[APWG] ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION and weed management projects

[Wayne Tyson]

Craig and APWG:

Thanks, Craig, for the additional information. The next time I'm in the 
area, I will call Shaw and try to set up a visit, if he's willing.

I'd like to see the plots and get more data on the CALTRANS project too, 
including the cost-effectiveness picture; I'll try to contact the right 
person in CALTRANS and go out to the site. I don't know where it is and what 
the treatment boundaries are.

I couldn't find anything on the FS links, but one did lead to a post of 
yours from one of our previous discussions on APWG, on what you call "tiny 
test plots." I set up about 24 10 square meter test plots and one half-acre 
one at Malibu Creek SP in 1980 to test various methodologies; it turned out 
that the cheapest method worked the best, though it didn't provide anything 
close to 100 percent cover in 90 days. As I said, I consider such results to 
be miraculous, but I gotta see it to believe it. Please understand that my 
skepticism does not imply that I don't believe you, it just means that I'm 
skeptical. I believe that context is everything, but if you're saying that 
your trade secrets can produce such results every time (or even one time), 
I'd say you are a miracle-worker--a better man than I am.

I have never been a fan of the 90/90 rule, even though I know that agencies 
have been locked into this concept for decades. Coverage, to me, is the 
easiest thing to achieve, but it is largely irrelevant in ecosystem 
restoration--I assert that TREND toward IMPROVEMENT without SIGNIFICANT OR 
LASTING DEGRADATION is more important, along with diversity and richness. I 
have seen a lot of 90/90 (or 100 percent cover) projects fall apart as soon 
as the expensive management is pulled out (but I will say that once 
populations of indigenous species have been established by any means, they 
can often recover and end up in the same place--it just takes more time and 
money to get there that way. I don't know what kind of dollar figures you're 
talking about, but my objective has been to keep the cost to a minimum and 
to be realistic about feasibility. Of course, this opens a whole can of 
worms debate, but that's healthy, provided that the discussion actually 
moves forward through truly responsive and relevant feedback loops. What is 
important in ecosystem restoration is PERMANENCE, that a complex, indigenous 
assemblage of species develops into a functioning ecosystem that meets 
Ewel's criteria too, especially (important to the subject matter of this 
listserv) RESISTANCE TO INVASION.

I quite agree with you about most everything, especially when you discuss 
actual methodology, like removing the biggest weeds first, species by 
species. In places where a good seed bank exists in the site soil, I would 
expect dormant indigenous species to appear. In such a context, while I am 
usually not in favor of pulling or prying out big weeds because of the 
disturbance setting up conditions for the emergence of additional weeds, the 
practice just might prove to be a net benefit because a certain amount of 
soil disturbance can stimulate the germination of indigenous species too. 
That is, given world enough, money enough, and time enough, a persistent 
de-weeding effort should quite naturally foster the growth of dormant 
indigenous species.

Most of my clients, however, have balked at the high cost of intensive 
management, and my own sense of dedication and responsibility has led me in 
the direction of "the simplest, and often the cheapest, approach THAT GETS 
THE JOB DONE has its own validity, provided it gets to the same or a better 
(more advanced ecological) place--permanence and SELF-SUFFICIENCY.

I'm glad that you have been lucky enough to find projects with a rich, 
viable, remaining seed bank. I have been faced with sterile soils or sites 
so long-degraded that the seed bank was either non-existent (e.g., disposal 
fills, sanitary landfills, etc.) or depauperate that the ratio of indigenous 
propagules:weeds was so tilted toward the latter that artificial 
introduction and in-migration by natural vectors were the major mechanisms 
available. I have worked out ways to deal with such contexts, but they're 
trade secrets. Just kidding--the "secret" is to acquire and synthesize 
information into a sound theoretical framework that can be done with little 
or no active management and still show a trend of increasing resistance to 
evasion. In fact, I found something very interesting--the sterile projects 
that depended upon artificial introduction of propagules and natural vectors 
of in-migration actually produced less weeds than previously vegetated sites 
that had significant populations of weeds. Of course, almost everyplace has 
alien populations so nearby that natural vectors (and unnatural vectors like 
vehicles, clothing, and domestic stock) will inevitably cause the 
colonization of some alien species. But you are still right--in the sense 
that in the case of sterile sites one has to artificially create the 
indigenous seed bank. Just keep the aliens out of the "mix," as you so 
sagely point out!

I'm gonna stop here, simply because the post is already too long. I will 
say, however, that testing the two general approaches on sites that are as 
near identical as possible would be an interesting test, don't you think? 
Independent researchers could gather and analyze data over a period of time, 
say three to five years (although assessment after the first year will tell 
a lot. Just set the performance standards and have a go at it.

What the country needs is less wheel-spinning and endless grant-sucking, and 
to find the most cost-effective way to shift ecosystems toward high 
efficiency, resiliency, and productivity, and to serve human needs equitably 
without degradation. We are in a degraded state now, have been for a long 
time, and will be into the foreseeable future (although it appears to be 
getting worse, not better). All of the "stakeholders" would benefit from an 
honest evaluation and shift from a paradigm that is demonstrably "working" 
miserably to one that serves human needs in a (yes, truly sustainable way, 
not the warped and dishonest way it is often used as a spin device).

WT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" <Craig at astreet.com>
To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:54 AM
Subject: [APWG] ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION and weed management projects


Dear Wayne and All,

Thanks for your email.

I completely agree with you, we need to review weed management and
restoration projects, especially the huge ones here in California, where
CALFED has been spending $100 million each year for the last decade,
supposedly to fight the weeds and restore habitat for the Listed
Endangered fish of the Sacramento delta.

The CALTRANS project was not mine, but was a project to convert solid
yellow star thistle along the Interstate that caught fire every summer,
back to local perennial native grasses, working with UC Davis,  that you
can see at http://www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html

SHAW's Santa Cruz Project, was only 1% of my technologies, and Shaw
himself invented the rest of the 99% trade secret technologies that worked
perfectly, and enabled him to convert his 74 acre weed patch from 1992, to
2000 consisting of 99% native cover with over 100 species.

Shaw has a web page at http://www.libertygarden.com and anyone wanting to
view what I call--The Promised Land--should contact Michael directly and
arrange for a visit.

IDAHO--I taught classes to the USFS and BLM on how to use their own local
native seeds in their forests in Idaho and in CA, WA, OR, MT, CO, SD and
WY at, http://www.ecoseeds.com/classes.html.

I was also hired to encourage the USFS, to use small-scale test plots of
local natives in the Franklin Basin that you can see their successful test
plots at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/caribou-targhee/publications/monitoring/cariboumonitoring02_03.pdf

More details were posted about Franklin Basin on this list on August 18,
2009 at
http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/2009-August/001665.html

Also, in Idaho, I was a participant in a very important meeting in 2000 in
Boise, about the use of exotic seeds by the Department of Interior, BLM,
in the tens of millions of pounds per year on public lands, that you can
read at http://www.ecoseeds.com/juicy.gossip.six.html

I love the picture on my web page, of the rugged cowboy/farm advisor
standing amongst the newest exotic invasive legume species that the
government has introduced to sow and spread in California wildlands.

I just saw True Grit in the theater this weekend, and it was filmed for
the high elevation conifer forest/grasslands near Santa Fe, NM, and for
the oak woodlands/grasslands somewhere in the hill country around Austin
TX.

If we consider the landscape as the main character of that movie, and look
at what is happening to that main character, then that film tells a very
different and interesting story.  The cowboys were just the most recent
players on this billion year old continent/stage.

If you look at the understory and grasslands--they are totally wasted,
grazed to within an inch of their lives, and the wildflowers were all
extinct, even though they should have been present and blooming, the time
of year they were filming those areas.

And the oak woodlands are all even-aged, with no seedlings and no elders.
On the good side, the riparian shots are decent, and there are some wispy
native grasses, probably an Elymus species,  in the oak understory.

Unfortunately,  missing in the entire movie, you do not see any native
mammals, no ground squirrels, no deer, plus not a single bird--either
chirping and none visible flying--nor for the night scenes, a single
cricket or frog sound.

And it was also sad to see, when the go into the Indian Territory, that
there was only a single adult Indian is in the movie, and the two Indian
children on their own land, get kicked several times by the cowboy.

We need to encourage the local natives including the birds and the
crickets and the frogs and the people, and convert our weed areas back to
native cover, and make sure that we are not kicking the natives out and
leaving bare areas where the exotics can colonize in the future.

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.


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3443 - Release Date: 02/14/11