Minnesota horticultural industry survey on invasive plants

SummaryHorticultural commerce of ornamental plants has been the source of many of our most troublesome plant invaders worldwide. The purpose of this research was to document the knowledge gap of industry perspectives and knowledge of invasive ornamental crops by surveying industry professionals in the Midwest region of the U.S. (primarily in the state of Minnesota). An invasive plant survey was created to assess this information and was mailed to n = 500 individuals and companies randomly chosen from the Minnesota Nursery and Landscape Association (MNLA) membership, which included wholesale/retail nurseries, landscape design, installation & maintenance firms, and retail garden centers. A total of n = 167 surveys (33.4%) were returned and analyzed. A majority of respondents, 62%, felt that the invasive plant issue was very important and 89% tried to direct their customers away from potentially invasive plants. Many respondents, 76%, indicated that they were responsible for educating their customers about invasive ornamental plants. Sixty-nine percent said that they would not sell a plant if it was potentially invasive; however, 57% indicated that this would be true if a competing business was selling the plant. Respondent’s knowledge about specific invasive plants varied from 75% to 89% on the identification of three terrestrial invasive plant crops. Far less, 20% and 21%, were able to identify Butomus umbellatus and Salvinia molesta, respectively, two invasive aquatic species. When asked about regulation of invasive ornamental crops, 43% preferred national, state, or USDA regulation while 22% felt industry self-regulation was best, and 21% approved of private regulation. Opportunities exist for educating horticulture industry professionals about invasive plants and providing information to the public through commercial businesses.

[1]  R. N. Mack,et al.  Humans as Global Plant Dispersers: Getting More Than We Bargained For , 2001 .

[2]  I. Kowarik,et al.  Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. , 1995 .

[3]  A. Rossman.  A Special Issue on Global Movement of Invasive Plants and Fungi , 2001 .

[4]  Peter K. Endress,et al.  Diversity and evolutionary biology of tropical flowers , 1994 .

[5]  P. White,et al.  Horticulture as a Pathway of Invasive Plant Introductions in the United States , 2001 .

[6]  S. Galatowitsch,et al.  Movement of invasive aquatic plants into Minnesota (USA) through horticultural trade , 2004 .

[7]  N. Anderson,et al.  Fecundity and fitness in cross-compatible pollinations of tristylous North American Lythrum salicaria populations , 2000, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[8]  N. Ellstrand,et al.  Hybridization as an avenue of escape for engineered genes-strategies for risk reduction , 1990 .

[9]  N. Anderson,et al.  Selection of Day-neutral, Heat-delay-insensitive Dendranthem×grandiflora Genotypes , 2001 .

[10]  T. Barkley,et al.  A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds , 1980 .

[11]  R. Westbrooks,et al.  Invasive Plants: Changing the Landscape of America , 1998 .

[12]  F. Panetta.  A system of assessing proposed plant introductions for weed potential. , 1993 .

[13]  Cohen,et al.  Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary , 1998, Science.

[14]  S. Timmins.  How Weed Lists Help Protect Native Biodiversity in New Zealand1 , 2004 .

[15]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  Reducing the risks of nonindigenous species introductions. , 1995 .

[16]  S. Reichard.  Conflicting Values and Common Goals: Codes of Conduct to Reduce the Threat of Invasive Species1 , 2004 .

[17]  Sarah H. Reichard,et al.  Predicting Invasions of Woody Plants Introduced into North America , 1997, Conservation Biology.

[18]  D. Richardson,et al.  What attributes make some plant species more invasive , 1996 .