<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<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: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I stand partially corrected. I was thinking of
Mediterranean climates, particularly California. I will be the first to give a
dollar for a bronze likeness of Dremann if he can make this method work on a
grand scale at reasonable (feasible) cost. But what one needs is solid
science--in this case or cases like this, one needs pre-project baseline data,
description of methods, and post-project data that continues beyond the project
(to demonstrate self-sufficiency) and trends toward betterment
(indistinguishable from pre-disturbance conditions) after hands-off. I can't
quite wrap my head around why, over ten years, that one would settle for 99.99
percent rather than 100. The key here is whether the trend went from 99.99
through, say, 99.991 to 99.995 to 99.999 percent and did not significantly
decline when the weeders leave. Just one weed, provided it is fertile, can
always seed itself into a vast population in fairly short order. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Swann Park project's "decline" might be an
anomalous blip; one needs at least five years of post-project data to even
start to prove much of anything. That is, if the project data advanced and
declined but showed a consistent overall improvement in diversity and frequency
(I'm unimpressed with "cover") over time, I would consider that a successful
project. If, on the other hand, one worked for ten years, then immediately took
a picture, I would be less impressed--but hopeful, mind you, that the project,
being so wonderful at that time, to get better over time. What matters most is
that a functioning, self-sufficient, permanent ecosystem has been the
result. Continued "maintenance" is perhaps good gardening, but it is still
gardening. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In some habitats (e.g. forest) alien invasives are
not so persistent or even present in the first place, and often will succumb to
recolonization by indigenous species. California's Mediterranean ecosystems are
often plagued by many species of non-indigenous species that seem to be
persistent, but a lot of factors come into play. I have seen what I thought were
100 percent alien grasses and forbs that, upon doing a Dremann-type transect
proved to contain stands of re-colonizing indigenous species. A lot depends upon
the state of the soil. Grassland soils are rather easy for grassland
establishment, but chaparral soils are more suited to chaparral--and particular
kinds of chaparral at that. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm all for Dremann's goals, and if I thought 100
percent removal of all alien species from places where they amounted to dominant
infestations was feasible, I would be all for it. But at the moment (and for the
last fifty years or so), I prefer a one-time restoration project with zero
weeding, irrigation, and maintenance (talk about outlandish claims, eh?), and
with "management" consisting primarily of observation (which might lead to some
selective planting after the five-year mark in most cases) and surveys by
independent, unbiased researchers only to chart the trends. The "end" result
should be a dynamically-stable, self-sufficient ecosystem in which indigenous
species are clearly dominant, with alien species clearly limited to disturbed
niches for the most part. This approach is practical and cheap and provides
habitat for the complex species associations that normally occupy such sites. I
am always ready to change my mind, however, and look forward to critical remarks
and a continued discussion of ecosystem restoration and management objectives
and actual performance. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would not spend a dime on weeding. If the
restoration project is properly designed and carried out, there is no need for
it. And, while certainly desirable, 99.99 percent weed-free is not a condition
that can continue to be met without continued weeding in a wildland full of
alien propagules being vectored by every breath of wind and furry or hairy or
plumed defecating plant-eating trespasser. </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>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
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=ialm@erols.com href="mailto:ialm@erols.com">Marc Imlay</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=apwg@lists.plantconservation.org
href="mailto:apwg@lists.plantconservation.org">apwg@lists.plantconservation.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:10
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APWG] Native grassland and
forest understory weedings needtobe at least 99%</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial size=3><STRONG>I can believe 99% for just 14
acres in a full 10 years of removal. We have an area of Swann park in
Maryland that was 99% cleared about 5 years ago. It is now only 95% cleared
because we got involved with other sites and no longer do a perfect job.
</STRONG></FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial
size=3><STRONG>Marc<BR></STRONG></FONT><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
<A
href="mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org">apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org</A>
[<A
href="mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org">mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson<BR>Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:31 PM<BR>To:
apwg@lists.plantconservation.org<BR>Subject: Re: [APWG] Native grassland and
forest understory weedings need tobe at least 99%<BR><BR>APWG:<BR><BR>Dremann
keeps making this 99.99% claim. I, for one, doubt it. I would like to have
that doubt removed, but that would take more information than I have noticed
in his previous posts or this one. Successes of this magnitude and quality
should be published in a peer-reviewed journal.<BR><BR>WT<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 10, 2011
11:25 AM<BR>Subject: [APWG] Native grassland and forest understory weedings
need to be<BR>at least 99%<BR><BR><BR>> Dear All,<BR>><BR>> I just
visited Mark Vande Pol's home in the Santa Cruz Mtns., above the<BR>> city
of Santa Cruz, where he has produced by weeding 14 grassland and<BR>>
forest acres that are 99.99% pure native plant cover, single handedly,
in<BR>> only 10 years.<BR>><BR>> He view is, if your weeding efforts
in native grassland and forest<BR>> understory areas are not producing 99%
native plant cover, you are wasting<BR>> your time.<BR>><BR>> I am
suggesting to all of our local public agencies within our county,<BR>> that
each agency tries to achieve at least an acre of 99% native cover<BR>>
grasslands, within the next 12 months.<BR>><BR>> In California, native
grasslands are where a lot of our endangered species<BR>> of butterflies
are trying to survive and we need to improve their habitats<BR>> so they
can survive and recover.<BR>><BR>> Sincerely, Craig Dremann,
Redwood City, CA (650)
325-7333<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> PCA's Alien Plant
Working Group mailing list<BR>> APWG@lists.plantconservation.org<BR>> <A
href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org">http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</A><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>> No virus found in this
message.<BR>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<BR>> Version: 10.0.1392 /
Virus Database: 1520/3825 - Release Date:
08/10/11<BR>><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PCA's
Alien Plant Working Group mailing
list<BR>APWG@lists.plantconservation.org<BR><A
href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org">http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</A><BR><BR>Disclaimer<BR>Any
requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of
the individual posting the message.<BR></P></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PCA's Alien
Plant Working Group mailing
list<BR>APWG@lists.plantconservation.org<BR>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.
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><A></A>
<P class=avgcert align=left color="#000000">No virus found in this
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus
Database: 1520/3828 - Release Date: 08/11/11</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>