[APWG] Test soil for soil nutrient thresholds

[craig at astreet.com]

Dear All,
I will Reply: after Wayne's >comments.
>

> Undisturbed ecosytems tend to sequester (tie-up) the available
nutrients

> as soon as they are made available by a root-death or a bit of leaf
or

> animal dropping. Agronomic soil tests will ALWAYS show a
"deficiency" in

> dynamically stable ecosystems. Even the amounts of P and K, not to
mention

> trace elements, that show up in such tests are mostly in unavailable
form.

> Ironically, lacing a site with superphosphate tends to kill the
very

> symbionts (mycorrhizae) that convert the unavailable P into an
available

> form and supply it to the photosynthesizers in exchange for carbon

> (sugars).

>

Reply: All native plants and weeds, for their seedling survival, have
nutrient thresholds that must be met, in order for their seedlings to
survive.  So the deficiencies, if any, are directly tied to the
threshold requirements of the seedlings of each species.   And I
NEVER use chemical fertilizers with natives, always organics, like bone
meal for calcium and phosphorus.

>

> In the sudden flush of NPK following fire or other disturbance,
"weedy"

> plants flourish, and if nothing is done to replace the complex
ecosytem,

> especially its mycorrhizal nets, weeds will persist until the very

> (relatively) slow process of re-colonization by indigenous species,
both

> above and below the surface, the process will be even slower,
especially

> if the biologically-active true soil is removed or otherwise damaged.
All

> "restoration" practitioners can do is accelerate the
process by setting up

> conditions favorable to that process.

>
Reply: The plan here is to "pre-seed" with natives
before the fires, and manage the weeds before the fires, so that when the
fires occur, there are sufficient native colonizing species to hold the
ground.
This was part of my classes with the Forest Service in the
1990s in nine Western States that you can see at
http://www.ecoseeds.com/classes.html.
> Much N is lost to the
atmosphere following disturbance (especially fire),

> but free-living and nodule-forming N-fixing bacteria are apparently
able

> to compensate for said loss, available to all-comers, weeds and
secondary

> successional colonists, native or alien. However, since (this is
highly

> simplified, but I hope adequate) most weeds evolved in riparian zones
and

> went rampant in cultivated fields where they hybridized into many of
the

> "monsters" we know, and indigenous components of the
complex ecosystem

> evolved together over the millennia, the indigenous species (or
aliens

> adapted to similar environments) will tend, eventually to (more
quickly,

> one hopes with THE RIGHT KIND of "help") regain dominance
over the weeds

> and aliens, subject, of course, to the absence of further disturbance
and

> other environmental changes.

>

Reply: Evolution of weeds when they get established in new lands, is an
interesting aspect that has not been much investigated, but I am sampling
some weeds across California with that  plan in mind.

>

> Adding N and other fertilizers just makes weediness worse--a kind

> "eutrophication," as it were . . .

>

Reply: That has been the ancient unproven theory about weeds and native
plants, that does not work when you are trying to get natives established.
 You have to get rid of the weeds first, then feed the natives as
much as they need.

>

> Many "weeds," particularly indigenous ones, are simply part
of the

> "succession" process-organisms doing what they can, where
they can, when

> they can. Spraying herbicides only makes the chem companies richer
and it

> does far more damage than good, however viscerally righteous it might
make

> its practitioners and amateur weed-haters feel.

>

Reply: With some weeds, chemicals may be the only solution, like most of
the perennial grasses like smooth brome, crested wheatgrass, harding
grass, fountain grass, and the East probably has its share of perennial
weedy grasses that need help from herbicides?

>

> Even alien weeds can perform functions that are beneficial to
ecosystem

> restoration processes in many cases--especially where their presence
is

> primarily due to continued site disturbances such as by alien
animals.

>

Reply: This is a recent theory that has been gaining ground, but does not
take into account, spatial extinction, every square meter where an exotic
plant grow, a native plant has died on that spot.

>

> If any soil testing is relevant at all, it would have to be performed
many

> times over a period of time to illustrate the trend of nutrients.
Sampling

> of nutrients in the tissue of living organisms might be more useful
in

> terms of exposing deficiencies, but the take-home lesson is that the
lower

> the available nutrients are (sequestered by plants and other
organisms),

> the lower the weed populations and stature.

>

Reply:  You only have to get the soil nutrient thresholds nailed down
for your weeds and for your natives that you want to replace the weeds
with, and then you are good to go.  And you will find in most cases
when it is native bs weeds, the lower the available nutrients,it is just
the opposite of what you are suggesting,  the more weeds like
cheatgrass, thistles, medusa head grass you have.  
That is
because the soil nutrient thresholds have dropped below what native
seedlings require to survive, but the N-P-K is still high enough for weed
seedling survival.  If you go out and sample like a weedy area right
next to a native stand like I have suggested in my earlier email, your lab
results will confirm what I am saying here. 

>

> WT
Sincerely,  Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>

From: Robert Layton Beyfuss

> To: craig at astreet.com ; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org ;

> craig at ecoseeds.com

> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 7:21 AM

> Subject: Re: [APWG] What caused surprise results in Poppy
Project?--Test

> soil for soil nutrient thresholds

>

>

> Hi All

>

> Most home soil test kits are useless based on my experience
comparing

> their results with legitimate (University) lab results. Nitrogen or
even

> N0 3 levels are impossible to accurately gauge due to the fact that
this

> nutrient is constantly changing in soils in form and availability
over

> even short periods of time. Even home pH testers are woefully

> inaccurate. I would never suggest a fertilizer program without bona
fide

> data to back it up. I am not aware of any laboratories that
provide

> nutrient guidelines for native plants in the Northeast, but this may
not

> be the case in the west. Most of our university soil labs (sadly)
can

> recommend nutrient levels for agronomic crops or ornamental crops
only!!

>

> Apparently this what you did on BLM land. Glad that at least some
labs

> are doing this!

>

> I like the concept of "default weeds". All weeds are
default weeds in

> the sense that they grow when conditions grant them the
opportunity

> (opportunistic weeds?) Some thrive in nutrient poor soils while
others

> thrive in soils that have far too many nutrients as is the case here
in

> the northeast. Farmers plant lagoons of reeds and cattails to suck
up

> extra nutrients and most waterways that are lined with exotic weeds
are

> overloaded with nutrients also. The biomass that plants such as

> knotweed (formerly Polygonum cuspidatum) produce each year is

> astonishing to see along many waterways here and this is due to
high

> nutrient levels. Wish that someone would harvest this stuff and burn
it

> for energy instead of planting willows and adding 75 pounds of N
per

> acre to get them to grow well.

>

> Of course there are other factors such as soil organic matter
levels,

> soil compaction (surely an issue in overgrazed land?) and possibly

> allelopathic effects of exotics.

>

> I do like the quick and dirty idea of actually observing what is
going

> on and then trying to address the specific problems, instead of
simply

> spraying herbicides on the exotics and hoping that the natives
will

> return on their own. Unfortunately, that approach has seemed to
dominate

> invasion biology thinking for far too long but when funding for

> "restoration" has come from weed killing entities, it is to
be expected.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

From: APWG [apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] on behalf of

> craig at astreet.com [craig at astreet.com]

> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 4:34 PM

> To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; craig at ecoseeds.com

> Subject: Re: [APWG] What caused surprise results in Poppy
Project?--Test

> soil for soil nutrient thresholds

>

>

> Dear Robert and All,

>

> Thanks for your question.

>

>

>

> About testing for the soil nutrient threshold, you can do it at
least

> three ways:

>

> 1.) HOME TEST KIT. Use a simple garden store soil test kit on at
least

> three locations for a native species--(a) Where you see native
seedlings

> surviving, (b) Where you see established native plants and no
seedlings,

> and (c) No native plants nearby existing native plants. It costs
about

> $10 to these three tests.

>

> 2.) SOIL TESTING LAB. Do these same three tests but send them to a
lab

> and have the N-P-K-pH run and get the threshold for each species in
PPM

> for the nutrients. That is what we did on the BLM land for the 600

> acres of pipeline north of Reno.

>

> 3.) WATCH THE PLANTS. Sow native seeds or seedlings either on site or
in

> ex situ test pots, and add measured amounts of fertilizers to see
the

> responses. Use a native that easily shows nutrient problems, so you
can

> correct any problems rapidly so the seedlings do not die on you
before

> you can correct the problem. I use the California poppy and the

> broad-leaved California brome, because they have a rapid response
to

> nutrient problems. A species not to use, is the Stipas or the

> needlegrasses, because their responses are slow and they have very

> narrow leaves that are hard to read. Broad leaved grasses or fast

> growing forbs are best.

>

> Once you find your native seedling soil nutrient thresholds, you
can

> then take a look at local weed infestations, and see if the root
cause

> of their spread, instead of being invasive plants, is that they are
only

> Default Weeds, able to grow where the soil levels are too poor for

> local native seedling survival, like cheatgrass, thistles,
medusahead,

> etc.

>

> I also use this technique of checking for soil nutrient problems
by

> watching the leaves, for my Haiti farming project, with corn to
check

> N-P-K and pepper leaves to check calcium, that you can see
information

> at http://www.ecoseeds.com/clear.html and http://www.haitiag.org.

>

> Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333

>

> ====================

>

> > So, did you test the soils for nutrient levels? Have you learned
the

> > optimal nutrient levels for the natives that you are trying
to

> reestablish

> > and compared them to the soils you are now working with?

> >

> > ________________________________

>

>

>

>

>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20130923/874ed13d/attachment.html>