[APWG] Ecosystem restoration standards Dremann Ecosystem trends and collapse Re: 99.5%-or-Bust Standard for March 20 San Mateo County WMAmeeting

[Wayne Tyson]

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" <Craig at astreet.com>
To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>; <rwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
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
>