<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>APWG Forum and Patricia Ruta: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I know that this might sound counter-intuitive, but
continued disturbance of restoration sites, as in hand-pulling and other
operations that disturb the soil, can have both positive and negative effects.
There are many factors involved, and "context is everything," so each case has
variations that prevent any one-solution-fits-all approach--that is, while sound
PRINCIPLES are applicable to all cases, the ways those principles can be
interpreted or misinterpreted and applied or misapplied are unlimited.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This is not to say that hand-pulling or other means
of suppressing or killing alien are in themselves "bad" or "good" practices, it
is only to share the observation that the consequences of "management"
actions are not necessarily limited to the most readily observed ones. For
example, pulling weeds can affect the development of indigenous organisms
in negative and positive ways, such as killing emerging seedlings, disrupting
the development of a mycorrhizal net, increase nutrient availability. This
latter factor is sometimes interpreted as a positive, but it can be a negative
factor with respect to the long-term development of a healthy ecosystem.
(Dynamically) stable ecosystems are characterized by low available nutrient
values, as the standing biomass sequesters available nutrients to a high degree,
leaving the soil "deficient" in available nutrients. This low nutrient
availability discourages weed growth, whereas high nutrient availability favors
weed growth. Mycorrhizal fungi, free-living bacteria, and other organisms that
characterize a stable ecosystem, are pathways and mechanisms that tend to render
unavailable nutrients available to the native vegetation. This may be what makes
some invasives able to invade "healthy" ecosystems--as when the invasive species
is able to benefit from those soil organisms (e.g., obligately mycorrhizal) too,
sometimes being able to both secure nutrients via such pathways and access
available (such as those freed by uprooting or cultivating processes). In
addition to a world of complex interactions at many levels that are within our
knowledge-base, there are no doubt as many factors about which science remains
ignorant--but it is that ignorance which drives science, right? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At a practical level, there is the matter of
"paradigm." Misconceptions can sometimes be generated by using gardening or
farming paradigms (more available nutrients are good, irrigation is good,
"management" is good, etc., when they are not applicable to ecosystems. It is
sometimes very difficult for those of us (including myself) who were raised on
those paradigms to "give them up." It took me at least fifteen years to figure
out how different ecosystems and gardens are--a lot of "unlearning" had to be
done. And there is the matter of rate of development, carrying capacity, etc.,
and how we perceive natural systems that don't play by out rules. We tend to be
impatient, and we tend to want what we want, not necessarily what a given
physical/biological context is capable of doing. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PS: A good book that goes into other key factors
that affect the work of ecosystem restoration and alien species management is G.
L. Stebbins' "The Genetics of Colonizing Species." It is HEAVY but stimulating
stuff for those seriously interested in getting into the subject in depth. An
"oldie but goodie," as is a lot of Stebbins' other work. Many other scientists
in many fields have done volumes of research that can help us all make
incremental improvements in how we see and do our work.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=pruta@fs.fed.us href="mailto:pruta@fs.fed.us">Patricia Ruta</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=landrest@cox.net
href="mailto:landrest@cox.net">Wayne Tyson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, August 14, 2009 7:31
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APWG] Ecosystem restoration
and alien species eradication Re:Performance standards to get weed-free and
100% native</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>I have seen some smaller
parcels we have worked on with very good results of native restoration, but at
this point, with only 5 years into the process of restoration, attention must
still be given every year to treating NNIS in the restored sites (for the most
part - hand pulling). Granted, after the first 2 years of intense weed
management and now seeing very good stands of natives, the weed abundance is
fairly light. </FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>It seems well worth
the effort to do the weed management- the public has even noticed and
commented on their surprise at the low number of weeds. But, at this point,
with the aggressive tendencies of NNIS, I can't see when we'll be able to stop
doing NNIS work at these sites. While these sites have filled in well with
mature native warm season grasses (little and big bluestem) and many nectar
perennials, thes esites are fairly sandy, poor soils (typical of mid
Michigan). There are small gaps of bare soil (a matrix) and it seems like it
will forever be a haven for spotted knapweed, sweet covers, St. Johnswort,
etc. to get a toehold and eventually flourish and dominate at some point in
the future if we don't remove those new sources of infestation every year or
two. </FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Just my reflections. I have
enjoyed reading this discussion. </FONT><BR><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>" Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could.
Some blunders and absurdities have crept in. Forget them as soon as you can."
Ralph Waldo Emerson<BR><BR>Patricia Ruta McGhan, Botanist<BR>Manistee
National Forest<BR>(231) 745-4631ext. 3102<BR>email:
pruta@fs.fed.us<BR></FONT><BR><BR><BR>
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD width="40%"><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>"Wayne Tyson"
<landrest@cox.net></B> </FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1>Sent by: apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org</FONT>
<P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>08/14/2009 08:21 AM</FONT> </P>
<TD width="59%">
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>To</FONT></DIV>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1><apwg@lists.plantconservation.org></FONT>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>cc</FONT></DIV>
<TD>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Subject</FONT></DIV>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>[APWG] Ecosystem restoration and
alien species eradication Re:
Performance standards to get weed-free and 100%
native</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><TT><FONT
size=2>Craig and all:<BR><BR>It appears that other subscribers aren't
interested in this topic, but I <BR>think we should continue it anyway, in the
hopes that a few will get <BR>interested, or that it will stimulate "lurkers"
to think about it. While I'm <BR>greatly looking forward to a possible visit
to your project and discussing <BR>the particulars with you in depth, I
suggest that we owe it to the <BR>subscribers of this list to iron out the
issues that each of us has raised <BR>one at a time. I'll be interested in
your ideas about this and those of any <BR>who care to join in.<BR><BR>Let's
again revisit the issue of the importance of well-coordinated <BR>restoration
with eradication programs. You and I agree on this, I believe, <BR>but perhaps
there are others on the list who think that restoration is <BR>unnecessary or
irrelevant.<BR><BR>I hope that all who may not agree will post their ideas on
this particular <BR>subject and that the discussion sticks to this one subject
before moving on <BR>to digressions. I am very interested in where subscribers
to this list stand <BR>on this subject. The only way I know to interpret their
silence is to <BR>presume that they agree and see no need for discussion or
that they don't <BR>want to discuss it for other
reasons.<BR><BR>WT<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Craig
Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" <Craig@astreet.com><BR>To:
<apwg@lists.plantconservation.org><BR>Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009
12:23 PM<BR>Subject: [APWG] Performance standards to get weed-free and 100%
native<BR><BR><BR>Dear Wayne and All,<BR><BR>I want to start my reply, to wax
poetically about how nice walking through<BR>a restored, a weed-free North
American native ecosystem can be.<BR><BR>It is like visiting the Promised
Land, a fairy tale land that people talk<BR>about at annual wildland weed
meetings--what would an area look like, that<BR>they have been weeding for
years or decades, if it was not only weed free,<BR>but was 100% covered with
the original pre-Columbian native ecosystem<BR>understory?<BR><BR>The Shaw
property is like a flawless 74-acre diamond, currently set in an<BR>unending
ocean of almost a 100% solid exotic understory of over 1,000<BR>species of
weeds, going 250 miles to the North, 200 miles to the East and<BR>600 miles to
the South, to the Mexican border.<BR><BR>===============<BR><BR>Wayne
wrote:<BR>Mowing before seed-set is a reasonably good practice in some
contexts, it<BR>may not always be practical (e.g., 2:1 slopes,
etc.).<BR><BR>Reply: 99% of lower elevation California is gentle slopes
to fairly flat,<BR>so the level to gently sloping wildlands should be
converted first, while<BR>there are still viable native seeds in the soil
seedbank.<BR><BR>If the native seeds in the soil seed bank are already 35-100
years old, my<BR>big concern is we will not get started in this conversion
back to 100%<BR>native cover process, in time to take advantage of the viable
native seeds<BR>that are lying dormant underneath the exotics, before they
lose their<BR>viability.<BR><BR>The clock is ticking for these native seeds
lying dormant in the soil<BR>seedbanks, waiting for us to pay attention to
them within our and their<BR>lifetimes, otherwise their lives will be lost
forever.<BR><BR>===============<BR><BR>Wayne wrote: Once a site has been
dominated by weeds for a year or two,<BR>not to mention decades or centuries,
there is a considerable buildup of<BR>dormant seeds in the soil's seed bank.
Mowing can't get those, nor can it<BR>get all of the standing
crop.<BR><BR>Reply: Mowing absolutely must to get the standing crop of
weed seeds<BR>before they ripen, for that year, and contrary to popular
belief, you do<BR>not have to be concerned about the dormant weed seeds in the
soil.<BR><BR>What has been happening over the last decades or hundred years,
is that<BR>the percentage cover of the weeds tipped the balance, where the
weed<BR>densities were able to use allelopathic chemicals to suppress
the<BR>germination of the dormant native seeds in the soil.<BR><BR>See Journal
of Chemical Ecology, especially Dr. Liu's 1994 and 1995 papers<BR>on a method
to study plant-produced allelopathic chemicals as an<BR>independent
plant suppression system, separate from competition for water,<BR>nutrients,
sunlight, etc..<BR><BR>Where the concern should be focused, instead of the
weed seed bank, is<BR>managing and resurrecting the native seeds in the soil
seedbank, and once<BR>you cross a percentage native cover threshold, the
natives will start<BR>permanently suppressing the weeds still viable in the
soil.<BR><BR>Those weed seeds will remain alive underneath the natives for a
long, long<BR>time, but once you get the right densities or the right local
natives in<BR>place, the natives will suppress the weed seeds from every
germinating<BR>again, the weed seeds will eventually die in the soil.
Weeds Rest in<BR>Peace.<BR><BR>=================<BR><BR>Wayne
wrote:<BR><BR>Then there's the issue of the thatch/chaff, post-mowing
regrowth, and<BR>other specifics that raise questions.<BR><BR>Reply:
Thatch is not a problem. Fortunately most of the weeds that
cover<BR>California are annuals, but for the perennials that might regrow,
is<BR>where a little brushing of the cut surfaces with Roundup might
be<BR>necessary, like Pampas grass, Harding grass,
etc.<BR><BR>=================<BR><BR>Wayne wrote:<BR><BR>Not only that, but
the vital importance that such treated sites must<BR>self-sustain rather than
be continuously treated for eternity.<BR><BR>Reply: That is why for the
Performance Standards that I am recommending<BR>for restoration of California
perennial native grassland habitats, on my<BR>web page at </FONT></TT><A
href="http://www.ecoseeds.com/standards.html"><TT><FONT
size=2>http://www.ecoseeds.com/standards.html is that you need to<BR>make the
conversion from exotic cover, back to at least 95% native cover,<BR>within 90
days or less, with no future maintenance.<BR><BR>If you have to weed after the
90th day, you need to do your small scale<BR>test plots over, until you get
the right native cover that stops the weeds<BR>cold. It is like a poker
game, you have to lay down your Royal Flush of<BR>local natives, to beat the
local weeds. You do not want to have to keep<BR>playing hand after hand
of weeding-poker to eternity.<BR><BR>The only maintenance that might have to
be done after the 90th day, is to<BR>add more local native species to increase
the diversity, and to fill in<BR>gaps where native plant understory families
have been catastrophically<BR>exterminated, like California and the
West.<BR><BR>Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650)
325-7333<BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PCA's
Alien Plant Working Group mailing
list<BR>APWG@lists.plantconservation.org<BR></FONT></TT><A
href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org"><TT><FONT
size=2>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org<BR><BR>Disclaimer<BR>Any
requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the <BR>opinion
of the individual posting the
message.<BR><BR><BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR><BR><BR>No
virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com<BR>Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.55/2301 - Release
Date: 08/13/09
<BR>18:16:00<BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PCA's
Alien Plant Working Group mailing
list<BR>APWG@lists.plantconservation.org<BR></FONT></TT><A
href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org"><TT><FONT
size=2>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org<BR><BR>Disclaimer<BR>Any
requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of
the individual posting the message.<BR></FONT></TT></A></A></A><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.55/2301 - Release
Date: 08/13/09 18:16:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>