<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [PCA] [APWG] Native Phragmites Data</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Certainly didn’t mean to imply that dealing with water issues and other sorts of perturbation problems was the key to dealing with ALL invasives. I’m only using our situation out here in the Rio Grande corridor as an example of how it is POSSIBLE to lay blame on a single species, and not deal with the underlying ecological issues that are allowing it’s spread. It seems simple on the face of it, but in reality we are dealing with a lie covering up the truth, and this sort of situation needs to be realized and understood if and when it occurs. Other problems require other solutions. <BR>
<BR>
Joe Franke <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 9/6/12 3:03 PM, "Shelly, Steve -FS" <sshelly@fs.fed.us> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14.0px'>I would certainly agree that addressing ecological perturbations is a critical need if we are to have any chance dealing with many invasive species. But I’m hanging up on the notion that their spread and persistence is always triggered by such perturbations. There are definitely lots of examples of that (the cheatgrass/fire cycle is another classic case). But as with most ecological phenomena (and politics?), generalization is tempting but risky. There are also lots of cases here in the northern Rockies where invasive plants are colonizing sites with little or no recent disturbance. A specific example is yellow toadflax (<I>Linaria vulgaris</I>). While this species is certainly invading a number of highly disturbed sites (from roadsides to severely burned natural areas), it is also showing a remarkable capacity to invade undisturbed backcountry areas in an unprovoked manner (presumably being dispersed by wind, wildlife, and/or recreationists). Another situation is with rush skeletonweed (<I>Chondrilla juncea</I>), a wind-dispersed species that is common in Idaho, but is making its way into western Montana, also often in remote areas with little or no direct habitat disturbance preceding its appearance. In my view these are the most problematic species – because there are no “ecological perturbations” that we can ameliorate to deal with them. Their life histories and dispersal modes just predispose them to being highly invasive. See a paper by Steve Sutherland (2004. What makes a weed a weed: life history traits of native and exotic plants in the USA. Oecologia 141:24-39) for further discussion. Where we can change our problematic “perturbation behaviors” we should. But in other cases, diligent inventory and strategic control will have to do.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><B><I>Steve Shelly<BR>
</I>Botany/Invasive Species/Research Natural Areas<BR>
U.S. Forest Service, Region 1<BR>
(406) 329-3041<BR>
sshelly@fs.fed.us<BR>
</B></SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><B>From:</B> native-plants-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org [<a href="mailto:native-plants-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org]">mailto:native-plants-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org]</a> <B>On Behalf Of </B>Gena Fleming<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, September 05, 2012 8:20 PM<BR>
<B>To:</B> Joe Franke<BR>
<B>Cc:</B> native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org; apwg@lists.plantconservation.org<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> Re: [PCA] [APWG] Native Phragmites Data<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
Joe, I really think the point you are bringing up is essential. An academic discussion may be where we start; at least the topic is being broached. Focussing on invasive plants instead of the "ecological perturbations" is exactly what's allowing these ecological perturbations to continue.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The problems we are facing are going to require an essential shift of context. This need for contextual shifting (or perhaps I should say for a conceptual shift towards contextual thinking) is not unique to invasive plant discussions; it applies to just about every problem we are facing right now ---- including education, medicine, economics, etc. Imagine every discipline mirroring the same conceptual flaw in a hologram.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I think that's why it's so hard to change our thinking. Letting go of the invasive plant focus doesn't make sense within the existing socioeconomic context. But if we lived in a society where we were eating invasive plants, making medicine out of invasive plants, making paper out of invasive plants, and using invasive plants for bioremediation, well pretty soon the situation might resolve itself.<BR>
<BR>
In fact, maybe that's why they are invasive ---- they're an underutilized resource.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We keep trying to tweek things with efforts to mitigate the symptoms we are creating, only to allow us to continue pursuing business as usual. I realize we can't change the game overnight, but at least we can start having these conversations.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, I appreciate your contribution. Also, If you are the author of the "Invasive Species Cookbook," will you please tell me where I can get a copy? <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Gena Fleming<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 5 September 2012 20:40, Joe Franke <sapogordoeco@comcast.net> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
Well, so far it’s only an academic discussion. When you point out these problems to funders of restoration projects, they don’t want to hear about it. It’s a little like American politics in that it’s easier to “other” a politician than to look at the social conditions that brought them to power and do something about the “root” problems. <BR>
<BR>
It’s been horrifying to see how much money has been wasted here on the unsuccessful attempted “control” of tamarisk, Russian olive and Siberian elm in cottonwood Bosque along the Rio Grande. <BR>
<BR>
I would recommend that people look at some of Mathew Chew’s work, including: <I>Chew</I>, M.K. 2009. The Monstering of <I>Tamarisk</I>: How scientists made a plant into a problem. Journal of the History of Biology 42:231-266<BR>
<BR>
He has some more technical articles out as well that I have yet to read, but will do so shortly. I think that there is a lot to discuss here, and I’d be very interested to hear what other people have to say about the general topic of focusing on specific invasive species and not the ecological perturbations that allow them to dominate entire ecosystems. <BR>
<BR>
Joe Franke <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 9/5/12 7:14 PM, "Gena Fleming" <genafleming@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
I think you are having the most relevant discussion out West. It's time to start focussing on the real problem. <BR>
<BR>
On 5 September 2012 15:18, Joe Franke <sapogordoeco@comcast.net> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
There is a perhaps different but related discussion that’s going on out here in the West concerning Tamarisk. To many of us attempting to do restoration work we’ve realized that the spread and extreme “weediness” of plant is more of a symptom of poor water management than an evil unto itself, and becomes a convenient shill that distracts (mostly federal) land managers from the real problem: not enough water on the land, and disrupted flood cycles. We can blame tamarisk all we want, but the real problem lies in our species’ wasteful use and mismanagement of the water resource. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 9/4/12 7:35 PM, "Robert Layton Beyfuss" <rlb14@cornell.edu> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>Thanks to all who have responded and elaborated on my original query. I think the general consensus is that native plants cannot be “officially” invasive but they surely can be problematic! I have a colleague at Cornell who refers to native weeds that behave like invasives as “interfering” vegetation. No one has ever satisfactorily defined “exotic” in my opinion and I consider Clinton’s executive order as a political gaffe that has mostly served to make ecologists fight over semantics as the exchanges here seem to verify. I am not so sure how much science has advanced due to executive orders. It has also generated a backlash that causes people to hate plants from Europe or Asia in general and to create black lists and white lists of plants which I find very disturbing. Vastly different ecosystems exist even within a given state or region. I consider it impossible to say that a plant which is native to Canada is exotic anywhere in n North America but it surely does not exist in many American ecosystems.. So where does one draw the border line? Black locust, as one poster mentioned is a classic example of a plant that grew satisfactorily in one particular place, but now seems to be a problem in other places not very far away. Some states consider it as exotic. Plants don’t recognize borders and neither should we in trying to tell “good” plants from “bad” plants based on their lack of green cards. Ecosystems are highly dynamic as succession creates profound changes in species composition. Almost all plants have their merits and demerits in ecosystems and many exotic plants have served us very well indeed. Poison ivy may provide food for 60 or 70 bird species but so do Autumn olive and multiflora rose without being toxic to touch. Introduced species are now hybridizing with related native ones as is the case with Phragmites and probably others. How will we classify their offspring? If they originate in the US, are they not native? If the hybrids become even more invasive does that fact become moot because they originated here? <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><B>From:</B> Claudia Thompson-Deahl [<a href="mailto:CLAUDIA@reston.org]">mailto:CLAUDIA@reston.org]</a> <BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:34 PM<BR>
<B>To:</B> Marc Imlay; Patricia_DeAngelis@fws.gov; Robert Layton Beyfuss<BR>
<B>Cc:</B> native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org; apwg@lists.plantconservation.org; 'Katy Cummings'<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> RE: [APWG] [PCA] Native Phragmites Data<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>I would be surprised if Poison Ivy is on the National Park Service Exotic Plant Management Teams list as I have heard about 70 species of birds eat the berries and it is a native.<BR>
<BR>
Claudia Thompson-Deahl <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><I>Environmental Resource Manager<BR>
ISA Certified Arborist # MA-5203A<BR>
12250 Sunset Hills Road<BR>
Reston, VA 20190<BR>
703.435.6547 <tel:703.435.6547> <tel:703.435.6547 <tel:703.435.6547> > <BR>
claudia@reston.org</I> <a href="mailto:claudia@reston.org"><mailto:claudia@reston.org></a> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'><B>Reston Association Employees Make the Difference: </B><I>Caring for, Serving & Enhancing the Reston Community.<BR>
</I></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'><B><I>RA Vision: </I></B>Leading the model community where all can live, work, play, and get involved.<BR>
<B>RA Mission:</B> To preserve and enhance the Reston Community through outstanding leadership, service, and stewardship of our resources.<BR>
<B>RA Core Values:</B> Service~Collaboration~Stewardship~ Innovation~Leadership<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'><B><I>NOTICE:</I></B> <FONT COLOR="#000080"><I>The contents of this email and any attachments to it may contain privileged and confidential information from the Reston Association. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient.<BR>
</I></FONT></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#008000"><FONT SIZE="6"><FONT FACE="Webdings"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24.0px'>P</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="6"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:24.0px'><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> </FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'>Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
<P ALIGN=CENTER>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="2" WIDTH="100%"></SPAN></FONT>
<P>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><B>From:</B> apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org [<a href="mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org]">mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org]</a> <B>On Behalf Of </B>Marc Imlay<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:02 AM<BR>
<B>To:</B> Patricia_DeAngelis@fws.gov; 'Robert Layton Beyfuss'<BR>
<B>Cc:</B> native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org; apwg@lists.plantconservation.org; 'Katy Cummings'<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> Re: [APWG] [PCA] Native Phragmites Data<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<B>I show my volunteers how Poison ivy is dominant in eary succession habitats after an unnatural disturbance but becomes a minor species in fully recovered woodlands. The same for sweetgum.<BR>
</B><BR>
<B>Marc Imlay, PhD,<BR>
Conservation biologist, Park Ranger Office<BR>
(301) 442-5657 <tel:%28301%29%20442-5657> <tel:%28301%29%20442-5657> cell<BR>
</B><BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#008000"><B>ialm@erols.com<BR>
</B></FONT><BR>
<B>Natural and Historical Resources Division<BR>
</B><BR>
<B>The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission<BR>
www.pgparks.com <a href="http://www.pgparks.com/"><http://www.pgparks.com/></a> <a href="http://www.pgparks.com/"><http://www.pgparks.com/></a> <a href="http://www.pgparks.com/"><http://www.pgparks.com/></a> <BR>
</B><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
<P ALIGN=CENTER>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="2" WIDTH="100%"></SPAN></FONT>
<P>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><B>From:</B> apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org [<a href="mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org]">mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org]</a> <B>On Behalf Of </B>Patricia_DeAngelis@fws.gov<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 27, 2012 10:25 AM<BR>
<B>To:</B> Robert Layton Beyfuss<BR>
<B>Cc:</B> native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org; apwg@lists.plantconservation.org; Katy Cummings<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> Re: [APWG] [PCA] Native Phragmites Data<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
Cheers, Bob! <BR>
<BR>
My two cents: <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>A native can most definitely be an invasive. Teal and Mark's comments elucidate that issue well.
</SPAN></FONT><LI><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>I'm not sure what list you might be referring to, but from what I understand of the Federal Noxious Weed list, I believe that plants that are either naturalized or have completely overrun the US will not end up on that list. I believe that list tends to include species that are in the earlier stages of invasion where prevention of further influxes can still make a difference for slowing the spread. I also doubt it would be on any state list - those often tend to be geared to non-natives and ornamental plants - of which poison ivy is neither. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></UL><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
It seems like poison ivy falls into a strange no-man's land - as a native, it doesn't seem to fit on the PCA ALien Plant WOrking Group listserve - yet the expertise on that list may be more appropriate (versus this general native plant listserve) because they are the folks with specific insight on invasive species biology. <BR>
<BR>
I wonder if any of the National Park Service Exotic Plant Management Teams have identified it as among their top ten target taxa in any of their regions? <BR>
<BR>
-Patricia <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.<BR>
Botanist, Division of Scientific Authority-US Fish & Wildlife Service-International Affairs<BR>
Chair, Medicinal Plant Working Group-Plant Conservation Alliance<BR>
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 110<BR>
Arlington, VA 22203<BR>
703-358-1708 x1753 <tel:703-358-1708%20x1753> <tel:703-358-1708%20x1753> <BR>
FAX: 703-358-2276 <tel:703-358-2276> <tel:703-358-2276 <tel:703-358-2276> > <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><BR>
Promoting sustainable use and conservation of our native medicinal plants. <BR>
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal <a href="http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal"><http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal></a> <a href="http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal"><http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal></a> <a href="http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal"><http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal></a> > <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><BR>
<BR>
Follow International Affairs<BR>
> on Twitter <a href="http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl">http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl</a><BR>
> on Facebook <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><a href="http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl"><http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl></a> </SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><a href="http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs">http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs</a></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs"><http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs></a> <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'><B>Robert Layton Beyfuss <rlb14@cornell.edu></B> <BR>
Sent by: native-plants-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> </SPAN><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'>08/27/2012 09:45 AM</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'>To</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> </SPAN><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'>Katy Cummings <katy.e.cummings@gmail.com>, "native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org" <native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'>cc</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'>Subject</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> </SPAN><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'>Re: [PCA] Native Phragmites Data</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>Hi All</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>I am a bit confused and hope you can enlighten me. I thought that the basic definition of an invasive plant was that it had to be exotic. There are many native plants that create almost solid monocultures such as common goldenrod yet can it be “undesirable” at any density? . Poison ivy can overrun entire areas but I have never seen it listed as invasive. <BR>
Bob <BR>
<BR>
<B>From:</B> native-plants-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org [<a href="mailto:native-plants-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org]">mailto:native-plants-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org]</a> <B>On Behalf Of </B>Katy Cummings<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 20, 2012 9:28 PM<BR>
<B>To:</B> native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> [PCA] Native Phragmites Data</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
Fellow Conservationists- <BR>
<BR>
I work for The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Door County, WI. My main project this summer has been mapping exotic and native stands of Phragmites (<I>Phragmites australis</I> and <I>Phragmites australis americanus</I>) throughout TNC properties in Door County. I have some questions and experiences to share with you as our organization tries to learn more about the native/exotic Phragmites issue. <BR>
<BR>
We all know what havoc the exotic Phragmites subspecies can wreak on an ecosystem, but do we know anything about the native subspecies? <B>Is there any research out there showing that the native Phragmites can behave as aggressively as the exotic? </B>In Door County, the native usually grows in scattered to moderate densities along with other wetland plants, with a few patches showing denser concentrations. There are a few areas where the native has reached undesirable “dense” concentrations, but as of yet we don’t know why. <BR>
<BR>
<B>What other plants are associated with the native Phragmites?</B> TNC will be setting up monitoring plots soon on some of our native patches, and when we get that data I’ll send it to any interested people from this list. The only list I’ve been able to find is from a chapter by Laura Meyerson et al. in “Invasions in North American Salt Marshes” entitled “Phragmites australis in Eastern North America: A Historical and Ecological Perspective”. Does anyone know of other lists from different regions of the U.S.? <BR>
<BR>
<B>Are there any patterns to where native Phragmites is found? </B>During my mapping of the plant in Door County, I’ve generally found native Phragmites set back from the edge of waterways and growing in more marshy areas. <BR>
<BR>
<B>What have you all seen as far as size of patches, number of patches, location, rate of spread, etc. of the native Phragmites in your area? </B>Most of the wetlands in Door County are fed by alkaline ground water discharge as a result of movement through the underlying dolomitic bedrock. I assume that because of these alkaline conditions we have a higher population of native Phragmites than perhaps other regions of the Midwest. Is this true? <BR>
<BR>
To help answer these questions, The Nature Conservancy’s Door Peninsula office has temporarily halted eradication measures of native lineages of <I>Phragmites</I>. We are in the process of developing long-term monitoring plots in native <I>Phragmites </I>stands throughout Nature Conservancy holdings in Door County, WI. The goals of this monitoring project will be to assess the following questions: <BR>
<I>1.</I></SPAN><I><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'> </SPAN></FONT></I><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Under what conditions do native stands become aggressive? <BR>
<BR>
<I>2.</I></SPAN><I><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'> </SPAN></FONT></I><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>At what threshold is a native stand damaging to the community? <BR>
<BR>
<I>3.</I></SPAN><I><FONT SIZE="1"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:9.0px'> </SPAN></FONT></I><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>What plants are commonly associated with native <I>Phragmites </I>in the Great Lakes region? <BR>
If you are interested, I can send you a more detailed methodology for our monitoring project, including what parameters we will be sampling. <BR>
<BR>
As an additional note, I’d encourage people to mention there is a native variety of Phragmites and differentiate between the two strains in any publications or documents. <BR>
<BR>
I look forward to your input! <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thanks again, <BR>
Katy Cummings <BR>
katy.e.cummings@gmail.com <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Joe Franke<BR>
Sapo Gordo Ecological Restoration Services<BR>
Chile Dog Designs, Inc.<BR>
1228 Lafayette Dr. NE<BR>
Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA<BR>
ph: 505-515-8736 <tel:505-515-8736> <tel:505-515-8736 <tel:505-515-8736> > <BR>
Sapogordoeco@comcast.net<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>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<IMG src="cid:3429792949_13678314" ><BR>
Joe Franke<BR>
Sapo Gordo Ecological Restoration Services<BR>
Chile Dog Designs, Inc.<BR>
1228 Lafayette Dr. NE<BR>
Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA<BR>
ph: 505-515-8736 <tel:505-515-8736> <BR>
Sapogordoeco@comcast.net<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<IMG src="cid:3429792949_13674353" ><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><FONT COLOR="#008000"><FONT FACE="Adobe Garamond Pro Bold Italic">Joe Franke<BR>
Sapo Gordo Ecological Restoration Services<BR>
Chile Dog Designs, Inc.<BR>
1228 Lafayette Dr. NE<BR>
Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA<BR>
ph: 505-515-8736<BR>
Sapogordoeco@comcast.net</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
</FONT></SPAN>
</BODY>
</HTML>