[APWG] What caused surprise results in Poppy Project?--Test soil for soil nutrient thresholds

[tyju at xmission.com]

APWG:  I would like to add my support to Tyson and Beyfus' comments  
regarding nutrient levels in native grassland restorations.  As a  
plant physiological ecologist I have bucked the horticulture/agronomy  
crowd's approach for many years.  Native grasses are intensely  
mycorrhizal, and weeds are not (by and large).  This has large  
implications for competition in a phosphorus limiting environment, not  
well understood by agronomists.  Fertilization of any kind shifts the  
competitive balance between the drought tolerant, slow growing native  
grasses and the rapidly growing weeds.  Nitogen sources are also  
involved in this competitive balance act.  Rapidly growing weeds  
thrive on nitrate from bacterial nitrification  whereas the slow  
growing native grasses utilize slowly released ammonium from organic  
sources via ammonification. Just the reverse of agronomic practices.   
We need to better understand these complex ecological soil process  
better to design more successful restoration techniques in arid  
ecosystems. Ty Harrison

Quoting Wayne Tyson <landrest at cox.net>:

> APWG:
>
>
>
> EXACTLY! Beyfuss is right again! My education was my biggest problem  
>  in developing a viable program for ecosystem restoration here in  
> CA;  it took me fifteen years to un-learn my agronomy and  
> horticulture.  Ecosystems are the opposite of culture.
>
>
>
> 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).
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Adding N and other fertilizers just makes weediness worse--a kind   
> "eutrophication," as it were . . .
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> WT
>
>
>
>
>   ----- 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.