[APWG] Ecosystem restoration and alien species eradication Re:Performance standards to get weed-free and 100% native
Karen Blumer
growingwild at optonline.net
Fri Aug 14 13:50:00 CDT 2009
Grace Lilly's note raises two issues for me. Certainly, as a
professional ecologist whose specialty is restoration of native
habitats to local genotype -- no bringing in any non-site plants,
propagules, etc. -- restoration is one. I need to catch up on some of
the back APWG correspondence however, so that topic for another day.
The other is how these types of decisions get made. I live in a small
Village on Long Island, NY, perhaps like Swanzey -- strong on good
intentions toward the environment (although with the report below, not
sure that applies there) but weak, mercilessly weak, on ecosystem
wisdom or ecological knowledge. I would be interested to hear from
anyone from a small or large municipality that has successfully
managed (or even tried and failed) to incorporate an ecologist or
small panel of ecological/biological/(maybe even horticultural --
although that is a different mindset) panel of knowledgeable people
into their decision making process. It might serve as a good model as
my tiny municipality moves toward revamping their code.
I am also involved as a consultant in a much larger regional area of
Long Island about to formulate some innovative and radical approaches
to land-use policy and design, so any models would be welcome. I
personally agree with R. Dasmann, that we are already engaged in WW
III, the war against the earth, and, unfortunately, we are winning.
All the more reason to offer assistance where we can.
Many thanks,
Karen Blumer
Karen Blumer
Ecologist
Ecosystem Based Management Projects
15 Dickerson Drive
Shoreham, NY 11786
631-821-3337
Fax 631-849-3118
growingwild at optonline.net
On Aug 14, 2009, at 1:55 PM, gg lilly wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Guess I'm one of the "lurkers."
>
> I've been following this conversation because in 2006, the board of
> selectmen in Swanzey, NH, sold the topsoil of 5 conservation acres
> running
> beside a river to a builder. Part of the land had been a gravel pit
> 30 years
> ago; pioneer trees like pine and gray birch were repopulating the
> land.
> Invasive glossy buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle were growing
> along the
> river.
>
> In return for the topsoil, the town received 4 adjacent acres with a
> conservation easement; the topsoil was removed from that land too.
> The land
> would be storm mitigation for the builder.
>
> The second part of the contract was the builder would build a dirt
> road onto
> the property with a turnaround and parking lot so that people could
> put
> their canoes or kayaks into the river.
>
> Finally, the builder seeded the gravel with an assortment of plants;
> most of
> what is growing is clover.
>
> Of course, with no topsoil, Japanese knotweed has established on the
> dry
> sunny areas; purple loosestrife is growing in the mitigation area and
> culverts.
>
> The Conservation Commission is going to spray Round-up on the
> knotweed; they
> haven't noticed the loosestrife. However, I know enough about
> knotweed to
> know that won't work.
>
> And that is why I am following the conversation.
>
> Grace Lilly (another amateur)
> Swanzey, NH
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
> [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Wayne
> Tyson
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 1:46 AM
> To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem restoration and alien species eradication
> Re:Performance standards to get weed-free and 100% native
>
> Craig and all:
>
> It appears that other subscribers aren't interested in this topic,
> but I
> think we should continue it anyway, in the hopes that a few will get
> interested, or that it will stimulate "lurkers" to think about it.
> While I'm
>
> greatly looking forward to a possible visit to your project and
> discussing
> the particulars with you in depth, I suggest that we owe it to the
> subscribers of this list to iron out the issues that each of us has
> raised
> one at a time. I'll be interested in your ideas about this and those
> of any
> who care to join in.
>
> Let's again revisit the issue of the importance of well-coordinated
> restoration with eradication programs. You and I agree on this, I
> believe,
> but perhaps there are others on the list who think that restoration is
> unnecessary or irrelevant.
>
> I hope that all who may not agree will post their ideas on this
> particular
> subject and that the discussion sticks to this one subject before
> moving on
> to digressions. I am very interested in where subscribers to this
> list stand
>
> on this subject. The only way I know to interpret their silence is to
> presume that they agree and see no need for discussion or that they
> don't
> want to discuss it for other reasons.
>
> WT
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" <Craig at astreet.com>
> To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:23 PM
> Subject: [APWG] Performance standards to get weed-free and 100% native
>
>
> Dear Wayne and All,
>
> I want to start my reply, to wax poetically about how nice walking
> through
> a restored, a weed-free North American native ecosystem can be.
>
> It is like visiting the Promised Land, a fairy tale land that people
> talk
> about at annual wildland weed meetings--what would an area look
> like, that
> they have been weeding for years or decades, if it was not only weed
> free,
> but was 100% covered with the original pre-Columbian native ecosystem
> understory?
>
> The Shaw property is like a flawless 74-acre diamond, currently set
> in an
> unending ocean of almost a 100% solid exotic understory of over 1,000
> species of weeds, going 250 miles to the North, 200 miles to the
> East and
> 600 miles to the South, to the Mexican border.
>
> ===============
>
> Wayne wrote:
> Mowing before seed-set is a reasonably good practice in some
> contexts, it
> may not always be practical (e.g., 2:1 slopes, etc.).
>
> Reply: 99% of lower elevation California is gentle slopes to fairly
> flat,
> so the level to gently sloping wildlands should be converted first,
> while
> there are still viable native seeds in the soil seedbank.
>
> If the native seeds in the soil seed bank are already 35-100 years
> old, my
> big concern is we will not get started in this conversion back to 100%
> native cover process, in time to take advantage of the viable native
> seeds
> that are lying dormant underneath the exotics, before they lose their
> viability.
>
> The clock is ticking for these native seeds lying dormant in the soil
> seedbanks, waiting for us to pay attention to them within our and
> their
> lifetimes, otherwise their lives will be lost forever.
>
> ===============
>
> Wayne wrote: Once a site has been dominated by weeds for a year or
> two,
> not to mention decades or centuries, there is a considerable buildup
> of
> dormant seeds in the soil's seed bank. Mowing can't get those, nor
> can it
> get all of the standing crop.
>
> Reply: Mowing absolutely must to get the standing crop of weed seeds
> before they ripen, for that year, and contrary to popular belief,
> you do
> not have to be concerned about the dormant weed seeds in the soil.
>
> What has been happening over the last decades or hundred years, is
> that
> the percentage cover of the weeds tipped the balance, where the weed
> densities were able to use allelopathic chemicals to suppress the
> germination of the dormant native seeds in the soil.
>
> See Journal of Chemical Ecology, especially Dr. Liu's 1994 and 1995
> papers
> on a method to study plant-produced allelopathic chemicals as an
> independent plant suppression system, separate from competition for
> water,
> nutrients, sunlight, etc..
>
> Where the concern should be focused, instead of the weed seed bank, is
> managing and resurrecting the native seeds in the soil seedbank, and
> once
> you cross a percentage native cover threshold, the natives will start
> permanently suppressing the weeds still viable in the soil.
>
> Those weed seeds will remain alive underneath the natives for a
> long, long
> time, but once you get the right densities or the right local
> natives in
> place, the natives will suppress the weed seeds from every germinating
> again, the weed seeds will eventually die in the soil. Weeds Rest in
> Peace.
>
> =================
>
> Wayne wrote:
>
> Then there's the issue of the thatch/chaff, post-mowing regrowth, and
> other specifics that raise questions.
>
> Reply: Thatch is not a problem. Fortunately most of the weeds that
> cover
> California are annuals, but for the perennials that might regrow, is
> where a little brushing of the cut surfaces with Roundup might be
> necessary, like Pampas grass, Harding grass, etc.
>
> =================
>
> Wayne wrote:
>
> Not only that, but the vital importance that such treated sites must
> self-sustain rather than be continuously treated for eternity.
>
> Reply: That is why for the Performance Standards that I am
> recommending
> for restoration of California perennial native grassland habitats,
> on my
> web page at http://www.ecoseeds.com/standards.html is that you need to
> make the conversion from exotic cover, back to at least 95% native
> cover,
> within 90 days or less, with no future maintenance.
>
> If you have to weed after the 90th day, you need to do your small
> scale
> test plots over, until you get the right native cover that stops the
> weeds
> cold. It is like a poker game, you have to lay down your Royal
> Flush of
> local natives, to beat the local weeds. You do not want to have to
> keep
> playing hand after hand of weeding-poker to eternity.
>
> The only maintenance that might have to be done after the 90th day,
> is to
> add more local native species to increase the diversity, and to fill
> in
> gaps where native plant understory families have been catastrophically
> exterminated, like California and the West.
>
> Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva
> tion.org
>
> Disclaimer
> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
> opinion of the individual posting the message.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.55/2301 - Release Date:
> 08/13/09
> 18:16:00
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva
> tion.org
>
> Disclaimer
> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
> opinion of the individual posting the message.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
> Disclaimer
> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY
> the opinion of the individual posting the message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20090814/14c7232e/attachment.html>
More information about the APWG
mailing list