IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rep/wpaper/2006-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Impacts of Yellow Starthistle on California Ranchers

Author

Listed:
  • Alison Eagle
  • Mark Eiswerth
  • Wayne Johnson
  • Steve Schoenig
  • G. Cornelis van Kooten

Abstract

While the significant ecosystem damage caused by invasive weeds has been well documented, the economic impacts of specific invasive weed species are poorly understood. Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L., hereafter YST) is the most widespread non-crop weed in California, resulting in serious damage to forage on natural range and improved pasture. A survey was administered to California cattle ranchers to investigate YST infestation rates, loss of forage quantity and value, and control or eradication efforts. The results were used to estimate county-wide economic losses for three focus counties, as well as state-wide economic losses, due to YST in California. Total losses of livestock forage value due to YST on private land for the state of California are estimated at $7.96 million/year, with ranchers’ out-of-pocket expenditures on YST control amounting to $9.45 million/year. Together, these costs are the equivalent of 6-7% of the total annual harvested pasture value for the state. Therefore, while the impacts are relatively small within the statewide total agricultural production system, costs due to YST infestation significantly constrain California’s livestock grazing sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison Eagle & Mark Eiswerth & Wayne Johnson & Steve Schoenig & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2006. "Economic Impacts of Yellow Starthistle on California Ranchers," Working Papers 2006-01, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    • Handle: RePEc:rep:wpaper:2006-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://web.uvic.ca/~repa/publications/REPA%20working%20papers/WorkingPaper2006-01.pdf
    File Function: Final version, 2006
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark E. Eiswerth & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2002. "Uncertainty, Economics, and the Spread of an Invasive Plant Species," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1317-1322.
    2. Leistritz, F. Larry & Bangsund, Dean A. & Wallace, Nancy M. & Leitch, Jay A., 1992. "Economic Impact of Leafy Spurge on Grazingland and Wildland in North Dakota," Staff Papers 121370, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    3. Wallace, Nancy M. & Leitch, Jay A. & Leistritz, F. Larry, 1992. "Economic Impact of Leafy Spurge on North Dakota Wildland," Agricultural Economics Reports 23384, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    4. Hirsch, Steven A. & Leitch, Jay A., 1996. "The Impact Of Knapweed On Montana'S Economy," Agricultural Economics Reports 23289, 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. Burnett, Kimberly & Kaiser, Brooks & Pitafi, Basharat A. & Roumasset, James, 2006. "Prevention, Eradication, and Containment of Invasive Species: Illustrations from Hawaii," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 63-77, April.
    2. McDermott, Shana M. & Finnoff, David C. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kennedy, Chris J., 2021. "When does natural science uncertainty translate into economic uncertainty?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    3. Ranjan, Ram & Evans, Edward A., 2007. "Private Responses to Public Incentives for Invasive Species Management," Farm and Business - The Journal of the Caribbean Agro-Economic Society, Caribbean Agro-Economic Society, vol. 7(1), pages 1-24.
    4. Ranjan, Ram, 2005. "Environmental Restoration of Invaded Ecosystems: How Much Versus How Often?," Working Papers 15661, University of Florida, International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center.
    5. Matta, Jagannadha R. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. & Stainback, George A., 2009. "Effect of conserving habitat for biodiversity on optimal management of non-industrial private forests in Florida," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 223-235, December.
    6. Batabyal, Amitrajeet A. & Beladi, Hamid, 2006. "International trade and biological invasions: A queuing theoretic analysis of the prevention problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(3), pages 758-770, May.
    7. Lee, Donna J. & Adams, Damian C. & Kim, C.S., 2009. "Managing invasive plants on public conservation forestlands: Application of a bio-economic model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 237-243, July.
    8. Kim Meyer Hall & Heidi J. Albers & Majid Alkaee Taleghan & Thomas G. Dietterich, 2018. "Optimal Spatial-Dynamic Management of Stochastic Species Invasions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 403-427, June.
    9. Kobayashi, Mimako & Harris, Thomas R. & Rollins, Kimberly S., 2009. "Invasive Weeds, Wildfire, and Rancher Decision Making in the Great Basin," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49365, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Mark E. Eiswerth & G. Cornelis Van Kooten, 2007. "Dynamic Programming and Learning Models for Management of a Nonnative Species," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 55(4), pages 485-498, December.
    11. Finnoff, David & Potapov, Alexei & Lewis, Mark A., 2010. "Control and the management of a spreading invader," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 534-550, November.
    12. Sims, Charles & Finnoff, David, 2013. "When is a “wait and see” approach to invasive species justified?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 235-255.
    13. Amit Batabyal & Peter Nijkamp, 2005. "On Container Versus Time Based Inspection Policies in Invasive Species Management," ERSA conference papers ersa05p162, European Regional Science Association.
    14. Lee, Donna J. & Motoki, Michael & Vanderwoude, Casper & Nakamoto, Stuart T. & Leung, PingSun, 2015. "Taking the sting out of Little Fire Ant in Hawaii," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 100-110.
    15. Moffitt, L. Joe & Osteen, Craig D., 2006. "Prioritizing Invasive Species Threats Under Uncertainty," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 1-11, April.
    16. L. Joe Moffitt & John K. Stranlund & Craig D. Osteen, 2009. "Securing the Border from Invasives: Robust Inspections Under Severe Uncertainty," Working Papers 2009-6, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    17. Koo, Won W. & Mattson, Jeremy W., 2004. "Economics Of Detection And Control Of Invasive Species: Workshop Highlights," Special Reports 23068, North Dakota State University, Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies.
    18. Min, He & Gopinath, Munisamy & Buccola, Steven T. & McEvoy, Peter B., 2006. "Rent-Seeking in Noxious Weed Regulations: Evidence from US States," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21212, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Štefan Bojnec & Imre Fertő, 2008. "European Enlargement and Agro‐Food Trade," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 563-579, December.
    20. Kim, C.S. & Lubowski, Ruben N. & Lewandrowski, Jan & Eiswerth, Mark E., 2006. "Prevention or Control: Optimal Government Policies for Invasive Species Management," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 1-12, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    nonnative species; invasive weeds; yellow starthistle; ranching profitability; forage; livestock;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rep:wpaper:2006-01. 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: G.C. van Kooten (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/devicca.html .

    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.