[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
Search in website

Advanced Search
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
:: Volume 9, Issue 18 (10-2021) ::
PEC 2021, 9(18): 1-18 Back to browse issues page
The Economic effects of invasive plant (Gundelia tournefortii L.) on sustainable livelihood of local communities (Case study: Damavand summer rangelands- Tehran)
Meisam Alizadeh * , Shafagh Rastegar
, alizadeh.frw@gmail.com
Abstract:   (3053 Views)
Plants (medicinal, industrial and edible) Rangelands are one of the most valuable resources in the vast range of natural resources of Iran, which, if used properly, can play an important role in creating jobs in local communities. In order to estimate the economic value of (Gundelia tournefortii L.), dependence degree of natives and its share in rural household income compared to the function of forage production and the amount of direct and indirect employment from it was done in a number of conventional arrangements in Damavand. Sampling of vegetation was performed by systematic-random method in the areas identifying plant types and the amount of surface cover, densit, forage production and grazing capacity was measured. The results showed that the total gross income from the operation of forage per year was 66066000 thousand Rials, its cost was 19387260 thousand Rials, net profit was 46678740 thousand Rials and economic rent was 3842 thousand Rials. Also, the total gross income from the exploitation of artichokes in the study area per year was 202500000 thousand Rials, its cost was equal to 89610000 thousand Rials, net income was 112890000 thousand Rials and economic rent was equal to 9291 thousand Rials. Taking into account the number of households and individuals affiliated with the regionchr('39')s ranchers, the direct and indirect employment of the forage production during one year was 86 and 257 jobs, respectively, and the number of employed people using Gundelia tournefortii L. was 72 and 216 jobs, respectively. Considering the projected income from the two functions of exploiting Gundelia tournefortii L. and forage production and importance of economic value on local communities it seems that the management of invasive plants in rangeland ecosystems should be such that while maintaining the health and integrity of these ecosystems, it causes transparency and facilitates processes. Decide on the multifunctional use of rangelands and an efficient approach to range management.
Keywords: invasive plant, Gundelia tournefortii L., forage production, economic value, livelihood, local communities
Full-Text [PDF 1003 kb]   (602 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Applicable | Subject: Special
Received: 2020/09/15 | Accepted: 2020/12/5 | Published: 2021/09/28
1. Arzani, H., King, G.W. 1994. A double sampling, Australian rangeland conference, 201-202.
2. DiTomaso, J.M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts and management, Weed Science 48, 255–265.
3. DiTomaso, J.M., Monaco, T.A., James, J.J., Firn, J. 2017. Invasive Plant Species and Novel Rangeland, D.D. Briske (ed.), Rangeland Systems, Springer Series on Environmental Management, 423-465.
4. Engeman, R.M., Laborde, J.E., Constantin, B. U., Shwiff, S. A., Hall, P., Duffiney, A., Luciano, F. 2010. The economic impacts to commercial farms from invasive monkeys in Puerto Rico, Crop Protection, 29(4), 401–405.
5. Holmes, T.P., Aukema, J.E., Holle, B. 2009. Eco-nomic impacts of invasive species in forests. Past, pres-ent, and future, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., vol. 1162, 18–38.
6. International :union: for Conservation of Nature (IUCN/PACO). 2013. Invasive plants affecting protected areas of West Africa. Management for reduction of risk for biodiversity. Ouagadougou, BF: IUCN/PACO, Gland, Switzerland and Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 78p.
7. Kaval I., Behcet L., Cakilcioglu, U. 2015. Survey of willd food plants for human consumption in Gecitli (Hakkari, Turkey), Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 14(2), 183-190.
8. Kooijman A.M., Smith A. 2001. Grazing as a measure to reduce nutrient availability in acid dune grassland and pine forests in the Netherlands. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 17, 63-77.
9. Maema, L.P., Potgieter, M., Mamokone Mahlo, S. 2016. Invasive alien plant species used for the treatment of various in Limpopo province, South Africa. Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med, 13(4), 223-231.
10. Martins, T.L.F., Brooke, M.D.L., Hilton, G.M., Farnsworth, S., Gould, J., Pain, D.J. 2006. Costing eradications of alien mammals from islands, Animal Conservation, 9(4), 439–444.
11. Masters, R.A., Sheley. R.L. 2001. Principles and practices for managing rangeland invasive plants, Range Management, 54, 502-517.
12. Medlock, J.M., Leach, S.A. 2015. Effect of climate change on vector‐ borne disease risk in the UK, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 15(6), 721–730.
13. Monjardino, M., Pannell, D.J., Powles, S.B. 2004. The economic value of pasture phases in the integrated management of annual ryegrass and wild radish in a Western Australian farming system, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 44, 265–271.
14. Özaslan, C., Farooq, S.H., Onen, H. 2016. Ruthless use can pose extinction risk to Gundelia (Gundelia tournefortii L.) in Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey, VII International Scientific Agriculture Symposium "Agrosym 2016“ At: Jahorina, (http://www.agrosym.rs.ba).
15. Pejchar, L., Mooney, H.A. 2009. Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well‐being, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(9), 497–504.
16. Roberts, M., Cresswell, W., Hanley, N. 2018. Prioritising invasive species control actions: Evaluating effectiveness, costs, willingness to pay and social acceptance, Ecological Economics, 152, 1-8.
17. Rolfe, J., Windle, J. 2014. Public preferences for controlling an invasive species in public and private spaces, Land Use Policy, 41, 1–10.
18. Schlaepfer, M., Sax, D., Olden, J. 2011. The potential conservation value of non‐native species, Conservation Biology, 25, 428–437.
19. Sheremet, O., Healey, J.R., Quine, C.P., Hanley, N. 2017. Public preferences and willingness to pay for forest disease control in the UK, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(3), 781–800.
20. Vilà, M., Basnou, C., Pyšek, P., Josefsson, M., Genovesi, P., Stephan Gollasch, S., Nentwig, W., Olenin, S., Roques, A., Roy, D., Hulme, P.E., partners, D. 2010. How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8, 135–144.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Alizadeh M, rastegar S. The Economic effects of invasive plant (Gundelia tournefortii L.) on sustainable livelihood of local communities (Case study: Damavand summer rangelands- Tehran). PEC 2021; 9 (18) :1-18
URL: http://pec.gonbad.ac.ir/article-1-725-en.html

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 9, Issue 18 (10-2021) Back to browse issues page
مجله حفاظت زیست بوم گیاهان Journal of Plant Ecosystem Conservation
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4652