[APWG] Are invasives scaring us into chemical complacency?

Marc Imlay ialm at erols.com
Thu Sep 1 07:09:52 CDT 2005


Patricia,

Here are my personal notes I used for my talk at the American Chemical
Society Synposium on Tuesday at the DC Convention Center. My abstract can be
found on the ACS website, www.ACS.org; search for Picogram, the official
publication of the Division, and on pages 48 and 49 is the program schedule
for the symposium. My talk was well received.

Marc


Many thousands of groups across the Nation are rescuing native plants and
animals from non-native invasive species that have no biological control. A
typical park is 50-500 acres and has over a thousand species of native
plants let alone the thousands of native animal species that depend upon
them prior to being covered by monocultures of 5-10 alien species. I have
worked with over a hundred of these groups from Hawaii to Maryland and have
dedicated my semi-retirement years to helping these groups succeed.

Since this is a chemical society I will focus on integrated pest management.
Herbicides are a necessary component of winning the battle.

AWS position paper

I have seen herbicides used when mechanical control is far preferable, both
to avoid collateral damage as well as to save time and money. Just as
frequently I have seen mechanical control used when chemical control is far
preferable. The reason for this has to do with psychology. It is human
nature to use whatever tool is available. For example in controlling
Japanese Stiltgrass, which is the most serious invasive in the Mid-Atlantic
region having covered 10% of New Jersey already, I have been with a group of
8 people earning 10-40 $/hour come across a 15’-20’ patch with virtually no
native plants left unable to stop themselves and spent an hour removing it.
If I had on my backpack sprayer I would have finished it in 5 minutes.
Contra wise I have caught myself with my back pack sprayer on spraying
Japanese Stiltgrass walking over to two or three plants mixed with natives
and spraying. It takes one second to remove a single pioneer plant, say 2’
tall and 3’ wide , but  several seconds to spray the surface adequately.
Consequently at Swann Park in Charles County, Greenbelt National Park and
Little Paint Branch Park in Beltsville in Maryland, we have had separate
days for hand removal with volunteers and spray days for staff. The
combination works well whether the spray day is first and only thick patches
are sprayed leaving the low density areas for volunteers, or volunteers
leaving the patches for staff later.

As an example, the North Chevy Chase Christian Church stopped at a terrible
patch with hundreds of small closely packed plants, in Little Paint Branch
Park and said “we can’t do this”. I agreed and three of us sprayed it 2
weeks later.

Our policy is to use carefully targeted, biodegradable herbicides in natural
areas, such as glyphosate and triclopyr, that do not migrate through the
soil to other plants. Instead of spraying invasive trees such as Ailanthus,
Norway Maple, and Chinese Privet we inject concentrated herbicide into the
tree either by basal bark, hack and squirt or cut stump.  Seedlings are easy
to hand pull.  We wait for wet soil after a rain to hand pull, first
loosening with a garden tool such as a 4 prong spading fork so the center of
the plant rises perceptively. Then we make a pile rather than bag English
Ivy, Wineberry or Multiflora Rose. The only one of about a dozen species
treated this way in a pile which re-rooted was Chinese Bush-clover,
Lespedeza cuneata. Volunteers hand pulled it successfully where it occupied
about 10% of a 10’ x 10’ area with an equal amount of native narrow leaved
mountain mint in bloom that they rescued. I back pack sprayed the other 2
patches in the park where nothing native was left.

At the 200 acre Swann Park 17 of the 19 non-native species are eradicated or
nearly so. Only Japanese Stiltgrass and garlic mustard remain serious. At
Kokee State Park in Hawaii about 500 acres are also in the maintenance
stage.


----- Original Message -----
From: <Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov>
To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 8:44 AM
Subject: [APWG] Are invasives scaring us into chemical complacency?


I just returned from an invasive species workshop for foresters, land
managers, etc., during which time I also took the opportunity to read
Rachel Carsen's Silent Spring for the first time (yes, the first time!).
What an interesting coincidence!

In 1962, Rachel Carson questioned the use of aldrin, DDT and other
chemicals in the battle against unwanted pests and the effect of these
chemicals on the environment.  In 2005, I found myself at this workshop
asking similar questions about the control methods being espoused to rid
forests of invasive plants.  From my perspective, the workshop emphasized
the use of chemicals to eradicate invasives.  By comparison, little
discussion was devoted to non-chemical methods, let alone prevention or
early detection.

I should point out that the focus of the workshop was for management of
"non-crop production forests" (land being tended for timber harvest) - not
for "amenity forests" (a term I had never heard before the workshop) nor
for forests to be harvested for internal consumption (i.e. harvesting
non-timber forest products).  That notwithstanding, I also know that
forests harvested for timber are connected to the same soil, water and air
systems as the forests that may be harvested for personal consumption.  Do
birds, deer, bugs, and worms know the difference between a "production
forest" and an "amenity forest?"

During the panel discussion, I asked what the options were for invasives
removal from forests that would be harvested for consumption - the
response: One panelist pointed out that several formulations are registered
for food crops and that these involve a "very minute amount of chemical
uptake."

I asked what the obligations were for posting a notice that a forest had
been sprayed.  The response from the panel was rather nondescript, as was
their response to another participant's query regarding the half-life and
residual effects of particular chemicals.  Of course, I was reminded that
there are material safety data sheets (MSDS) and LD50s (a.k.a "lethal dose"
at which the chemical kills at least half of the animals tested - as I
understand it, this system is being phased out owing to the particularly
grim nature of this measuring stick).

Later conversations with workshop participants revealed a range of
practices.  One forester posts a notice announcing the chemical application
and the dates, which notice he then pulls down once the application is
completed.  Another mentioned the need to comply with OSHA (Occupational
Safety and Health Administration) guidelines (although someone else pointed
out that OSHA really only applies to employees, not the general public).
Different land management agencies have their own SOPs (standards of
practice or standard operating procedures) and then there are the State
laws (which may be stricter than the SOPs).  One participant pointed out
that if the label says not to return to the area for 5 days and you don't
comply with that, that you are not complying with the label and that's
illegal.  Another participant pointed out that if the label refers only to
keeping the applicator (i.e. the person applying the chemical) out of the
area, then there really isn't an obligation on the label to keep other
folks out of the area.

Today, I came across the following report from May 2005, that I had not yet
had time to read:  Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Aerial
Spraying Program for Coca and Poppy Control in Colombia (the urls are at
the end).   Needless to say, I took a moment to look it over!

The study concludes that the risk to humans is negligible compared to the
other dangers associated with growing the illegal crops, including "risks
associated with clearing of land, uncontrolled and unmonitored use of other
pesticides to protect the coca and poppy, and exposures to substances used
in the refining of the raw product into cocaine and heroin" (p. 90).  They
similarly concluded that the ecological risk of the spray program was small
compared to the risks associated with "other activities associated with the
production of coca and poppy, in particular, the uncontrolled and unplanned
clearing of pristine lands in ecologically important areas for the purposes
of planting the crop."   Let's not forget that this is AERIAL spraying that
is being evaluated.

I am struck both by the casual and causal attitudes toward use of these
chemicals.  Is this same reasoning going to be applied to my neighborhood
when it is decided that the risks associated with spraying the invasives
behind my house are minimal compared to the risk of a gas grill explosion,
my use of hairspray, or the exposure I get from the pesiticides on my own
food?!

Can anyone on this list allay my concerns about this?

-Patricia

Here are urls to the full report and a news release about the report:

      Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Aerial Spraying
      Program for Coca and Poppy Control in Colombia
      http://www.cicad.oas.org/en/glifosateFinalReport.pdf

       Pesticide used in Colombian war
       on drugs 'not harmful'




http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=2072&languag
e=1

Here is a url on the exact same subject from 4 years ago that draws a
different conclusion:

      Aerial Fumigation over Illicit Crops Is Most Certainly Dangerous
      —Approaching the Issue

http://www.mamacoca.org/feb2002/art_nivia_fumigaciones_si_son_peligrosas_en.
html


Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
Botanist - Division of Scientific Authority
Chair - Plant Conservation Alliance - Medicinal Plant Working Group
US Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 750
Arlington, VA  22203
703-358-1708 x1753
FAX: 703-358-2276
Working for the conservation and sustainable use of our green natural
resources.
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>





More information about the APWG mailing list