[RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Management of Roadside Refugia Re: Roadside refugia of Utah, 273 more miles of the 1997 Megatransect

[Wayne Tyson]

Dear Craig, Lew, and all:

Just a quick note before I head up I-15 to I-70 and beyond.  I won't 
have time to run any transects; don't have your standard methodology 
yet anyway.  And, that's not my specialty, only an 
interest.  However, if anyone wants to give me some site information 
anywhere in the Intermountain West or even the western Great Plains 
region, I might be able to do some checking sometime during the next 
month of travel.

May I suggest, if I haven't already, that the way to minimize aliens 
is to achieve a healthy ecosystem.  Roadside disturbances work 
against this.  Just whacking weeds doesn't do the job, especially 
when it involves disturbance.

The important thing in ecosystem restoration is the TREND toward 
indigenous species diversity CONSISTENT WITH site 
characteristics.  Not all sites are grassland sites.  Some sites that 
might have been grassland sites before road construction may no 
longer be so, and will only be suitable for indigenous species 
adapted to such conditions.  One could waste a lot of time and money 
trying to "create" a grassland on a site that no longer possesses the 
soil and other characteristics of a grassland.  I see this most 
fundamental error made in all kinds of habitats, sometimes to the 
point of stubborn absurdity.  A common error of this kind, too 
frequently done in Southern California is, for example, attempting to 
"create" wetland adjacent to existing riparian areas by destroying 
existing (e.g. coastal sage scrub) involves grading hilly topography 
down to within a few feet of the adjacent riparian zone--apparently 
under the theory that the only thing standing in the way of wetland 
is distance to "the" water table.  Trouble is, very few hilly areas 
(if any) adjacent to wetlands have any water table near enough to the 
surface for this very expensive measure to be effective.  In other 
parts of the country, this measure might "work," but only when the 
nature of the geology is conducive to the presumed phenomenon.  This 
kind of error can be avoided by a little disciplined investigation in 
"potential" wetlands and "potential" grasslands.

Site conditions, including, but not limited to soil (type, texture, 
biology, structure), geology, and biological dynamics, drive habitat 
characteristics, and one cannot (without modifying those conditions 
accordingly) "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."  And throwing 
money at non-grassland sites not only won't work, it takes 
crucially-needed funds from the places where it will.

Much as I love grasses, when other habitat types are indicated, I can 
love them too.

WT

PS: On good grassland sites, seeding often can be effective.  In some 
areas, simply increasing the coefficient of roughness a bit to create 
safe sites for naturally dispersed seeds can be enough, or at least a 
significant contributing factor for some species.  In other cases 
where seeding does not work well enough, planting very small 
seedlings in "pioneer" colonies, particularly when combined with 
other simple measures, can be very effective and very, very "cheap" 
compared with some more traditional modes of treatment.  One should 
never despair when the budget is small, as there is nearly always 
some combination of treatments that can establish that crucial trend 
toward betterment.  Many traditional treatments cannot accomplish 
that much--at least in any LASTING, PERMANENT way.  The test of a 
successful ecosystem restoration project is not, for example, whether 
impressive photographs can show a crop of new plants, but whether or 
not the trend is consistently (with perhps the exception of a few 
minor fluctuations--due to weather, disturbance or other 
non-ecological factors) toward sustained improvement, up to the 
maximum potential for each given site.  A sustained improvement over 
several seasons is an indication of success; a sustained decline 
indicates failure.  However, Nature is such a resilient and forgiving 
phenomenon that it will eventually prevail consistent with site 
conditions (it will maximize the true potential, even if we don't 
agree with it for aesthetic, political or profit reasons), no matter 
what is done.  The aim of ecosystem restoration is to accelerate that 
process, and planting is just one of the means to do that.  Ignoring 
the others can result in results that, if used as "evidence," can 
distort the real potential rate and degree of recovery.

At 05:45 PM 9/27/2006, Craig Dremann wrote:
>Dear Lew and All,
>
>Thanks for your email.
>
>You wrote,
>
>"Now, how to design a national policy/program to deal with this?  Or is
>it on a state by state basis?  IN has received $350,000 to plant native
>grasses on their interstate highway, reducing cost and creating habitat.
>Lew"
>
>==========================
>
>One possible answer to your question---Federal funds for every State
>DOT, whenever the Federal Transportation bill is renewed, to start
>Iowa-type Native Roadside Vegetation "Ecotype Projects" in each of the
>50 States.
>See http://www.uni.edu/ecotype/
>
>Funds are needed to do at least four things:
>
>1.) Map the remaining roadside native understory vegetation, 2.) Do
>genetic studies, to develop seed-transfer zones of the native roadside
>species within a State.
>3.) Get local native "ecotype" seeds hand-harvested, and then
>commercially reproduced in bulk.
>
>And probably most importantly...
>
>4.) Invent methods and equipment to get the native grasses/native plants
>successfully, rapidly and permanently established in a 99+% weed-free
>condition.
>
>REGARDING THE MEGATRANSECT: I compiled the UTAH data of my 3,400
>roadside vegetation Megatransect this afternoon (Hwy 21 to I-15 to I-70
>to Colo. border, 8-24-97):
>
>273 total miles through Utah ---
>
>186 miles, no native grasses seen: (68%)
>--Ag fields = 41 (15%)
>--Canyons = 6 (2%)
>--Crested wheat sown within R/W = 27 (10%)
>--Cheatgrass present= 12 (4%)
>--Desert, no vegetation either native or weeds = 6 (2%)
>--Junipers, weed-free and native grass-free = 36 (13%)
>
>87 miles with native grasses: (32%)
>--Natives thin, infested with cheatgrass = 10 (3.6%)
>--Oryzopsis pristine = 10 (3.6%)
>--Oryzopsis thin or only in R/W = 37 (13.5%)
>--Stipa comata thin = 5 (1.8%)
>--Stipa pristine = 8 (2.9%)
>
>So out of 273 miles, 18 miles are pristine, or about 6.5% of the total
>Utah Megatransect section, which is a higher percentage than Nevada's
>Megatransect (2.8%).
>
>Utah in 1997 had a lower percentage of Cheatgrass compared to Nevada (4%
>vs.8.3%); but nearly double the Crested Wheatgrass sown by the DOT in
>the R/W (10% Utah vs 5.8% NV).
>
>The Utah stretch of the Megatransect, shows how cheatgrass was only able
>to get established where the native grasses are completely absent, or
>whenever the native grass cover was too thin, where there are empty
>spaces in the ecosystem for the weeds to get established.
>
>I call the cheatgrass a "default-weed", because it is there by default,
>only getting established when there has been damage to the native
>ecosystem's perennial grass cover.
>
>Fortunately, if properly replanted, the local perennial native grass
>species easily crowd out the cheatgrass, as you can see in the pictures
>at http://www.ecoseeds.com/greatbasin.html --there's not a cheatgrass
>plant to be seen.
>
>In science, that effect is called "allelopathy." (See the Journal of
>Chemical Ecology, for example, especially Dr. Liu's pioneering barley
>studies in 1994 and 1995).
>
>I personally know, after 35 years of Ecological Restoration studies,
>that allelopathy is an unopened treasure-trove--one of the most
>important future tools, that could help us convert millions of weedy
>acres back to solid local natives, including tens of thousands of miles
>of weed-infested roadsides--if there is a desire to do so.
>
>Sincerely,  Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333
>
>_______________________________________________
>PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list
>RWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060928/1322f564/attachment.html>