[APWG] Herbicide Application Techniques Prohibit Re: NEWS: Study finds one-time herbicide use decreased native plants, may have increased invasive plants
Alan.V.Tasker at aphis.usda.gov
Alan.V.Tasker at aphis.usda.gov
Mon Sep 28 12:14:31 CDT 2009
Okay, I was too cryptic. Once more, with more specificity, and I'll drop
this.
I'm not arguing that Matt Rinella's study is incorrect, but that the
results are not surprising, at least not to me. And apparently not to
several of you.
I would modify Karen Adair's comment to the extent that I think Tordon's
effects were at least partially known at that point, but I'll agree
negative effects were not fully understood, and were seen (at the time) as
acceptable because there were few herbicide alternatives. Our views have
changed, but that view reflected the common view of the time that weed
science meant herbicide science. I hope our understanding has developed
beyond that simplistic view.
My view of Integrated Vegetation Management is that it should be informed
by a clear view of what our goal is, no matter what the tool we are using
to intervene in the ecosystem. Herbicides, biological control, grazing
management, mowing, or any other. They all have environmental trade-offs.
For too long we assumed a one time intervention would solve all. Or even
repeated herbicide treatment without consideration of the results. Of
course that was too simplistic. Over-grazing and other factors led to the
problems over time, so a simple one-shot answer was not able to succeed.
Or upon reflection, even realistic.
Herbicides are a tool, like any other. The herbicide tool, and other tools
have improved over time, as has our understanding of ecosystem function. I
read nothing in your response that disagrees with that. It seems to me we
are talking past each other. I think few of us would blithely recommend a
'broadcast Tordon one time and walk away' approach. At least I hope not.
But that doesn't mean Tordon couldn't be an appropriate part of a
integrated program with proper safeguards and attention to the landscape
features. Such as water resources. Also to revegetation issues.
I'm not talking about any particular system of " 'Process flow charts' and
other impressive devices" as you put it. They are tracking tools for
managing data, but they don't result in an improved ecosystem, unless we
understand why we are intervening, how we will follow up, and plan for
monitoring to measure progress to and modify our approach if necessary.
Any tool needs intelligent use. I cut my leg with a chain saw once, but I
still use one. Although much more cautiously.
I certainly agree the an IVM program needs to integrate all relevant
science. A simplistic 'one treatment and walk away' won't do it. It
never did, but for too long folks ignored that fact.
I kept on my bulletin board for a long time "The development of a
scientist; from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty".
Alan V. Tasker, Ph.D.
National Noxious Weed Program Manager
USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection & Quarantine
Emergency and Domestic Programs
Plant Pathogen & Weed Programs
(301) 734-5708
Fax (301) 734-8584
"Wayne Tyson"
<landrest at cox.net
> To
Sent by:
apwg-bounces at list cc
s.plantconservati
on.org Subject
Re: [APWG] Herbicide Application
Techniques Prohibit Re: NEWS:
09/25/2009 03:16 Studyfinds one-time herbicide use
PM decreased native plants, may
have increased invasive plants
I hope Tasker will not tax us with generalities, thus tasking us with
trying to figure out what he specifically means.
I am dubious about acronyms, and the catchy labels from which they spring,
as they tend to become buzzwords that either lose their original meaning or
debase the terms of which they are composed. "Process flow charts" and
other impressive devices, when broken down into what they really say, don't
amount to much. The "integrated" aspects of IVM say little or nothing about
ecosystem function and lack specificity with respect to post-treatment
performance.
This is not to say that ecosystems should not be "managed," but herbicides
of any kind tend to be used under the rather simplistic logic, "Weeds bad,
kill weeds, keep killing weeds." That's simply not demonstrably good
enough; virtually all of the cases I have seen rely upon a time-limited set
of general observations (mostly impressive photos) or "surveys" that do not
reveal the long-term implications of ecosystem function. For example, if
one sprays herbicides on weeds, impressive results will follow and be
photographed. Such "data" don't prove anything with respect to ecosystem
function and "health." "Vegetation management" has too long been a
euphemism for killing plants indiscriminately. I would like to see the
details of an IVM program that truly integrates all relevant science.
To truly advance this important discussion, it will be necessary to
establish a tradition of being directly responsive to points made in a
sequence that moves quickly from generalization to theoretical foundations
to evidence, all with lines of relevance clearly evident and assessment,
action, and consequences feedback loops that fully describe the phenomena,
not sell them short. Specific examples which have been sufficiently
researched by independent entities and replicated by other disinterested
(out of the money loop) parties in accordance with the basic principles of
good science. Too much is at stake for the foxes to be in charge of the
henhouses--which should be transparent and open to all for inspection.
WT
PS: I will soon be off the internet for at least a month.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Alan.V.Tasker at aphis.usda.gov>
To: <APWG at lists.plantconservation.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [APWG] Herbicide Application Techniques Prohibit Re: NEWS:
Studyfinds one-time herbicide use decreased native plants, may have
increased invasive plants
> Tremendous progress has been made in IVM and in more eco friendly
herbicides in the last 16 years.
>
> Alan V. Tasker, Ph.D.
> National Noxious Weed Program Manager
>
> USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
> Plant Protection & Quarantine
> Emergency and Domestic Programs
> Plant Pathogen & Weed Programs
>
> (301) 734-5708
> Fax (301) 734-8584
>
>
>
> Bill Stringer
> <bstrngr at clemson.
> edu> To
> Sent by: "Karen Adair" <kadair at TNC.ORG>,
> apwg-bounces at list "Wayne Tyson" <landrest at cox.net>,
> s.plantconservati <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>,
> on.org <native-plants at lists.plantconservat
> ion.org>
> cc
> 09/24/2009 01:28
> PM Subject
> Re: [APWG] Herbicide Application
> Techniques Prohibit Re: NEWS:
> Studyfinds one-time herbicide use
> decreased native plants, may have
> increased invasive plants
>
>
>
> I'm with you, Karen!!
>
> Bill Stringer
>
> At 12:53 PM 9/24/2009, Karen Adair wrote:
> A one-time application of such a virulent herbicide as Tordon
without
> follow-up is irresponsible. Given that the application was made 16
> years ago, I suspect that Tordon's effects were not as commonly
known at
> that point. I'd also add that the practice of herbicide application
as a
> management technique was not as common 16 years ago as it is today
> and the necessity for follow-up was often equally misunderstood.
>
> All this study shows is that man is prone to making mistakes and
that
> those mistakes can have grave consequences. It doesn't show that
> avoiding general spraying is right, it shows that the misuse of an
> herbicide is wrong. The problems associated with "the use of general
> spraying as a weed-control technique" are human-derived. This study
> supports why land management activities need to be carried out by
> professionals who understand the need for a thorough, intelligent,
> and committed approach.
>
> Science can never prove something to be right, only highlight when
> something has failed. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove
me
> right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Albert Einstein
>
> I will gladly repeat and repeat: "I hereby eternally swear that I
> shall eschew irresponsible methodology and application in
weed-control
> techniques."
>
> Karen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
> [ mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of
Wayne
> Tyson
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:05 AM
> To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org;
> native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
> Subject: [APWG] Herbicide Application Techniques Prohibit Re: NEWS:
> Studyfinds one-time herbicide use decreased native plants,may have
> increased invasive plants
>
> AT LAST! But SIXTEEN YEARS to declare the obvious that can be
> demonstrated by one simple experiment?
>
> Actually, I'm not surprised. But let us all repeat and repeat: "I
> hereby eternally swear that I shall eschew the use of general
spraying as a
> weed-control technique."
>
> This is not to say that direct application of the minimal lethal
dose
> by wick, by brush, by injection, by highly directed, low-pressure
> pneumatically-driven application to target plants only should be
> abandoned.
>
> WT
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Olivia Kwong" <plant at plantconservation.org>
> To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>;
> <native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:39 AM
> Subject: [APWG] NEWS: Study finds one-time herbicide use decreased
> native plants, may have increased invasive plants
>
>
> > http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=7522
> >
> > Study finds one-time herbicide use decreased native plants, may
> have
> > increased invasive plants September 22, 2009 -- Melynda Harrison,
> MSU
> > News Service
> >
> > Matt Rinella, faculty in Animal and Range Science at Montana State
> > University and an ecologist at the Fort Keogh Agricultural
> Experiment
> > Station in Miles City, recently published the results of a 16-year
> > study in the journal Ecological Applications.
> >
> > See the link above for the full press release text.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
> > APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> >
>
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantco
>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2394 - Release Date: 09/25/09
05:51:00
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the APWG
mailing list