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