<!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 6.00.6000.17108" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wayne et al.: I have been following these
restoration/collapse discussion with great interest. I suspect many of us
are, but have limited time to compose thoughful contributions to the
discussions. It is wonderful to hear from you professionals who have had
much more experience in these dry, western grassland restoration projects.
My experience has been on a much smaller scale, but I am bothered by many
partial failures. One of the biggest issues has been to find a methology
to eliminate or control perennial grassy weeds as well as annual weeds which
prevent the small, native seedling grasses to become established in sufficient
density to eventually out compete the weeds after two or three years of
mowing. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> An additional frustration is that it
has been almost impossible to get success in perennial native forb establishment
with a native grass/forb mix on some of my semi-successful seeding
projects. I agree that to be successful you have to have the native
grassland soil there, but many times that is not possible. I need to
know what kinds of soil amendments or treatments need to be made to insure
survival of the natives over the weeds. My past experience, in contrast to
Dreman's, is that highly fertile or fertilized soils simply allow the annual
weeds to grow faster, shading out the slowing growing native seedling.
Which indicates to me that first year mowing is critical for almost any annual
weed infested grassland restoration. I have seen one very successful
native grass/forb seeding project on an Interstate Highway ROW, but it was
destroyed by a highway maintenace reconstruction project.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In terms of "restoration
collapse", of which I have seen many, weed re-colonization in any available open
soil site, or small scale soil disturbances by rodents or fire, is the source
of collapse due to lack of followup weed control.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Please keep these discussions
going. I would like to learn more about assessment standards and
techniques which are practical. Regards, Ty Harrison, Emeritus Professor
of Biology and consultant, Salt Lake City, Utah</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=landrest@cox.net href="mailto:landrest@cox.net">Wayne Tyson</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>
; <A title=rwg@lists.plantconservation.org
href="mailto:rwg@lists.plantconservation.org">rwg@lists.plantconservation.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:33
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration
Collapse</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>All:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with
me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been
unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I
believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently
believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because
no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but
three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics
be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the
in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and
RWG? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent
topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return
of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem
restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds
dominate. </FONT><FONT face=Arial>The off-list poster confined the comments to
grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles
hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG>First, the "return" of grassland restoration
projects to weed-dominance.</STRONG> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>There are a number of reasons for this, some
related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration
methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration
assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the
case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a
grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses
and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to
expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>True grassland soils tend to have identifiable
characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer
texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as
well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective
bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such
soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland,
such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed
from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of
coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This
should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation,
and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community
type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something
resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the
degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.)
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland
soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost
foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball
sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can
sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks
(e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi
and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual
plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and
flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some
shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation,
and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of
attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own
standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One
must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no
guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and
refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to
fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes
and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to
accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that
will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We
don't actually restore living systems. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind
of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to
work upon. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been
many others) have been to: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a
restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too
much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can
persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can
mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of
grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is
presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds
and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more
likely than not. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to
favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the
earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG>2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not
necessarily result in dominance of weeds.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or
planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species
at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>This can be the subject of another discussion, but I
have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it
might be "inappropriate" for these lists. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>WT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<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="" align=left color="#000000" avgcert??>No virus found in this
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus
Database: 2114/4835 - Release Date: 02/27/12</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>