From plant at plantconservation.org Wed Feb 1 07:15:11 2012 From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:15:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: [APWG] CONFERENCE: 14th Annual SE-EPPC Conference - Call for papers (Auburn, AL) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 14th Annual SE-EPPC Conference and 10th Annual ALIPC Conference Join in bringing you the Past, Present and Future of Invasive Plants in the Southeast May 8-10, 2012 Auburn University Hotel and Conference Center 241 South College Street, Auburn, AL 36830 New this year: Student Travel Grants and Cash Prize Student Poster Awards! Call for Papers is attached. More information available at: http://www.se-eppc.org/2012/ From plant at plantconservation.org Wed Feb 1 07:20:10 2012 From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:20:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: [APWG] NEWS: UCSB Scientists Warn Against Invasive Species Message-ID: http://www.dailynexus.com/2012-01-31/ucsb-scientists-warn-invasive-species/ UCSB Scientists Warn Against Invasive Species By Kyle Naughton Published on January 31, 2012 A recent study led by scientists at UC Santa Barbara.s National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis demonstrated how globalization and the demand for drought-resistant plant species threaten to overcome native plants in the United States. Based on these findings, the scientists proposed that bio-imports be screened before entering the U.S. See the link above for the full article text. From ialm at erols.com Mon Feb 6 04:48:55 2012 From: ialm at erols.com (Marc Imlay) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 05:48:55 -0500 Subject: [APWG] historic and environmental preservation at Colonial period buildings in Maryland Message-ID: <70bcd1$rha6c0@smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Landscape managers in Maryland and in the region may be assisted with my report on landscaping with colonial historic native plants. http://www.mdflora.org/forgardeners.html Miscellaneous List of native plants from John Bartram's nursery Complete plant list from John Bartram's Nursery, March 1792 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ma-ipc/message/4652 Marc Imlay, PhD, Conservation biologist, Park Ranger Office Non-native Invasive Plant Control coordinator. (301) 442-5657 cell ialm at erols.com Natural and Historical Resources Division The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission www.pgparks.com Landscaping with colonial historic native plants Many preservationists are interested in historic and environmental preservation at Colonial period buildings in Maryland and in the region. Following is a list of plants that were in the colonial nursery trade that are also native to Maryland. The list of 31 species was obtained from checking all the 106 plants George Washington obtained from John Bartram's Nursery with Brown and Brown and Asa Gray to verify which ones are native to Maryland. Landscaping with both historically and environmentally sound choices is excellent. Notice that Japanese barberry should be replaced with American barberry. The references are: George Washington: Landscape Architect List of Plants From John Bartram's Nursery, March 1792 http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/bartram/index.html and Woody Plants of Maryland, Russel G. Brown and Melvin L. Brown, 1972 Herbaceous Plants of Maryland, Russel G. Brown and Melvin L. Brown, 1984 Department of Botany, University of Maryland. Note that some plants, such as (a 3) Hypericum kalmianum, Shrub St. John's wort, and (38.) Styrax grandifolium, Snowdrop Tree, are listed as native to the United states but not Maryland. See Asa Gray, 1908, Flowering Plants and Ferns of the Central and Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, page 573. 650. The following native plant list is in the chronological order used in the Bartram publication starting with the item number and scientific name used in 1792. a 1. Rhododendron maximum. Rosebay, Brown and Brown, page 251, 252, Upper midland and mountain zones and Cecil County. 9. Berberis Canadensis. American barberry, Brown and Brown, page 99, 101. Only in the mountain zone of Maryland. 11. Evonimus atrapurpurous [Euonymus atropurpureus]. Wahoo, Burning Bush, Brown and Brown, page 206, 207. Fairly common in Western Maryland. 12. Fothergilla gardenii. Dwarf Witchalder, Asa Gray, Virginia to Georgia, page 453. 13. Franklinia alatamaha --native of Georgia [Franklin tree] but Benjamin Franklin saved it from extinction so it may be OK to plant it as an endangered or threatened species. 14. Baccharis halimifolia. Groundsel Tree. Brown and Brown, page 318, 319. Abundant along the shores of the Bay, rivers, estuaries and the higher parts of salt marshes. 16. Kalmia angustifolia. Lambkill, Sheep Laurel. Brown and Brown, page 257-259. Rare in Maryland; known on the Coastal Zone, west of the Bay, one station in Anne Arundel County. (with the Gaultheria [procumbens], or mountain tea [wintergreen]) Brown and Brown, page 261, 263. In acid woods and thickets, throughout the state. 17. Dirca palustris. Leather wood. Brown and Brown, page 236, 237. Rich woods and stream banks. Midland and Mountain Zones. 18.Thuja occidentalis. Northern White Cedar. Brown and Brown, page 16, 17. In neutral swamps or on lime outcrops, on clifs along the Potomac, Washington Co. Used as an ornamental in Maryland. 22. Magnolia tripetala. Umbrella Tree. Brown and Brown, page 105, 106. known from Harford Co. 23. Magnolia acuminata. Cucumber Tree. Brown and Brown, page 105, 106. 27. Viburnum alnifolium. Hobble Bush. Brown and Brown, page 309, 310. Moist woods only in mountain zone. (Garrett Co.) 32. Acer striatum. Acer pensylvanicum. Striped Maple, Moosewood. Brown and Brown, page 211, 214. western Maryland. 34. Acer sacharinum. Sugar Maple. Brown and Brown, page 216, 217. 37. Clethra alnifolia. Sweet Pepperbush. Brown and Brown, page 245, 246. Common in the Coastal Zone. e 41. Pinus strobus. White Pine. Brown and Brown, page 3, 5. e.50. Prunus maritima. Beach Plumb. Brown and Brown, page 175-177. a 59. Evonimus americanus. Euonymus americanus. Spindle Tree. Strawberry Bush. Brown and Brown, page 206, 207. Fairly common throughout the state. d. 65. Amorpha fruticosa. Bastard Indigo. False Indigo. Asa Gray page 512. 71. Mespilus prunifolia. Aronia prunifolia. Pyrus floribunda. Purple Chokeberry. Brown and Brown, page 132-133. 75. Itea virginiana. Virginia sweetspire, Virginia Willow, Tassel-white. Brown and Brown, page 116-117. Swamps or wet places of Coastal Plain. 78. Hydrangia arborescens. Wild Hydrangea. Brown and Brown, page 113,114. rich woods and stream banks, often in rocky places. Common in the Midland and Mountains; rare in the Coastal Plain. e 82. [13] Magnolia glauca. Magnolia virginiana. Sweet Bay Magnolia. Brown and Brown, page 104-106. Swampy woods or stream banks, at low altitudes, only on the Coastal Plain. 83. Sambucus rubra. Sambucus canadensis. American Elder, Sweet Elder. Brown and Brown, page 314, 316, 317. 84. Rubus odoratus. Purple-Flowering Raspberry, Thimbleberry. Brown and Brown, page 161,162. f 85. Rosa Pennsylvanica flor: pleno. Rosa palustris. Swamp Rose. Brown and Brown, page 172, 173. 97. Bignonia crucigera. Bignonia capreolata. Crossvine. Brown and Brown, page 295, 296. 99. Betula (alnus) maritima. Seaside Alder. Brown and Brown, page 62, 63, 65. e 102. Callicarpa americana. Beauty Berry. Brown and Brown, page 287, 288. b.e. 106. Aristolochia sipho. Aristolochia durior (macrophylla). Dutchman's Pipe. Brown and Brown, page 96, 97. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From plant at plantconservation.org Mon Feb 6 07:50:11 2012 From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:50:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: [APWG] CONFERENCE: N. Am. Weed Mgmt Assoc. Conference 2012 (Branson, MO) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Attached is a letter announcing the Annual North American Weed Management Assoc. Conference and Trade show to be held in Branson, MO October 29th to November 1st. More information will be on our website later: www.nawma.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2012 NAWMA Conf Info .docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 56708 bytes Desc: URL: From Craig at astreet.com Mon Feb 6 10:01:52 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:01:52 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [APWG] 99.5%-or-Bust Standard for March 20 San Mateo County WMA meeting Message-ID: <1919.66.81.41.10.1328544112.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear All, At our March 20 San Mateo County Weed Management Area meeting here in northern California, I will be discussing the performance standard for the native grasslands within our County, the topic will be "99.5% or Bust". That is what we have to do here in northern California, get the grassland ecosystem back to 99.5% native cover, or it quickly or eventually collapses back to a huge weed-patch, like the I-505 project at http://www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html At least every five year, we need to bring all of our measurments together regarding weed management and ecological restoration, to see what performance standards we have actually achieved. In that way, we can see how much further we must go, in order to get to the 99.5% native cover standard. Also, if all of the local land management agencies pool their achieved performance standards for non-riparian grassland habitats, then if one agency has spent serious money, like 1/2 million dollars from Caltrans, or 1/3 million from our local Open Space District at http://www.ecoseeds.com/invent.html, or the 25 years and $3 million for our local HCP on San Bruno Mtn., then other can get educated on what those studies or plantings produced? Each agency that manages land within a County, including the local road department and the State highway department, share the same weed issues, and those weed issues are also linked to every agency that has ecological restoration issues. Therefore, it seems like there should be discussions started in every County in the USA on how consistent and rapid performance standards for both weed management and ecological restoration could be achieved, like in the next 8 years. Perhaps we could sneak up on a performance standard, year-by-year? If we take the I-505 performance standard that currently exists for Sacramento Valley grasslands at 28% native cover, then if our goal is 99.5% within the 8 years, that means by the end of this year, get about 40% cover, then at the end of 2013, 46% cover, etc., until 8 years later, you achieve 99.5% cover? Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From landrest at cox.net Mon Feb 6 15:19:19 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:19:19 -0800 Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem restoration standards Dremann Ecosystem trends and collapse Re: 99.5%-or-Bust Standard for March 20 San Mateo County WMAmeeting References: <1919.66.81.41.10.1328544112.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Message-ID: <023301cce514$fd6a71e0$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> All: ". . . get the grassland ecosystem back to 99.5% native cover, or it quickly or eventually collapses back to a huge weed-patch . . ." --Craig Dremann As the song goes, "it ain't necessarily so." There are simply too many variables involved to support such a generalization. It is a nice one, an appealing one, and one that is likely to win the hearts and minds of those who share our sentiments but lack the experience and knowledge of the relevant principles. But hell, I'm far from certain that I understand ecosystem function well enough, and I don't know of anyone (except God or Nature perhaps) who does. Even Dremann, with his vast knowledge, may not know everything. It just sometimes appears as though he thinks so. That is not to say it can't happen, and for years I thought all was lost if even a single alien seed was left on a restoration project. I shared the fears of the most dedicated "weed-Nazi" that once aliens invaded, all would be lost, and the body-snatchers would prevail. Then, after fifteen years of being kicked in the po-po by Nature at work, I began to shift my paradigm--and lo! projects began to improve with time rather than degrade or "collapse." And this is not to say that restoration projects won't or don't collapse--they have and they do. But that is not solely because 99.5 percent of the aliens or alien "cover" (whatever that means) was not achieved (at HUGE EXPENSE!). After fifteen years of applying irrelevant (to ecosystem function) agronomic and horticultural paradigms, I finally spent enough time studying what was going on in Nature, I started having more success. That is, the less I interfered with natural processes (especially after "treatment") the better results I got (self-sufficiency, stress-tolerance, high-replacement rates, more recruitment, and improvement rather than degradation over time, for example--there's more, but I don't want to be a bore. I have seen indigenous species (especially in grasslands) push the invading hordes aside. The aliens were not all-powerful after all! This was not collapse, this was re-invasion by our noble natives! That trend, taken to its logical conclusion would lead to a recapture of dominance by indigenous forces and suppression of the aliens to the point where any survivors were toppled from they bully-pulpits and relegated to the jobs for which they are best-suited--colonizing areas injured by land misuse--much like, and often in concert with, indigenous pioneer species. WT PS: I'm trying to follow Dremann's standard by limiting my responses to one subject. Therefore, I have left responses to other subjects for later. I do not consider this response to be complete; nay, I invite others to fill in where I have left things out, and to correct my errors. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" To: ; Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:01 AM Subject: [APWG] 99.5%-or-Bust Standard for March 20 San Mateo County WMAmeeting > Dear All, > > At our March 20 San Mateo County Weed Management Area meeting here in > northern California, I will be discussing the performance standard for the > native grasslands within our County, the topic will be "99.5% or Bust". > > That is what we have to do here in northern California, get the grassland > ecosystem back to 99.5% native cover, or it quickly or eventually > collapses back to a huge weed-patch, like the I-505 project at > http://www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html > > At least every five year, we need to bring all of our measurments together > regarding weed management and ecological restoration, to see what > performance standards we have actually achieved. In that way, we can see > how much further we must go, in order to get to the 99.5% native cover > standard. > > Also, if all of the local land management agencies pool their achieved > performance standards for non-riparian grassland habitats, then if one > agency has spent serious money, like 1/2 million dollars from Caltrans, or > 1/3 million from our local Open Space District at > http://www.ecoseeds.com/invent.html, or the 25 years and $3 million for > our local HCP on San Bruno Mtn., then other can get educated on what those > studies or plantings produced? > > Each agency that manages land within a County, including the local road > department and the State highway department, share the same weed issues, > and those weed issues are also linked to every agency that has ecological > restoration issues. > > Therefore, it seems like there should be discussions started in every > County in the USA on how consistent and rapid performance standards for > both weed management and ecological restoration could be achieved, like in > the next 8 years. Perhaps we could sneak up on a performance standard, > year-by-year? > > If we take the I-505 performance standard that currently exists for > Sacramento Valley grasslands at 28% native cover, then if our goal is > 99.5% within the 8 years, that means by the end of this year, get about > 40% cover, then at the end of 2013, 46% cover, etc., until 8 years later, > you achieve 99.5% cover? > > Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list > APWG at lists.plantconservation.org > http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org > > Disclaimer > Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the > opinion of the individual posting the message. > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4792 - Release Date: 02/06/12 > From ialm at erols.com Tue Feb 7 04:47:44 2012 From: ialm at erols.com (Marc Imlay) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 05:47:44 -0500 Subject: [APWG] historic and environmental preservation at Colonial period buildings in Maryland Message-ID: <5b9ffe$sih0ij@smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Landscape managers in Maryland and in the region may be assisted with my report on landscaping with colonial historic native plants. http://www.mdflora.org/forgardeners.html Miscellaneous List of native plants from John Bartram's nursery Complete plant list from John Bartram's Nursery, March 1792 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ma-ipc/message/4652 Marc Imlay, PhD, Conservation biologist, Park Ranger Office Non-native Invasive Plant Control coordinator. (301) 442-5657 cell ialm at erols.com Natural and Historical Resources Division The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission www.pgparks.com Landscaping with colonial historic native plants Many preservationists are interested in historic and environmental preservation at Colonial period buildings in Maryland and in the region. Following is a list of plants that were in the colonial nursery trade that are also native to Maryland. The list of 31 species was obtained from checking all the 106 plants George Washington obtained from John Bartram's Nursery with Brown and Brown and Asa Gray to verify which ones are native to Maryland. Landscaping with both historically and environmentally sound choices is excellent. Notice that Japanese barberry should be replaced with American barberry. The references are: George Washington: Landscape Architect List of Plants From John Bartram's Nursery, March 1792 http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/bartram/index.html and Woody Plants of Maryland, Russel G. Brown and Melvin L. Brown, 1972 Herbaceous Plants of Maryland, Russel G. Brown and Melvin L. Brown, 1984 Department of Botany, University of Maryland. Note that some plants, such as (a 3) Hypericum kalmianum, Shrub St. John's wort, and (38.) Styrax grandifolium, Snowdrop Tree, are listed as native to the United states but not Maryland. See Asa Gray, 1908, Flowering Plants and Ferns of the Central and Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, page 573. 650. The following native plant list is in the chronological order used in the Bartram publication starting with the item number and scientific name used in 1792. a 1. Rhododendron maximum. Rosebay, Brown and Brown, page 251, 252, Upper midland and mountain zones and Cecil County. 9. Berberis Canadensis. American barberry, Brown and Brown, page 99, 101. Only in the mountain zone of Maryland. 11. Evonimus atrapurpurous [Euonymus atropurpureus]. Wahoo, Burning Bush, Brown and Brown, page 206, 207. Fairly common in Western Maryland. 12. Fothergilla gardenii. Dwarf Witchalder, Asa Gray, Virginia to Georgia, page 453. 13. Franklinia alatamaha --native of Georgia [Franklin tree] but Benjamin Franklin saved it from extinction so it may be OK to plant it as an endangered or threatened species. 14. Baccharis halimifolia. Groundsel Tree. Brown and Brown, page 318, 319. Abundant along the shores of the Bay, rivers, estuaries and the higher parts of salt marshes. 16. Kalmia angustifolia. Lambkill, Sheep Laurel. Brown and Brown, page 257-259. Rare in Maryland; known on the Coastal Zone, west of the Bay, one station in Anne Arundel County. (with the Gaultheria [procumbens], or mountain tea [wintergreen]) Brown and Brown, page 261, 263. In acid woods and thickets, throughout the state. 17. Dirca palustris. Leather wood. Brown and Brown, page 236, 237. Rich woods and stream banks. Midland and Mountain Zones. 18.Thuja occidentalis. Northern White Cedar. Brown and Brown, page 16, 17. In neutral swamps or on lime outcrops, on clifs along the Potomac, Washington Co. Used as an ornamental in Maryland. 22. Magnolia tripetala. Umbrella Tree. Brown and Brown, page 105, 106. known from Harford Co. 23. Magnolia acuminata. Cucumber Tree. Brown and Brown, page 105, 106. 27. Viburnum alnifolium. Hobble Bush. Brown and Brown, page 309, 310. Moist woods only in mountain zone. (Garrett Co.) 32. Acer striatum. Acer pensylvanicum. Striped Maple, Moosewood. Brown and Brown, page 211, 214. western Maryland. 34. Acer sacharinum. Sugar Maple. Brown and Brown, page 216, 217. 37. Clethra alnifolia. Sweet Pepperbush. Brown and Brown, page 245, 246. Common in the Coastal Zone. e 41. Pinus strobus. White Pine. Brown and Brown, page 3, 5. e.50. Prunus maritima. Beach Plumb. Brown and Brown, page 175-177. a 59. Evonimus americanus. Euonymus americanus. Spindle Tree. Strawberry Bush. Brown and Brown, page 206, 207. Fairly common throughout the state. d. 65. Amorpha fruticosa. Bastard Indigo. False Indigo. Asa Gray page 512. 71. Mespilus prunifolia. Aronia prunifolia. Pyrus floribunda. Purple Chokeberry. Brown and Brown, page 132-133. 75. Itea virginiana. Virginia sweetspire, Virginia Willow, Tassel-white. Brown and Brown, page 116-117. Swamps or wet places of Coastal Plain. 78. Hydrangia arborescens. Wild Hydrangea. Brown and Brown, page 113,114. rich woods and stream banks, often in rocky places. Common in the Midland and Mountains; rare in the Coastal Plain. e 82. [13] Magnolia glauca. Magnolia virginiana. Sweet Bay Magnolia. Brown and Brown, page 104-106. Swampy woods or stream banks, at low altitudes, only on the Coastal Plain. 83. Sambucus rubra. Sambucus canadensis. American Elder, Sweet Elder. Brown and Brown, page 314, 316, 317. 84. Rubus odoratus. Purple-Flowering Raspberry, Thimbleberry. Brown and Brown, page 161,162. f 85. Rosa Pennsylvanica flor: pleno. Rosa palustris. Swamp Rose. Brown and Brown, page 172, 173. 97. Bignonia crucigera. Bignonia capreolata. Crossvine. Brown and Brown, page 295, 296. 99. Betula (alnus) maritima. Seaside Alder. Brown and Brown, page 62, 63, 65. e 102. Callicarpa americana. Beauty Berry. Brown and Brown, page 287, 288. b.e. 106. Aristolochia sipho. Aristolochia durior (macrophylla). Dutchman's Pipe. Brown and Brown, page 96, 97. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Craig at astreet.com Thu Feb 9 10:56:12 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:56:12 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [APWG] Cost analysis for weed management/restoration performance standards Message-ID: <1329.66.81.43.102.1328806572.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear All, To prepare for my March 20 talk in Redwood City, CA. about how to get 99.5% native cover when doing weeding projects or doing ecological restoration, I am asking everyone who is weeding or restoring native grasslands on public lands in our County. The results can be boiled down to = What is the cost per acre, to increase the percentage of native plant cover by one percent? For example, I just got the data from two projects funded by the Federal government, the USFWS in Endangered species habitat in the hills of Redwood City. The two different treatments produced different results, one was able to increase the native cover by 7% and the second raised the native cover by 15%. The 7% increase was a single treatment that cost $500 per acre per percentage native cover increase or $4,500 per acre. But repeated treatments using that method with the goal of getting 99.5% native cover, then the total cost to get 99.5% cover could be $45,000 per acre. The 15% native cover increase site, was done to help control weeds around an already existing Endangered plant species, and also increase the number of plants. That work required the growing out of plants, and careful hand weeding so as not to disturb the existing Endangered plants. The costs to increase each percentage of native cover, was $15,000 per acre, or a total of $225,000 per acre, which is identical with the costs of the Caltrans weed management/restoration project at http://www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html. And to continue the treatments and plantings in this Endangered plant area, to get to 99.5% native cover, would be about $1.5 million per acre. That is why it is so important that we take a look annually at the actual costs per acre to get a single percentage native plant cover for our project. Looking at the actual costs to restore a site, would help agencies fund restoration projects like these more realistically, and maybe look for ways for the process to be done cheaper and more efficiently? Plus knowing the actual costs, would help public agencies to set more realistic bond requirements for pipeline and other projects on our public lands, or for more realistic, real-world amount for funds that are paid by developers for a HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan) mitigations, Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From landrest at cox.net Thu Feb 9 17:06:53 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:06:53 -0800 Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration Performance Standards Re: [RWG] Cost analysis for weed management/restoration performancestandards References: <1329.66.81.43.102.1328806572.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Message-ID: <03be01cce77f$82ffb240$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> All: I'm not current on costs, but even back in the last century when I was active, these costs would have been ridiculously expensive. I think restoration practitioners in the consulting business are shooting their credibility in the foot when they so radically milk every project for the maximum they can get out of it. Restoration ecologists should stay the hell out of the applied business and stick to the science--honestly evaluating the effectiveness of practitioners' work. Circumstance do alter cases, so no two projects are going to cost the same, but the projects should be designed to work over time, not to some "standard" for any given shot at evaluation. "Cover" has no place in ecosystem standards, period. What matters is that the project continue to get better and better with time, not to shoot for "cover" consisting of a few fast-spreading pioneer species. Performance/design standards should be determined for each project by the consultant developing the program. Comparisons of what's happening in the field with what the consultant's objectives were can be started right away--this should be the job of the restoration ecologist (scientist or peer-reviewer). That should be based on species diversity, NOT percent survival or cover--BOTH of those "measures" are bogus and irrelevant to what an ecosystem is actually doing. What separates a real ecosystem from an assemblage of native plants is the degree to which the project resembles the potential of the site and what was there before, adjusted for changes beyond the project's scope. The artificial colonization should employ seeds rather than plants, and normal survivorship curves and community composition numbers, with reasonable envelopes around them, should be what's looked at, not their size, density, growth rate, or spread. The emerging organisms should be there, and there will be "losses"--that's the way ecosystems work. I have seen so much illogical stuff in the 12 years I've been retired--stuff that should have been learned long ago. Stuff I had to learn in the 1950's and '60's, and kept learning ever since. No one should be expected to know it all, and no one can get anywhere without mistakes. But we all should be able to learn from our mistakes. Apparently pride and profit come ahead of professionalism. I would like to know how else to explain it. It's depressing. WT "The worst kinda ignerance ain't so much not knowin', as 'tis knowin' so much that ain't so." --paraphrased from "Josh Billings" "Healthy ecosystems resist invasions." --paraphrased from Jack Ewel (that means that expensive "weed treatments" are likely not necessary or even desirable. Except to line the pockets of the weed-bashers? I'm growing increasingly suspicious that such might be the case.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" To: ; Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:56 AM Subject: [RWG] Cost analysis for weed management/restoration performancestandards > Dear All, > > To prepare for my March 20 talk in Redwood City, CA. about how to get > 99.5% native cover when doing weeding projects or doing ecological > restoration, I am asking everyone who is weeding or restoring native > grasslands on public lands in our County. > > The results can be boiled down to = What is the cost per acre, to increase > the percentage of native plant cover by one percent? > > For example, I just got the data from two projects funded by the Federal > government, the USFWS in Endangered species habitat in the hills of > Redwood City. The two different treatments produced different results, > one was able to increase the native cover by 7% and the second raised the > native cover by 15%. > > The 7% increase was a single treatment that cost $500 per acre per > percentage native cover increase or $4,500 per acre. But repeated > treatments using that method with the goal of getting 99.5% native cover, > then the total cost to get 99.5% cover could be $45,000 per acre. > > The 15% native cover increase site, was done to help control weeds around > an already existing Endangered plant species, and also increase the number > of plants. That work required the growing out of plants, and careful hand > weeding so as not to disturb the existing Endangered plants. > > The costs to increase each percentage of native cover, was $15,000 per > acre, or a total of $225,000 per acre, which is identical with the costs > of the Caltrans weed management/restoration project at > http://www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html. And to continue the treatments > and plantings in this Endangered plant area, to get to 99.5% native cover, > would be about $1.5 million per acre. > > That is why it is so important that we take a look annually at the actual > costs per acre to get a single percentage native plant cover for our > project. > > Looking at the actual costs to restore a site, would help agencies fund > restoration projects like these more realistically, and maybe look for > ways for the process to be done cheaper and more efficiently? > > Plus knowing the actual costs, would help public agencies to set more > realistic bond requirements for pipeline and other projects on our public > lands, or for more realistic, real-world amount for funds that are paid by > developers for a HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan) mitigations, > > Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 > > > > _______________________________________________ > PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list > RWG at lists.plantconservation.org > http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4798 - Release Date: 02/09/12 > From Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov Fri Feb 10 07:41:19 2012 From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov (Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:41:19 -0500 Subject: [APWG] TogetherGreen - Conservation Fellowship (Deadline: March 5, 2012) and Innovation Grants (Deadline: April 2, 2012) Message-ID: Posted on February 2, 2012 Deadline: Various TogetherGreen Accepting Applications for Conservation Fellowships and Innovation Grants TogetherGreen, a conservation alliance between the National Audubon Society and Toyota, is accepting applications for its 2012 class of Conservation Fellows and Innovation grantees. These programs are designed to foster conservation leadership, achieve conservation results, forge partnerships in communities across the United States, and help engage millions of Americans in conservation action. The Conservation Fellowships program seeks to invest in individuals who are committed to empowering others and to creating positive environmental change in their communities and organizations. Applicants must have at least six years of experience in conservation, environmental education, policy, or environmental issues, as demonstrated through current and past work experience, academic studies related to the environment, and/or volunteer work; and have a current affiliation (full- or part-time employment or equivalent volunteer commitment) with a conservation organization, business, university, community-based organization, or other professional organization whose goals and practices make a positive contribution to environmental conservation. Fellows receive a $10,000 grant to conduct a twelve-month conservation action project in their community, as well as specialized training and support to help shape and implement their projects. (Deadline: March 5, 2012.) The Innovation Grants program provides funding to enable Audubon groups and others to inspire, equip, and support activities that engage new and diverse audiences in conservation action and create healthier communities. To be eligible, the applicant organization must constitute a branch, office, or other operational unit of the National Audubon Society (including national or state offices andfield units such as Audubon centers and sanctuaries), or be an Audubon-certified chapter or Audubon- certified chapter-run center or sanctuary. Independent Audubon entities that wish to participate in a cooperative arrangement with the National Audubon Society for this purpose are also eligible. Other organizations are encouraged to apply if they partner with an Audubon group on their project. Organizations in areas in which there are no Audubon organizations may apply with partners of their own. Applicants must have 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, a commitment from at least one partner organization to serve as a collaborator, and adequate collective experience and organizational capacity to administer, implement, and evaluate the project. A minimum of forty projects will receive funding totaling more than $1 million, with grants ranging from $5,000 to $80,000. The average grant awarded will be around $25,000. (Deadline: April 2, 2012.) For complete guidelines, selection criteria, eligibility, and the online applications for both programs, visit the TogetherGreen Web site. Contact: Link to Complete RFP http://www.togethergreen.org/ Conservation Fellowship Program: deadline March 5 See more at: http://www.togethergreen.org/Fellows/Default.aspx Innovation Grants: deadline April 2 Who should Apply for Innovation Grants? To be eligible for an Innovation Grant, the applying organization must meet the following requirements: Constitute a branch, office, or other operational unit of the National Audubon Society (including National or State Offices; field units such as Audubon Centers and Sanctuaries), or be an Audubon Certified Chapter, or Audubon Certified Chapter-run Center or Sanctuary. Independent Audubon entities that wish to participate in a cooperative arrangement with National Audubon Society for this purpose are also eligible. Other organizations are encouraged to apply if they partner with an Audubon group on their project. (Find an Audubon group near you.) If there are no Audubon organizations in your area, your organization may apply with partners of its own. Be a 501(c)3 tax-exempt public charity Have a commitment from at least one partner organization to serve as a collaborator Have adequate collective experience and organizational capacity to administer, implement, and evaluate the project Successful Innovation Grants projects will: Achieve measurable, on-the-ground conservation results that contribute to one or more of the conservation goals of the TogetherGreen program (Habitat/Land, Water, Energy). Those changes may be ecological (for example, restoration of a wetland) or behavioral (for example, getting a particular audience to drive less). Reach under-represented and/or diverse audiences Demonstrate innovation and/or replicability Take place in the United States Achieve results during the course of the one-year grant period, which will run from June, 2012 - June, 2013. Thanks to listserve member Rabiah Al Nur for letting us know about this funding opportunity! Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D. Botanist, Division of Scientific Authority-US Fish & Wildlife Service Chair, Medicinal Plant Working Group-Plant Conservation Alliance 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 110 Arlington, VA 22203 703-358-1708 x1753 FAX: 703-358-2276 Promoting sustainable use and conservation of our native medicinal plants. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1201 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Craig at astreet.com Fri Feb 10 11:24:22 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:24:22 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards Costs Message-ID: <1630.66.81.42.128.1328894662.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear Wayne and All, Thanks for your email. When I gave a talk to a Federal government sponsored meeting in Monterey, that you can read at http://www.ecoseeds.com/talk.html, I included a photo of the fastest computer in the world in 1952-56, the Illiac-1, that had 5K of RAM and 64K of memory, and cost million of dollars. Today our cell phone has thousands of times that memory in the palm of our hands that we are offered free when we sign up for a calling plan. What I was suggesting in my talk, was that for weed management and ecological restoration of areas like grasslands, we are still in the Illiac-1 days, with the processes still inefficient, costly, and nobody is out measuring the performance standards yet for whatever we can currently accomplish. We need out agencies who are funding these projects, to go and find out in non-riparian projects, what was actually accomplished, like for the $42 million Riverside K-rat preserve, or the thousands of miles of oil and gas pipeline right-of-ways across the country, or the miles of highway roadsides after new construction funded by our Federal government. I agree that $1.5 million an acre that the USFWS is paying currently for the Redwood City project seems steep, or even the $225,000 per acre that Caltrans paid and still had 72% weed cover on their land after a decade of work, also seems to be an outrageous price to pay. One of the problems may be, is that neither Caltrans nor the USFWS ever asked any ecological restoration professionals if they had any licensed restoration technologies that could get the job done quicker or cheaper? They did not check with the professionals for these projects, and they still have not done so, up to this morning for any other weed management or restoration projects either. However, back to calculations of costs for projects--just like calculating the computer memory cost per Megabit of RAM, we could use the cost per acre to get one more percentage of native plant cover as one measurement, in a similar fashion? There could be other measurements invented to evaluate our successes, but at least a simple method to determine the cost to achieve one more percentage of native cover, then we will be able to start talking about those outrageous costs, similar to the cost of the Illiac-1 in its day? Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From WildLifeGardener at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 13 08:14:14 2012 From: WildLifeGardener at sbcglobal.net (WildLifeGardener) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:14:14 -0600 (Central Standard Time) Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards Costs References: <1630.66.81.42.128.1328894662.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Message-ID: <4F391AB6.00002A.05576@LTB> Good Morning, I joined many years ago with the hopes of learning from those who had forgotten more than I had ever known; not to be "sold" and certainly not to be repeatedly redirected to one subscriber's personal website. It saddens me watching the reduction of this ListServ to little more than an onslaught of shameless self-promotion. Cheers, WildlifeGardener -------Original Message------- From: Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company Date: 2012-02-13 6:38:36 AM To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration,weed project Performance Standards Costs Dear Wayne and All, Thanks for your email. When I gave a talk to a Federal government sponsored meeting in Monterey, that you can read at http://www.ecoseeds.com/talk.html, I included a photo of the fastest computer in the world in 1952-56, the Illiac-1, that had 5K of RAM and 64K of memory, and cost million of dollars. Today our cell phone has thousands of times that memory in the palm of our hands that we are offered free when we sign up for a calling plan. What I was suggesting in my talk, was... 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nachurgrl at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 13:57:43 2012 From: nachurgrl at yahoo.com (nachurgrl at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:57:43 -0800 Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards Costs Message-ID: <81jpfxkxt9nq50v76170tpay.1329163063860@email.android.com> Agreed. I have come to the point that I usually just delete the email and not even waste time reading it. Sent from my LG phone WildLifeGardener wrote: >Good Morning, > >I joined many years ago with the hopes of learning from those who had >forgotten more than I had ever known; not to be "sold" and certainly not to >be repeatedly redirected to one subscriber's personal website. > >It saddens me watching the reduction of this ListServ to little more than an >onslaught of shameless self-promotion. > >Cheers, >WildlifeGardener > >-------Original Message------- > >From: Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company >Date: 2012-02-13 6:38:36 AM >To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org >Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration,weed project Performance Standards >Costs > >Dear Wayne and All, > >Thanks for your email. When I gave a talk to a Federal government >sponsored meeting in Monterey, that you can read at >http://www.ecoseeds.com/talk.html, I included a photo of the fastest >computer in the world in 1952-56, the Illiac-1, that had 5K of RAM and 64K >of memory, and cost million of dollars. > >Today our cell phone has thousands of times that memory in the palm of our >hands that we are offered free when we sign up for a calling plan. > >What I was suggesting in my talk, was... > >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. From Craig at astreet.com Mon Feb 13 22:43:58 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:43:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards Costs Message-ID: <1750.66.81.40.229.1329194638.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear All, I apologize if any reader thought that I was doing any self-promotion with any of my posts recently. I thought all the readers of these two lists, would be thrilled to know that high quality weeding and/or ecological restoration standards, are a possibility in 2012? When I was co-authoring papers with Dr. G. Ledyard Stebbins for the GRASSLANDS journal (Davis, California) in the late 1990s, we had many conversations about the possibility of achieving a 99+% performance standard for native grasslands and wildflower fields here in weed-choked California, and he did not think it would ever be possible. Now 12 years after his passing, we all know that it is possible. Michael Shaw, the private land owner and developer, got his 74 acres done with restoration technologies he mostly invented himself, to get to his 95% native cover today, after starting with that horrible 99% weed cover when I first saw the property in 1992. And Mark Vande Pol is an acquaintance of Shaw, and was influenced by Shaw's project, and for his 14 acres, Mark invented his own methods of weed control and ecological restoration, to get to the 99.5% weed-free standard that I saw last summer. It is like visiting the Weed-Free Promised Land, where I could walk 100 paces and not step on a single weed. What I am suggesting with my posts, is that Shaw and Mark--not botanists, nor ecologists, nor professionals, just simple private land owners--each independently figured out how to produce a 95%+ weed-free ecosystems in California--the most weed-infested place on the planet. So shouldn?t every single person on these two discussion lists who are working on weeding or restoring non-riparian ecosystems anywhere in the USA, be encouraged that there is the possibly of achieving the same Performance Standards as Mark and Shaw? Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From plant at plantconservation.org Tue Feb 14 07:41:53 2012 From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:41:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: [APWG] NEWS: An Economic Analysis of Emerald Ash Borer Management Options Message-ID: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120209172924.htm An Economic Analysis of Emerald Ash Borer Management Options ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2012) -- Lanham, MD; February 9, 2012 -- The emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire), an invasive insect from Asia which was first found in the U.S. in the 1990s, has since spread to 15 states and is responsible for the deaths of millions of ash trees. This insect has the potentionl to kill billions more trees and to do several billions of dollars worth of damage. See the link above for the full article text. From plant at plantconservation.org Tue Feb 14 07:42:49 2012 From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:42:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: [APWG] NEWS: Integrated Weed Management Best Response to Herbicide Resistance Message-ID: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120209135840.htm Integrated Weed Management Best Response to Herbicide Resistance ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2012) -- Over-reliance on glyphosate-type herbicides for weed control on U.S. farms has created a dramatic increase in the number of genetically-resistant weeds, according to a team of agricultural researchers, who say the solution lies in an integrated weed management program. See the link above for the full article text. From WildLifeGardener at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 14 08:50:01 2012 From: WildLifeGardener at sbcglobal.net (WildLifeGardener) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:50:01 -0600 (Central Standard Time) Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards Costs References: <1750.66.81.40.229.1329194638.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Message-ID: <4F3A7497.0000B6.03544@LTB> If one's intentions are truly honorable, one might try breaking out of what is referred to as the "me mode". Might I suggest that those sincerely interested in ?reaching out to the public? begin by replying to that which has been previously ignored or danced in recent response to list contributions? Ignoring actual issues doesn?t make them go away and dancing subjects as opposed to discussing them does little to foster productive discourse. Outmaneuvering those attempting to stimulate discussions does even less. Cheers, WildlifeGardener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ialm at erols.com Tue Feb 14 12:35:41 2012 From: ialm at erols.com (Marc Imlay) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:35:41 -0500 Subject: [APWG] Invasives removal events calendar Message-ID: <5b9ffe$sjd09s@smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Hi restoration leaders, This is a good time to forward updated announcements for the Maryland 2012 Invasive plant removal schedule. Most of the events I know about are shown in the updated link below for 2011. I will forward them to the Sierra Club Maryland state chapter newsletter, Maryland Native Plant Society for the annual update, the ACB Bay Journal and web sites for the Maryland Invasive Species Council (MISC), Mid-Atlantic Invasive Plant Council (MAIPC) and other societies. If you know of other sites let's include them. Spring is a good time for volunteers to appreciate the native ephemeral flowers that are being rescued! Thanks so much. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ma-ipc/message/4658 Marc Imlay, PhD, Conservation biologist, Park Ranger Office (301) 442-5657 cell ialm at erols.com Natural and Historical Resources Division The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission www.pgparks.com Here is the concept I mentioned at a workshop about choosing invasive plant control restoration sites where we can win the battle, followed by moving on later to more invaded sites to win the war. b. Surveys and management plans. Inventory and prioritize. In choosing the site it is best to start with the more sensitive areas [dominated by native rather than non-native plants] and work out as volunteer and staff support grows. Some of the natives remain to re-colonize as invasive plant control advances and environmental stresses are controlled. These sites also become sources of native plants for contiguous areas and sites nearby, especially when resources are available to remove invasive species by their land managers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From landrest at cox.net Tue Feb 14 13:31:27 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:31:27 -0800 Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards Costs References: <1750.66.81.40.229.1329194638.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> <4F3A7497.0000B6.03544@LTB> Message-ID: <003401cceb4f$3eab9e00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> All: I quite agree with WG, and shall try to stick to issues and refrain from too much bragging about the fact that I can leap tall buildings in a single bound, am stronger smelling than a steaming locomotive, and catch a speeding bullet in my teeth. Also, while I usually don't drink beer, when I do, I prefer horse-piss to XX. My mirror hath spoken. I promise to try to respond honestly and directly to all posts which require or stimulate a response, and shall endeavour to eschew all digression irrelevant to the poster's point, and keep my responses mercifully brief. I shall also try to K.I.S.S in the spirit of Einstein: ". . . as simple as possible, but no simpler." I will try to follow the convention to posting a single issue at a time, and will happily reform or correct upon notification by any of my list brethren and sisteren should I stray from any of my promises. Consistent with that policy, I also shall try to refrain from reading or responding to extended or convoluted essays, particularly when they are repetitive. I share WG's hope that these lists will become known as the "go to" place for honest discussion of the leading-edge issues in plant conservation. These statements are intended to apply to me only, and are not intended in any way to demand, nay, even to suggest that others do likewise. I remain quite open to suggestions for improvement. Yr. O'bt. Sv't., WT PS: Am I to understand correctly that, since responses to previous posts have been either absent or non-responsive on this subject that there is no interest in developing performance standards or in questioning those that might be said to be traditional or widely accepted by the professions concerned with plant conservation? Am I missing something, or is not such a discussion central to the purpose of plant conservation? ----- Original Message ----- From: WildLifeGardener To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org ; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:50 AM Subject: Re: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration,weed project Performance Standards Costs If one's intentions are truly honorable, one might try breaking out of what is referred to as the "me mode". Might I suggest that those sincerely interested in "reaching out to the public" begin by replying to that which has been previously ignored or danced in recent response to list contributions? Ignoring actual issues doesn't make them go away and dancing subjects as opposed to discussing them does little to foster productive discourse. Outmaneuvering those attempting to stimulate discussions does even less. Cheers, WildlifeGardener ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4807 - Release Date: 02/13/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From MasterJ at bouldercolorado.gov Tue Feb 14 13:52:51 2012 From: MasterJ at bouldercolorado.gov (Master, Joy) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:52:51 -0700 Subject: [APWG] Job Opportunity in Boulder, CO In-Reply-To: <003401cceb4f$3eab9e00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> References: <1750.66.81.40.229.1329194638.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> <4F3A7497.0000B6.03544@LTB> <003401cceb4f$3eab9e00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> Message-ID: <081AC67ED8CC124A8DC5FB009465CE9B01DC7D6DF0@MAILSERVER.boulder.local> If appropriate, please spread the word... Seasonal Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Conservation Crew Technician Location: Boulder, Colorado Positions Currently Available: 3 Open until filled Term of Employment Start Date on or after: April 2, 2012 Term of Employment End Date on or around: October 19, 2012 Hourly Pay Range: $12.00- $16.00 Hours of Employment: 40 hours per week. Hours vary - usually Monday - Friday 7:00 am to 3:30 pm or 8:00 am - 4:30pm. Some weekends. Overtime as needed ________________________________ Overall Objective: Under general direction, performs a variety of integrated pest management (IPM), wildlife management and maintenance tasks on natural lands. Performs related duties as assigned. Position Duties by Ranking of Importance: * Works within a crew to maximize safety, project completion, team cohesion and individual contribution. * Removes noxious weeds by utilizing assorted mechanical methods (digging, hand pulling, whipping, tractor and mower operation, etc.) and by chemical control (spot spraying, wicking, etc.). May assist with biological and cultural control methods. * Performs prairie dog management tasks including surveys, colony monitoring, mapping, installing and maintaining barriers and potentially trapping and removal. * Maintains detailed records of work performed and resources used. * Utilizes GPS technology to collect data points in the field and uses data to create maps with an ArcGIS program. * Assists with research, monitoring, and data collection associated with various natural land management tasks (IPM, wildlife, etc.), performs data entry and prepares scientific reports. * Performs restoration projects such as native seed collection, re-seeding, mitigation work and wildlife habitat enhancements. * Leads volunteer projects and assists with public environmental education and outreach programs. * Assists with maintenance of park infrastructure and trails, construction and installation of signs. *Required Minimum Qualifications: * Ability and willingness to perform a wide range of manual and physically demanding tasks in an outdoor environment, under a variety of weather and terrain conditions. * Previous experience with and/or college level coursework related to IPM, restoration, ecology, biology, wildlife management or a related field * Effective interpersonal skills including conflict resolution skills and the ability to work and communicate effectively with diverse groups of people (coworkers and the public). * Ability and willingness to work efficiently with limited supervision or instruction. * Familiarity with computers and office software programs such as Microsoft Word and Excel. * Ability and willingness to follow established procedures. * Ability and willingness to evaluate conditions in assigned area and make judgments related to safety. * Driving experience, skill and acceptable motor vehicle record: Colorado license if employed longer than 12 weeks. The City of Boulder is committed to hiring employees who provide excellent customer service. Our employees act with a high level of integrity and take responsibility for their words and actions. They strive to respect and appreciate each individual's differences and to work effectively with all people and their diverse backgrounds. We support candid and honest interactions, which respect other points of view, and are sensitive to communication differences. We achieve organizational goals through inclusive problem solving, planning and decision-making. Required background checks: Department of Motor Vehicle, Criminal, General Reference For the full job description and TO APPLY: Please go to www.bouldercolorado.gov and click on the Jobs tab at the top of the page. Then click on Seasonal Job Opportunities on the left. Finally look for the title " Parks & Rec - Integrated Pest Management and Conservation Technician" and click on it. Please check the web site often for new listings. HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE IS LOCATED AT: 1101 Arapahoe, 1st Floor Boulder, CO 80302 303-441-3070 An Equal Opportunity Employer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Craig at astreet.com Tue Feb 14 18:29:59 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:29:59 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards Message-ID: <1753.67.150.141.63.1329265799.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear Wayne and All, Regarding restoration performance and weed management standards---all I can personally contribute to these discussions are details about projects that I have recently measured, with linear toe-point transects (Evans & Love, 1957), so all the readers can have accurate scientific measurements of what has been accomplished so far. I hope that all the readers can appreciate accurate measurements, whenever discussing any topics that are as controversial as non-riparian Performance Standards for weeding projects or restoration projects in California--where tens of millions of dollars could be at stake if a project succeeds or fails? I just came back from driving through coastal California, on US 101 from San Jose to Los Angeles and back, and was looking all along the 400 miles route for any patches of our State native grass, the Nassella pulchra. I did spot a small patch in the median in Santa Barbara County, but it was only 10 feet wide by about 100 feet long. So that means, if you include the median plus a 10-foot width on both sides of US 101, out of 63 million square feet along that route, I only saw 1,000 square feet, which means that less than 0.002% of that plant is left in that portion of the seven counties I drove through. When you get down to less than 50% native cover in a huge area, you should start to worry? But when you look and see you achieved the awesome level of 99.998% weed cover in your understory, I am sure everyone will agree that is very, very, very bad? That could be called 99.998% bad? That is why it is so important to start discuss what we can work out for some successful weeding and restoration performance standards now, while we still have some examples of the original native ecosystems to use as models? Our vegetation understories in the arid West, and perhaps nationwide, may be too far gone, to be able to recover from the weeds all by themselves, without our help? Happy Valentines Day--love your local ecosystem, replant or protect some local native wildflowers. Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From plant at plantconservation.org Tue Feb 14 20:56:15 2012 From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:56:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: [APWG] TRAINING: Univ. Rhode Island Inv. Plant Mgmt Cert. Pgm. Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Invasive Plant Management Certification Program Wednesday, March 21st, 9:00-4:00pm Thursday, March 22nd, 9:00-4:00pm URI Bay Campus - Coastal Institute - South Ferry Road - Narragansett, Rhode Island The Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) Invasive Plant Management Certification Program trains green industry and environmental consulting professionals, land trust managers and volunteers working in the coastal zone to provide sustainable invasive plant management services to clients, and to facilitate restoration of degraded coastal habitats. Beginning in 2012, those interested in attending the training for education purposes will be able to register for a reduced fee of $150. Training topics include: * The Value of Vegetative Buffers * Natural Plant Communities * The Ecology of Invasive Species * Landscape Site Assessment * Invasive Plant Management Plan Development * Control Measure Selection and Invasive Plant Removal * Restorative Planting * Monitoring and Maintenance Registration: $150 [without CRMC certification] or $200 [with CRMC certification] includes breakfast and lunch both days, training materials, certification card [if applicable] and online listing [if applicable]. For more information, visit: http://www.uri.edu/cels/ceoc/LR_IPMCP.html To register, visit: http://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?EventID=1054139 ________________ KATE VENTURINI Research Associate II / Sustainable Horticulture & Urban Agriculture --- Outreach Center --- College of Environment & Life Sciences --- Phone: 401-874-4096 From Craig at astreet.com Wed Feb 15 08:26:18 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:26:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [APWG] Computer program to reconstruct a weed-free, original ecosystem? Message-ID: <1379.67.150.140.120.1329315978.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear All, Using that $1.5 million/acre USFWS funded Thornmint recovery project in Redwood City as an example. I am wondering if anyone has ever thought about writing a computer program that could reconstruct the Thornmint plant community that existed in pre-weed times? I did for the Benicia Prairie that I was studying for a decade in the 1990s, that you can read about at http://www.ecoseeds.com/juicy.gossip.ten.html and got some help with some important concepts from Ken Kolence who wrote the first licensed software in Silicon Valley in 1967, a program we still use, the disk defragmentation program. What the idea is, to have the computer program calculate for you in terms of percentage cover, how many percentage cover of Thornmints you should see, and how many percentage cover of every other native species should be growing around the Thornmints? That is one of the problems with Shaw 74 acres and Mark?s 14 acres with their 95-99.5% native cover results, is that neither of their ecosystems have not been analyzed for missing native species, that help hold the ecosystems intact against the exotics from re-invading. Especially at Shaw?s, you can quickly see, even without a computer program to alert you, that part of the 5% missing are the native clovers that are extinct on the 74 acres, plus the summer tarweeds and Heterothecas are not there any more. I hope that everyone agrees, that unless we want either our weeding projects or our ecological restoration projects, to break down to continuous weeding projects that go on to infinity, we need to write computer programs to analyze what we need to see at the end of the day, in terms of native plant cover, with the correct species mix that would be able to withstand future weed invasions? Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From landrest at cox.net Wed Feb 15 17:12:44 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:12:44 -0800 Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards References: <1753.67.150.141.63.1329265799.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Message-ID: <00e201ccec37$52caca80$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> What's SPECIFICALLY controversial about performance standards? WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:29 PM Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards > Dear Wayne and All, > > Regarding restoration performance and weed management standards---all I > can personally contribute to these discussions are details about projects > that I have recently measured, with linear toe-point transects (Evans & > Love, 1957), so all the readers can have accurate scientific measurements > of what has been accomplished so far. > > I hope that all the readers can appreciate accurate measurements, whenever > discussing any topics that are as controversial as non-riparian > Performance Standards for weeding projects or restoration projects in > California--where tens of millions of dollars could be at stake if a > project succeeds or fails? > > I just came back from driving through coastal California, on US 101 from > San Jose to Los Angeles and back, and was looking all along the 400 miles > route for any patches of our State native grass, the Nassella pulchra. I > did spot a small patch in the median in Santa Barbara County, but it was > only 10 feet wide by about 100 feet long. > > So that means, if you include the median plus a 10-foot width on both > sides of US 101, out of 63 million square feet along that route, I only > saw 1,000 square feet, which means that less than 0.002% of that plant is > left in that portion of the seven counties I drove through. > > When you get down to less than 50% native cover in a huge area, you should > start to worry? But when you look and see you achieved the awesome level > of 99.998% weed cover in your understory, I am sure everyone will agree > that is very, very, very bad? That could be called 99.998% bad? > > That is why it is so important to start discuss what we can work out for > some successful weeding and restoration performance standards now, while > we still have some examples of the original native ecosystems to use as > models? > > Our vegetation understories in the arid West, and perhaps nationwide, may > be too far gone, to be able to recover from the weeds all by themselves, > without our help? > > Happy Valentines Day--love your local ecosystem, replant or protect some > local native wildflowers. > > 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: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4809 - Release Date: 02/14/12 > From plant at plantconservation.org Thu Feb 16 07:32:48 2012 From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:32:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: [APWG] JOBS: Invasive Plant Control Travel Team Technicians (Eastern US) Message-ID: Invasive Plant Control Travel Team Technician 10-12 OPENINGS AVAILABLE! Positions are available 2012 (Seasonal/Permanent) Compensation is negotiable depending on experience. Applicants will have the opportunity to work in various natural areas throughout the eastern United States with an emphasis on invasive plant management. Invasive Plant Control, Inc. will provide you with the opportunity to conduct intensive habitat rehabilitation of many different native plant communities with the main emphasis in invasive plant management. IPC is a privately owned company considered one of the leaders in the invasive plant control market in the US. IPC emphasizes control in natural area settings. SPECIFIC DUTIES: Primary function will be to travel continuously throughout the eastern US as part of an invasive plant management team and utilize a variety of techniques including chemical and mechanical methods to control invasive exotic plants. TRAVEL: * Lodging is provided. * Personal vehicle is encouraged but not required. * Food is on your own. * There may be no opportunity to travel home during the course of this position other than on your own time REQUIREMENTS: * Applicants selected will be subject to a government security investigation. * Applicants must pass a pre hire drug screening to be considered for employment * Valid driver's license; good communication skills; good physical condition; ability to work with minimal supervision; ability to travel for long periods of time away from home; ability to pass pesticide applicator exams in various states. * Ability to work effectively under pressure and meet deadlines * Ability to travel extensively and on short notice. * Knowledge of current trends in invasive plant management in natural areas. * The ability to motivate, lead, set objectives, and manage performance of a small team. * Adapt, improvise, and overcome precarious situations. * Employee will be required to treat all invasive plant species with minimal to no damage to native species in the area. TRAINING/EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES: Applicant will have the opportunity to participate in seminars or training sessions regarding: Invasive plant removal techniques; first aid; chainsaw and hand-tool safety; pesticide safety; application equipment; ATV use and orienteering. There will be opportunities to visit many culturally and historically significant sites; attend educational workshops or meetings concerning vegetation management and work alongside professionals involved in many different areas of resource management. To Apply, Send Cover Letter and Resume to: Lee Patrick at lee at ipc-inc.org 615-385-4319 Invasive Plant Control, Inc. PO Box 50556 Nashville, TN 37205 www.invasiveplantcontrol.com Invasive Plant Control, Inc. is an Equal Opportunity Employer From rold at pullman.com Tue Feb 21 12:25:09 2012 From: rold at pullman.com (Richard Old) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:25:09 -0800 Subject: [APWG] Invasive Plants Diagnostic Listserve Message-ID: The Center for Invasive Plant Management (CIPM) at Montana State University was recently asked to host a new Invasive Plant Diagnostics Listserv as a service to experts in weed detection and identification, nationwide. Of the 4,271 exotic species reported by BONAP for North America, 1,584 are reported in only a single state or province! When these species jump to other areas, their rapid identification can depend upon communication with someone already familiar with the species. It is our hope to build a listserv for experts in invasive plant detection and identification, where participants can request assistance in the identification of unknown invasive plant species, notify others of their findings, and generally improve the communication amongst this small group of specialists, regionally and nationally. Please provide contact information for any invasive plant experts, who you feel should be added to this listserv. Direct all communication to: elizabeth.gallinoble at montana.edu eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ialm at erols.com Wed Feb 22 05:57:43 2012 From: ialm at erols.com (Marc Imlay) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:57:43 -0500 Subject: [APWG] Biological Control of Weeds in Australia Message-ID: <5b9ffe$sk6s88@smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net> "Importantly, there have been no serious negative non-target impacts - the technique, when practised as it is in Australia, is safe and environmentally friendly" Marc Imlay, PhD, Conservation biologist, Park Ranger Office (301) 442-5657 cell ialm at erols.com Natural and Historical Resources Division The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission www.pgparks.com _____ From: aliens-l-bounces at list.auckland.ac.nz [mailto:aliens-l-bounces at list.auckland.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Shyama Pagad Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:49 PM To: aliens-l at list.auckland.ac.nz Subject: Re: [Aliens-L] Two books of interest Biological Control of Weeds in Australia Edited by Mic Julien, Rachel McFadyen, Jim Cullen Detailed information on over 90 weed species that have been targeted for biological control. Description Biological control of weeds has been practised for over 100 years and Australia has been a leader in this weed management technique. The classical example of control of prickly pears in Australia by the cactus moth Cactoblastis cactorum, which was imported from the Americas, helped to set the future for biocontrol of weeds in many countries. Since then there have been many projects using Classical Biological Control to manage numerous weed species, many of which have been successful. Importantly, there have been no serious negative non-target impacts - the technique, when practised as it is in Australia, is safe and environmentally friendly. Economic assessments have shown that biocontrol of weeds in Australia has provided exceedingly high benefit-to-cost ratios. This book reviews biological control of weeds in Australia to 2011, covering over 90 weed species and a multitude of biological control agents and potential agents. Each chapter has been written by practising biological control of weeds researchers and provides details of the weed, the history of its biological control, exploration for agents, potential agents studied and agents released and the outcomes of those releases. Many weeds were successfully controlled, some were not, many projects are still underway, some have just begun, however all are reported in detail in this book. Biological Control of Weeds in Australia will provide invaluable information for biological control researchers in Australia and elsewhere. Agents used in Australia could be of immense value to other countries that suffer from the same weeds as Australia. The studies reported here provide direction to future research and provide examples and knowledge for researchers and students. http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/18/pid/6509.htm _____ The Weed Book Identifying and Removing Weeds and Introduced Species from Your Garden Mark A Wolff Learn how to easily identify and understand some of our more common garden weeds. Description Over the last 200 years Australia's natural environment has been dramatically reshaped by the introduction of exotic plants. In this updated and revised book, Mark Wolff sets out to help the home gardener easily identify and understand some of our more common garden weeds. The Weed Book includes: Identification guide with colour photographs and detailed descriptions; step-by-step, illustrated guide to hand weeding methods; techniques for the safe use of chemical herbicides to control common weeds and a glossary of botanical terms. With Mark's help, any home horticulturalist can win the war on weeds. http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/18/pid/6919.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Shyama Pagad Program Manager Invasive Species Information Management University of Auckland Manager, Information Services IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group University of Auckland, New Zealand Tel +64 9 3737599 (X88624) DDI +64 9 9238624 Fax +64 9 3737042 email: s.pagad at auckland.ac.nz skype: shyama.pagad www.issg.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- The IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group aims to reduce threats to natural ecosystems and the native species they contain by increasing awareness of the impacts of invasive species; and of ways to prevent their spread and, control or eradicate them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From plant at plantconservation.org Fri Feb 24 07:55:48 2012 From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:55:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: [APWG] NEWS: Nonnative plants versus birds - what's true? Message-ID: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/23/HO5N1N8BN0.DTL Nonnative plants versus birds - what's true? Pam Peirce San Francisco Chronicle February 23, 2012 04:00 AM Q: I have always been puzzled by the long list of nonnative plants designated as "invasive" by the California Invasive Plant Council. As an avid gardener for 50 years, I know many of these plants, and I know they don't spread (in gardens). So why are they considered "invasive"? See the link above for the full article text. From landrest at cox.net Sat Feb 25 21:33:33 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:33:33 -0800 Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Message-ID: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From plant at plantconservation.org Mon Feb 27 07:23:13 2012 From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:23:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: [APWG] NEWS: Group sues EPA over popular weed killer Message-ID: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/23/group-sues-epa-over-popular-weed-killer/?hpt=hp_bn10 Group sues EPA over popular weed killer February 23rd, 2012 02:26 PM ET The Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit Thursday against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over 2,4-D, a widely used ingredient in broad leaf weed killers. See the link above for the full article text. From plant at plantconservation.org Mon Feb 27 07:31:48 2012 From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:31:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: [APWG] WEB: Invasive Species Learning and Action Network Message-ID: Launching the eXtension Invasive Species Community of Practice (CoP) February 26th, 2012, the first day of National Invasive Species Awareness Week (NISAW). The Invasive species CoP is a national website at http://www.extension.org/invasive_species. This website is designed to connect and mobilize audiences and parties through an Invasive Species Learning and Action Network. It is through this network that the Invasive Species CoP seeks to involve or connect Cooperative Extension invasive species educators, researchers, outreach and communications experts from leading universities across the USA with Master Gardeners, outdoor hobbyists, natural resources professionals and decision makers throughout the United States. You are invited to join the Invasive Species CoP in eXtension. If you have any questions about the CoP; if you would like to submit an article or invasive species profile; or add links to the educational resources please contact Karan Rawlins at krawlins at uga.edu. Instructions to Join: 1. Go to http://www.extension.org/people/communities/1238 2. Click 'Join Community' 3. Don't have an eXtension ID? Get one at http://www.extension.org/people/signup From katie at westernwatersheds.org Mon Feb 27 08:11:54 2012 From: katie at westernwatersheds.org (Katie Fite) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:11:54 -0700 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse In-Reply-To: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> Message-ID: Wayne, I am interested in the discussion. And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry - to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions. Katie Fite On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > ** > All: > > One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the > subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in > persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the > subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I > am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else > has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or > four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept > off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the > in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG > and RWG? > > I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the > collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed > dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration > projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The > off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily > address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and > can be more broadly applied. > > *First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance.* > > There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues > like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of > soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and > execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland > restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is > present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the > KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's > ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand > and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. > > True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend > to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing > considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral > deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root > zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the > site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when > bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a > grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse > B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should > be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and > consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community > type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until > something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale > replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is > terribly expensive.) > > If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most > likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I > have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with > limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be > developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying > for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other > essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual > plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and > flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even > some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil > importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit > the context. > > I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem > restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have > continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn > from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of > expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to > consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I > did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and > avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate > ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will > permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We > don't actually restore living systems. > > In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and > not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. > > In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have > been to: > > a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration > program that modifies or matches those conditions. > > b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing > far too much presumptuous guesswork. > > If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and > eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic > grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of > grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is > presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill > weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather > more likely than not. > > Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They > are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, > but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. > > > *2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in > dominance of weeds.* > > This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many > and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong > time, possibly including "maintenance." > > This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time > . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be > "inappropriate" for these lists. > > WT > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list > RWG at lists.plantconservation.org > > http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlb14 at cornell.edu Mon Feb 27 09:26:09 2012 From: rlb14 at cornell.edu (Robert Layton Beyfuss) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:26:09 +0000 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse In-Reply-To: References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> Message-ID: <988424B5B6109C409E2F55540125AF3A0893EDB5@MBXD-02.exchange.cornell.edu> I do not understand how ecosystems can be restored since I consider them as dynamic and constantly changing. It is not possible to completely re-create the environmental conditions that led to a given ecosystem at any given time in the past. If ecosystems represent the interactions of living and environmental factors, to restore an ecosystem requires replicating the previous environmental factors that affect the living organisms. The level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has doubled in the past 80 years. Plant growth, reproduction and survival is profoundly affected by carbon dioxide levels. I consider attempts to restore ecosystems as no more than human's creating new ecosystems using species of plants that previously occurred because humans liked the previous once more than the current one. From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Katie Fite Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Wayne, I am interested in the discussion. And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry - to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions. Katie Fite On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson > wrote: All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT _______________________________________________ PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list RWG at lists.plantconservation.org http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bstrngr at clemson.edu Mon Feb 27 10:40:45 2012 From: bstrngr at clemson.edu (William Stringer) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:40:45 -0500 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse In-Reply-To: <988424B5B6109C409E2F55540125AF3A0893EDB5@MBXD-02.exchange.cornell.edu> References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> , <988424B5B6109C409E2F55540125AF3A0893EDB5@MBXD-02.exchange.cornell.edu> Message-ID: <745522C9ADCECC4392D6016CC0D2F76B41A35608F3@EXCH07.CAMPUS.CU.CLEMSON.EDU> As to ecosystem restoration , we are not proposing to make a man-made Hope Diamond here. We are proposing to work from our admittedly limited knowledge base of what should be there, and what should not. We take out, to the degree that we can, the should-nots, particularly the known exotic invasive should-nots. We then try to place into the site local-source propagules of known natives in a patchwork of mixtures of relatively compatible species. At that point we have probably done most of what we can contribute. We can manage the site to the degree that we can simulate natural disturbance phenomena. But mostly at this point we stay out of the way and let natural phenomena drive the restoration. The only exception would be if outbreaks of exotic invasive species begin to threaten. Then, we monitor and learn What we cannot do is let micro-analysis of the term restoration immobilize us into total inaction. Bill Stringer ________________________________ From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Robert Layton Beyfuss [rlb14 at cornell.edu] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:26 AM To: Katie Fite; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse I do not understand how ecosystems can be restored since I consider them as dynamic and constantly changing. It is not possible to completely re-create the environmental conditions that led to a given ecosystem at any given time in the past. If ecosystems represent the interactions of living and environmental factors, to restore an ecosystem requires replicating the previous environmental factors that affect the living organisms. The level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has doubled in the past 80 years. Plant growth, reproduction and survival is profoundly affected by carbon dioxide levels. I consider attempts to restore ecosystems as no more than human?s creating new ecosystems using species of plants that previously occurred because humans liked the previous once more than the current one. From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Katie Fite Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Wayne, I am interested in the discussion. And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry - to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions. Katie Fite On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson > wrote: All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT _______________________________________________ PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list RWG at lists.plantconservation.org http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PFuhrmann at ene.com Mon Feb 27 11:29:11 2012 From: PFuhrmann at ene.com (Fuhrmann, Paul) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:29:11 -0500 Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Collapse Message-ID: <219D8EB618BE6940ACEC5F9D91B3BC7D0A8E8353@bufex4.corp.ene.com> "The myths of restoration ecology" http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art19/ "Stationarity is dead" http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/julio_pdf/milly_et_al.pdf Paul Fuhrmann From klhempymayer at bpa.gov Mon Feb 27 13:14:03 2012 From: klhempymayer at bpa.gov (Hempy-Mayer,Kara L (CONTR) - KEC-4) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:14:03 -0800 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse In-Reply-To: <745522C9ADCECC4392D6016CC0D2F76B41A35608F3@EXCH07.CAMPUS.CU.CLEMSON.EDU> References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> , <988424B5B6109C409E2F55540125AF3A0893EDB5@MBXD-02.exchange.cornell.edu> <745522C9ADCECC4392D6016CC0D2F76B41A35608F3@EXCH07.CAMPUS.CU.CLEMSON.EDU> Message-ID: <9F839B33E31E2D4E94466F646775033F0138B43765@PIHM001.bud.bpa.gov> Agreed. I've heard many people argue against the ideas of "ecosystem preservation" and "restoration," but it's usually a matter of semantics. What restoration and preservation are trying to accomplish is to maintain diversity on a global scale: there are ecosystems here that worked well before we starting impacting them so profoundly: we attempt to "restore" them by taking out what we put in (exotic weeds), or trying to repair what we damaged (soil structure, hydrology, etc.). Then, hopefully, the previous ecosystem processes can reestablish. As to the argument about increased carbon dioxide levels: I've always wondered about this. The argument that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has a profound effect on plant growth assumes that nothing else is limiting plant growth. From my limited background in plant physiology, there are usually many things limiting plant growth: macronutrients, micronutrients, water, and light. In balance, can CO2 have that big of an effect, even if it is limiting? Are there field studies that have found evidence for this? Thank you for the opportunity to comment -Kara From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of William Stringer Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 8:41 AM To: Robert Layton Beyfuss; Katie Fite; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse As to ecosystem restoration , we are not proposing to make a man-made Hope Diamond here. We are proposing to work from our admittedly limited knowledge base of what should be there, and what should not. We take out, to the degree that we can, the should-nots, particularly the known exotic invasive should-nots. We then try to place into the site local-source propagules of known natives in a patchwork of mixtures of relatively compatible species. At that point we have probably done most of what we can contribute. We can manage the site to the degree that we can simulate natural disturbance phenomena. But mostly at this point we stay out of the way and let natural phenomena drive the restoration. The only exception would be if outbreaks of exotic invasive species begin to threaten. Then, we monitor and learn What we cannot do is let micro-analysis of the term restoration immobilize us into total inaction. Bill Stringer ________________________________ From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Robert Layton Beyfuss [rlb14 at cornell.edu] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:26 AM To: Katie Fite; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse I do not understand how ecosystems can be restored since I consider them as dynamic and constantly changing. It is not possible to completely re-create the environmental conditions that led to a given ecosystem at any given time in the past. If ecosystems represent the interactions of living and environmental factors, to restore an ecosystem requires replicating the previous environmental factors that affect the living organisms. The level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has doubled in the past 80 years. Plant growth, reproduction and survival is profoundly affected by carbon dioxide levels. I consider attempts to restore ecosystems as no more than human's creating new ecosystems using species of plants that previously occurred because humans liked the previous once more than the current one. From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Katie Fite Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Wayne, I am interested in the discussion. And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry - to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions. Katie Fite On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson > wrote: All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT _______________________________________________ PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list RWG at lists.plantconservation.org http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cdeleo at bouldercounty.org Mon Feb 27 16:28:10 2012 From: cdeleo at bouldercounty.org (DeLeo, Claire) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:28:10 +0000 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Message-ID: <0DDDFF10EEBDDB45BD092A507E30FDF013C80E5E@Mailbox1.boco.co.boulder.co.us> We have done some fairly extensive grassland restoration of old ag fields in our agency. Some of these restoration projects go back 15 years. One thing we struggle with is managing our grassland restorations for disturbances that grasslands are evolved with, such as fire and grazing. We don't have the ability to manage some of our restored grasslands in this way because of prescribed fire restrictions or expense of fencing to allow grazing. When we can't manage this way, we see the weeds returning. We have to resort to mowing, but it doesn't really mimic natural grassland disturbances. The other thing we struggle with is diversity in our restorations. We are pretty good at getting cool season grasses to establish, but warm season grasses and forbs are much harder in our semi-arid climate. We aren't seeing these species come in on their own, probably because the seed source is not there in the surrounding areas (too much development). I have seen collapse of our grassland restorations when prairie dogs move in too soon after restoration has been initiated. I'd like to hear from others what the optimum time is for a grassland restoration to be able to support prairie dogs? We have been saying at least 10 years, but we really don't know. Thanks, Claire ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Claire DeLeo Plant Ecologist Boulder County Parks and Open Space 5201 St. Vrain Road Longmont, CO 80503 303-678-6205 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Craig at astreet.com Mon Feb 27 17:44:13 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:44:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [APWG] Grassland performance standards, who sets them, why and what are they? Message-ID: <1750.66.81.43.50.1330386253.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear Wayne and All, In this discussion of performance standards, I have not heard yet from any of the government agencies who set performance standards, why they set those standards, and what are some of the non-riparian standards like, and how solidly-native and how weed-free can the project end up being? Perhaps the most common performance standard for non-riparian revegetation, is the right-of-way standards that must be met after construction--road widening, pipelines, power lines and the like? Also performance standards set by each State for open pit mining operations and spoils piles? It seems that every government agency, must set some kind of performance standard for weed management and/or native restoration for projects? Otherwise without any kind of standard, they could end up paying $450,000 per acre for 72% weed cover after ten years of work, like at http://www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html? Or spend $42 million to buy the land for the Riverside County Endangered Stephens Krats, and not have any performance standard-goals established, to manage the weeds and get the habitat in shape for the Krats to live? Probably the most interesting grasslands performance standard I have encountered so far, was the widening of the highway through Yellowstone Park in 1997, where only locally-collected native grass seed gathered from within the National Park was used to revegetate the roadsides after the construction was completed. You could not use non-local genetic material, and definitely no cultivars of natives. Perhaps some of the government agency people reading these message, can educate us---what do they require for non-riparian restoration performance standards in their areas? Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From ialm at erols.com Tue Feb 28 06:35:30 2012 From: ialm at erols.com (Marc Imlay) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:35:30 -0500 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse In-Reply-To: <9F839B33E31E2D4E94466F646775033F0138B43765@PIHM001.bud.bpa.gov> Message-ID: <70bcd1$rki2mu@smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net> Just to clarify, ecosystems are dynamic and constantly changing, but not at the present rate of change. When endangered species were protected with national and international laws and programs several decades ago, we agreed that species naturally become extinct over time. It is just the rate of extintion that had increased a thousand fold and needed to be reversed so new species had an ecosystem to evolve in. Marc Imlay, PhD, Conservation biologist, Park Ranger Office (301) 442-5657 cell ialm at erols.com Natural and Historical Resources Division The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission www.pgparks.com _____ From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Hempy-Mayer,Kara L (CONTR) - KEC-4 Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:14 PM To: 'apwg at lists.plantconservation.org' Cc: 'rwg at lists.plantconservation.org' Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Agreed. I've heard many people argue against the ideas of "ecosystem preservation" and "restoration," but it's usually a matter of semantics. What restoration and preservation are trying to accomplish is to maintain diversity on a global scale: there are ecosystems here that worked well before we starting impacting them so profoundly: we attempt to "restore" them by taking out what we put in (exotic weeds), or trying to repair what we damaged (soil structure, hydrology, etc.). Then, hopefully, the previous ecosystem processes can reestablish. As to the argument about increased carbon dioxide levels: I've always wondered about this. The argument that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has a profound effect on plant growth assumes that nothing else is limiting plant growth. From my limited background in plant physiology, there are usually many things limiting plant growth: macronutrients, micronutrients, water, and light. In balance, can CO2 have that big of an effect, even if it is limiting? Are there field studies that have found evidence for this? Thank you for the opportunity to comment -Kara From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of William Stringer Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 8:41 AM To: Robert Layton Beyfuss; Katie Fite; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse As to ecosystem restoration , we are not proposing to make a man-made Hope Diamond here. We are proposing to work from our admittedly limited knowledge base of what should be there, and what should not. We take out, to the degree that we can, the should-nots, particularly the known exotic invasive should-nots. We then try to place into the site local-source propagules of known natives in a patchwork of mixtures of relatively compatible species. At that point we have probably done most of what we can contribute. We can manage the site to the degree that we can simulate natural disturbance phenomena. But mostly at this point we stay out of the way and let natural phenomena drive the restoration. The only exception would be if outbreaks of exotic invasive species begin to threaten. Then, we monitor and learn What we cannot do is let micro-analysis of the term restoration immobilize us into total inaction. Bill Stringer _____ From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Robert Layton Beyfuss [rlb14 at cornell.edu] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:26 AM To: Katie Fite; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse I do not understand how ecosystems can be restored since I consider them as dynamic and constantly changing. It is not possible to completely re-create the environmental conditions that led to a given ecosystem at any given time in the past. If ecosystems represent the interactions of living and environmental factors, to restore an ecosystem requires replicating the previous environmental factors that affect the living organisms. The level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has doubled in the past 80 years. Plant growth, reproduction and survival is profoundly affected by carbon dioxide levels. I consider attempts to restore ecosystems as no more than human's creating new ecosystems using species of plants that previously occurred because humans liked the previous once more than the current one. From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Katie Fite Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Wayne, I am interested in the discussion. And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry - to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions. Katie Fite On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT _______________________________________________ PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list RWG at lists.plantconservation.org http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservat ion.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tyju at xmission.com Mon Feb 27 18:04:48 2012 From: tyju at xmission.com (Ty Harrison) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:04:48 -0700 Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> Message-ID: <7C16F7C81D40407DA0FDDEEFFD4A7767@harrison> Wayne et al.: I have been following these restoration/collapse discussion with great interest. I suspect many of us are, but have limited time to compose thoughful contributions to the discussions. It is wonderful to hear from you professionals who have had much more experience in these dry, western grassland restoration projects. My experience has been on a much smaller scale, but I am bothered by many partial failures. One of the biggest issues has been to find a methology to eliminate or control perennial grassy weeds as well as annual weeds which prevent the small, native seedling grasses to become established in sufficient density to eventually out compete the weeds after two or three years of mowing. An additional frustration is that it has been almost impossible to get success in perennial native forb establishment with a native grass/forb mix on some of my semi-successful seeding projects. I agree that to be successful you have to have the native grassland soil there, but many times that is not possible. I need to know what kinds of soil amendments or treatments need to be made to insure survival of the natives over the weeds. My past experience, in contrast to Dreman's, is that highly fertile or fertilized soils simply allow the annual weeds to grow faster, shading out the slowing growing native seedling. Which indicates to me that first year mowing is critical for almost any annual weed infested grassland restoration. I have seen one very successful native grass/forb seeding project on an Interstate Highway ROW, but it was destroyed by a highway maintenace reconstruction project. In terms of "restoration collapse", of which I have seen many, weed re-colonization in any available open soil site, or small scale soil disturbances by rodents or fire, is the source of collapse due to lack of followup weed control. Please keep these discussions going. I would like to learn more about assessment standards and techniques which are practical. Regards, Ty Harrison, Emeritus Professor of Biology and consultant, Salt Lake City, Utah ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Tyson To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org ; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:33 PM Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From landrest at cox.net Mon Feb 27 19:50:18 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:50:18 -0800 Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> <7C16F7C81D40407DA0FDDEEFFD4A7767@harrison> Message-ID: <02b601ccf5bb$5472c940$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> APWG AND RWG: For the sake of brevity and clarity, I'm going to annotate Harrison's remarks [[thus. WT]] WT ----- Original Message ----- From: Ty Harrison To: Wayne Tyson ; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org ; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Wayne et al.: I have been following these restoration/collapse discussion with great interest. I suspect many of us are, but have limited time to compose thoughtful contributions to the discussions. [[While I fully understand the problem of time, any comments at all, from everyone, will contribute to a wider understanding and appreciation of this or any issue. WT]] It is wonderful to hear from you professionals who have had much more experience in these dry, western grassland restoration projects. [[Anyone can contribute insights and experiences; in fact professionals often miss points that a non-professional can see more clearly. There should be no hierarchy, no pecking-order here; we are all joined in a mutual effort to understand ecosystems and the role of weeds in them. WT]] My experience has been on a much smaller scale, but I am bothered by many partial failures. One of the biggest issues has been to find a methodology to eliminate or control perennial grassy weeds as well as annual weeds which prevent the small, native seedling grasses to become established in sufficient density to eventually out compete the weeds after two or three years of mowing. [["Partial failures" may not be failures at all. Our expectations of Nature and natural processes may be unrealistic. The important thing is the trend or direction in which a natural system is moving. WT]] An additional frustration is that it has been almost impossible to get success in perennial native forb establishment with a native grass/forb mix on some of my semi-successful seeding projects. [[While everything is context-driven at root (npi), there are a few generalizations that tend to apply to a number of contexts. For example, many indigenous species have a low survival rate (I can't remember the citation, but a doctoral dissertation by Robinson at Oklahoma State University, if I remember correctly, studied survivorship of Stipa pulchra in the 1960's or '70's that demonstrated and exceedingly low seedling survival rate when directly sowed in the field). I have found that planting "colonies" of small [1" x 3" container-grown seedlings in groups of about ten containers each to be quite successful, especially when combined with a small amount of inoculum from healthy stands to pencil out better in every respect [cost/effectiveness] than direct seeding. However, direct seeding with inoculum also can be effective in some situations. WT]] I agree that to be successful you have to have the native grassland soil there, but many times that is not possible. I need to know what kinds of soil amendments or treatments need to be made to insure survival of the natives over the weeds. [[Unless the basic requirements for the development of a grassland are present, one is not likely to achieve a grassland; some other plant community may be more suited to the site, and that fact should be faced. However, I have found that if the soil is fine-grained rather than coarse-grained, growing what I call "transitional" species can provide tons of humus and proper aerification, not to mention soil flora and fauna (e.g. fungi and earthworms) that would be prohibitive in cost and practicality to importing commercial "amendments" (unless the latter consist of topsoils). The roots of annual plants are notable for "amending" otherwise sterile and structureless dirt. When they die, such roots leave behind organic matter and root casts that increase water infiltration and percolation as well as available water capacity, just to name a few benefits, that commercial amendments cannot provide. Weeds and certain annual crop plants, especially those which rank low on persistence and reproduction, can accomplish this in a very short time. Planting the aforementioned colonies--just a few each year--will advance the project toward the ultimate goal and at the same time provide a demonstration of the degree of effectiveness and the trend, demonstrating the level of effectiveness at each stage of development. WT]] My past experience, in contrast to Dreman's, is that highly fertile or fertilized soils simply allow the annual weeds to grow faster, shading out the slowing growing native seedling. [[Exactly. One of the major differences between ecosystems and cultivated monocultures or plant assemblages is that ecosystems tend to sequester most or all of the available nutrients in their tissues, thus discouraging weed growth. Both fertilizer and water tend to favor weeds in most upland situations. Putting the ecosystem under what good agronomists and horticulturists would call "stress" fosters the development of the organisms best-adapted to it, while discouraging those ill-adapted to stress. You might say that in ecosystems, stress is the "name of the game." WT]] Which indicates to me that first year mowing is critical for almost any annual weed infested grassland restoration. [[Well, yes, mowing can open up the soil to light and heat, favoring the organisms that require those conditions, which can sometimes be the more slowly-developing perennial native species. Mowing is, however, a double-edged sword (pi), so one must use some caution. For example, one might not want to mow at certain times and one might want to rake up the hay. Seemingly tiny differences can be crucial in restoration. WT]] I have seen one very successful native grass/forb seeding project on an Interstate Highway ROW, but it was destroyed by a highway maintenance reconstruction project. In terms of "restoration collapse", of which I have seen many, weed re-colonization in any available open soil site, or small scale soil disturbances by rodents or fire, is the source of collapse due to lack of follow-up weed control. [[It ain't necessarily so. A lot of the problem with collapse is due to failure to know what's actually going on. I am not a fan of "follow-up" work of any kind, especially so-called "weed control," because such activities, while viscerally and intuitively satisfying, often introduce more cons than pros. WT]] Please keep these discussions going. I would like to learn more about assessment standards and techniques which are practical. [[This is a big subject, perhaps deserving of its own thread. My own feeling about standards is that the initial presence of the right organisms is the first requirement, and most of the rest of it involves trend--up rather than down. Dr. Dremann and I disagree on some things, and without speaking for him, I understand that he believes "cover" is an important measure. I almost always believe that cover is not only misleading but counter-productive. I am well aware of the popularity of "cover" as a requirement that is quite popular with many agencies and that I am in the minority on this point. If there is sufficient interest, I will try to explain my reasoning and the observations that have led me to that conclusion. Unlike some, who have popped out of the womb of the university in an all-knowing and near-perfect state, I have made, and continue to make, more than my share of errors. For that reason, I am always happy to stand corrected on the merits or demerits of my statements and practices. WT]] Regards, Ty Harrison, Emeritus Professor of Biology and consultant, Salt Lake City, Utah ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Tyson To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org ; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:33 PM Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From landrest at cox.net Mon Feb 27 19:51:17 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:51:17 -0800 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881>, <988424B5B6109C409E2F55540125AF3A0893EDB5@MBXD-02.exchange.cornell.edu><745522C9ADCECC4392D6016CC0D2F76B41A35608F3@EXCH07.CAMPUS.CU.CLEMSON.EDU> <9F839B33E31E2D4E94466F646775033F0138B43765@PIHM001.bud.bpa.gov> Message-ID: <02c501ccf5bb$7c9b6530$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> ----- Original Message ----- From: Hempy-Mayer,Kara L (CONTR) - KEC-4 To: 'apwg at lists.plantconservation.org' Cc: 'rwg at lists.plantconservation.org' Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Agreed. I've heard many people argue against the ideas of "ecosystem preservation" and "restoration," but it's usually a matter of semantics. What restoration and preservation are trying to accomplish is to maintain diversity on a global scale: there are ecosystems here that worked well before we starting impacting them so profoundly: we attempt to "restore" them by taking out what we put in (exotic weeds), or trying to repair what we damaged (soil structure, hydrology, etc.). Then, hopefully, the previous ecosystem processes can reestablish. As to the argument about increased carbon dioxide levels: I've always wondered about this. The argument that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has a profound effect on plant growth assumes that nothing else is limiting plant growth. From my limited background in plant physiology, there are usually many things limiting plant growth: macronutrients, micronutrients, water, and light. In balance, can CO2 have that big of an effect, even if it is limiting? Are there field studies that have found evidence for this? Thank you for the opportunity to comment -Kara From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of William Stringer Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 8:41 AM To: Robert Layton Beyfuss; Katie Fite; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse As to ecosystem restoration , we are not proposing to make a man-made Hope Diamond here. We are proposing to work from our admittedly limited knowledge base of what should be there, and what should not. We take out, to the degree that we can, the should-nots, particularly the known exotic invasive should-nots. We then try to place into the site local-source propagules of known natives in a patchwork of mixtures of relatively compatible species. At that point we have probably done most of what we can contribute. We can manage the site to the degree that we can simulate natural disturbance phenomena. But mostly at this point we stay out of the way and let natural phenomena drive the restoration. The only exception would be if outbreaks of exotic invasive species begin to threaten. Then, we monitor and learn What we cannot do is let micro-analysis of the term restoration immobilize us into total inaction. Bill Stringer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Robert Layton Beyfuss [rlb14 at cornell.edu] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:26 AM To: Katie Fite; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse I do not understand how ecosystems can be restored since I consider them as dynamic and constantly changing. It is not possible to completely re-create the environmental conditions that led to a given ecosystem at any given time in the past. If ecosystems represent the interactions of living and environmental factors, to restore an ecosystem requires replicating the previous environmental factors that affect the living organisms. The level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has doubled in the past 80 years. Plant growth, reproduction and survival is profoundly affected by carbon dioxide levels. I consider attempts to restore ecosystems as no more than human's creating new ecosystems using species of plants that previously occurred because humans liked the previous once more than the current one. From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Katie Fite Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Wayne, I am interested in the discussion. And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry - to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions. Katie Fite On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT _______________________________________________ PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list RWG at lists.plantconservation.org http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From landrest at cox.net Mon Feb 27 20:27:58 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:27:58 -0800 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> <988424B5B6109C409E2F55540125AF3A0893EDB5@MBXD-02.exchange.cornell.edu> Message-ID: <02df01ccf5c0$960aadf0$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> Honorable Forum: I don't think "we" actually restore ecosystems either. This is an old debate, and I tend to accept some of the points made by both "sides." At one time we had to settle for terms like "preservation," "conservation," and even (ugh!) "reclamation," the latter often being used in connection with ecosystem destruction for "practical" purposes. I use ecosystem restoration because I can think of no better term. I am willing to change, but so far I have not adopted the phrase, "ecological restoration." All we can do in ecosystem restoration is to set up the conditions for natural forces, ecological functions, to do their thing. All I have ever done is to attempt to understand what is going on with respect to various disturbances and dynamic ecosystems and nudge them, only as much as necessary, toward the biological fulfillment of the site's potential, sometimes adjusting that potential. I do not believe that ecosystem restoration to some state that existed in the past, because dynamic systems do not have "states." Only we think in terms of states, or fixed assemblages of organisms. I would never try to "replicate" the factors that influenced the nature of any past snapshot of an ecosystem as conceived of by anyone or an group that is deluded enough to think that they know about it. I attempt to understand what is going on and why, the nature of the dynamic system that is reflected in the whole complex of organisms that is responding to the dynamic "state" of the context affecting those organisms. It is in this sense that I think that ecosystem restoration is valid--because it is a system, not a fixture. I think "liking" has nothing to do with ecosystem restoration. I am aware that this is not the common or even the accepted view, and I, alone, accept responsibility for having that view. I believe that ecosystem restoration has to do with accelerating ecosystem processes toward the complex of organisms that have the potential represented by the context (which I might alter in the process of "restoring" a fully-functioning, self-sufficient complex of organisms that we call an ecosystem. (We could extend the argument to say that there is only one ecosystem, too, but I again accept, at least provisionally, the division of the earth ecosystem into biomes and mudpuddles, for example, as the situation happens to require. We also could argue how many angels can dance on the point of a pin too, but I'll leave that to the theists.) But yes, I will agree with Beyfuss that there is some deep-seated kind of species-consciousness operating that makes us prefer meadows to weed patches. I prefer tiny flowers and even spikerushes to thistles and ripgut brome. I confess. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Layton Beyfuss To: Katie Fite ; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org ; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:26 AM Subject: RE: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse I do not understand how ecosystems can be restored since I consider them as dynamic and constantly changing. It is not possible to completely re-create the environmental conditions that led to a given ecosystem at any given time in the past. If ecosystems represent the interactions of living and environmental factors, to restore an ecosystem requires replicating the previous environmental factors that affect the living organisms. The level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has doubled in the past 80 years. Plant growth, reproduction and survival is profoundly affected by carbon dioxide levels. I consider attempts to restore ecosystems as no more than human's creating new ecosystems using species of plants that previously occurred because humans liked the previous once more than the current one. From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Katie Fite Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Wayne, I am interested in the discussion. And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry - to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions. Katie Fite On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT _______________________________________________ PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list RWG at lists.plantconservation.org http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From landrest at cox.net Mon Feb 27 20:38:12 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:38:12 -0800 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> <988424B5B6109C409E2F55540125AF3A0893EDB5@MBXD-02.exchange.cornell.edu> <219D8EB618BE6940ACEC5F9D91B3BC7D0A8E826A@bufex4.corp.ene.com> Message-ID: <02f001ccf5c2$03dff050$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> Honorable Forum: Again, this argument has been around for a long time now, and I have no real argument with it; I'm just not sure what it says about the alternatives of doing something and doing nothing. In my "practice," I always began my analysis with "the zero option" and built from there. Yes, I agree that Nature doesn't give a damn about any species, least of all Homo sap. I do believe, however, that human culture is a psychopathology that has run increasingly amok for ten millennia or more, and increasingly fouls its nest along with those of countless other species. Yes, the changes (ooooh, not to say "damages") wrought by human culture will someday be rendered moot by the forces of Nature. Yes, we have a choice about whether or not to clean up our messes for our own benefit, directly or indirectly, and for the benefit of other species and assemblages which we "like." I'm not sure where all this should go . . . WT ----- Original Message ----- From: Fuhrmann, Paul To: Robert Layton Beyfuss ; Katie Fite ; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org ; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 8:02 AM Subject: RE: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse I believe this discussion thread is a good one that promotes conceptual thinking as well as practice. Ecosystem "collapse" and "ecological restoration" infer absolute understanding of abstract infinitely complex processes. Traditional knowledge based systems support the concept of change whether "natural" or induced by any number of stressors or restorative efforts. Ecosystem change involves many disturbance regimes that indirectly reset evolution and successional trajectory where humans or other target species may or may not be the primary beneficiaries. Global systems will persist in some form, with or without humans. Two thought provoking papers on climate change and 'restoration myths' are attached. Also, I look forward to all submittals on this listeserve. From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Robert Layton Beyfuss Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:26 AM To: Katie Fite; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse I do not understand how ecosystems can be restored since I consider them as dynamic and constantly changing. It is not possible to completely re-create the environmental conditions that led to a given ecosystem at any given time in the past. If ecosystems represent the interactions of living and environmental factors, to restore an ecosystem requires replicating the previous environmental factors that affect the living organisms. The level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has doubled in the past 80 years. Plant growth, reproduction and survival is profoundly affected by carbon dioxide levels. I consider attempts to restore ecosystems as no more than human's creating new ecosystems using species of plants that previously occurred because humans liked the previous once more than the current one. From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Katie Fite Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Wayne, I am interested in the discussion. And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry - to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions. Katie Fite On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT _______________________________________________ PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list RWG at lists.plantconservation.org http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org Click here to report this email as spam. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From landrest at cox.net Mon Feb 27 20:45:43 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:45:43 -0800 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881>, <988424B5B6109C409E2F55540125AF3A0893EDB5@MBXD-02.exchange.cornell.edu> <745522C9ADCECC4392D6016CC0D2F76B41A35608F3@EXCH07.CAMPUS.CU.CLEMSON.EDU> Message-ID: <02f901ccf5c3$1391c590$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> Honorable Forum: I can appreciate Stringer's points. I am perhaps a little less determined to stamp out the grapes of wrath entirely, and a little more accepting of what Nature actually does with respect to most weeds, but I do believe that a less reckless and more nurturing approach to reconciling the needs and works of humankind with those of the earth and its life might no be all bad. But at the same time, I am not at all certain that many of the actions might not have been better not taken. I have blathered elsewhere about "the zero option," and spoken of the value of weeds to ecosystem restoration (or a substitute term). WT ----- Original Message ----- From: William Stringer To: Robert Layton Beyfuss ; Katie Fite ; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org ; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 8:40 AM Subject: RE: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse As to ecosystem restoration , we are not proposing to make a man-made Hope Diamond here. We are proposing to work from our admittedly limited knowledge base of what should be there, and what should not. We take out, to the degree that we can, the should-nots, particularly the known exotic invasive should-nots. We then try to place into the site local-source propagules of known natives in a patchwork of mixtures of relatively compatible species. At that point we have probably done most of what we can contribute. We can manage the site to the degree that we can simulate natural disturbance phenomena. But mostly at this point we stay out of the way and let natural phenomena drive the restoration. The only exception would be if outbreaks of exotic invasive species begin to threaten. Then, we monitor and learn What we cannot do is let micro-analysis of the term restoration immobilize us into total inaction. Bill Stringer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Robert Layton Beyfuss [rlb14 at cornell.edu] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:26 AM To: Katie Fite; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse I do not understand how ecosystems can be restored since I consider them as dynamic and constantly changing. It is not possible to completely re-create the environmental conditions that led to a given ecosystem at any given time in the past. If ecosystems represent the interactions of living and environmental factors, to restore an ecosystem requires replicating the previous environmental factors that affect the living organisms. The level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has doubled in the past 80 years. Plant growth, reproduction and survival is profoundly affected by carbon dioxide levels. I consider attempts to restore ecosystems as no more than human?s creating new ecosystems using species of plants that previously occurred because humans liked the previous once more than the current one. From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Katie Fite Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Wayne, I am interested in the discussion. And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry - to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions. Katie Fite On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT _______________________________________________ PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list RWG at lists.plantconservation.org http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlb14 at cornell.edu Tue Feb 28 11:19:10 2012 From: rlb14 at cornell.edu (Robert Layton Beyfuss) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:19:10 +0000 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse In-Reply-To: <02df01ccf5c0$960aadf0$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> <988424B5B6109C409E2F55540125AF3A0893EDB5@MBXD-02.exchange.cornell.edu> <02df01ccf5c0$960aadf0$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> Message-ID: <988424B5B6109C409E2F55540125AF3A0893F209@MBXD-02.exchange.cornell.edu> Nice to see so many posts from names I do not recognize. Ecological restoration, renovation, reclamation, renewal, Does it really matter what we call "our" efforts? Since when does science require precise definitions? Why should invasion biology be encumbered by a lack of agreed upon definitions? This minor glitch does not seem to stem the flow of money into eradication and restoration efforts nationwide. Surely the money providers know what is the best policy. So, to what end do we seek to restore (pick your favorite term here) ecosystems? I hope we do this because we desire the ecological services that previous ecosystems provided. We much prefer navigational waterways compared to those choked with weeds so we can navigate them. We prefer habitats that support biological diversity. We want clean air and water. We bemoan the loss of plant and animal species that once were common. I liken this to urban renewal efforts in which we seek to renew urban areas that have degenerated into ghettos, back to the thriving neighborhoods they once were. At one time the generally accepted best way to do this was to destroy the old buildings and erect high rise apartments. Now we seem to favor renovating the old buildings but unless the conditions that led to the decline are addressed, many of these efforts fail. This is also true of ecological restorations which fail for the same reasons. Of course, this all costs money and there is only so much money. I question the expenditure of large sums of tax dollars to restore ecosystems simply because the current ecosystems are different than previous ones, unless some human benefit can be realized. I question the efforts to kill exotic plants unless there is some tangible benefit. Humans need to be responsible for their efforts, both positive and negative. Humans seek to tweak nature for our own perceived benefits, whether it is to allow traversing a river or spying a bird that is rare or unique. Those who claim these efforts are simply the "right thing to do" must have direct access to some superior being that tells them what is "right". I claim no such clairvoyance. I will end this latest blurb with a quote from J.R.R. Tolkien that I think is most appropriate for programs designed to kill off exotic plants with no real goal beyond that itself. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? The be not too eager to deal out death...... Even the wise cannot see all ends." From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:28 PM Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Honorable Forum: I don't think "we" actually restore ecosystems either. This is an old debate, and I tend to accept some of the points made by both "sides." At one time we had to settle for terms like "preservation," "conservation," and even (ugh!) "reclamation," the latter often being used in connection with ecosystem destruction for "practical" purposes. I use ecosystem restoration because I can think of no better term. I am willing to change, but so far I have not adopted the phrase, "ecological restoration." All we can do in ecosystem restoration is to set up the conditions for natural forces, ecological functions, to do their thing. All I have ever done is to attempt to understand what is going on with respect to various disturbances and dynamic ecosystems and nudge them, only as much as necessary, toward the biological fulfillment of the site's potential, sometimes adjusting that potential. I do not believe that ecosystem restoration to some state that existed in the past, because dynamic systems do not have "states." Only we think in terms of states, or fixed assemblages of organisms. I would never try to "replicate" the factors that influenced the nature of any past snapshot of an ecosystem as conceived of by anyone or an group that is deluded enough to think that they know about it. I attempt to understand what is going on and why, the nature of the dynamic system that is reflected in the whole complex of organisms that is responding to the dynamic "state" of the context affecting those organisms. It is in this sense that I think that ecosystem restoration is valid--because it is a system, not a fixture. I think "liking" has nothing to do with ecosystem restoration. I am aware that this is not the common or even the accepted view, and I, alone, accept responsibility for having that view. I believe that ecosystem restoration has to do with accelerating ecosystem processes toward the complex of organisms that have the potential represented by the context (which I might alter in the process of "restoring" a fully-functioning, self-sufficient complex of organisms that we call an ecosystem. (We could extend the argument to say that there is only one ecosystem, too, but I again accept, at least provisionally, the division of the earth ecosystem into biomes and mudpuddles, for example, as the situation happens to require. We also could argue how many angels can dance on the point of a pin too, but I'll leave that to the theists.) But yes, I will agree with Beyfuss that there is some deep-seated kind of species-consciousness operating that makes us prefer meadows to weed patches. I prefer tiny flowers and even spikerushes to thistles and ripgut brome. I confess. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Layton Beyfuss To: Katie Fite ; Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org ; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:26 AM Subject: RE: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse I do not understand how ecosystems can be restored since I consider them as dynamic and constantly changing. It is not possible to completely re-create the environmental conditions that led to a given ecosystem at any given time in the past. If ecosystems represent the interactions of living and environmental factors, to restore an ecosystem requires replicating the previous environmental factors that affect the living organisms. The level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has doubled in the past 80 years. Plant growth, reproduction and survival is profoundly affected by carbon dioxide levels. I consider attempts to restore ecosystems as no more than human's creating new ecosystems using species of plants that previously occurred because humans liked the previous once more than the current one. From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Katie Fite Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Wayne Tyson Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Wayne, I am interested in the discussion. And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry - to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions. Katie Fite On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson > wrote: All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT _______________________________________________ PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list RWG at lists.plantconservation.org http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Nancy.Morin at nau.edu Tue Feb 28 12:01:43 2012 From: Nancy.Morin at nau.edu (Nancy Ruth Morin) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:01:43 +0000 Subject: [APWG] California Native Plant Society position Message-ID: <2848D1A3FB137749AFB406CC9A92831C165588@Bramblewattle.nau.froot.nau.edu> Apologies for cross-posting but please get the word out that the California Native Plant Society is recruiting for an Executive Director. Thanks! The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a science-based advocacy organization with over 9,000 members organized in 33 chapters across the state, a Chapter Council that meets quarterly, a Board of Directors elected by the Chapter Council, numerous local and statewide committees chaired by chapter volunteers, and volunteer and paid administrative and program staff. Volunteer leadership is an integral and vital component of our success as an organization. The Society?s members work in cooperation with county, state, and federal agencies, elected officials, NGOs, and other non-profit organizations to conserve California native plants and their natural habitats, and increase understanding, appreciation, and horticultural use of native plants. The Society?s administrative and technical staff facilitates and supports the work of the chapters and implements statewide programs. The Society is headquartered in Sacramento. JOB SUMMARY CNPS is seeking an Executive Director who will be a strong and articulate advocate for one of California?s most effective conservation organizations. We are looking for someone who is a team-builder and excellent communicator with the ability to forge alliances with public and private organizations. The successful candidate will build and strengthen the Society?s membership and donor base and work with all parts of the Society, as well as external partners, to grow new revenue sources necessary to support the overall financial health of the organization now and in the future. He/she is responsible for managing all staff, helping to implement strategic plans developed by the Society, staying within budgets approved by the Board, and has chief administrative responsibility for the Society including the Society?s public accountability, legal obligations, and regular reporting. The Executive Director operates under the direction of the Society?s Board of Directors and is supervised directly by the President of the Board. QUALIFICATIONS ? At least three years of supervisory experience in a non-profit setting ? Demonstrated ability to work with volunteers with all levels of expertise ? Demonstrated leadership abilities ? Demonstrated fundraising abilities through grant writing, individual donor campaigns, and membership appeals ? Experience with financial management ? Excellent communication and problem-solving skills ? Demonstrated commitment to, understanding of, and enthusiasm for natural resource conservation Review of applications will begin March 20, 2012 (anticipated start date June 1, 2012). Starting Salary Range: Commensurate with qualifications and experience. Competitive compensation package for non profit organizations of equal size. To apply: Submit an electronic application (in MS Word), including a cover letter expressing interest and summarizing your qualifications and experience, along with a current resume, to: Executive Director Recruitment Committee, CNPS, email: edsearch at cnps.org. For further information see our website at www.cnps.org. Nancy Morin Flora of North America Business Office P. O. Box 716 Point Arena, CA 95468 707/882-2528 ________________________________________ 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. From landrest at cox.net Tue Feb 28 15:32:46 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:32:46 -0800 Subject: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse References: <0DDDFF10EEBDDB45BD092A507E30FDF013C80E5E@Mailbox1.boco.co.boulder.co.us> Message-ID: <003701ccf660$8328bc40$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> APWG: Ecosystems are a reflection of the complex factors that make up habitats, and some of these factors are going to be different and change with time. Things like species composition are unlikely to quickly be the same under change, and many known and unknown factors are involved. As Imlay has pointed out, nothing is ever exactly the same, so the goal of "restoration" can't sensibly be to "return" and ecosystem to what it was or may have been in the past. The "restored" ecosystem may be different in the sense of conventional measurements, but if it is self-sufficient it will still be an ecosystem. The species composition will be a reconciliation of a number of forces, such as climate and the organisms themselves, in varying amounts and ratios that change with changing circumstances. Perhaps Imlay will elaborate on his earlier post. Fire, grazing, and other disturbances all have different effects depending upon uncountable and perhaps unknown or unknowable variables. As a practical matter, diversity tends to "wobble" a bit, and that's one of its advantages. Under one set of circumstances, types, species, and genes will "move" toward center-stage, as it were, and in another recede. DeLeo is quite right in her observation that the availability of propagules is an important factor, and introduction of seeds, spores, and other elements necessary for the development of an historic ecosystem component may need to be artificial--part of a restoration program. When natural sources and/or dispersal agents are missing, the restoration program should consider whether or not that piece of the puzzle should be left out or compensated for by acting as a temporary vector. Rodents and other fauna often play a seemingly contrary role in restoration programs, but I have learned to look more deeply into their role (Rodents, for example, are important in the soil-building process.) in the ecosystem recovery process, which may take more time that that arbitrarily "determined" by us. I have resorted to various tricks to "restore" structure, for example (e.g., perching and nesting poles and boxes, brush piles, etc.), which can have an indirect effect on faunal activity and its effects on the developing ecosystem. If a site is so isolated by development as to banish access and habitat for some top-predators like coyotes, for example, raptors and other predator species might be employed to limit the amplitude of boom/bust cycles. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: DeLeo, Claire To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse We have done some fairly extensive grassland restoration of old ag fields in our agency. Some of these restoration projects go back 15 years. One thing we struggle with is managing our grassland restorations for disturbances that grasslands are evolved with, such as fire and grazing. We don't have the ability to manage some of our restored grasslands in this way because of prescribed fire restrictions or expense of fencing to allow grazing. When we can't manage this way, we see the weeds returning. We have to resort to mowing, but it doesn't really mimic natural grassland disturbances. The other thing we struggle with is diversity in our restorations. We are pretty good at getting cool season grasses to establish, but warm season grasses and forbs are much harder in our semi-arid climate. We aren't seeing these species come in on their own, probably because the seed source is not there in the surrounding areas (too much development). I have seen collapse of our grassland restorations when prairie dogs move in too soon after restoration has been initiated. I'd like to hear from others what the optimum time is for a grassland restoration to be able to support prairie dogs? We have been saying at least 10 years, but we really don't know. Thanks, Claire ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Claire DeLeo Plant Ecologist Boulder County Parks and Open Space 5201 St. Vrain Road Longmont, CO 80503 303-678-6205 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4837 - Release Date: 02/28/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schenkmj at earthlink.net Tue Feb 28 18:21:23 2012 From: schenkmj at earthlink.net (Michael Schenk) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:21:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [APWG] rate of change Message-ID: <16957444.1330474883834.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From plant at plantconservation.org Wed Feb 29 08:31:21 2012 From: plant at plantconservation.org (Olivia Kwong) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:31:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: [APWG] EVENT: Educating the Public about New Invasive Species Threatening California's Plant Ecosystems (University of California, Davis) Message-ID: http://westernfarmpress.com/management/invasive-species-threaten-california-s-plant-ecosystems An all-day conference on Tuesday, April 24 at the University of California, Davis will answer those questions. The event will take place from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the UC Davis Conference Center, located at 550 Alumni Lane, across from the Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts. Themed "Educating the Public about New Invasive Species Threatening California's Plant Ecosystems," the conference will include such topics as "New Pests Threatening California," "Case Histories" and "Other Perspectives on Communication," said coordinator Kris Godfrey, associate project scientist with the Contained Research Facility at UC Davis. See the link above for the full event information. From landrest at cox.net Wed Feb 29 17:41:29 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:41:29 -0800 Subject: [APWG] Invasion and cropping Re: rate of change References: <16957444.1330474883834.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <004c01ccf73b$a93621d0$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> Y'all: When you change something in an ecosystem, other things change, including "invasions" (aka colonization). Ecosystems tend toward sequestering most or effectively all of the nutrients in the biomass--or try to. Much of colonization consists of a drive in that direction. This is why some ecologists have said that an ecosystem in equilibrium resists invasion. This is a sustained/sustainable situation, but that is far different from the invented and spun context in which "sustainable" is bandied about today. To cut to the chase, modern agronomic practice is 180 degrees out of phase with this principle, hence with ecosystems. Study sites where the best ginseng grows, and study them completely. Then compare those conditions with the ones in which you are attempting to grow it as a crop. If there is any significant difference, it is likely that you are whizzing upwind. This is already indulging in more conjecture than justified by the scant information about the ecological context of your project, so take it with a grain of salt and see if any of the principles mentioned help. I hope so. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Schenk To: Marc Imlay Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:21 PM Subject: [APWG] rate of change Bingo! It's the rate of change that counts. When a new species arrives every thousand years, a time scale roughly consistent with "natural" climate change disturbances, the ecosystem has a chance to respond and integrate the new species. If you keep on rocking the boat and never give it a chance to steady out, somebody's gonna get wet. Sometimes I feel like we're arguing over angel dancing space. The fact is, the boat is swamping, and we need to slow down the rate of change. I'm a small landholder, trying to plant sustainable harvests of ginseng, etc., in the face of encroachment from garlic mustard, stiltgrass, tearthumb. I don't have the time or resources for massive intervention. I need affordable, time-efficient methods of non-toxic removal. I've already spent hundreds of hours and many dollars on weedwhackers and native seed. For me, the combination of mechanical removal and planting native grasses is at least holding the stiltgrass steady. I'd like to learn about other successful practices that fit with a modest budget and a working schedule. Cheers, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Marc Imlay Sent: Feb 28, 2012 7:35 AM To: "'Hempy-Mayer,Kara L (CONTR) - KEC-4'" , apwg at lists.plantconservation.org Cc: rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: Re: [APWG] [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4840 - Release Date: 02/28/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: