[APWG] Maryland, 2007, Report on the Progress of Invasive Plant Control Program RE: Invaders
Marc Imlay
ialm at erols.com
Sat Sep 13 21:27:22 CDT 2008
Last May it took one person only five 8 hour days to hand remove
all invasive plants for 100 acres of Swann park. This included all
specimens of both juvenile and adult garlic mustard.
In response to the point about:
"The Director of our local Nature Conservancy told me that he could
spend 90% of his entire budget for the next three years, attempting to
eradicate roadside garlic mustard with the only certain outcome that
he would have to start all over again in 3 years."
He would not have to start over in three years if he spent about 10 %
of his budget in year 4, about 5 % in year 5 and about 2 % in year 6.
Garlic mustard in Swann Park was originally overwhelming in 2001.
A Report on the Progress of Invasive Plant Control Program, 2007
Maryland Native Plant Society, Anacostia Watershed Society and
Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club Habitat Stewardship Committee
Non-native invasive species of plants such as English Ivy, Japanese
Stiltgrass and Kudzu are covering the natural areas that we in the
conservation movement have worked so hard to protect from habitat
destruction, erosion and water pollution. Just as we are making progress
on wetlands, stream bank stabilization, and endangered species, these
plants from other parts of the world have typically covered 20-90% of
the surface area of our forests, streams and meadows. Many of us
feel demoralized and powerless to combat these invaders that have
few natural herbivores or other controls.
The Maryland Native Plant Society, Anacostia Watershed Society
and Sierra Club are establishing a program to provide local groups
and public and private landowners with several models to draw upon
in the region. We are assisting in developing a major 5 year work
effort at each site to remove massive populations of about a dozen
species. Regular stewardship projects are conducted in all seasons
including winter, early spring, late spring, summer, and late summer.
This high-intensity program is followed by a low-intensity annual
maintenance program to eliminate plants we have missed, plants
emerging from the seed bank, and occasional plants migrating in
from neighboring areas. We announce regular monthly projects
at over 60 sites in Maryland almost all of which were initially started
as a result of on-the-ground workshops conducted by current
MNPS members in Charles County and Montgomery County.
The Nature Conservancy has also conducted projects on natural
areas for many years. MNPS and the Sierra Club sponsor the
monthly projects at Chapman Forest (800 acres), Swann Park
(200 acres) and Greenbelt National Park (1.5 square miles).
They co-sponsor Little Paint Branch Park (150 acres) and
Cherry Hill Road Community Park (15 acres) removals in
Beltsville and Magruder Park in Hyattsville MD (15 acres)
with the Anacostia Watershed Society and provide considerable
assistance to the other projects.
These sites serve as a visible example of what can be accomplished.
The biggest challenge is to ensure that in subsequent years all
the successful projects are carried on by responsible entities.
Our advice to others considering similar projects are to recognize
that restoration of our native ecosystem is realistic but requires an
appropriate level of work effort.
Many of us have done extensive surveys of this area and find that
at least 80% of the natural areas are salvageable with a combination
of mechanical and carefully targeted chemical control and no
requirement for re-vegetation. The natives return on their own
since they initially covered the majority of the surface area. We
remove all the class 1 and class 2 exotic species, typically
5-20 species, because otherwise if you just eradicate one
exotic another one may replace the one removed.
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. At the 200 acre
Swann Park, where we are essentially in maintenance phase
after 7 years. 17 of the 19 non-native species are eradicated
or nearly so. Only Japanese Stiltgrass and Garlic Mustard
remain serious.
All the methods, techniques and/or findings of these projects
can be used where the initial cover of non-native invasive
species is less than 30% of the total plant cover and adequately
where under 70% cover. At higher percent coverage the
chemical component is more overwhelming and native plant
re-vegetation may be necessary with native species that are
not cultivars and are obtained from the wild or from nursery
stocks originally collected locally in the wild. There are several
well researched species mixes that include 12-16 herbaceous
and shrub species including nitrogen fixers.
Marc Imlay , PhD Conservation biologist, Anacostia Watershed Society
301-699-6204, 301-283-0808
Board member of the Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council,
Hui o Laka at Kokee State Park, Hawaii
Vice president of the Maryland Native Plant Society,
Chair of the Biodiversity and Habitat Stewardship Committee
for the Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Remember our five year goal: It is considered standard that such
invasive plant removal projects are normally done throughout the
region, the nation, and the world.
-----Original Message-----
From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Bob Beyfuss
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:15 AM
To: Michael Schenk; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [APWG] Invaders
Hi All
There is no question that globalization has dramatically accelerated the
spread of invasive species but I really do not see any possibility at all
of that situation changing in the future. In fact, it is likely to become
much worse in the next few decades. The question that arises, is how do we
react? I don't think that simply declaring "war" on all invasive species
anywhere they occur and at whatever rate of infestation is the answer. The
older I get, the less convinced I am that war is the answer for most of our
problems. I would prefer a more thoughtful approach targeting protection
of specific and highly sensitive ecosystems instead of ill advised
eradication programs that are doomed to failure before they begin. The
Director of our local Nature Conservancy told me that he could spend 90% of
his entire budget for the next three years, attempting to eradicate
roadside garlic mustard with the only certain outcome that he would have to
start all over again in 3 years. When I see eradication programs conducted
in highly disturbed urban environments I wonder if the cost justifies the
temporary results. Ultimately, the disturbances that led to the invasions
remain and often the results of widespread herbicide applications only
insure that the problem. Unless the entity that is applying any herbicide
against invasives can reasonably predict that the outcome of that
application will result in the desired reestablishment of the plant
community it is designed to protect, I question the action. In simple
terms, killing invasive plants simply because "they are there" with no real
clue as to what will follow, is bad policy.
Bob
At 11:49 AM 9/11/2008, Michael Schenk wrote:
Bob, thanks for the article.
This article contains an excellent summary of the unprecedented threat of
the modern spread of invasive species: the vastly accelerated rate of
invasion, coupled with the stress placed on ecosystems by induced rapid
changes. Read through to the latter part, past the feel-good stuff about
the fossil record. Of course the fossil record doesn't contain anything
comparable. There was no highly mobile technological species imposing
geological rates of change in decades as opposed to millions of years.
Change in species diversity and ranges happens constantly. It's the rate
of change which is worrisome. The rate of change from a major asteroid
strike, scaled in weeks or years, is more similar to the current rate of
change than the megayears we'll find in the fossil record.
Mike
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:53:13 -0400
From: Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu>
Subject: [APWG] Fwd: Friendly Invaders
To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Message-ID:
6.2.1.2.2.20080910145256.051d6008 at postoffice8.mail.cornell.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:57:20 -0400
NY Times
September 9, 2008
Friendly Invaders
By
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=CARL >>>ZIMMER&fdq=199
60101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=CARL
ZIMMER&inline=nyt-per>CARL ZIMMER
New Zealand is home to 2,065 native plants found nowhere else on Earth.
They range from magnificent towering kauri trees to tiny flowers that
form tightly packed mounds called vegetable sheep.
When Europeans began arriving in New Zealand, they brought with them
alien plants ? crops, garden plants and stowaway weeds. Today, 22,000
non-native plants grow in New Zealand. Most of them can survive only with
the loving care of gardeners and farmers. But 2,069 have become
naturalized: they have spread out across the islands on their own. There
are more naturalized invasive plant species in New Zealand than native
species.
It sounds like the makings of an ecological disaster: an epidemic of
invasive species that wipes out the delicate native species in its path.
But in a paper published in August in The
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20080913/5b98316b/attachment.html>
More information about the APWG
mailing list