[APWG] Ecosystem management and restoration planning

[Wayne Tyson]

The roughest guess that gets the job done works. Formal training can prove 
necessary to unlearn sometimes, especially if methods are emphasized over 
principles.

Maybe you could try a specific example here and see what you get.

WT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Yousey" <rjyousey at att.net>
To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [APWG] Ecosystem management and restoration planning


> Hello, I do not have a background in ecology, but this topic has 
> interested
> me for quite awhile, since weed control overlaps with more agriculturally
> focused land management. Looking for causes can add to the 'feeling' of
> futility. I understand that it is vitally important for improving methods.
> But, is it only part of the picture. Can a review of the history of the 
> site
> and use of cultural controls be more practical for putting things in
> perspective for those of us without formal training? A lot of people
> understand some of the basics and professional services are expensive and
> scarce.
> Thanks, Kim Yousey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
> [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of
> apwg-request at lists.plantconservation.org
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 2:00 PM
> To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> Subject: APWG Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14
>
> Send APWG mailing list submissions to
> apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva
> tion.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> apwg-request at lists.plantconservation.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> apwg-owner at lists.plantconservation.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of APWG digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Ecosystem management and
>      restorationplanningPlantsAlienspecies component Re:
>      NEWS:Removingspeciesfromsub-Antarctic island 'causeddisaster'
>      (Wayne Tyson)
>   2. NEWS: Invasive plants challenge scientists in face of
>      environmental change (Olivia Kwong)
>   3. Bad management can be worse, in California
>      (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:43:07 -0800
> From: "Wayne Tyson" <landrest at cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [APWG] Ecosystem management and
> restorationplanningPlantsAlienspecies component Re:
> NEWS:Removingspeciesfromsub-Antarctic island 'causeddisaster'
> To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
> Message-ID: <07ee01c977a5$b0da5e60$6501a8c0 at wayneb2f97d881>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> No doubt that is true in some cases, but either way it is speculation 
> until
> there is a disciplined survey with appropriate controls and notation of
> differences. On the other hand, there have been cases where damage has 
> been
> done.
>
> WT
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <ialm at erols.com>
> To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [APWG] Ecosystem management and
> restorationplanningPlantsAlienspecies component Re:
> NEWS:Removingspeciesfromsub-Antarctic island 'causeddisaster'
>
>
> Just a reminder. Mistakes in non-native invasive species control have
> caused much, much, less damage than the mistake of doing nothing. Cheers.
> Marc
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Karen Adair kadair at TNC.ORG
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:22:43 -0500
> To: landrest at cox.net, apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> Subject: Re: [APWG] Ecosystem management and restoration
> planningPlantsAlienspecies component Re: NEWS:
> Removingspeciesfromsub-Antarctic island 'causeddisaster'
>
>
> Your response reminds me of the knee jerk reaction I often have when I
> think someone is not doing something the "right" way or in a way "I
> know" they "should." This is just my flawed thinking and when I
> recognize I'm thinking this way, I remind myself of Einstein's quote:
> "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
> experiment can prove me wrong."
>
> I've discovered the hard way that nobody wants to hear what they
> "should" be doing or that they're doing it "wrong." I instead have
> learned and try to focus on only what is in my power. You don't have the
> power to change the way people think, but it is in your power to provide
> useful information to support your belief. If someone listens and adopts
> it, great. If not, that's just how it is.
>
> Your last paragraph illustrated my point about our flawed thinking. It's
> not that those people didn't know about what light availability does to
> plants. It's that somewhere along the way, their thinking was flawed and
> they didn't accurately predict what would happen. Understanding why they
> didn't predict it or where that flaw occurred hits the core of
> understanding how to be effective.
>
> I've also learned that if I live my life trying to find reassurance in
> what other's are doing, I'm going to be upset. Nobody will "do
> conservation" perfectly or the way "I think" it should be done. Millions
> of mistakes have been made and that's part of what has gotten us to
> where we are today, for better and worse. If I devote the time I spend
> thinking about what others are doing or not doing instead to what I can
> do, I'll be that much more effective in contributing to our common goal.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
> [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Wayne
> Tyson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:32 PM
> To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> Subject: Re: [APWG] Ecosystem management and restoration planning
> PlantsAlienspecies component Re: NEWS: Removing speciesfromsub-Antarctic
> island 'causeddisaster'
>
> KA and PC:
>
> Of course I agree; however, I have seen many cases where individuals'
> and organizations' actions in alien-bashing have left me with the
> impression that their knowledge and skills were more limited than would
> be necessary for the error avoidance procedures you mention, and were
> not only not followed, they were strenuous objections. On one occasion,
> for example, when it was suggested in a statewide alien plant
> orginazation's seminar that optimal allocations of scarce resources be a
> consideration according to a priority list based upon the procedures
> mentioned, including feasibility and infeasibility as well as net
> effectiveness (I'm trying to make a long story short here), there was
> outraged objection based on the "logic" that "we know they are
> invasives, and that's all we need to know, etc., so forget all that bs
> and just get on with the work. The seminar leaders apparently agreed and
> emphasized technique "effectiveness" such as which herbicides to use,
> how to use mechanical methods, etc. Suggestion that improving ecosystem
> "health" or any kind of integrated analysis and proof of restoration of
> ecosystem equilibrium was consider an obstacle to action rather than a
> necessary or even useful part of a comprehensive and integrated program
> that would result in true long-term effectiveness. The emphasis seemed
> to be on gaining satisfaction only by the removal or killing of aliens
> in the short-term.
> "Nature" was supposed to "take care of everything else." The general
> impression given was that if one was not a true-believer in the
> organization's precepts that vilification or worse would be in store for
> the offenders.
>
> I don't know the case to which you allude, but it would seem that the
> California case might be indicative of something along the lines just
> mentioned. Someone with even the most casual knowledge of ecological
> processes should know--for starters-- that weeds "like" light. The
> effects of the eradication efforts on such simple concepts and soil
> water, nutrients, and nutrient sequestration might have been in the
> realm of "needless" complexity.
>
> Nonetheless, I am reassured that somewhere all who are working on
> invasives do "understand that they are working in ecosystems and what
> that means."
>
> WT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karen Adair" <kadair at TNC.ORG>
> To: "Wayne Tyson" <landrest at cox.net>; "Olivia Kwong"
> <plant at plantconservation.org>; <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 6:15 PM
> Subject: RE: [APWG] Ecosystem management and restoration planning Plants
> Alienspecies component Re: NEWS: Removing species fromsub-Antarctic
> island 'causeddisaster'
>
>
> I say a more correct title would have been "Flawed thinking 'caused
> disaster' on sub-Antarctic island"
>
> I don't remember the specifics, but I know of at least one scenario
> where this has happened with plants. I think an invasive tree species
> was successfully eradicated somewhere in California only to promote the
> massive and swift invasion of some herbaceous understory plant that was
> just waiting for such an event. And these were highly intelligent people
> working on this.
>
> I don't know anyone working on invasives who doesn't understand that
> they are working in ecosystems and what that means. This gets me to the
> opinion I've formed from constant analysis of my own mistakes
> (fortunately never described as "disasters") and successes which is that
> the "root of the root"
> in all mistakes comes from our lack of understanding and acceptance that
> there will always be flaws in how people think and decide. The human
> thought process is imperfect and intellectual limitations are constant.
> We can't change those facts, but knowing and thinking of it whenever we
> have to make a decision should remind us to push away our assumptions
> and instead rely on and stick to sound, strategic planning principles
> and the questions and information that come as a result. That is the
> only way to mitigate the effects of our emotions, perceptions, and
> ignorance in our thought processes. I can directly link every mistake
> I've ever made to at least one of those three. I can link every success
> to the fact that I kept my goal front and center at all times.
>
> "The lessons for conservation agencies globally is that interventions
> should be comprehensive, and include risk assessments to explicitly
> consider and plan for indirect effects, or face substantial subsequent
> costs."
>
> This quote is very logical and you would think that everyone working to
> protect the environment would know this and do it automatically
> especially with a project of this importance, scale, and nature. To me,
> why they did not do it is the key component in this story and what would
> be most helpful to know and learn from.
>
>
> Thanks. Karen
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
> [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Wayne
> Tyson
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:46 PM
> To: Olivia Kwong; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem management and restoration planning Plants
> Alienspecies component Re: NEWS: Removing species fromsub-Antarctic
> island 'causeddisaster'
>
>
> APWG:
>
> While we don't usually think of predator-prey relationships with plants,
> there can be situations where alien plant removal procedures are
> detrimental to ecosystem health. And the lesson here of understanding
> interspecies connections and making predictions that are testable as
> theory, then test plots, then useful procedures, beats the "find 'em,
> whack 'em, and forget 'em" approach that is far too widely used
> (sometimes with good results,* but too often with negative or neutral
> results). While consideration of the whole ecosystem context may take
> more time, it can minimize error, expense, and wasted or
> counterproductive effort.
>
> WT
>
> *Ecosystems are resilient--that is, "forgiving." But correlations are
> not always reflective of causation, and a shift in context can mean
> success in one case, failure in another.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Olivia Kwong" <plant at plantconservation.org
> <mailto:plant at plantconservation.org> >
> To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> <mailto:apwg at lists.plantconservation.org> >
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:33 AM
> Subject: [APWG] NEWS: Removing species from sub-Antarctic island
> 'causeddisaster'
>
>
>> About animal species, but it did affect plants on the island.
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090112/sc_afp/environmentbiodiversityinv
>> asiveaustralia_newsmlmmd
>> <http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090112/sc_afp/environmentbiodiversityin
>> vasiveaustralia_newsmlmmd>
>>
>> Removing species from sub-Antarctic island 'caused disaster'
>> Mon Jan 12, 12:34 pm ET
>>
>> PARIS (AFP) -- Efforts to remove an invasive species from a
>> sub-Antarctic island that has been named a World Heritage site
>> accidentally triggered an environmental catastrophe, a study to be
> published on Tuesday says.
>>
>> The eradication programme on Macquarie Island, lying halfway between
>> Australia and Antarctica, is a cautionary tale about the complex web
>> of ecosystems, its authors say.
>>
>> See the link above for the full article text.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
>> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>> <mailto:APWG at lists.plantconservation.org>
>> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantco
>> nservation.org
>> <http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantc
>> onservation.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 - http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.6/1888 - Release Date:
> 1/12/2009
> 7:04 AM
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1893 - Release Date:
> 1/14/2009
> 6:59 AM
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantcons
> ervation.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.plantconserva
> tion.org
>
> Disclaimer
> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
> opinion of the individual posting the message.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web LIVE - Free email based on Microsoft? Exchange technology -
> http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1895 - Release Date: 1/15/2009
> 7:46 AM
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:00:46 -0600 (CST)
> From: Olivia Kwong <plant at plantconservation.org>
> Subject: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive plants challenge scientists in face of
> environmental change
> To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> Message-ID:
> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901160859480.7397 at cpanel1-bb.epconline.net>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoca-ipc011309.php
>
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> Invasive plants challenge scientists in face of environmental change
> Warmer growing seasons, increases in CO2 and nitrogen amplify weedy
> species success, says CU-Boulder researcher
>
> Managing invasive plant species on the Great Plains has become more
> challenging in recent years in the face of human-caused environmental
> change, including the positive responses of invaders to altered
> atmospheric chemistry and longer growing seasons, says a University of
> Colorado at Boulder professor.
>
> See the link above for the full text of the press release.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:13:34 -0000 (UTC)
> From: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" <Craig at astreet.com>
> Subject: [APWG] Bad management can be worse, in California
> To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> Message-ID: <1287.199.232.90.53.1232126014.squirrel at fast2.astreet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Dear All,
>
> I want to disagree very strongly with Marc's statement.  I have been
> watching the management of our last best example of native California
> grasslands, for a 200 mile radius of San Francisco.
>
> The area is called Russian Ridge, a part of a local public lands district,
> and the Board 10 years ago, spent $100,000 with a consultant, to study
> what would be the best methods to manage the weeds that were invading the
> area.
>
> You can read about Russian Ridge and see photos at
> http://www.ecoseeds.com/invent.html.  Instead of doing what the consultant
> suggested, the Board has gone for what they thought would be the cheap
> solution, burning the area three times.
>
> What the three fires have done, is killed more wildflowers, and spread the
> weeds even faster, because the weeds can take advantage of the area
> cleared by the fire, than the natives can recolonize the areas.
>
> Misguided management, cheap solutions, and no before-management and after-
> management vegetation transects, can leave your ecosystems in much, much
> worse shape out here in the arid West.
>
> Sincerely,  Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> APWG mailing list
> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva
> tion.org
>
>
> End of APWG Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14
> ************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.8/1898 - Release Date: 1/16/2009 
3:09 PM