![]() |
The Global Invasive Species Team | ![]() |
|
Global Invasive Species Team listserve digest #068 Wed Sep 06 2000 - 12:28:15 PDT --CONTENTS-- 1. More poopy goats (Oregon) 2. Weeds spread by fire teams (Montana) 3. New weed documents available (Nationwide) 4. Invasive species articles (Nationwide) A) Antidote to claims that introductions decrease biodiversity B) Magazine articles for kids C) Coffee-table magazine article on invasive species D) Scientific journal articles E) Impact of crossing 'native' species collected from afar on local population genetics --------------------------------------- 1. More poopy goats (Oregon) From: Lesley Richman (lesley_richman(at)or.blm.gov) When goats are eating seeds, it takes 7-10 days for their systems to clear them. But don't forget that they may be packing the seeds around in their hair. The best strategy is to use them prior to weeds going to seed and hope their grazing will prevent seed production. As far as bringing them onto a site clean, it would be best to feed them a weed free hay ration for 7-10 days first. As far as diapers go, maybe that would be practical for a couple of animals in a limited setting. I used modified cow fecal collection bags with my goats on a research trial when I was collecting feces for analysis. Those might work but I can't imagine it being practical on a large scale. --------------------------------------- 2. Weeds spread by fire teams (Montana) From: Brian Martin (bmartin(at)tnc.org) (Brian posted this on the fire listserve---I'm cross-posting it here for those who might have missed it---Barry) If you are aware of any local fire engine crews on fires in Montana, especially in the Bitterroot, expect that they will be transporting spotted knapweed and sulfur cinquefoil to your neighborhood. The Bitterroot is dominated by these and other invasive exotics that have basically destroyed all of the lower elevation grasslands in western Montana. It would be worth your time to talk to fire crews about de-weeding their equipment before they start spreading these around. It is very easy for these weeds to be captured on vehicles. --------------------------------------- 3. New weed documents available (Nationwide) From: Barry Rice (bamrice(at)ucdavis.edu) Even more Element Stewardship Abstracts have been placed online by your faithful Invasive Species Team. Steer your web browser to our site to see: New Lonicera (Bush Honeysuckles) Species Management Summary SEE: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/loni_spp.html New Ligustrum (Privet) Species Management Summary SEE: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/ligu_spp.html New Melia azedarach (chinaberry) Species Management Summary SEE: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/meliazed.html New Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard) Species Management Summary SEE: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/allipeti.html --------------------------------------- 4. Invasive species articles (Nationwide) From: John Randall (jarandall(at)ucdavis.edu) A) ANTIDOTE TO CLAIMS THAT INTRODUCTIONS INCREASE BIODIVERSITY Angermeier, P.L. 1994. Does biodiversity include artificial diversity? Conservation Biology 8(2): 600-602. Angermeier answers the question by clearly advocating the EXCLUSION of non-native biota from definitions of biological diversity. He points out that addition of non-native species makes the receiving and donating systems more alike (they now share a species) and hence reduces global biodiversity. He also argues that native diversity is inherently more valuable over the long term than what he terms 'artificial diversity' (numbers of non-native taxa) which he argues can never be a substitute for native diversity in terms of societal value or ecological function. Up to this point I am in total agreement and find the paper useful for its clear, concise presentation which will help put to rest arguments that introduced species actually enhance diversity. I'm less convinced by Angermeier's closing arguments that conservation biologists should strive to maximize 'ecological integrity' since in my experience this has been even harder to quantify than biological diversity. But read it for yourself - I wish I had done so 6 years ago when this first appeared! B) MAGAZINE ARTICLES FOR KIDS Odyssey: Adventures in Science, magazine for kids grades 4 (good readers) and up. Reading level is middle school/jr high, designed for use in the classroom. The April 2000 issue features articles on Alien Invaders including: An Ecological Train Wreck: protecting Hawaii's native birds; Pigs everywhere; Out of Control: the brown tree snake; Trouble in Paradise: alien plants in our National Parks; Musseling in on the ecosystem (zebra mussels); The purple plague (purple loosestrife); Wicked Weeds (with photos by TNC's John Randall). You can order back issues online at www.cobblestonepub.com, click on catalog, follow directions, and either enter the article's title in search field or scroll down the Odyssey back issues. Or call 800 821 0115. single issues are $4.95 + $2 for shipping and Handling. Class sets (20 or more) $4.50 each plus 9% shipping and handling. For more about the magazine check: www.odysseymagazine.com. C) COFFEE-TABLE MAGAZINE ARTICLE ON INVASIVE SPECIES Green Raiders: weeds in the global garden. Plateau (land and peoples of the Colorado Plateau) Summer 2000. reprint of John Randall's introductory chapter from the book 'Invasive Plants: weeds of the global garden'. Includes several color photos of invasive weeds not included in the book. D) SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES Simberloff, D. and B. Von Holle. 1999. Positive interations of non-indigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biological Invasions 1: 21-32. Review article that points out that introduced species frequently interact with one another and that these interactions often promote one or more of the invaders. In particular, they note that mutualisms between plants and animals that pollinate them or disperse their seeds and the modification of habitats by introduced plants and animals are often important in facilitating other invasions. On the other hand so far there is little evidence that interference among introduced species impedes further invasions. The authors conclude that syntergistic interactions among invaders may accelerate negative impacts on native species - a positive feedback, invasional 'meltdown' process. I.M. Parker, et al. 1999. Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biological Invasions 1: 3-19. Too little attention has been paid to clearly determining how invasive species impact native species, communities and systems. The authors note that this has impeded efforts to develop ecological theory about invasions and that it forces conservation workers to set priorities for preventing and controlling invasion without knowing how much damage the species in question actually cause. They argue that impacts include three fundamental dimensions: range, abundance, and per capita or per biomass effects of the invader. They suggest ways in which field work and models could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts of invaders and urge researchers to take on this task. E) IMPACT OF CROSSING 'NATIVE' SPECIES COLLECTED FROM AFAR ON LOCAL POPULATION GENETICS Keller, M., J. Kollmann and P.J. Edwards. 2000. Genetic introgression from distant provenance reduces fitness in local weed populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 37(4): 647-659. The authors studied the performance of the offspring of three ruderal species native to Switzerland that were intentionally crossed with pollen from populations native to distant parts of Europe. Most of the first generation crosses exhibited improved performance in terms of biomass and/or seed size relative to to that of both parents when grown in common plots (heterosis, aka hybrid vigor). However, the second generation backcrosses (native Swiss plants crossed with pollen from the F1s) almost all showed reduced performance in terms of biomass and survival relative to both parents. Analysis of the data indicated the reduction in performance was due to the breakdown of adaptive gene complexes which were apparently present in individuals from the native population and which wree disrupted by outbreeding with individuals from other populations. The authors point out where reduced performance is the result of certain poorly adpated genes from the ditant populations these genes will be selected against and so the damage seen will decrease with each backcross. On the contrary, where the reduction in performance is due to the breakup of co-adapted gene complexes from the native population the damage is likely to increase with each backcross for at least several generations. The authors discuss the implications of these findings and other studies for the use of plants, seed and pollen collected from distant sites for restoration projects, noting that small native populations are especially vulnerable to 'genetic assimilation'. However, they are unable to come up with general guidelines regarding what is an acceptable distance from which native plants can be introduced since population genetics vary so widely between the few species and populations that have been carefully studied so far. |
||||||