The cost of doing nothing about a sleeper weed-Nassella neesiana in New Zealand

Nassella neesiana (Chilean needle grass), an invasive 'sleeper weed' established in sheep and beef pastures in three of New Zealand's sixteen local government regions, has a potential geographic range amounting to 3.96 million hectares spanning all regions except the West Coast. It im...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2023-12, Vol.18 (12), p.e0295574-e0295574
Main Authors: Bourdôt, Graeme W, Buddenhagen, Christopher E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Australia
Biology and Life Sciences
Chile
Cost benefit analysis
Costs
Discount rates
Distribution
Earnings
Ecology and Environmental Sciences
Economic aspects
Expenditures
Land area
Livestock
Local government
Market value
Medicine and Health Sciences
Nassella neesiana
New Zealand
Nonnative species
Pasture
People and places
Present value
Prevention
Productivity
Regions
Seeds
United Kingdom
Weeds
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Nassella neesiana (Chilean needle grass), an invasive 'sleeper weed' established in sheep and beef pastures in three of New Zealand's sixteen local government regions, has a potential geographic range amounting to 3.96 million hectares spanning all regions except the West Coast. It impacts the productivity, market value and welfare of livestock through its sharp penetrating that cause blindness and the downgrading of wool, hides, and carcasses. In this study we estimate the benefit of preventing its spread as the present value (PV) of local (regional) and national productivity losses that would accrue over 200 years under a 'do nothing' spread scenario. Using a 3% discount rate and two assumed spread rates, 201 and 100 years to 90% occupation of its potential range, we calculate national PV losses of NZ$ 192 million and NZ$ 1,160 million respectively. In a breakeven analysis, these losses, which equate to the national benefits of preventing the spread, justify annual expenditures of NZ$ 5.3 million and NZ$ 34 million respectively. Restricting the analyses to the regions with known infestations (Hawke's Bay, Marlborough, Canterbury) provided much lower estimates of the benefits (ranging from NZ$ 16.8 million to NZ$ 158 million) because spillover benefits from preventing spread to the other susceptible regions are not accounted for. These analyses support a nationally coordinated approach to managing N. neesiana in New Zealand involving surveillance and control measures respectively in the susceptible and infested regions.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0295574