DOCSLIB.ORG

Invasive Species Management Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Department of Agriculture Invasive Species Management Environmental Assessment Forest Service MAY 2011 Shawnee National Forest Alexander, Gallatin, Hardin, Jackson, Johnson, Massac, Pope, Saline, Union and Williamson Counties, Illinois Responsible Official: Hurston A. Nicholas, Forest Supervisor Contact Person: Matthew Lechner, Natural Resources Program Manager Shawnee National Forest Supervisor’s Office 50 Highway 145 South, Harrisburg, IL 62946 (618) 253-7114, Fax (618) 253-1060 [email protected] This document and supporting documents can be found on our website: http://fs.usda.gov/goto/shawnee 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action ........................................ 3 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of and Need for Action ....................................................................................................... 6 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................... 6 Decision Framework ........................................................................................................................ 7 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................... 7 Issues .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Chapter 2 – Alternatives ....................................................................... 8 Common to All Alternatives: Prevention and Education .................................................................... 8 Alternative 1 – No Action .................................................................................................................. 8 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ....................................................................................................... 9 Herbicide Treatments…………………………………………………………………………………..…..11 Alternative 3 – Four-Point Treatment Action without Synthetic Herbicides...................................... 12 Actions Common to the Action Alternatives .................................................................................... 15 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study……………………………………………………………..18 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 18 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ....................... 19 Human Health and Safety .............................................................................................................. 22 Botanical Resources ...................................................................................................................... 27 Watershed Resources .................................................................................................................... 35 Wildlife Resources ......................................................................................................................... 40 Wilderness Resources ................................................................................................................... 45 Heritage Resources ....................................................................................................................... 46 Disclosures .................................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix – Response to Comments ......................................................................... 50 References .......................................................................................................... 86 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720- 5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2 Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable federal and state laws and regulations. It discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental effects expected to result from the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The document is organized into three parts: Chapter One. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action: This section includes information on the purpose of and need for the project and our proposal for achieving that purpose and need. Chapter Two. Alternatives: This section provides a description of the proposed action and the alternatives that were developed based on issues raised during scoping. Chapter Three. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section describes the effects of implementing the proposed action and the alternatives. Additional documentation, including working papers with detailed analyses of project-area resources, maps of the areas with invasive species proposed for treatment, modeling, data and scientific references, is filed in the project record, located at the Shawnee National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 50 Highway 145 South, Harrisburg, Illinois. Background Invasive species problem: The Shawnee National Forest (Forest) has numerous and abundant populations of invasive plant species that pose an increasingly serious threat to plant and animal community health and diversity. Our employment of integrated pest-management principles—Setting Action Thresholds, Identifying and Monitoring Pests, Prevention, and Control—for the prevention/ eradication of invasive species has lacked all the tools available for responsible control. Prevention measures have been inadequate to stop the spread of the most invasive species. We have tried mechanical and manual control methods with varying degrees of minimal success. As we see many areas of the Forest infested and overcome by invasives and recognize the potential loss of biodiversity caused by their establishment, we know the “action threshold” has been crossed. Invasive species can have serious adverse impacts in unique habitats such as barrens and seep- springs. These trees, shrubs and vines can thrive in areas where they would be kept out by fire. These species can take up space that could be used by other native species and even cause springs to go dry by de-watering the fragile ecosystems. Non-native invasive plant species, displaced from their original ranges, often lack natural controls like disease, predators, parasites, or climate. They tend to out-compete and eventually replace native species. Not only do non-native invasive species compete with natives for resources, they can cause the loss of habitat and food for wildlife, alter soil structure and chemistry, modify fire regimes, alter plant succession, hybridize with natives to compromise local genetic diversity, and replace and possibly lead to the local extirpation of native plant species, including threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Field surveys and inventories of invasive species have been conducted in designated natural areas on the Forest for over 20 years and locations of non-native invasive species on the Forest have been recorded for decades. In 2004, we entered into a cooperative agreement with Southern Illinois University to develop a systematic database of existing inventory records of invasive species sites on the Forest. Over 1600 sites of non-native invasive species infestation have been identified, involving over 65 different species. Database management being a continuous effort, inventory information as of January, 2010 has been used for this analysis. These data are the best available scientific information regarding the type and extent of invasive species on the Forest. 3 Although over 65 non-native invasive species are currently found on the Forest, a few are highly invasive and pose a measurably greater threat to natural resources. The project interdisciplinary team identified four species that pose an increasingly serious threat to rare species or communities on the Forest. These four species had been mapped and categorized as highly invasive during past field surveys: Amur honeysuckle, Chinese yam, garlic mustard and kudzu (Figure 1). This determination was based on published scientific information, consultation with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and other resource experts, and/or field observations of current conditions on the Forest. These four species have characteristics that permit them to rapidly invade and dominate new areas and out-compete other vegetation for light, moisture and nutrients. Garlic mustard Kudzu Chinese yam Amur honeysuckle Figure 1. Examples of invasive species infestations in southern Illinois.
Recommended publications
  • A Compilation and Analysis of Food Plants Utilization of Sri Lankan Butterfly Larvae (Papilionoidea)

    A Compilation and Analysis of Food Plants Utilization of Sri Lankan Butterfly Larvae (Papilionoidea)

    MAJOR ARTICLE TAPROBANICA, ISSN 1800–427X. August, 2014. Vol. 06, No. 02: pp. 110–131, pls. 12, 13. © Research Center for Climate Change, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia & Taprobanica Private Limited, Homagama, Sri Lanka http://www.sljol.info/index.php/tapro A COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF FOOD PLANTS UTILIZATION OF SRI LANKAN BUTTERFLY LARVAE (PAPILIONOIDEA) Section Editors: Jeffrey Miller & James L. Reveal Submitted: 08 Dec. 2013, Accepted: 15 Mar. 2014 H. D. Jayasinghe1,2, S. S. Rajapaksha1, C. de Alwis1 1Butterfly Conservation Society of Sri Lanka, 762/A, Yatihena, Malwana, Sri Lanka 2 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Larval food plants (LFPs) of Sri Lankan butterflies are poorly documented in the historical literature and there is a great need to identify LFPs in conservation perspectives. Therefore, the current study was designed and carried out during the past decade. A list of LFPs for 207 butterfly species (Super family Papilionoidea) of Sri Lanka is presented based on local studies and includes 785 plant-butterfly combinations and 480 plant species. Many of these combinations are reported for the first time in Sri Lanka. The impact of introducing new plants on the dynamics of abundance and distribution of butterflies, the possibility of butterflies being pests on crops, and observations of LFPs of rare butterfly species, are discussed. This information is crucial for the conservation management of the butterfly fauna in Sri Lanka. Key words: conservation, crops, larval food plants (LFPs), pests, plant-butterfly combination. Introduction Butterflies go through complete metamorphosis 1949). As all herbivorous insects show some and have two stages of food consumtion.
  • Success of Seeding Native Compared with Introduced Perennial Vegetation for Revegetating Medusahead-Invaded Sagebrush Rangeland

    Success of Seeding Native Compared with Introduced Perennial Vegetation for Revegetating Medusahead-Invaded Sagebrush Rangeland

    Success of Seeding Native Compared with Introduced Perennial Vegetation for Revegetating Medusahead-Invaded Sagebrush Rangeland Davies, K. W., Boyd, C. S., Johnson, D. D., Nafus, A. M., & Madsen, M. D. (2015). Success of seeding native compared with introduced perennial vegetation for revegetating medusahead-invaded sagebrush rangeland. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 68(3), 224-230. doi:10.1016/j.rama.2015.03.004 0.1016/j.rama.2015.03.004 Elsevier Version of Record http://cdss.library.oregonstate.edu/sa-termsofuse Rangeland Ecology & Management 68 (2015) 224–230 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Rangeland Ecology & Management journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rama Success of Seeding Native Compared with Introduced Perennial Vegetation for Revegetating Medusahead-Invaded Sagebrush Rangeland☆,☆☆ K.W. Davies a,⁎,C.S.Boyda,D.D.Johnsonb,A.M.Nafusc,M.D.Madsend a Rangeland Scientists, USDA—Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR 97720, USA 1 b Associate Professor, Oregon State University, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR 97720, USA c Research Associate, Oregon State University, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR 97720, USA d Ecologist, USDA—Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR 97720, USA 1 article info abstract Article history: Millions of hectares of Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. subsp. wyomingensis Beetle Received 16 October 2014 &Young) rangeland have been invaded by medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae [L.] Nevski), an exot- Accepted 2 March 2015 ic annual grass that degrades wildlife habitat, reduces forage production, and decreases biodiversity. Reveg- etation of medusahead-invaded sagebrush plant communities is necessary to restore ecosystem services.
  • Guide to Native Plants

    Guide to Native Plants

    - AA GUIDEGUIDE TOTO THETHE NATIVENATIVE PLANTS,PLANTS, NATURALNATURAL PLANTPLANT COMMUNITIESCOMMUNITIES ANDAND THETHE EXOTICEXOTIC ANDAND INVASIVEINVASIVE SPECIESSPECIES OFOF EASTEAST HAMPTONHAMPTON TOWNTOWN EAST HAMPTON TOWN Natural Resources Department TableTable ofof Contents:Contents: Spotted Beebalm (Monarda punctata) Narrative: Pages 1-17 Quick Reference Max Clearing Table: Page 18 Map: East Hampton Native Plant Habitats Map TABS: East Hampton Plant Habitats (1-12); Wetlands flora (13-15): 1. Outer Dunes Plant Spacing 2. Bay Bluffs 3. Amagansett Inner Dunes (AID) 4. Tidal Marsh (TM) Table: A 5. Montauk Mesic Forest (MMF) 6. Montauk Moorland (MM) guideline for the 7. North of Moraine Coastal Deciduous (NMCD) 8. Morainal Deciduous (MD) 9. Pine Barrens or Pitch Pine Oak Forest (PB) (PPO) number of 10. Montauk Grasslands (MG) 11. Northwest Woods (NWW) plants needed 12. Old Fields 13. Freshwater Wetlands 14. Brackish Wetlands and Buffer for an area: 15. East Hampton Wetland Flora by Type Page 19 Native Plants-Resistance to Deer Damage: Pages 20-21 Local Native Plant Landscapers, Arborists, Native Plant Growers and Suppliers: Pages 22-23 Exotic and Invasive Species: Pages 24-33 Native Wildflower Pictures: Pages 34-45 Samdplain Gerardia (Agalinas acuta) Introduction to our native landscape What is a native plant? Native plants are plants that are indigenous to a particular area or region. In North America we are referring to the flora that existed in an area or region before European settlement. Native plants occur within specific plant communities that vary in species composition depending on the habitat in which they are found. A few examples of habitats are tidal wetlands, woodlands, meadows and dunelands.
  • Evaluating and Mitigating Introduction of Marine Non-Native Species Via Vessel Biofouling

    Evaluating and Mitigating Introduction of Marine Non-Native Species Via Vessel Biofouling

    ICES AD HOC REPORT 2019 ICES Viewpoint background document: Evaluating and mitigating introduction of marine non-native species via vessel biofouling Editors Bella S. Galil ● Cynthia McKenzie Authors Bella S. Galil ● Cynthia McKenzie ● Sarah Bailey Marnie Campbell ● Ian Davidson ● Lisa Drake ● Chad Hewitt Anna Occhipinti-Ambrogi ● Richard Piola International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: Galil, B.S., McKenzie, C., Bailey, S., Campbell M., Davidson, I., Drake, L., Hewitt, C., Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A., and Piola, R. 2019. ICES Viewpoint background document: Evaluating and mitigating introduction of marine non-native species via vessel bio- fouling. ICES Ad Hoc Report 2019. 17 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4680 For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the mate- rial in this report may be reused using the recommended citation. ICES may only grant usage rights of information, data, images, graphs, etc. of which it has ownership. For other third-party material cited in this report, you must contact the original copyright holder for permission. For citation of datasets or use of data to be included in other databases, please refer to the latest ICES data policy on the ICES website. All extracts must be acknowledged. For other reproduction requests please contact the General Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council.
  • State Natural Area Management Plan

    State Natural Area Management Plan

    OLD FOREST STATE NATURAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM APRIL 2015 Prepared by: Allan J. Trently West Tennessee Stewardship Ecologist Natural Areas Program Division of Natural Areas Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 2nd Floor Nashville, TN 37243 TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 A. Guiding Principles .................................................................................................. 1 B. Significance............................................................................................................. 1 C. Management Authority ........................................................................................... 2 II DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 3 A. Statutes, Rules, and Regulations ............................................................................. 3 B. Project History Summary ........................................................................................ 3 C. Natural Resource Assessment ................................................................................. 3 1. Description of the Area ....................................................................... 3 2. Description of Threats .......................................................................
  • Fuller’S Leadership and Over- Vincent of the Refuge Staff Are Notable for Having Sight Were Invaluable

    Fuller’S Leadership and Over- Vincent of the Refuge Staff Are Notable for Having Sight Were Invaluable

    Acknowledgments Acknowledgments Many people have contributed to this plan over many detailed and technical requirements of sub- the last seven years. Several key staff positions, missions to the Service, the Environmental Protec- including mine, have been filled by different people tion Agency, and the Federal Register. Jon during the planning period. Tom Palmer and Neil Kauffeld’s and Nita Fuller’s leadership and over- Vincent of the Refuge staff are notable for having sight were invaluable. We benefited from close col- been active in the planning for the entire extent. laboration and cooperation with staff of the Illinois Tom and Neil kept the details straight and the rest Department of Natural Resources. Their staff par- of us on track throughout. Mike Brown joined the ticipated from the early days of scoping through staff in the midst of the process and contributed new reviews and re-writes. We appreciate their persis- insights, analysis, and enthusiasm that kept us mov- tence, professional expertise, and commitment to ing forward. Beth Kerley and John Magera pro- our natural resources. Finally, we value the tremen- vided valuable input on the industrial and public use dous involvement of citizens throughout the plan- aspects of the plan. Although this is a refuge plan, ning process. We heard from visitors to the Refuge we received notable support from our regional office and from people who care about the Refuge without planning staff. John Schomaker provided excep- ever having visited. Their input demonstrated a tional service coordinating among the multiple level of caring and thought that constantly interests and requirements within the Service.
  • Leersia Virginica Plant Guide

    Leersia Virginica Plant Guide

    Plant Guide Wildlife: The caterpillars of the butterfly Enodia WHITEGRASS anthedon (Northern Pearly Eye) feed on the foliage of whitegrass. Aside from this, little is known about floral- Leersia virginica Willd. faunal relationships for this species. Plant Symbol = LEVI2 Status Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Contributed by: USDA NRCS Plant Materials Center, Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s current Alderson, West Virginia status (e.g., threatened or endangered species, state noxious status, and wetland indicator values). USDA Native Status: L48 (N), CAN (N). Description General: Grass Family (Poaceae) Whitegrass is a perennial grass that is native to eastern North America. It is 1 – 3 feet tall, branching occasionally; it is erect to spawling and flowers from July to October. Whitegrass is a good example of the kinds of grasses that grow in wooded areas. Such grasses usually have delicate tin- textured foliage and their panicles or racemes are slender and lanky with small spikelets. As a general rule, they are not very showy. Whitegrass is fairly easy to identify because its spikelets are appressed together to form a single row along the upper half of each branchlet. Each spikelet is single-flowered, oblongoid, and often ciliate along the margins of its lemma. Each floret of whitegrass produces only 2 anthers; this is unusual, because most grasses produce 3 anthers per floret. It is easily confused with the non-native and invasive Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum). Whitegrass may be distinguished from Japanese stilt grass by its lack of a prominent shiny leaf midvein. It has a short life span relative to most other plant species and a moderate growth rate.
  • Plant Production--Root Vegetables--Yams Yams

    Plant Production--Root Vegetables--Yams Yams

    AU.ENCI FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVILOPME4T FOR AID USE ONLY WASHINGTON. 0 C 20823 A. PRIMARYBIBLIOGRAPHIC INPUT SHEET I. SUBJECT Bbliography Z-AFOO-1587-0000 CL ASSI- 8 SECONDARY FICATIDN Food production and nutrition--Plant production--Root vegetables--Yams 2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE A bibliography of yams and the genus Dioscorea 3. AUTHOR(S) Lawani,S.M.; 0dubanjo,M.0. 4. DOCUMENT DATE IS. NUMBER OF PAGES 6. ARC NUMBER 1976 J 199p. ARC 7. REFERENCE ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS IITA 8. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES (Sponaoring Ordanization, Publlahera, Availability) (No annotations) 9. ABSTRACT This bibliography on yams bring together the scattered literature on the genus Dioscorea from the early nineteenth century through 1975. The 1,562 entries in this bibliography are grouped into 36 subject categories, and arranged within each category alphabetically by author. Some entries, particularly those whose titles are not sufficiently informative, are annotated. The major section titles in the book are as follows: general and reference works; history and eography; social and cultural importance; production and economics; botany including taxonomy, genetics, and breeding); yam growing (including fertilizers and plant nutrition); pests and diseases; storage; processing; chemical composition, nutritive value, and utilization; toxic and pharmacologically active constituents; author index; and subject index. Most entries are in English, with a few in French, Spanish, or German. 10. CONTROL NUMBER I1. PRICE OF DOCUMENT PN-AAC-745 IT. DrSCRIPTORS 13. PROJECT NUMBER Sweet potatoes Yams 14. CONTRACT NUMBER AID/ta-G-1251 GTS 15. TYPE OF DOCUMENT AID 590-1 44-741 A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF YAMS AND THE GENUS DIOSCOREA by S.
  • Pest Risk Analysis for Microstegium Vimineum

    Pest Risk Analysis for Microstegium Vimineum

    EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION EUROPEENNE ET MEDITERRANEENNE POUR LA PROTECTION DES PLANTES 16-21488 Pest Risk Analysis for Microstegium vimineum Microstegium vimineum in the USA. © Luke Flory September 2015 EPPO 21 Boulevard Richard Lenoir 75011 Paris www.eppo.int [email protected] This risk assessment follows the EPPO Standard PM 5/3(5) Decision-support scheme for quarantine pests (available at http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOStandards/pra.htm) and uses the terminology defined in ISPM 5 Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (available at https://www.ippc.int/index.php). This document was first elaborated by an Expert Working Group and then reviewed by the Panel on Invasive Alien Plants and if relevant other EPPO bodies. The PRA was reviewed by the EU IAS Scientific Forum in 2016. Cite this document as: EPPO (2014) Pest risk analysis for Microstegium vimineum. EPPO, Paris. Available at http://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/Pest_Risk_Analysis/PRA_intro.htm 16-21488 (15-21051) Pest Risk Analysis for Microstegium vimineum This PRA follows the EPPO Decision-support scheme for quarantine pests PM 5/3 (5). A preliminary draft was prepared by Ms Asuman Ergün (PPO of Turkey). This document has been reviewed by an Expert Working Group (EWG) that met at the EPPO Headquarters in Paris, France on the 2014-10-21/24. This EWG was composed of: Mr Giuseppe Brundu, University of Sassari, Italy Ms Asuman Ergün, Plant Protection Organization of Turkey Mr Luke Flory, University of Florida, USA Mr Ari Novy, US Botanic Garden, USA Mr Johan van Valkenburg, Plant Protection Organization of the Netherlands.
  • Glossary and Acronyms Glossary Glossary

    Glossary and Acronyms Glossary Glossary

    Glossary andChapter Acronyms 1 ©Kevin Fleming ©Kevin Horseshoe crab eggs Glossary and Acronyms Glossary Glossary 40% Migratory Bird “If a refuge, or portion thereof, has been designated, acquired, reserved, or set Hunting Rule: apart as an inviolate sanctuary, we may only allow hunting of migratory game birds on no more than 40 percent of that refuge, or portion, at any one time unless we find that taking of any such species in more than 40 percent of such area would be beneficial to the species (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A), National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act; 16 U.S.C. 703-712, Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and 16 U.S.C. 715a-715r, Migratory Bird Conservation Act). Abiotic: Not biotic; often referring to the nonliving components of the ecosystem such as water, rocks, and mineral soil. Access: Reasonable availability of and opportunity to participate in quality wildlife- dependent recreation. Accessibility: The state or quality of being easily approached or entered, particularly as it relates to complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accessible facilities: Structures accessible for most people with disabilities without assistance; facilities that meet Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards; Americans with Disabilities Act-accessible. [E.g., parking lots, trails, pathways, ramps, picnic and camping areas, restrooms, boating facilities (docks, piers, gangways), fishing facilities, playgrounds, amphitheaters, exhibits, audiovisual programs, and wayside sites.] Acetylcholinesterase: An enzyme that breaks down the neurotransmitter acetycholine to choline and acetate. Acetylcholinesterase is secreted by nerve cells at synapses and by muscle cells at neuromuscular junctions. Organophosphorus insecticides act as anti- acetyl cholinesterases by inhibiting the action of cholinesterase thereby causing neurological damage in organisms.
  • Kerala State Biodiversity Board

    Kerala State Biodiversity Board

    1 2 biodiversity FOR CLIMate RESILIENCE Editors Dr. S.C. Joshi IFS (Rtd.) Dr. V. Balakrishnan Dr. Preetha N. KERALA STATE BIODIVERSITY BOARD 3 Biodiversity for Climate Resilience [This book is a compilation of the papers presented as part of the 1st Kerala State Biodiversity Congress held during 2018] Editors Dr. S.C. Joshi IFS, Dr. V. Balakrishnan, Dr. Preetha N. Editorial Board Dr. K. Satheeshkumar Sri. K.V. Govindan Dr. K.T. Chandramohanan Dr. T.S. Swapna Sri. A.K. Dharni IFS © Kerala State Biodiversity Board 2019 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, tramsmitted in any form or by any means graphics, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, without the prior writted permissionof the publisher. Published By Member Secretary Kerala State Biodiversity Board ISBN: 978-81-934231-2-7 Citation: In. Joshi, S.C., Balakrishnan, V. and Preetha, N. (Eds.), Biodiversity for Climate Resilience. Kerala State Biodiversity Board, Thiruvananthapuram. 4 5 CONTENTS Best Practices of Biodiversity conservation 1. People’s action for Rejuvenating lost waterbodies - The Aadi Pamba Varattar Story - 5 2. Jalasamrudhi – A Modal Initiative on Water Conservation -12 3. Best Practices in Biodiversity Conservation: A Case of M. S. Swaminathan Botanic Garden in Wayanad, Kerala -17 4. Yaongyimchen Community Bio-Diversity Conservation Area , Nagaland - 29 5. Hornbill Monitoring to Ecological Monitoring – One and Half decade of Indigenous community Based Conservation and Monitoring of Endangered Rainforest Species and Habitat in Western Ghats -35 6. Best Practices in Agrobiodiversity Conservation for Climate Resilience - 41 7. Best Practices on Biodiversity Conservation in Rice Ecosystems of Kerala - 46 Biodiversity Conservation Priorities 8.
  • Invasive and Other Problematic Species, Genes and Diseases

    Invasive and Other Problematic Species, Genes and Diseases

    Invasive and Other Problematic Species, Genes and Diseases The threat category ‘invasive and other problematic species, genes and diseases’ (IUCN 8) includes both native and non-native plants, animals, pathogens, microbes, and genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following their introduction, spread and/or increase in abundance. This definition encompasses a broad array of organisms, and the types of impacts to native species and habitats are equally variable. It includes invasive species that were not present in New Hampshire prior to European settlement, and have been directly or indirectly introduced and spread into the state by human activities. A variety of wildlife species are vulnerable to increased predation from both native and non-native animals. Many species are also affected by diseases and parasites, including white-nose syndrome in bats, fungal pathogens in reptiles, and ticks and nematodes in moose. Native and non-native insects act as forest pests, damaging or killing native tree species and causing significant changes to wildlife habitats. Native tree species can also be affected by non-native fungal pathogens. Invasive plants can compete with native species for nutrients, water and light, and can change the physical environment by altering soil chemistry. Risk Assessment Summary Invasive species affect all 24 habitats and 106 SGCN. This is second only to pollution in the number of species affected. The majority of threat assessment scores were ranked as low (n=116, 51%), followed by moderate (n = 83, 37%) and high (n = 26, 12%). Only the moderate and high-ranking threats are summarized for each category in Table 4-17.