[APWG] Plants Alien Weed definition etc. Re: Why not succeed the first time, with Performance Standards?

[Wayne Tyson]

Krohn gets to the heart of the matter. 

"Weed" is a cultural term; "colonizing species" is an ecological term, normally used in the context of what some ecologists call "secondary succession." 

It is the business of all forms of life to colonize, to "go forth and multiply" wherever they can. 

In the cultural sense, any plant that invades our invasion (wheat fields) is considered a "weed," or "brush." 

In an ecological sense, annual (and some perennial) weeds function like T-cells, making scabs on the wounds of the earth's soil-skin. All restoration ecologists can do is to 1) let the scab do its work unaided; 2) remove damaged tissue and control infection; 3) add ointments and elixirs, many of which retard healing more than they help; 4) put a Band-Aid (R) on; 5) add different sorts of "T-cells;" 6) patch in some tiny skin grafts or hair plugs; 7) perform plastic surgery; 8) make the cadaver look pretty with make-up. 

Please forgive my using analogy rather than the most convoluted "scientific" jargon possible. First, I don't know it, second I don't want to know it, and third, I want to say it in a way that most people can "get." However, I will try to respond in greater detail to anyone that doesn't, including scientists. I'm always willing to learn from others and to have my mistakes pointed out, and I am eager to hear from scientists and others on the specific nature of my errors. I prefer to deal with specifics, hence the examples from the Far West. 

In my mind, at least, this discussion is not, and should not be confined in any way, much less to the Great Basin and CA. That's because it should be about principles, not methods or techniques. Principles can be applied anywhere they are relevant; methods and techniques are linear expediencies that nearly always fit the situation badly, sometimes fatally. Some methods and techniques used in CA might work in NE or vice-versa, but automatic or slavish adherence to them, even in the location of origin, is courting trouble. 

When it comes to any standard, requirement, rule, or "BMP," I think it's a fair question to question it and the reasoning behind it. Also, is it relevant to reality? What evidence supports the conclusion? What does it actually MEAN--is it arbitrary, imaginary, or based on a disciplined examination of the relevant elements of the entirety of the context? Bureaucracies have a tendency to make excuses for clinging to rules in the absence of clear evidence that there are no better rules possible. I do think performance standards, including holding bonds for a reasonable period of time or hitting a reasonable target, are essential, but the standards should be set for each project, and sometimes need to be different for different parts of projects (for example, things like slope angle, aspect, soil type, AWC, and a lot of variables out of the contractor's control can affect performance). Performance standards have to be in sync with what is feasible, particularly when the options are constrained by budget, agency intransigence, etc. The contractor should be able to provide an estimated range of what is feasilble, but low bidders must be constrained from whining their way out and getting the money that should have gone to another bidder. Although optimal allocation of scarce resources is a necessary goal of all public agencies, we all know that there needs to be some latitude on either side of perfection. 

100 percent native "purity" may be a noble goal, and it may be necessary in some contexts, but I don't know that the evidence supports that it is the only way in all cases. I can understand the need to hold a performance bond until xx% of the "pre-construction/native, perennial vegetation is restored," but I would rather see a requirement, based upon both sound theory and comparable empirical evidence (although empirical evidence that is not explained by sound theory might be, and often is, misleading, though it can lead to refinement of theory). Empirical evidence, when repeated and repeated can lead to useful generalizations about whether this or that practice gets results or fails to get results, but it is nearly always more difficult and expensive than when data and theory are reconciled. 

"Local" is a difficult term. With some species, like tight endemics, "local ecotypes" are essential. With others there may be a range in terms of altitude, latitude, soil features, pH, and many other factors that can change the area that can be considered "local." One can run into the same kind of trouble with ecotypes, sometimes even worse trouble, but this generalization is likely to be reliable enough, at least on a trial basis. The proof of the pudding . . .

I understand the situation with bromes, but there may be LOTS of other approaches that do not exceed budgetary limits that get the job done, over a longer period of time. It may take some shifting of paradigms as well. 

Standard engineering practices/specs can cause a lot of trouble when they don't have to. It doesn't take much to change an impossible situation into a "golden" solution; it just has to be "sold" to the engineers in the right way. As in buildings, foundations must fit the building requirements--no engineer would use the same foundation on every building. No restoration ecologist can work responsibility without employing every possible (and practical) opportunity to support the intended ecosystem. Organisms are a reflection of site conditions, and that's a large part of why construction projects will only support weeds for many years. It's a pity that priceless ecotype seeds have to be wasted where they haven't a prayer of making a stand against a degraded site. 

WT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Krohn, Alison" <Alison.Krohn at nebraska.gov>
To: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" <Craig at astreet.com>; <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: [APWG] Why not succeed the first time, with Performance Standards?


> How does this group define a weed?  Are naturalized plants like lambs quarters viewed the same as native ragweed?  I'm very confused by the insistence on 100% native purity. I don't think it's possible in the Midwest. I work for a state transportation agency and we seed 98% native species, not local ecotype.  But when our seeding adjoins a brome pasture, brome will invade and we cannot spend public resources to prevent that.  Is this discussion confined to the great basin and California?
> 
> Is everyone aware of the clean water act and the requirements of the NPDES construction permit?  Anywhere more than 1 acre is disturbed (unless you're a farmer) a construction stormwater permit is required and remains open until 70% of the pre-construction/native, perennial vegetation is restored.  Most of the roadsides we are regrading and seeding were brome.  Native prairie vegetation, especially mixed grass areas will provide less vegetative cover than the brome and therefore will potentially discharge more sediment into our waterways (if you believe the RUSLE2 model).  I'm not advocating brome, just want to point out the mixed messages out there and conflicting expectations.  We must stabilize erodible soils within 14 days under the clean water act to protect our waterways.  This state uses a mix of cool and warm season grasses to meet this requirement along with some forbs. It is not a restoration mix. 
> 
> I also grow local ecotype seed and obviously support its  use but there is not enough of this seed in our area to restore roadsides and there doesn't appear to be the public support for this endeavor in terms of dollars from FHWA, the state government or wealthy donors. I applaud all of the research that Craig and others are doing but am frustrated by the assumption that roadsides are restorations.  We just don't have the resources to pull it off.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:07 AM
> To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> Subject: [APWG] Why not succeed the first time, with Performance Standards?
> 
> Dear Wayne and All,
> 
> Thanks for your email.
> 
> Did everyone enjoy the Europe to Africa vegetation Megatransect  at
> http://www.ecoseeds.com/europe_africa_megatransect.html ?
> I extended the web page yesterday, to cover from the northern tip of
> Norway (70N) to the southern tip of Africa (34S).  How about those rocks
> in Mali at 18N?
> 
> What I am suggesting, is that we start looking for weed management or
> Ecological Restoration methods, with Performance Standards, for our
> projects, espcially the government-funded ones, like habitat restoration,
> or highway roadsides, etc.
> 
> Up to now, when someone purchased local native seeds, or purchased native
> plants from a nursery, there was a hope that the seed company or the
> nursery would be able to tell you, how to plant those seeds or plants, so
> they would succeed and thrive in a wildlands situation.
> 
> Being the owner of a seed company and nursery myself, it is all that a
> seed company or nursery can do for the price, to deliver good germinating,
> weed-free native seeds, or nurseries to deliver healthy native plants---to
> expect them to give you any advice on how to plant them in a wildlands
> situation, is way, way beyond the scope of their work.
> 
> Successful technologies on planting those natives back into wildlands, and
> getting them to survive, is a separate, very expensive puzzle to solve,
> and is going to require a separate, very significant investment.
> 
> That is why I set forth a set of costs per 1/10th acre, on how much it may
> cost to invent the technologies necessary, at
> http://www.ecoseeds.com/standards.html
> 
> A similar situation happened in the computer industry before 1967. 
> Computers were built and sold, and the software and operating systems were
> free.  But when the programs and operating systems were free,  there was
> no economic incentive to write better ones, so they were very slow and
> clunky--it might take 12 hours to process one job, for example.
> 
> Then, in 1967, Kenneth Kolence started the first business to write and
> license software, and his first product was one that is still used today,
> the disk defragmentation program, which rearranged the programs on the
> disk so all the parts of each program were right next to each other,
> greatly speeding up the computer operations.
> 
> It seems much more efficient, to start out buying or licensing a
> pre-tested weed management or ecological restoration program, that has
> some solid Performance Standards supporting it?
> 
> Otherwise, the scary, horror-show of the I-505 planting in the Sacramento
> valley, we see it is possible to invest $450,000 on a couple of acres, 
> and by using the unlicensed, public domain, off-the-shelf free restoration
> technologies, still not get it right after six years and five planting
> attempts?  Why not succeed the first time?
> 
> 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.plantconservation.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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.66/2325 - Release Date: 08/25/09 06:08:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20090826/012aee82/attachment.html>