in the Nama and Succulent Karoo biomes). The final species lists are provided in Appendix 5. 3.3.1
Addo Elephant National Park
Addo is a particularly complex park because of the diversity of biomes, the number of separate properties involved, and the complex problems that have to be dealt with including the rehabilitation of former farmlands (Figure 5).
Page 9
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Figure 5: A map showing the biomes and the boundaries of properties the Addo Elephant National Park. The workshop participants proceeded to develop a goal to focus and guide the prioritisation exercise. After some discussion of the various goals of the SANParks the agreed goal was:
To prevent entry, reduce and control invasive alien plants to maintain and enhance biodiversity and to protect water resources. 3.3.1.1 Species-based criteria The goal setting was followed by the identification of criteria for prioritising the clearing of the priority species identified for the Addo Elephant National Park. One set of criteria was developed to cover both the Albany Thicket and the Fynbos. However a different set of weights was developed for each biome because they are invaded by distinctly different suites of species, the impacts are dissimilar and the management requirements also very different (e.g. the role of fire in the ecology and in alien plant control). The criteria are given in Table 3.
Page 10
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Table 3:
Selected criteria that will be used to prioritise invasive alien plant species in the Albany Thicket and Fynbos biomes in the Addo Elephant National Park, and the basis for these comparisons.
Criterion
Basis for comparison of invasive alien species
Aggressiveness
This is about prioritising species that are highly aggressive: i.e. grow vigorously and have longrange dispersal landscapes which enables them to invade and become dominant over large areas in short time spans.
Ability to transform the vegetation structure
This is about the way certain species transform habitats and displace species because maintenance of habitat integrity and functioning is the basis for biodiversity conservation
Impact on forage production
A number of invaders are unpalatable and displace or replace palatable species, reducing the game carrying capacity
Ability to alter soil processes and properties
This relates to species which are: • allelopathic, or • whose invasions result in changes in soil fertility (e.g. nitrogen fixation) or • increase erosion potential by suppressing understorey and ground layer vegetation
Impact on the ecological reserve
This is about giving a high weight to species with a high water-use which invade rivers and use much more water than the native species and reduce the ecological reserve which is needed to sustain aquatic ecosystems (e.g. Eucalyptus camaldulensis)
Impact on the fire regime
This is about prioritizing species which increase the fuel loads increasing fire intensity and severity (which damages soils and reduces resprouting) as well as being flammable and introducing fire to communities which normally do not burn and thus negatively affecting biodiversity and ecosystem patterns and processes.
Ecosystem services
This criterion highlights the impacts of invasion on ecosystem biodiversity and function in ways that alter the delivery of ecosystem services, particularly the: • tourism experience (negative effects on cultural and tourist features, e.g. restricting access, impacting views and restricting recreation opportunities and cultural practices) and • modifying river hydrology by altering flows (quantity) and quality and increasing flood risk.
Impact on animal wellbeing
This is about prioritizing species which can physically affect the health of animals (e.g. lions or antelope which get Opuntia stricta cladodes entangled in their fur and develop abscesses).
The AHP (Saaty, 1990) uses comparisons between criteria and their sub-criteria to assign weights to each of these according to their relative importance. Expert Choice software (Anon. 2002) was used to facilitate this process, and to produce the final weightings (Figure 6).
Albany Thicket biome These criteria were then weighted for the Albany Thicket biome in Addo.
.337
Aggressiveness
Figure 6: Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the species invading the Albany thicket biome in .246Addo for the clearing of invasive Transform the vegetation structure
Page 11
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. The most important criterion to be identified was species which are considered highly aggressive which was given a weighting of 33.7%, followed by transformation of the vegetation structure (24.6%) and the reduction in forage (13.4%). These three criteria accounted for 72% of the weighting in achieving the goal. Many of the criteria were further divided into sub-criteria and sub-sub-criteria where appropriate. The final ranking for prioritisation in Albany Thicket, considering all the criteria, sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria is provided in Table 4.
Table 4:
Relative weights assigned criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species for clearing in the Albany Thicket biome. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria and relative weightings are shown.
Criterion
Weighting assigned
Weighting assigned
Sub-criterion
(%)
Aggressiveness
0.337
Sub-sub-criterion
(%)
(%)
Dispersal potential of invasive alien plants
0.280
None
Vigour
0.056
None
Ability to transform the vegetation structure
0.246
None
None
Effect on forage
0.134
None
None
Ability to alter soil processes and properties
0.087
Allelopathy
0.011
None
Changes soil fertility
0.020
None
Alter erosion potential
0.057
None
Impact on the ecological reserve
0.076
None
None
Effect on fire regime
0.053
None
None
Modify river hydrology Impact on ecosystem services
0.028
0.033 Impact on tourism experience
Impact on animal wellbeing
0.033
None
0.006
Weighting assigned
Impact on water flows (quantity)
0.014
Impact on water quality
0.004
Effect on flood risk
0.010
None
None
The most important sub-criterion identified overall is high dispersal potential which contributes 28.0% to the overall model (Table 4). Next in order of importance were the increased erosion potential (5.7%) and vigorous growth (5.6%) (Table 4).
Page 12
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Fynbos biome The next task was the weighting of the same set of criteria for alien species that would invade the grassy form of the fynbos which is characteristic of the Zuurberg section of the park and differs from the more westerly forms of fynbos in having a higher grass cover and fires which occur mainly in winter. The adjusted weights for the criteria and their relative importance can be seen in Figure 7. Aggressiveness Reduce the Ecological Reserve (flows needed in rivers)
.356 .239
Negative impact on fire regime Reduce ecosystem services Alter soil processes and properties Transform the vegetation structure Reduce forage Decrease animal well being
.132 .095 .073 .055 .028 .023
Figure 7: Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the species invading the Fynbos biome in Addo for the clearing of invasive alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. The most important criterion to be identified again was species which are considered highly aggressive (33.7%) but the second most important was now the reduction of the ecological reserve (13.2%), followed by the negative impact on the fire regime (9.5%) and the reduction in ecosystem services (7.3%). These four criteria accounted for 82% of the weighting in achieving the goal. The final set of weights for all the criteria, sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria is provided in Table 5. The issue of how to allocate funding between the biomes with the Addo Elephant National Park must still be addressed.
Table 5:
Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species for clearing in the Fynbos biome. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria and relative weightings are shown.
Criterion
Weighting assigned
Sub-criterion
(%)
Aggressiveness
0.356
Weighting assigned
Sub-sub-criterion
(%)
(%)
Dispersal potential of invasive alien plants
0.297
None
Vigorousness
0.059
None
Effect on the ecological reserve
0.239
None
None
Effect on fire regime
0.132
None
None
Impacts on ecosystem services
0.095
Modify river hydrology
0.079
Page 13
Weighting assigned
Effect on water flows (quantity)
0.020
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Criterion
Weighting assigned
Sub-criterion
Weighting assigned
(%)
Alter soil processes and properties
0.073
Sub-sub-criterion
(%)
(%) Effect on water quality
0.047
Impact on flood risk
0.012
Impact on tourism experience
0.016
None
Allelopathy
0.015
None
0.015
None
0.044
None
Change soil fertility Impact on erosion potential
Weighting assigned
Transform the vegetation structure
0.055
None
None
Effect on forage
0.028
None
None
Impact on animal well-being
0.023
None
None
The most important sub-criterion identified overall is high dispersal potential which contributes 29.7% to the overall model (Table 5). Next in order of importance were the modified river hydrology (7.9%) and vigorous growth (5.9%) (Table 5).
3.3.1.2 Species-based criteria for Arid zone parks The Arid zone parks fall mainly into Arid Savanna, Nama Karoo and Succulent Karoo biomes. For this exercise the Nama and Succulent Karoo biomes were grouped together for the listing of species and the development of criteria for prioritising species. The same goal was used but the criteria were modified to suit the characteristics of the invasions and the typical impacts they have. The main change was the inclusion of groundwater in the sub-sub-criterion on the modification of water resources because groundwater is a key ecosystem service sustaining wildlife, human settlements and domestic stock. The other change was in the sub-sub-criteria for alterations in soil processes and properties where allelopathy was combined with changes in soil chemistry. The revised weighting assigned for the species which invade parks which include the Nama and Succulent Karoo biomes is shown in Figure 8. This includes the following parks: Karoo, Camdeboo, Mountain Zebra and Augrabies Falls.
Aggressiveness Impact on forage
.315 .223
Impact on the Ecological Reserve (flows needed in rivers) Effect on animal well being Transform the vegetation structure Impact on ecosystem services
.132 .113 .091 .056 .047 .025
Alter soil processes and properties Impact on fire regime
Figure 8: Ranked criteria identified as significant for prioritising species invading the Nama and Succulent Karoo biomes in arid parks for the clearing of invasive alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion.
Page 14
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
The most important criterion to be identified again was species which are considered highly aggressive (31.5%) but the second most important was now the reduction in forage production (22.3%), followed by the reduction in the ecological reserve (13.2%) and the decrease in animal well-being (11.3%). These four criteria accounted for 78% of the weighting in achieving the goal. The final set of weights for all the criteria, sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria is provided in Table 6. Table 6:
Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising invasive alien plant species for clearing in the Nama and Succulent Karoo biomes in the arid parks. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria and relative weightings are shown.
Criterion
Weighting assigned
Sub-criterion
(%)
Aggressiveness
Effect on forage Impact on the ecological reserve Affect animal wellbeing Transform vegetation structure
Impact on ecosystem services
0.315
Weighting assigned
Sub-sub-criterion
(%)
(%)
Dispersal potential of invasive alien plants
0.275
None
Vigorousness
0.039
None
0.223
None
None
0.132
None
None
0.113
None
None
0.091
None
None
0.056
Modify river hydrology
0.049
Impact on water flows (quantity) Impact on water (quality) Effect on flood risk
Alter soil processes and properties
0.047
Effect on fire regime
0.025
Impact on tourism experience Changes in soil chemistry Increase erosion potential None
Weighting assigned
0.007
None
0.012
None
0.035
None
0.026 0.016 0.007
None
The most important sub-criterion identified overall is high dispersal potential which contributes 27.5% to the overall model (Table 5). Next in order of importance were the modified river hydrology (4.9%) and vigorous growth (3.9%) (Table 4). The criterion relating to the reduction in animal well-being not considered a significant issue for the Arid Savanna parks (Kalahari Gemsbok, Mokala) and so was dropped. The revised criteria and the adjusted weighting assigned for the species which invade parks which include the Arid Savanna biome is shown in Figure 9.
Page 15
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Aggressiveness
.350
Impact on forage
.190
Transform the vegetation structure Effect on the Ecological Reserve (flows needed in rivers) Impact on ecosystem services
.188 .128 .079
Alter soil processes and properties Impact on fire regime
.043 .023
Figure 9: Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the species invading the Arid Savanna biome in arid parks for the clearing of invasive alien plants. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. The most important criterion to be identified, again, was species which are considered highly aggressive (35.0%), the second most important remained the reduction in forage production (19.0%), followed by the transformation of the vegetation structure (18.8%) and the reduction in the ecological reserve (12.8%). These four criteria accounted for 85.6% of the weighting in achieving the goal. The final set of weights for all the criteria, sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria is provided in Table 7. Table 7:
Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species for clearing in the Arid Savanna biome. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria and relative weightings are shown.
Criterion
Weighting assigned
Weighting assigned
Sub-criterion
(%)
Aggressiveness Impact on forage Transform the vegetation structure Impact on the ecological reserve
Impact on ecosystem services
0.350
(%)
Sub-subcriterion
Dispersal potential of IAP
0.291
None
Vigorousness
0.058
None
0.190
None
None
0.188
None
None
0.128
None
0.066
0.079
0.043
Effect on fire regime
0.023
(%)
None
Modify river hydrology
Alter soil processes and properties
Weighting assigned
Impact on tourism experience Changes in soil chemistry Impact on erosion potential None
Alter river flows (quantity) Impact on water quality Effect on flood risk
0.013
None
0.007
None
0.036
None None
Page 16
0.027 0.032 0.008
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
The most important sub-criterion identified overall is high dispersal potential which contributes 29.1% to the overall model (Table 5). Next in order of importance were the modified river hydrology (6.6%) and vigorous growth (5.8%) (Table 7).
3.3.2
Area-based criteria for Addo Elephant and the arid parks
A short period at the end of the second day was spent on developing some area-based criteria for all these parks. The criteria were defined (Table 8) but the weights were not completed because the time was limited. Table 8:
A preliminary set of area-based criteria for the Addo Elephant and other arid parks.
Criterion
Sub-criterion
Description
Conservation status of vegetation units
Either based on SANParks data, the Greater Addo Conservation plan, the national threatened vegetation types, or the Eastern Cape biodiversity planning
Conservation status of rivers and wetlands
Based on the recently completed National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area study (Nel et al. 2011)
Threats to conservation status
Based on an assessment of the threats to the conservation status identified above
Presence of priority invasive alien plants
Based on the current and potential distributions of the priority invasive alien plants
Conservation Development Framework Zones
Threats to the Cultural Landscape
This gives priority to zones using the park human-use-based zonation developed by Steven Holness (SANParks)
Threats to remote zones
As above
3.4 GARDEN ROUTE The workshop to determine prioritisation criteria was held at the SANParks offices in Knysna on Tuesday 31 August 2010. A total of 22 people participated, 18 of them from SANParks (see Appendix 6). The workshop covered the Fynbos and Forest Biomes (Figure 10). This park has many sections and forms a complex mosaic with private land holdings and other protected areas, much of which is heavily invaded by a wide range of plant species. 3.4.1
Species-based criteria
A species verification exercise was then under taken for the Fynbos and Forest biomes. A consolidated list was created which included additional species which the participants felt were problematic. The result was complete lists of the most important alien species for this park grouped according to the biomes. The final species lists are provided in Appendix 7.
Page 17
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Figure 10: A map showing the biomes and the boundaries of the Garden Route National Park. The Garden Route workshop participants proceeded to develop a goal to focus and guide the prioritisation exercise. The agreed goal after extensive discussion was:
To control IAPs to maintain and restore natural biodiversity patterns and processes, and ecosystem services This was followed by the identification of criteria for prioritising species for clearing in the Garden Route National Park. One set of criteria was developed to cover both the Fynbos and Forest biomes. However a different set of weights was developed for each biome because they are invaded by distinctly different sets of species, the impacts are dissimilar and the management requirements also very different (e.g. the role of fire in the ecology and in alien plant control). The criteria are given in Table 9.
Page 18
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Table 9:
Selected criteria that will be used to prioritise invasive alien plant species in the Garden Route National Park and the basis on which this comparison will be done.
Criterion
Basis for comparison of invasive alien plant species
This relates to species which have a range of negative impacts on both biodiversity including the loss or Impact on biodiversity displacement of species (changes in pattern) and changes in biodiversity processes and functions that sustain ecosystem processes and functions. Impact on ecosystem services
This is about the way certain species transform habitats and displace species because maintenance of habitat integrity and functioning is the basis for ecosystem service production
Impact on socioeconomic risks
This criterion highlights the impacts of invasion on fire risk by increasing fuel loads and making access difficult, and on flood risk by increasing the potential for severe fires and the resulting changes in river hydrology and erosion and sediment movement and deposition.
Impact on the management operations
This is about species invasions which affect the timing and execution of other management operations. For example the need to integrate fire and invading alien plant management operations to exploit the synergies.
The AHP (Saaty, 1990) uses comparisons between criteria and their sub-criteria to assign weights to each of these according to their relative importance. Expert Choice software (Anon. 2002) was used to facilitate this process, and to produce the final weightings (Figure 11).
Negative impact on biodiversity Negative impacts on ecosystem services Increase socio-economic risk Negative impact on management operations
.602 .207 .154 .036
Figure 11: Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the species invading the Garden Route National Park for clearing. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. The most important criterion to be identified was the negative impact on biodiversity which contributed a little over 60%, the second was the impact on ecosystem services (20.7%), followed by the increased socio-economic risk (15.4%) and the negative impact on management operations (3.6%). The final set of weights for all the criteria, sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria is provided in Table 10.
Page 19
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Table 10: Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species for clearing in the Garden Route National Park. Higherlevel criteria are divided into sub-criteria, and sub-sub-criteria and relative weightings are shown.
Criterion
Weighting assigned
Weighting assigned
Sub-criterion
(%)
Impact on biodiversity patterns
Impact on biodiversity
Impact on socioeconomic risk
Impact on management operations
0.268
0.602 Impact on biodiversity processes
Impacts on ecosystem services
0.207
0.154
0.036
Sub-sub-criterion
(%)
0.335
(%) Change faunal composition
0.042
Change vegetation structure
0.159
Change vegetation composition
0.067
Change the fire regime
0.122
Changes in soil properties
0.031
Changes in aquatic ecosystems
0.104
Changes in gap dynamics in forests
0.030
Changes in ecotone dynamics (forest, fynbos, thicket)
0.047
Alter water flows and quality
0.135
None
Impact on aesthetic appeal
0.058
None
Impact on natural product harvesting
0.015
None
Impact on fire risk
0.085
None
Impact on flood risk
0.046
None
Legal classification
0.016
None
Lack of benefits derived from the species
0.008
None
None
Weighting assigned
None
The most important sub-criterion identified overall is negative impact on biodiversity processes which contributes 33.5% to the overall model (Table 9). Next in order of importance were the impact on biodiversity patterns (26.8%) and reduced water flow and quality (13.5%) (Table 10). 3.4.2
Area-based criteria
The participants then developed an area-based prioritisation model for this park based on the conservation planning done for the Garden Route Initiative and other information. This involved developing a new set of criteria and weights. The same process was followed as before and the resulting hierarchy of criteria is shown below (Figure 12).
Page 20
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Biodiversity value of land Tourism Use zones Socio - economic risk
.266 .153 .151
Alignment with management plans Abundance of IAPS Post fire opportunities (age of veld) Value of the land for water production Maintain clearing gains Spread potential
.145 .116 .059 .046 .036 .028
Figure 12: Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the areas with the Garden Route National Park for clearing. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. The distribution of the weights was relatively even. The most important criterion to be identified was the biodiversity value of the land which contributed 26.6%, the second was tourism use zones (15.3%), followed by the increased socio-economic risk (15.1%), alignment with management plans (14.5%) and areas with low densities of invading species (11.6%). The final set of weights for all the criteria and sub-criteria is provided in Table 11. Table 11: Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising areas for clearing in the Garden Route National Park. Higherlevel criteria are divided into sub-criteria and the relative weightings are shown.
Criterion
Weighting assigned
Sub-criterion
(%)
Biodiversity value of land
Tourism use zones
0.266
0.153
Weighting assigned (%)
Critical biodiversity areas
0.111
Species of special concern
0.111
Ecological support areas
0.032
Priority natural areas
0.012
Areas zoned for medium and high visitor use
0.127
Cultural Heritage Sites
0.025
High fire risk areas
0.126
High flood risk areas
0.025
Impact on socio-economic risk
0.151
Alignment with fire management plans
0.121
Alignment with management plans
0.145
Integration with adjacent control measures
0.024
Abundance of IAPs
0.116
None
Post fire opportunities (age of veld)
0.59
None
Value of the land for water production
0.046
None
Maintain clearing gains
0.036
None
Spread potential
0.028
None
The sub-criteria relating to the biodiversity of the land and to socio-economic risk are potentially more widely applicable for prioritising across the parks. Prioritising post-fire clearing opportunities emphasis the benefits of clearing areas where access is improved by fires and where rapid followup is needed to control regeneration.
Page 21
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
3.5 CAPE CLUSTER PARKS The prioritisation workshop for this group of parks was held at the SANParks’ Tokai Research Centre on Tuesday 7 September 2010. There were 20 participants and of these 12 were SANParks staff (see Appendix 8). Parks represented included the Table Mountain, West Coast, Agulhas and Bontebok, all of which are located within the Fynbos biome (Figure 13). A species verification exercise was done for the Cape Cluster (see 3.1) and a consolidated list was created which included additional species which the participants felt were problematic. This resulted in a complete list of the most important alien plant species for the Table Mountain, West Coast, Agulhas and Bontebok National Parks. The final species lists are provided in Appendix 9.
Figure 13: A map showing the Working for Water biomes and the boundaries of the Cape cluster parks. The workshop participants proceeded to develop a goal to focus and guide the prioritisation exercise. The final goal was defined after extensive discussion and was as follows:
To control IAPs to maintain biodiversity and cultural assets 3.5.1
Species-based criteria
This was followed by the identification of criteria for prioritising species for clearing in these parks. The criteria chosen for prioritising species are given in Table 12.
Page 22
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Table 12: Selected criteria that will be used to prioritise invasive alien plant species in the Cape cluster parks, and the basis for the comparisons.
Criterion
Basis for comparison of invasive alien plant species
Ecosystem processes
This criterion relates to the impacts of species on key ecosystem process species which maintain the functioning and rejuvenate fynbos ecosystems, including fire, nutrient cycling, water fluxes and pollination.
Potential to invade
This is about the ability of invading species to persist and disperse widely
Ecosystem patterns
This is about the ability of species to transform the vegetation and habitat structure, changing its biodiversity and affecting threatened species.
Impact on ecosystem services
This criterion is about reducing the impacts on the quantity and quality of water in and leaving the park, enhancing the tourism experience, utilisable resources and option values.
This criterion highlights the impacts of invasion on fire risk by increasing fuel loads, and on flood risk by increasing the potential for severe fires which can lead to changes in river Impact on socio-economic risk hydrology and soil erosion and sediment movement and deposition. The participants also included the impacts of invasions on visitor security as dense invasion can shelter criminals. Safety has become a key issue in the TMNP. Ease of control
Invasive alien plant species will be compared to each other with respect to how difficult they are to control.
The AHP (Saaty, 1990) uses comparisons between criteria and their sub-criteria to assign weights to each of these according to their relative importance. Expert Choice software (Anon. 2002) was used to facilitate this process, and to produce the final weightings (Figure 14). Ecosystem processes Potential to invade Ecosystem patterns Impact Ecosystem services Increased socio-economic risk Ease of control
.340 .269 .248 .073 .043 .026
Figure 14: Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising the species in the Cape cluster parks for clearing. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. The most important criterion was the impact on ecosystem processes which contributed 34.0%, the second was the potential to invade (26.9%), followed by impacts on ecosystem patterns (24.8%) and impacts on ecosystem services (7.3%). These four accounted for more than 90% of the total weight. The final set of weights for all the criteria and sub-criteria is provided in Table 13.
Page 23
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Table 13: Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising species for clearing in the Cape cluster parks. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria and the relative weightings are shown.
Criterion
Weighting assigned
Sub-criterion
(%)
(%) Hydrological regime
Impacts on ecosystem processes
Potential to invade
Impact on ecosystem patterns
Impact on ecosystem services
Increased socio-economic risk
Ease of control
0.340
0.269
0.248
0.073
0.043
0.026
Weighting assigned 0.123
Nutrient cycling
0.106
Fire regimes
0.060
Erosion and sedimentation
0.026
Pollination
0.015
Herbivory
0.009
Rate of spread
0.205
Potential extent
0.042
Seed bank longevity
0.022
Vegetation structure
0.152
Species richness and abundance (composition)
0.067
Threatened and/or rare species
0.029
Supply of water
0.029
Quality of water
0.028
Direct resource use
0.008
Option values (future use)
0.004
Tourism experience
0.004
Increased fire risk
0.032
Increased flood risk
0.007
Increased security risk
0.004
None
This is an interesting mix of criteria with a strong emphasis on protecting ecosystem integrity and functioning and prioritising clearing to protect key ecosystem processes and species composition. 3.5.2
Area-based criteria
The participants then went on to develop an area-based prioritisation model for these parks which only involved developing a new set of criteria and weights as the goal remained the same as for the species-based model. The same process was followed as before and the provisional criteria are shown in Table 14 and the hierarchy of criteria is shown in Figure 15.
Page 24
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Table 14: Selected criteria that will be used to prioritise invasive alien plant species in the Cape cluster parks, and the basis for the comparisons.
Basis for comparison Maintaining clearing gains
This criterion highlights ensuring that existing investments, where appropriate, are given priority so that follow-up has priority over new clearing. This differs from Working for Water where the emphasis is on ensuring that the land managers will follow through on their obligation to continue maintaining the necessary control operations.
Legal obligations
This recognizes that the parks should set an example of compliance and are also under contractual obligations to carry out certain clearing operations
Conservation value of land and rivers
This gives priority to areas of high conservation importance based on conservation planning criteria such as irreplaceability and special or threatened species and vegetation types.
Post-fire clearing opportunities
This criterion highlights opportunities to clear soon after fire, either to deal with regeneration at a vulnerable stage or because access is facilitated.
Landscape susceptibility to spread
This gives priority to areas where species are enabled to spread more rapidly such as riparian zones and mountain ridges and crests.
Park boundary
The criterion recognizes that the park boundary often is the area most susceptible to reinvasion as well as often having fire-breaks which should be kept free of invading alien plants.
Protect heritage sites
This recognizes that some of these parks have important heritage features which could be damaged directly by invading species or indirectly by, for example, increasing fuel loads and fire severity
Alignment with management plans
This criterion prioritises opportunities to increase effectiveness by aligning management interventions such as clearing invaders and planned fires.
Density of invasive alien plants
This prioritises the clearing of areas based on the density of the current invasions based on the costs per unit area cleared.
Conservation development framework
The parks have planning frameworks for zoning human activities and intensity of use and this criterion gives priority to areas that are intended to be kept as pristine as possible.
Accessibility
This criterion gives priority to clearing areas that are more accessible?
Maintaining clearing gains Legal obligations
.225 .183
Conservation value of land and rivers Post - fire clearing opportunities Landscape su s c ept ibility to spread Park boundary Protect heritage sites
.164 .147 .069 .057 .039
Alignment with management plans Density of invasive alien plants Conservation Development Framework zones Access i bility
.039 .033 .029 .015
Figure 15: Ranked criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising areas in the Cape cluster parks for clearing. Relative weightings, out of a total of 1.0, are given for each criterion. As for the Garden Route National Park, the area criteria were much more evenly weighted than those for the species. The most important criterion was maintaining clearing gains which contributed 22.5%, the second was legal obligations to maintain their land free of invasive alien
Page 25
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
plants (18.3%), followed by impacts the conservation value of land and rivers (16.4%) and postfire clearing opportunities (14.7%). These four accounted for 72% of the total weight and clearly outweighed the others. In this case maintaining the gains is given a high priority and the strong emphasis on legal obligations is based on the belief that the parks must be seen to be meeting the requirements of the law, as well as their contractual obligations to clear private land and maintain fire belts. In practice these come first for most managers in these parks. Planning for the Cape Action People and the Environment project has resulted in these parks all being included in conservation plans at various spatial scales (Cape Floristic Kingdom, District and Local authority) and these data influenced the choice of criteria for prioritising areas. A number of the parks also have specific zoning and other priorities for conservation. Only some of the pairwise comparisons and weightings were completed at the workshop because of time constraints. The final set of weights for all the criteria and sub-criteria is provided in Table 15. Table 15: Relative weights assigned to criteria identified as significant for the purposes of prioritising areas for clearing in the Cape cluster parks. Higher-level criteria are divided into sub-criteria, and the basis for the comparisons.
Criterion
Weighting assigned
Sub-criterion
(%) Maintaining the gains
0.225
Legal obligations
0.183
Conservation value of land and rivers
0.269
(%) None Contractual land
NW
Irreplaceability
NW
Vegetation type threat status
NW
Species of special concern
NW
Species richness
NW
Corridors
NW
0.147
None
Landscape susceptibility to spread
0.069
None
Park boundary
0.057
None
Alignment with management plans
0.039
None
Protect heritage sites
0.039
Conservation Development Framework zones
Accessibility
0.033
0.029
0.015
Not weighted (NW)
Fire breaks
Post-fire clearing opportunities
Density of invasive alien plants
Weighting assigned
None Low density (<10%)
NW
Medium density
NW
High density >75%
NW
Remote wilderness
0.016
Remote
0.006
Quiet
0.003
Low intensity
0.001
High intensity
0.002
None
Page 26
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
4. DEVELOPMENT OF GENERIC CRITERIA The process of developing criteria for the parks that were covered in these workshops this past year has highlighted differences between them: •
Some fall within a single biomes, others multiple biomes; in some the biomes are similar and in others they are very different and require different management approaches;
•
Some have been parks for decades and the land inside them is all in good condition and relatively un-invaded;
•
Some include both state land and contracted private land; and
•
Some include areas that were, until recently, privately owned farmland and this land is sometimes degraded or invaded or both, sometimes severely so.
Despite this variety of environments and factors relating to invasions, there are a number of similarities between the different models. In this section we present two sets of generic criteria that could be applied in any of the parks or clusters of parks, one for species-based and the other for area-based criteria.
4.1 SPECIES CRITERIA A synthesis of the species criteria that were used in the different workshops is given in Table 16. Possible sources of data for pairwise comparisons are given Appendix 10. The criteria have been grouped using common themes under biodiversity patterns, biodiversity processes, ecosystem services and invasive plant factors which we regard as a logical grouping, and reasonable number that can easily be compared with each other. However, many of these factors were allocated very low weights in the workshops and will contribute very little to the final priorities. We recommend that the first step should be to get consensus among SANParks staff on which criteria are deemed to be really important and which can be excluded or combined.
Table 16: Descriptions of criteria and their subdivisions for the prioritization of invasive alien species that need to be controlled in South African national parks.
Criterion
Sub-criterion
Sub-sub-criterion
Basis for comparison
Impact on biodiversity: patterns
Impact on flora
Changes in vegetation composition
Compares species with regard to the degree to which each species will alter the composition of natural communities but not the structure; species with large impacts get high weights
Changes in vegetation structure/habitat
Compares species with regard to the degree to which they can alter the height, canopy cover, ground cover or other structural
Page 27
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Criterion
Sub-criterion
Sub-sub-criterion
Basis for comparison attributes affecting habitat suitability; weights proportional to impacts
Impact on fauna
Impact on species of special interest
Compares the relative ability of species to affect rare, threatened or otherwise special species; weights proportional to effects
Impact on management objectives
Compares how species may delay or prevent the execution of actions aimed at achieving management objectives (not IAP control) because of the requirement to carry out control measures prior to those actions; weights proportional to impacts
Changes in faunal composition
Compares the ability of invasive alien plant species to modify faunal composition; species with greater effects get higher weights
Displacement of fauna
Compares the ability of invasive alien plant species to change the habitat or other characteristics and compel species to move out; species with greater impacts get higher weights
Changes in forage/foraging
Compares how species’ change the availability of forage plants or other factors which affect foraging; weights proportional to impacts
Impact on animal wellbeing
Direct impacts on the health of the animals (e.g. toxic plants or cacti which adhere to their fur and injure them); species with impacts get higher weights
Impact on management objectives
Compares how species may delay or prevent the execution of actions aimed at achieving management objectives (not IAP control) because of the requirement to carry out control measures prior to those actions; weights proportional to impacts Compares species’ impact on the water flows and quality required to sustain the ecological reserve (and thus the aquatic ecosystems); includes ground and surface water systems; weights proportional to known or estimated water-use
Impact on the ecological reserve (water) Changes in the fire regime
The relative ability of species to alter vegetation fuel structure and thereby fire return periods or intensity or introduce fire to non-firedriven ecosystems; species with large impacts get high weights
Changes in fire behaviour
Compares the relative ability of species to alter fire behavior, notably rate of spread, intensity and severity; weights proportional to impacts
Impact on fire
Impact on biodiversity: processes
Changes in soil properties and processes
Compares species’ ability to have adverse impacts on soil fauna, decomposition and other processes including soil chemistry, soil fertility, nutrient cycling, allelopathy, and erosion potential; weights proportional to impacts
Changes in aquatic ecosystems
Compares species’ ability to change aquatic systems (applies to both terrestrial and aquatic invaders) and can affect water quality; weight based on impact
Changes in ecotone dynamics
Compares species’ ability to induce changes in the key transition zones between contrasting vegetation types (e.g. forest- fynbos or grassland, thicket-fynbos); weights proportional to impact
Changes in gap dynamics
Compares the influence of species on recovery after gap formation, particularly by dominating the regrowth; those that dominate get a high weight
Impact on pollination
Compares species’ ability to induce changes which affect pollinator behaviour and pollen transmission which affect plant seed production and recruitment; those affecting pollinators get a high weight
Impact on ecosystem services Impact on socioeconomic risk
Impact on regulatory services
Increase fire risk
Compares the ability of species to increase the risks fires pose to human assets including infrastructure, dwellings, livelihoods
Increase flood risk
Compares how species affect river flows in ways which increase flood risk (e.g. obstruct river beds); weight proportional to obstruction of flow
Increased security risk
Compares species ability to provide shelter for criminals and other people intent on robbing visitors; those providing shelter get a high weight
Impact on water quantity
Species’ able to induce changes in the flow regime which alter the quantity of water that can be made available for human use get a high weight
Impact on water quality
Some species are able to alter water quality which affect its suitability for human use (e.g. for domestic, industrial, livestock
Page 28
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Criterion
Sub-criterion
Sub-sub-criterion
Basis for comparison use) more than others; those with big impacts get a greater weight
Impact on choices and option values (future use) Negative impact on Impact on cultural tourism experience services Negative impact on the natural laboratory Legal implications (CARA/NEMBA)
Impact on production services
Invasive alien plant factors
Aggressiveness (ease of control) (these characteristics work together, species with all four are the most aggressive one and difficult to control)
Species’ able to alter the environment in ways which rule out the potential for deriving certain benefits and values get a higher weight Species that affect the tourist experience that would have been derived from the uninvaded environment get a higher weight Species that affect the ability of protected areas to offer many opportunities for research & education would get a higher weight Compares species in terms of the need to ensure that SANParks are meeting their legal obligations to control invasive species; species in CARA would be given a higher weight
Compares species with regard to the loss of benefits that were Lack of benefits derived being derived from invasive species before it was cleared; species from the species with benefits get a lower priority Impact on natural product harvesting
Compares species’ impacts on the sustainable yields of species which are harvested for natural products; species with high impacts get a high weight
Seed bank longevity
Long-lived seed banks enable species to accumulate large seed banks, persist and makes species more difficult to control than others; species with long-lived seed banks get a high weight
Vigorous growth
This enables some species to dominate and transform ecosystems more than others; transformers get a high weight
Dispersal potential (long-range)
Long-range dispersal enables some species to spread rapidly and occupy new areas as well as recolonise cleared areas more than others; long-range dispersal would get a high weight
High seed production (fecundity)
High fecundity enables many species to build up populations rapidly as well as benefit most from seed longevity and long-range dispersal; species with high fecundity would get a high weight
Effectiveness of biocontrol agents
Effective biological control can have a significant impact on plant growth and fecundity, reducing aggressiveness; so species with effective biocontrol would get a lower priority
Simple control method
Some species are technically simple to control and do not require complex treatments and long-term follow-up; species with simple control requirements would get a higher priority
Control methods
The weights per park and per management unit within parks would be based on the overall weight given to all the selected species in each model. The current distributions (from the park data or from the National Invasive Alien Plant Survey, Kotze et al. 2010) would be used. Each species current distribution GIS data layer (shape file or grid) would be assigned the overall weight for that species. The species weighted layers would be summed for each biome in each park. The results would be merged and the mean calculated for all the biomes in each park and management unit.
4.2 AREA CRITERIA A similar synthesis was done for the area-related criteria that were used in the models developed in each of the workshops (Table 17). At the park level, the outputs of the species-based model would be linked into the area-based model by using the overall priority developed for each species where species-related measures are used in the area-based model. For example, data on the extent of current invasions of priority species in different management units would be multiplied by the priorities (values between zero and one) taken from the species-based models for those species and divided by the total area of the current invasions in that unit to get a weighted priority for input into the area-based model. A similar process needs to be developed for establishing priorities for allocating the funds between parks.
Page 29
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Table 17: Descriptions of criteria and their subdivisions for the prioritization of areas or management units within parks where there are alien plant invasions.
Criterion
Sub Criteria
Sub-subcriterion
Basis for comparison
Water Reserves [Ground and Surface Water]
Relative importance of the area for replenishment of either ground or surface water reserves. These calculations could be done objectively, using data from rainfall, mean annual runoff and groundwater recharge (e.g. DWAF 2005; Middleton and Bailey 2008)
Landscape susceptibility to invasion by alien plants
The potential of areas to become invaded, driven by landscape features and attributes that make them more vulnerable to invasions (e.g. riparian zones, ridge tops for wind dispersed species) based on maps of relevant attributes derived from suitable data layers for the parks
The current and potential extent of invasion by alien plants
Current Invasions
The extent and density of the current alien plant invasions mapped for the park or from the National Invasive Alien Plant Survey (Kotze et al. 2010) or other sources
Potential Spread
The potential spread of IAP (future distributions vs remaining natural area, more relevant for quaternary catchments but could work for multi-biome parks like Addo; could use data from Rouget et al. (2004) and Mgidi et al. (2007)
Irreplaceability
Areas of vegetation or habitat that if lost cannot be replaced by other similar areas
Critical Biodiversity Areas Conservation Planning Status of Management Units (to be developed in consultation with Steven Holness of SANparks)
Ecological Support Areas
Threat Status
Biodiversity Value of Management Unit
Management Zonation (to be developed in consultation with Steven Holness of SANparks)
River/Wetland [Aquatic]
The biodiversity value of rivers/wetlands
Terrestrial
The biodiversity value of terrestrial areas
Rivers/Wetland [Aquatic]
Areas that are ecologically important to maintain the integrity of other areas - Aquatic
Terrestrial
Areas that are ecologically important to maintain the integrity of other areas
National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (Nel et al. in prep)
The degree that the ecological unit is threatened, expressed as a value of rarity - Aquatic
National vegetation types or park specific assessments
The degree that the ecological unit is threatened, expressed as a value of rarity - Aquatic
Species Richness
Areas that are particularly rich in fauna or flora based on park specific data and expert knowledge
Species of Special Concern [Fauna and Flora]
Areas that have records of Species of Special Concern [Fauna and Flora] based on park specific data and expert knowledge
Special Vegetation Types/Habitat
Special vegetation units that are at too fine a scale to be described at a National level or at a Park vegetation map level; based on park specific data and expert knowledge
Conservation Development Zones [SANParks]
One option is to assign values based on the impact of invasive species on the tourist experience as follows: Remote Wilderness =5; Remote = 4; Quiet = 3; Low Intensity = 2; High Intensity =1. Then calculate an area-weighted value.
Other Zonation
Firebreaks
All firebreaks, internal as well as external where not in Zonation Layer; area weighted proportion
Cultural Heritage Sites
Any registered cultural site with GPS coordinates or declared areas; area weighted proportion
Off-park Natural Areas
These are areas of special concern that fall beyond the buffer areas but have been identified as crucial to achieving the Parks biodiversity objectives; area weighted proportion
Park Buffer Zone
1,5 km buffer standard across all Parks; area weighted proportion
Page 30
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Contractual
Areas of land beyond the gazetted Park boundary but land that has been contracted into Park Management; area weighted proportion
5. CONCLUSIONS We have determined the criteria, sub-criteria and where necessary sub-sub-criteria together with their relative importance or weights for those criteria to prioritise the clearing of invasive alien plants in the parks that were assessed. We have developed sets of criteria for two generic models which must now be adapted and weighted to cover all parks, one for species and one for areas within individual parks. It is clear that certain parks have to deal with significant invasion problems and have not got adequate strategies for prioritising their operations, namely the Addo Elephant, Garden Route and Table Mountain National Parks. These parks need to get their prioritisations completed and implemented as soon as possible. It is apparent that there has been a strong focus on prioritization using species but from the workshops that criteria relating to the occurrence of invasive alien plant species have revived relatively low weights in the area prioritization models. The generic lists are lengthy and, based on the outputs form the workshops, many of these will contribute very little to the decision as they have low weights. We believe it would be useful to remove many of these criteria from the generic models.
6. NEXT STEPS The next steps are to: •
Finalise the generic lists of criteria for species and area-based prioritisation, with emphasis on the area-based criteria
•
Complete the development of weighted criteria for prioritisation for all the parks using the generic models, particularly those not yet included (Golden Gate, Tankwa, Namaqua and Richtersveld)
•
Complete the process of populating and implementing these generic models for the different parks with priority given to the Table Mountain, Addo Elephant and Garden Route National Parks
•
Develop an enhanced approach to the allocation of the funds between parks, or appropriate clusters of parks, at the national level based on the information gathered by this study. This should be based on the generic models and includes assessing the use of biomes and other factors in establishing national priorities
•
Assess the inclusion of buffer zones in parks, possibly with additional off-parks criteria
This work will be done in close collaboration with Nicholas Cole of SANParks Invasive Species Control Unit.
Page 31
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
7. REFERENCES Anonymous (2002) Expert Choice: Quick start guide and tutorials. Expert Choice Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America. Breytenbach, G.J. (1986) Alien control: can we afford to slash and burn Hakea sericea in fynbos ecosystems. South African Forestry Journal 151, 6-16. Chamier, J., Schachtschneider, K., Le Maitre, D.C., Ashton, P. and van Wilgen, B.W. (2011) Impacts of Invasive Alien Plants on Water Quality. Report number CSIR/NRE/ER/2011/0007/A, CSIR, Stellenbosch. DWAF (2005) Groundwater Resource Assessment. Phase II. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. Dye, P. and Jarmain, C. (2004) Water use by black wattle (Acacia mearnsii): implications for the link between removal of invading trees and catchment streamflow response. South African Journal of Science 100, 40–44. Gertenbach, W.P.D. (1983) Landscapes of the Kruger National Park. Koedoe 26, 9-121. Holmes P.M. & Richardson D. M. (1999) Protocols for restoration based on knowledge of recruitment dynamics, community structure and ecosystem function: perspectives from South African fynbos. Restoration Ecology 7, 215–31. Holmes, P.M., Macdonald, I.A.W. & Juritz, J. (1987) Effects of clearing treatment on seed banks of the alien invasive shrubs Acacia saligna and Acacia cyclops in the southern and southwestern Cape, South Africa. Journal of Applied Ecology 24, 1045–51. Kotzé, I., Beukes, H., van den Berg, E. and Newby, T. (2010) National Invasive Alien Plant Survey. Report No. GW/A/2010/21, Agricultural Research Council – Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria. Meininger, W. and Jarmain, C. (2009) Development of remote sensing tools for monitoring the hydrological benefits of the Working for Water Program. Report prepared for the Working for Water Programme, Working for Water, Cape Town. Mgidi, T.N., Le Maitre, D.C., Schonegevel, L., Nel, J.L., Rouget, M. and Richardson, D.M. (2007) Alien plant invasions – incorporating emerging invaders in regional prioritization: a pragmatic approach for southern Africa. Journal of Environmental Management 84, 173-187. Middleton, B.J. and Bailey, A.K. (eds) (2008) Water Resources Of South Africa, 2005 Study (WR2005). Report TT 380/08, Water Research Commission, Pretoria. Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M.C. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland., In Strelitzia. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Page 32
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Nel, J.L., Driver, A., Strydom, W., Maherry, A., Petersen, C., Roux, D.J., Nienaber, S., van Deventer, H., Smith-Adao, L.B. and Hill, L. (2011) Atlas of Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas in South Africa: Maps to support sustainable development of water resources. Atlas and accompanying data available from CSIR or WRC. Rahlao, S.J., Milton, S.J., Esler, K.J., van Wilgen, B.W. and Barnard, P. (2009) Effects of invasion of fire-free arid shrublands by a fire-promoting invasive alien grass Pennisetum setaceum in South Africa. Austral Ecology 34, 920–928. Raimondo, D., Von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C., Kamundi, D.A. and Manyama, P.A. (2009) Red List of South African plants 2009. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Rouget, M., Richardson, D.M., Nel, J.L., Le Maitre, D.C., Egoh, B. and Mgidi, T. (2004) Mapping the potential ranges of major plant invaders in South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland using climatic suitability. Diversity and Distributions 10, 475 – 484. Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 48, 9-26. Scott, D.F., Prinsloo, F.W. and Le Maitre, D.C. (2000) The role of invasive alien vegetation in the Cape Peninsula fires of January 2000. Report ENV-S-C 2000-039, Division of Water, Environment and Forestry Technology, CSIR, Stellenbosch. Shackleton, C. and Shackleton, S. (2004) The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: a review of evidence from South Africa. South African Journal of Science 100, 658-664. Shackleton, C.M., McGarry, D., Fourie, S., Gamiza, J., Shackleton, S.E. and Fabricius, C. (2007) Assessing the effects of invasive alien species on rural livelihoods: case examples and a framework from South Africa. Human Ecology 35, 113–127. Turpie, J.K. and Joubert, A.R. (2001) The tourism value of rivers in Kruger National Park and impacts of a change in river quality. Biol. Conserv. 27, 387-398. Van Wilgen, B.W. and Richardson, D.M. (1985) The effects of alien shrub invasions on vegetation structure and fire behaviour in South African fynbos shrublands: a simulation study. Journal of Applied Ecology 22, 955-966. van Wilgen, B.W., Forsyth, G.G. and Le Maitre, D.C. (2008) The prioritization of species and primary catchments for the purposes of guiding invasive alien plant control operations in the terrestrial biomes of South Africa. CSIR Report CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2008/0070/C van Wilgen, B.W., Le Maitre, D.C., Forsyth, G.G. and O’ Farrell, P.J. (2010) The prioritization of terrestrial biomes for the purposes of guiding invasive alien plant control operations in South Africa. CSIR Report CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2010/0004/B, CSIR Natural Resources and the Environment, Stellenbosch.
Page 33
Page 34
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
APPENDIX 1: GENERIC AGENDA FOR PARKS WORKSHOPS RANKING THE IMPORTANCE OF CRITERIA TO USE IN PRIORITISING OF INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT SPECIES IN SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL PARKS Welcome (09h00) Introduction: Aims of workshop and AHP methodology (09h15) Results of previous prioritisation studies (09h30) Agree on goal, criteria (objectives) and sub-criteria (sub-objectives) for prioritising IAP in cluster or park (10h00) 5. Tea (10h45 – 11h00) 6. Discuss current rankings of important invasive alien species in the relevant biomes (11h00) 7. Pairwise comparisons of criteria and sub-criteria (12h00) 8. Lunch (13h00 – 13h45) 9. Continuation of pairwise comparisons of criteria and sub-criteria (13h45) 10. Tea (15h00 – 15h15) 11. Discussion of results and way forward 12. Workshop ends at approximately 16h00 Enquiries: Nicholas Cole 083 556 2801 1. 2. 3. 4.
Page 35
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
APPENDIX 2: PARTICIPANTS IN THE MOIST SAVANNA EXPERT WORKSHOP Participants in the workshop held in the Game Capture Board Room at Skukuza on 10 August 2010 to determine criteria and rank these to use in prioritising the clearing of invasive alien plants in the Kruger National Park.
#
Name
Organisation
Telephone
1
Greg Forsyth
CSIR
021 888-2400 / 2609
2
David Le Maitre
CSIR
021 888-2400 / 2407
3
Andrew Wannenburgh
Working for Water
021 441-2738
4
Nicholas Cole
SANParks - ISCU
046 871-0058
5
Mavis Moyo
SANParks
012 426-5099
6
Llewellyn Foxcroft
SANParks Scientific Services
013 735-4125
7
Nick Zambatis
SANParks
013 735-4188
8
Constance Mafuwane
SANParks
013 735-4376
9
Evans Mkansi
SANParks
013 735-6610
10
Jealous Mclaka
SANParks
013 735-0154
11
Walter Mzimba
SANParks - ISCU
013 735-4376
12
Stefanie Ronaldson
SANParks Scientific Services
013 735-4192
13
Bonny Bridgeford
SANParks - ISCU
013 741-3724
14
Rina Grant
SANParks Scientific Services
013 735-44125
15
Zesulou Hlungwani
SANParks - ISCU
013 735-6549
16
Ezekiel Xhosa
SANParks
013 735-4114
Page 36
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
APPENDIX 3: PRIORITY INVASIVE ALIEN PLANTS IN MOIST SAVANNA PARKS The invasive alien plant taxa selected for prioritization in the Moist Savanna biome based on the species identified by van Wilgen, Forsyth and Le Maitre (2008; 2010). Grey shading indicates species that were excluded because they were not regarded as priorities in these parks; no species were added to the list. List of identified and discussed invasive alien plant species for the Moist Savanna Parks with their primary dispersal agents
Species
Life Form
Dispersal agent
Arundo donax (Giant reed)
Tall reed
Water
Caesalpinia decapetala (Mauritius thorn)
Thorny evergreen shrub
Mammals
Campuloclinium macrocephalum (Pom-pom weed)
Herb
Wind
Cereus jamacaru (Queen of the night)
Spiny succulent tree
Birds, mammals
Chromolaena odorata (Triffid weed)
Scrambling shrub
Wind
Eichhornia crassipes (Water hyacinth)
Aquatic emergent
Water
Lantana camara (Lantana)
Compact shrub
Birds, mammals
Melia azedarach (Persian lilac)
Deciduous tall tree
Birds, mammals
Opuntia stricta (with biocontrol)
Spiny succulent shrub
Birds, mammals
Opuntia spp (without control)
Spiny succulent shrub
Birds, mammals
Parthenium hysterophorus (Parthenium)
Annual herb
Wind
Psidium guajava (Guava)
Small evergreen tree
Birds, mammals
Ricinus communis (Castor oil)
Shrub
Water, mammals
Salvinia molesta (Kariba weed)
Aquatic emergent
Water, birds
Senna spp. (Peanut butter cassia and others)
Softly wooded shrubs
Birds, mammals
Sesbania punicea (Sesbania)
Small tree
Water, mammals
Tecoma stans (Yellow bells)
Shrub/scrambler
Wind
Tithonia diversifolia (Mexican poppy)
Shrub
Wind
Page 37
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
APPENDIX 4: PARTICIPANTS IN THE ADDO WORKSHOPS Participants in the workshop held at Addo on 24-25 August 2010 to determine criteria and rank these to use in prioritising the clearing of invasive alien plants in Addo and from the arid parks (Addo, Karoo, Camdeboo, Mountain Zebra, Kalahari Gemsbok, Mokala, Augrabies Falls, Richtersveld, Namaqualand, and Tankwa Karoo)
#
Name
Organisation
Telephone
1
Greg Forsyth
CSIR
021 888-2400 / 2609
2
David Le Maitre
CSIR
021 888-2400 / 2407
3
Andrew Wannenburgh
Working for Water
021 441-2738
4
Nicholas Cole
SANParks
044 871-0058
5
Marna Herbst
SANParks - Arid
053 832-5488
6
Bruce Taplin
SANParks
072 754-7656
7
Marius Peters
SANParks
078 439-8786
8
Hugo Bezuidenhout
SANParks
9
Megan McCarthy
SANParks
082 894-4422
10
John Adendorff
SANParks
082 908-4160
11
Angela Gaylard
SANParks
12
Fezile Dyosi
SANParks
13
Robyn Woods *
SANParks - Mountain Zebra
048 881-2427
14
Maryke Stern *
SANParks – Camdeboo /Karoo
049 892-6128
083 876-7061
* Only attended the second day
Page 38
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
APPENDIX 5: PRIORITY SPECIES FOR ADDO AND ARID PARKS The invasive alien plant taxa selected for prioritization in (a) Addo and (b) other arid parks based on the biomes they occur in and the initial biome lists developed by van Wilgen, Forsyth and Le Maitre, (2008; 2010). The two types of thicket and forest are quite different ecologically and have different suites of invaders. (a) Addo National Park (y = a priority; ? = uncertain about its status)
Nama Karoo
Thicket
Dune Thicket
Southern Coastal Forest
y
y
y
y
Acacia longifolia
?
y
Acacia mearnsii
y
y
Species Acacia cyclops
Acacia melanoxylon Agave sisalana
y
y y
y
y
y y
Bryophyllum delagoense
y
y y
Casuarina spp. Cereus jamacaru
Grassy Fynbos
y y
Anredera cordifolia Atriplex nummelaria
Southern Mist Belt Forest
y
y
y
Cylindropuntia tunicata
y
Echinopsis spachiana
y
y
Eucalyptus spp.
y
y
Jacaranda mimosifolia
y
Lantana camara
y
y
y
Melia azedarach
y
y
y
Nicotiana glauca
y
y
y
Opuntia aurantiaca
y
y
Opuntia ficus-indica & other species
y
y
Phytolacca dioica
y
y
y
y
y ?
y
Pinus spp.
y
Plectranthus comosus
y
y
y
y
Prosopis spp.
y
y
Robinia pseudoacacia Rubus fruticosus Schinus molle
y
y
Psidium guajava Ricinus communis
y
y y
y
Page 39
y y
y
y
y
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Southern Mist Belt Forest
Grassy Fynbos
Senna didymobotrya
y
y
Senna septemtrionalis
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Species
Nama Karoo
Thicket
Solanum mauritianum Tamarix spp.
Southern Coastal Forest
y
Tecoma stans Tephrocactus articulatus
Dune Thicket
y
Page 40
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
(b) Other arid parks. The Richtersveld National Park was not included in this assessment. A = all Karoo biomes, S = Succulent Karoo, N = Nama Karoo.
Park
Species
Karoo, Camdeboo, Mountain Zebra, Addo Nama Karoo section, Namaqualand, Tankwa
Kalahari, Mokala, Augrabies Falls
Nama & Succulent Karoo Parks
Arid Savanna Parks
Annual grasses (Bromus, Stipa, Hordeum)
S
Argemone mexicana (Mexican poppy)
A
y
Arundo donax (Giant reed)
A
y
Atriplex lindleyi (Sponge-fruit salt bush)
S
Atriplex nummularia (Old man's salt bush)
A
y
Cacti with effective bio-control agents (O. aurantiaca, imbricata, engelmannii, ficus-indica)
A
y
Cacti without effective bio-control agents (Tephrocactus articularis)
A
y
Casuarina equisetifolia (Beefwood)
A
Cylindropuntia fulgida & tunicata
N
y
Datura species
y
Echinopsis spachiana (Torch cactus)
y
Eucalyptus camaldulensis (Red river gum)
A
Melia azederach (Syringa)
y y
Myriophyllum spicatum (Spiked water-milfoil)
N
Nerium oleander (Oleander)
S
Nicotiana glauca (Wild tobacco)
y
Parkinsonia aculeata (Jerusalem thorn)
y
Pennisetum setaceum (Fountain grass)
S
Populus spp (Grey, Lombardy)
A
Prosopis spp (Mesquite)
A
y
Ricinus communis (Castor-oil plant)
y
Salix fragilis (Crack willow)
y
Salsola kali (Russian tumbleweed)
N
y
Schinus molle (Pepper tree)
A
y
Solanum elaeagnifolium (Satan’s bush)
A
y
Tamarix ramossissima (Tamarisk)
A
Xanthium spinosum (Boetebos)
A
Page 41
y
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
APPENDIX 6: PARTICIPANTS IN THE GARDEN ROUTE WORKSHOP Participants in the workshop held at SANParks’ Royal Hotel Offices in Knysna on 31 August 2010 to determine criteria and rank these to use in prioritising the clearing of invasive alien plants the Garden Route National Park
#
Name
Organisation
Telephone
1
Greg Forsyth
CSIR
021 888-2400 / 2609
2
David Le Maitre
CSIR
021 888-2400 / 2407
3
Andrew Wannenburgh
Working for Water
021 441-2738
4
Andrew Brown
Garden Route Imitative
082 904-0787
5
Nicholas Cole
SANParks
083 556-2801
6
Carel van der Merwe
SANParks
082 809-1956
7
Tineke Kraaij
SANParks – Scientific Services
044 343-1302
8
Johan Baard
SANParks – Scientific Services
044 302-5608
9
Wessel Vermeulen
SANParks – Scientific Services
082 804-2855
10
Waldo Erfmann
SANParks - ISCU
083 807-6579
11
N.C. Havenga
SANParks - Diepwalle
082 807-5652
12
N.Euginia Bizani
SANParks - Tsitsikamma
082 908-3226
13
Lizette Moolman
SANParks
14
Len du Plessis
SANParks – Garden Route
044 302-5600
15
Jonathan Britton
SANParks – Garden Route
044 356-9019
16
Nellie Grootendorst
SANParks – Garden Route
044 877-0046
17
Khathutshelo Nelukalo
SANParks – Garden Route
044 382-2095
18
Bruce Halana
SANParks
044 356-9021
19
Owen Govender
SANParks - Tsitsikamma
044 531-6792
20
Carol Whitcher
SANParks - Tsitsikamma
042 281-1557
21
Henry Cunningham
SANParks - Tsitsikamma
042 281-1557
22
Dominique du Toit
SANParks – Wilderness
044 389-0126
Page 42
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
APPENDIX 7: PRIORITY SPECIES FOR THE GARDEN ROUTE NATIONAL PARK The invasive alien plant taxa selected for prioritization in the Garden Route National Park other arid parks based on the biomes they occur in and the initial biome lists developed by van Wilgen, Forsyth and Le Maitre, (2008; 2010). Species identified for the Fynbos biome in the park. Those indicated in bold are existing major weeds while those underlined are emerging as major weeds in the area.
Species
Life form
Current or future threat?
Acacia cyclops (Rooikrans)
Medium evergreen tree
Both
Acacia elata (Pepper acacia)
Tall tree
Future
Acacia longifolia (Long-leaved wattle)
Medium evergreen tree
Both
Acacia mearnsii (Black wattle)
Medium evergreen tree
Both
Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood)
Tall evergreen tree
Both
Acacia saligna (Port Jackson willow)
Medium evergreen tree
Both
Acacia pycnantha (Golden wattle)
Medium evergreen tree
Both
Arundo donax (Giant reed)
Tall reed
Both
Cortaderia selloana (Pampas grass)
Tall evergreen grass
Present
Eucalyptus camaldulensis (Red river gum)
Tall evergreen tree
Both
Eucalyptus cladocalyx (Sugar gum)
Tall evergreen tree
Both
Eucalyptus lehmannii (Spider gum)
Medium evergreen tree
Future
Eucalyptus diversicolor (Karri)
Large tall tree
Hakea drupacea (Sweet hakea)
Tall evergreen shrub
Both
Hakea gibbosa (Rock hakea)
Tall evergreen shrub
Present
Hakea sericea (Silky hakea)
Tall evergreen shrub
Both
Lantana camara (Lantana)
Shrub
Present
Leptospermum laevigatum (Australian myrtle)
Medium evergreen tree
Both
Paraserianthes lophantha (Stink bean)
Medium evergreen tree
Both
Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu grass)
Perennial grass
Present
Pines (Pinus pinaster and Pinus radiata)
Tall evergreen coniferous trees
Both
Pennisetum setaceum (Fountain grass)
Tufted perennial grass
Future
Populus canescens (Grey poplar)
Tall deciduous tree
Present
Rubus fruticosus (European blackberry)
Thorny shrub
Both
Solanum mauritianum (Bugweed)
Small tree
Present
Hakea salicifolia (Willow hakea)
Page 43
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Species identified for the Forest biome in the park including those found in ecotones and forest margins. Those indicated in bold are existing major weeds while those underlined are emerging as major weeds in the area.
Species Acacia elata (Pepper wattle) Acacia mearnsii (Black wattle) Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood) Anredera cordifolia (Madiera vine)
Life form
Current or future Occurrence and notes threat?
Tall evergreen tree
Both
Ecotone
Medium evergreen tree
Both
Ecotone / Streams / Gaps
Tall evergreen tree
Both
Inside and ecotone / rivers
Climber
Old settlements homesteads
Cestrum laevigatum (Ink berry)
Shrub
Old internal firebelts
Cortaderia selloana (Pampas grass)
Grass
Transitional areas (Forest margins, urban edge, park boundaries, plantation edges)
Cyathea cooperi (Australian Tree Fern) Eucalyptus diversicolor (Karri) Eriobotrya japonica (Loquat) Ipomoea indica (Morning glory)
Fern
Inside / road sides Transitional areas (Forest margins, urban edge, park boundaries, plantation edges)
Tall evergreen tree Small tree
Old homesteads
Climber
Both
Shrub
Present
Fern
Both/Future
Paraserianthes lophantha (Stink bean
Medium evergreen tree
Both
Passiflora mollissima (Banana poka)
Climber
Future
Pereskia aculeata (Barbados gooseberry)
Climber
Both
Lantana camara (Lantana) Nephrolepis exaltata (Sword fern)
Phytolacca octandra (Ink berry) Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet pittosporum) Plectranthus comosus (Woolly plectranthus) Rubus cuneifolius (American bramble) Rubus fruticosus (European blackberry)
Ecotone - very little Very little / urban interface
Inside - canopy Inside
Shrub Medium evergreen tree
Future
Shrub
Old settlements
Sprawling shrub
Present
Thorny shrub
Both
Ecotone Inside Transitional areas (Forest margins, urban edge, park boundaries, plantation edges)
Senna species (Peanut butter cassia and others)
Shrub
Solanum mauritianum (Bugweed)
Small tree
Solanum pseudocapsicum (Jerusalem cherry)
Urban interface
Shrub
Page 44
Present
Disturbed areas inside forest / ecotone / road sides
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
APPENDIX 8: PARTICIPANTS IN THE WESTERN CAPE PARKS WORKSHOP Participants in the workshop held at the Tokai Research Centre, Table Mountain National Park on 7 September 2010 to determine criteria and rank these to use in prioritising the clearing of invasive alien plants in the Western Cape parks
#
Name
Organisation
Telephone
1
Greg Forsyth
CSIR
021 888-2400 / 2609
2
David Le Maitre
CSIR
021 888-2400 / 2407
3
Andrew Wannenburgh
Working for Water
021 441-2738
4
Nicholas Cole
SANParks
083 556-2801
5
Patrick Marsh
SANParks
082 809-2250
6
Godiragetse Pitseng
SANParks - ISCU
021 713-1542
7
Nicola van Wilgen
SANParks - CRC
021 713-7513
8
Dian Spear
CIB – Stellenbosch University
021 808-3403
9
Tony Rebelo
SANBI
10
Paddy Gordon
SANParks - TMNP
11
Jason de Smidt
TMNP - ISCU
12
Carlo de Kock
Cape Cluster
13
Thys Ahrends
SANParks
14
Jaclyn Smith
SANParks - TMNP
15
Alfred Nemahlinguyi
SANParks - TMNP
16
Justin Buchmann
SANParks - TMNP
17
Ettienne Fourie
SANParks – Agulhas NP
18
Patrick O’ Farrell
CSIR
19
Hlengiwe Mbatha
CSIR
20
Ilse Kotzee
CSIR
Page 45
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
APPENDIX 9: PRIORITY SPECIES FOR THE WESTERN CAPE CLUSTER The invasive alien plant taxa selected for prioritization in Western Cape based on the initial biome lists developed by van Wilgen, Forsyth and Le Maitre, (2008; 2010). Shaded cells indicate invasive alien plants that are a high priority for those national parks, y = present, n = absent Cape Peninsula
Agulhas
West Coast
Bontebok
seeds
y
y
n
Acacia longifolia (Long-leaved wattle)
y
y
y
n
Acacia mearnsii (Black wattle)
y
y
n
y
Acacia melanoxylon (blackwood)
y
n
n
n
Acacia paradoxa (kangaroo wattle)
y
y
n
n
Acacia saligna (Port Jackson willow)
y
y
y
y
Acacia pycnantha (Golden wattle)
y
y
n
n
Arundo donax (Giant reed)
y
y
?
y
Cortaderia selloana (Pampas grass)
y
n
n
n
Eichhornia crassipes (Water hyacinth)
n
n
n
y
Eucalyptus camaldulensis (Red river gum)
y
n
n
y
Eucalyptus cladocalyx (sugar gum)
y
y
n
n
Eucalyptus lehmannii (Spider gum)
y
y
y
n
Hakea drupacea (Sweet hakea)
y
y
n
n
Hakea gibbosa (Rock hakea)
y
y
n
n
Hakea sericea (Silky hakea)
y
y
n
y
Lantana camara (Lantana)
y
y
n
y
Leptospermum laevigatum (Australian myrtle)
y
y
y
n
Myoporum tenuifolium (Manatoka)
y
y
y
n
Opuntia ficus-indica (and species)
y
y
y
y
Paraserianthes lophantha (Stink bean)
y
y
n
n
Passiflora subpeltata (Granadilla)
y
n
n
y
Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu grass)
y
y
y
y
Species Acacia cyclops (Rooikrans)
Page 46
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Cape Peninsula
Agulhas
West Coast
Bontebok
Pines (Pinus halepensis, Aleppo pine; Pinus pinaster, cluster pine; and Pinus radiata, Monterey pine).
y
y
y
n
Pennisetum setaceum (Fountain grass)
y
?
y
y
Phytolacca dioica (Ink berry)
y
y
n
y
Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet pittosporum)
y
n
n
n
Populus canescens (Grey poplar)
y
y
y
n
Rubus fruticosus (European blackberry)
y
y
n
y
Sesbania punicea (Red sesbania)
n
n
n
y
Solanum mauritianum (Bugweed)
y
n
n
n
Spartium junceum (Spanish broom)
y
n
y
n
Species
Page 47
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
APPENDIX 10: DATA SOURCES AND APPROACHES FOR WEIGHTING SPECIES-BASED MODELS Data sources and approaches to generating the weights for each species for each of the sub- or sub-sub-criteria for the species model for each biome. The weights would be based on expert opinion except where quantitative data were available. The greatest weight would be given to the species with the greatest impact unless otherwise indicated.
Description
Data sources and calculations
Impact on biodiversity: patterns – flora
Changes in vegetation composition
The list of priority species for the biome/park would be compared with respect to their relative impacts on plant species composition. There are few data sources to support such comparisons, which would have to be based largely on expert opinion
Changes in vegetation structure/habitat
The priority species would be given weights based on their effects on vegetation structure and or habitat suitability; this would be based on expert opinion
Impact on species of special interest
As above, weights based on their effects on special species; this would have to be based on expert knowledge and threat data from the Red Data Book (Raimondo et al. 2009)
Impact on management objectives
As above, weights based on their effects on the achievement other management objectives (e.g. use of prescribed fire in fynbos); this would be based on the manager’s knowledge of the species
Impact on biodiversity: patterns – fauna (terrestrial and aquatic)
Changes in faunal composition
As above, weights based on their effects on species composition of fauna derived from expert opinion
Displacement of fauna
As above, weights based on their ability to displace fauna (e.g. preventing access, spines) based on expert opinion
Changes in forage/foraging
As above, weights based on their effects on the availability of forage plants or other factors which affect foraging; based on expert opinion but being researched at present
Impact on animal well-being
As above, weights based on their direct impacts on the health of the animals (e.g. toxic plants or cacti which adhere to their fur and injure them); based on plant attributes (e.g. thorns) and expert knowledge
Impact on management objectives
As above, weights based on their effects on the achievement other management objectives (e.g. populations or population dynamics of fauna) and derived from the manager’s knowledge
Impact on biodiversity: processes
Impact on the ecological reserve (water)
above, weights based on the species’ effects on the mean annual runoff or the groundwater recharge or availability; based on research to date (e.g. Dye and Jarmain 2004; Meininger and Jarmain 2009) and expert knowledge (see the area model for data sources for water)
Changes in the fire regime
As above, weights based on their effects on the fire regime (i.e. rapid accumulation of fuel decreases recurrence intervals, including introducing fires to non-fire prone
Page 48
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Description
Data sources and calculations
systems; based on limited data (Van Wilgen and Richardson 1985; Rahlao et al. 2009), expert opinion and managers knowledge
Changes in fire behaviour
As above, weights based on their effects on the ecological effects of the increased fire intensity and/or severity; based on limited data (Van Wilgen and Richardson 1985; Breytenbach 1986; Scott et al. 2000), expert opinion and manager’s knowledge
Changes in soil properties and processes
As above, weights based on their effects on soil properties and processes derived from the literature and expert knowledge; species with impacts on multiple factors will get the highest score
Changes in aquatic ecosystems
As above, weights based on their effects on aquatic ecosystems (biodiversity processes) derived from expert opinion
Changes in ecotone dynamics
As above, weights based on their effects on ecotonal environments; species which do not specialise in ecotones would get a low weight; derived from expert and manager knowledge
Changes in gap dynamics in forests
As above, weights based on their ability to disperse to and dominate forest gap regeneration (e.g. bugweed would typically get a high weight); based on plant traits and expert knowledge
Impact on pollination
As above, weights based on their effects on pollinators and pollination systems derived from expert opinion
Impact on ecosystem services
Impact on fire risk
As above, weights based on their ability to increase the risk of fire damage to human assets (e.g. rate of spread and intensity); based on expert and manager knowledge and experience
Impact on flood risk
As above, weights based on their ability to increase the risk of flood damage to human assets (e.g. clogging river systems); based on expert knowledge
Increased security risk
As above, weights based on their ability to for dense thickets which can hide people who have malicious intentions; based on expert knowledge
Impact on water quantity
As above, weights based on their ability to decrease the availability of water for human use (surface and groundwater); based on research to date (e.g. Dye and Jarmain 2004; Meininger and Jarmain 2009) and expert knowledge
Impact on water quality
As above, weights based on their ability to decrease the suitability of water for human use (surface and groundwater); based on literature (Chamier et al. 2011) and expert knowledge
As above, weights based on their impacts on future uses of an area (i.e. extensive Impact on choices and option values and densely invaded areas may only recover their full wilderness value in the long(future use) term if ever); based on expert knowledge
Impact on tourism experience
As above, weights based on their adverse effects on the tourist’s experience of the park environment (e.g. aesthetics, viewing opportunities); based on limited data (Turpie and Joubert 2009) and expert knowledge; some research underway
Impact on the natural laboratory
As above, weights based on their adverse effects on the research and educational value of the equivalent, uninvaded environment; based on expert knowledge
Legal implications (CARA/NEMBA)
As above, weights based on their legal status under the relevant regulations (these weights must still be determined); all declared species must be reduced to maintenance levels or eradicated in national parks
Lack of benefits derived from the species
As above, weights the inverse of their value to people (species with high value get a low weight) derived from the literature (e.g. Shackleton et al. 2007) and expert knowledge
Page 49
Prioritising national parks for the management of invasive alien plants: report on the development of models to prioritise invasive alien plant control operations
Description
Data sources and calculations
As above, weights based on their impacts on the sustainable yields of harvestable Impact on natural product harvesting products; derived from the literature (e.g. Shackleton and Shackleton 2004; Shackleton et al. 2007) and expert knowledge
Seed bank longevity
As above, weights based on the longevity of their seed banks once the mature plants (the seed sources) are removed; derived from the literature (e.g. Holmes and Richardson 1999) and expert knowledge (e.g. Acacia mearnsii - high weight, pines – low weight)
Vigorous growth
As above, weights based on their relative growth rates (rapid growth – high weight); based on expert knowledge
Dispersal potential (long-range)
As above, weights based on their seed dominant dispersal mode (wind, water, vertebrate (bird), ants, none); based on plant traits and expert knowledge
Seed production (fecundity)
As above, weights based on the number of seeds a mature stand produces per year; based on plants traits and expert knowledge
Effectiveness of biocontrol agents
As above, weights based on how effective their biological control agents are (a rating is available for most species from the PPRI); rating table available from the Plant Protection Research Institute
Simple control method
As above, weights would be based on how simple, technically speaking) a species is to control; a high weight would be given to species which only require basic mechanical control (e.g. fell and burn like pines); based on manager’s knowledge
Potential extent
The proportion of a park which can be invaded by the listed species based on data from Rouget et al. (2004) and Mgidi et al. (2007) further research in progress; each species has a weight of one and the priority goes to where the most species will cooccur. In practice this would be the sum of the potential distribution maps averaged per park or management unit
Page 50
![[PDF BOOK] Geology of National Parks (Student ...](https://p.pdfkul.com/img/300x300/pdf-book-geology-of-national-parks-student-_5a0248c01723ddd52c992665.jpg)
