IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v165y2018icp116-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bioeconomic model for optimal control of the invasive weed Zea mays subspp. (teosinte) in Spain

Author

Listed:
  • Martínez, Yolanda
  • Cirujeda, Alicia
  • Gómez, Miguel I.
  • Marí, Ana I.
  • Pardo, Gabriel

Abstract

Teosinte is an invasive weed which emerged recently in Northeastern Spain, an important corn-growing region in Western Europe. It is causing substantial agronomic and economic damages and is threatening the availability of corn in the region. Farmers and regulatory agencies can choose from a number of strategies to control for teosinte infestations including adoption of specific cultural practices such as manual control constructing false seedbeds, as well as adopting corn rotations with other annual and perennial crops. In spite of the potential negative impacts of this weed, little is known about what the optimal control strategies are, both from the private (e.g. the farm) and social (e.g. regulatory agencies) perspectives. In response, we develop a dynamic optimization model to identify the sequence of control strategies that minimize private and social costs under low- and high-infestation level scenarios, for a fifteen-year planning horizon. We calibrate the model using biological data from experimental trials and economic parameters collected from farmers in the region. Our results suggest the economic losses of teosinte infestation can reach up to 9229 and 9398 €/ha for low- and high-infestation scenarios if nothing is done to control it. In addition, results show that optimal private and social strategies are different. For example, under high-infestation levels, private losses are minimized at 26.5% by not controlling in years 1–2, use false seedbeds in year 3, planting alfalfa in years 4–8, and planting corn thereafter in the total area. In contrast, social costs are minimized at 27.9% by adopting rotations starting year, return to corn mono-cropping in half the area after year four. Results show false seedbed and manual controls, currently recommended by the regulatory agency in low-infestation cases, are not socially optimal.

Suggested Citation

  • Martínez, Yolanda & Cirujeda, Alicia & Gómez, Miguel I. & Marí, Ana I. & Pardo, Gabriel, 2018. "Bioeconomic model for optimal control of the invasive weed Zea mays subspp. (teosinte) in Spain," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 116-127.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:165:y:2018:i:c:p:116-127
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.05.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17311873
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.05.015?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Born, Wanda & Rauschmayer, Felix & Brauer, Ingo, 2005. "Economic evaluation of biological invasions--a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 321-336, November.
    2. Pardo, Gabriel & Cirujeda, Alicia & Martinez, Yolanda, 2016. "Evaluación del impacto económico de una especie invasora en el regadío de Aragón: el teosinte," Revista Espanola de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Rural y Marino (formerly Ministry of Agriculture), issue 245.
    3. Olson, Lars J., 2006. "The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 178-194, April.
    4. Cacho, Oscar J. & Wise, Russell M. & Hester, Susan M. & Sinden, J.A., 2008. "Bioeconomic modeling for control of weeds in natural environments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 559-568, April.
    5. Odom, Doreen I. S. & Cacho, Oscar J. & Sinden, J. A. & Griffith, Garry R., 2003. "Policies for the management of weeds in natural ecosystems: the case of scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius, L.) in an Australian national park," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 119-135, February.
    6. Pimentel, David & Zuniga, Rodolfo & Morrison, Doug, 2005. "Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 273-288, February.
    7. McKee, Gregory J., 2006. "Modeling The Effect Of Spatial Externalities On Invasive Species Management," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 23626, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olson, Lars J., 2006. "The Economics of Terrestrial Invasive Species: A Review of the Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 178-194, April.
    2. İ. Esra Büyüktahtakın & Robert G. Haight, 2018. "A review of operations research models in invasive species management: state of the art, challenges, and future directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 357-403, December.
    3. Onal, Sevilay & Akhundov, Najmaddin & Büyüktahtakın, İ. Esra & Smith, Jennifer & Houseman, Gregory R., 2020. "An integrated simulation-optimization framework to optimize search and treatment path for controlling a biological invader," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    4. Katarina Elofsson & Ing-Marie Gren, 2015. "Regulating invasive species with different life history," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 113-136, July.
    5. Mwebaze, P. & MacLeod, A. & Tomlinson, D. & Barois, H. & Rijpma, J., 2010. "Economic valuation of the influence of invasive alien species on the economy of the Seychelles islands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2614-2623, October.
    6. Livanis, Grigorios & Moss, Charles B., 2010. "The effect of Africanized honey bees on honey production in the United States: An informational approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 895-904, February.
    7. Cook, David & Proctor, Wendy, 2007. "Assessing the threat of exotic plant pests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 594-604, August.
    8. Liu, Yanxu & Sims, Charles, 2016. "Spatial-dynamic externalities and coordination in invasive species control," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 23-38.
    9. Jardine, Sunny L. & Sanchirico, James N., 2018. "Estimating the cost of invasive species control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 242-257.
    10. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Charles Perrings, 2016. "Options for managing the infectious animal and plant disease risks of international trade," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 27-35, February.
    12. Courtois, Pierre & Figuieres, Charles & Mulier, Chloe & Weill, Joakim, 2018. "A Cost–Benefit Approach for Prioritizing Invasive Species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 607-620.
    13. Paul Mwebaze & Jim Monaghan & Nicola Spence & Alan MacLeod & Martin Hare & Brian Revell, 2010. "Modelling the Risks Associated with the Increased Importation of Fresh Produce from Emerging Supply Sources Outside the EU to the UK," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 97-121, February.
    14. McDermott, Shana M. & Finnoff, David C., 2016. "Impact of repeated human introductions and the Allee effect on invasive species spread," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 329(C), pages 100-111.
    15. Cacho, Oscar J. & Hester, Susan M., 2011. "Deriving efficient frontiers for effort allocation in the management of invasive species," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(1), pages 1-18.
    16. Dalmazzone, Silvana & Giaccaria, Sergio, 2014. "Economic drivers of biological invasions: A worldwide, bio-geographic analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 154-165.
    17. Kıbış, Eyyüb Y. & Büyüktahtakın, İ. Esra, 2017. "Optimizing invasive species management: A mixed-integer linear programming approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(1), pages 308-321.
    18. Romano, Eduardo & Thornsbury, Suzanne, 2007. "Economic Evaluation of SPS Regulations: Where Can Progress be Made?," Staff Paper Series 36946, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    19. Shuyao Wu & Jiao Huang & Shuangcheng Li, 2020. "Classifying ecosystem disservices and comparing their effects with ecosystem services in Beijing, China," Papers 2001.01605, arXiv.org.
    20. Charles Perrings, 2016. "Options for managing the infectious animal and plant disease risks of international trade," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 27-35, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:165:y:2018:i:c:p:116-127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.