|
|
|
|
The Global Invasive Species Team | |
|
||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Global Invasive Species Team listserve digest #071 Mon Oct 30 2000 - 14:41:41 PST --CONTENTS-- 1. Heat-based weed killer (Nationwide) 2. Lesser celandine (Pennsylvania) 3. Garlon-in-oil giveaway (Nationwide) 4. Phalaris arundinacea control (Oregon) 5. Field tests of Klip Kleen applicator (Nationwide) 6. $3000-$7000 grants available (Nationwide) 7. Literature reviews, and John's new book! (Nationwide) --------------------------------------- 1. Heat-based weed killer (Nationwide) From: Barry Rice (bamrice(at)ucdavis.edu) Teresa Catlin pointed me toward a web page on the "Forever Green" site: http://www.chemfree-weedcontrol.com/products/punto.shtml This company is selling several models of chemical-free, heat based weed killers. Most are good only for lawns, sidewalks, and farm fields, but the "Punto" model has promise. It is a gas-powered, hand-held device (looks like a metal detector for the beach). The tip has a rod which is heated to 600 C. It costs $225 Canadian (about $149 US). Has anyone tried this device? --------------------------------------- 2. Lesser celandine (Pennsylvania) From: Roger Latham (rlatham1(at)swarthmore.edu) Just in the last decade or so, populations of the garden-escape Ranunculus ficaria (lesser celandine) have exploded in moist woods and other habitats. It is a perennial spring ephemeral and forms monospecific carpets in April and May. Many of these patches are expanding visibly from year to year. Unlike most native spring ephemerals, its foliage often achieves 100 percent ground cover over large areas, making it a formidable competitor for light. Its spread is a threat to species-rich displays of native spring wildflowers at several nature reserves in southeastern Pennsylvania. There is not yet an element stewardship abstract for the species. Does anyone have experience in controlling lesser celandine, or know of any literature on the subject? --------------------------------------- 3. Garlon-in-oil giveaway (Nationwide) From: Malcolm Hodges (mhodges(at)tnc.org) We have 30 gallons (in 2.5-gal plastic jugs) of Pathfinder available, free for the taking (almost). This is a Dow AgroSciences product made up of Garlon in an oil base, pre-mixed and ready to use. It is being donated by an Atlanta office of Dow AgroSciences because this mix is not suitable for cold temperatures; apparently, it gets cloudy or thick in cold weather (although I believe that doesn't alter its efficacy). The Georgia field office of TNC has used this product in recent years to successfully combat Chinese privet, autumn olive and Chinese tallow-tree, with basal bark applications either painted or sprayed on. If anyone is interested in taking this, and can pay to have it shipped via UPS, I'll be glad to pick it up from Dow and send it to you. Please make requests in 5-gallon increments, as it comes in 2-jug boxes. Contact Malcolm Hodges, Conservation Ecologist with The Nature Conservancy of Georgia, 404-873-7979 ext. 231. --------------------------------------- 4. Phalaris arundinacea control (Oregon) From: Dan Salzer (dsalzer(at)tnc.org) We are presently spending a lot of $$$ and staff time controlling reed canary grass (Phalaris arundincacea) at our Sycan Marsh preserve using a single strategy (spraying plants in June). I am interested in evaluating various combinations of mowing (or possibly grazing) / burning / spraying and various timing combinations of these treatments that prove effective while minimizing the volume of herbicide used. Are you aware of any research efforts currently underway to evaluate alternative control techniques for reed canary grass? I'd like to contact these investigators to learn more about their ongoing efforts. --------------------------------------- 5. Field tests of Klip Kleen applicator (Nationwide) From: Barry Rice (bamrice(at)ucdavis.edu) I recently bought a device from A.M.Leonard Co., called the KlipKleen applicator. This device applies herbicide directly onto the blade of hand held shears so you can cut and apply herbicide at the same time. A mostly negative review of this drippy device is on our web site at: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/tools/klipklee.html --------------------------------------- 6. $3000-$7000 grants available (Nationwide) From: Barry Rice (bamrice(at)ucdavis.edu) Grants in the above range are available from the National Wildlife Federation's Species Recovery fund at: http://www.nwf.org/wildalive/SRF/srfhome.html These grants are applicable to those who are working with the following taxa: arroyo toad (Bufo californicus), bald eagle, desert tortoise, timber wolf, grizzly bear, indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lear's (indigo) macaw, pacific northwest salmon, pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), prairie chickens/sage grouse, red-cockaded woodpecker, sonoran pronghorn, Utah and black-tailed prairie dog, prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara), whooping crane. The following six broad topics are also eligible for funding: 1)Endangered butterflies of North American; 2)Endangered cats of North America; 3)Endangered plants of Hawaii; 4)Endangered whales of North America; 5)Imperiled freshwater mussels; 6)Imperiled neotropical migratory songbirds. --------------------------------------- 7. Literature reviews, and John's new book! (Nationwide) From: John Randall (jarandall(at)ucdavis.edu) --ON IMPACTS OF INVADERS Possessky, S.L, C.E. Williams and M.J. Moriarity. 2000. Glossy buckthorn, Rhamnus frangula L.: a threat to riparian plant communities of the northern Allegheny plateau (USA). Natural Areas Journal 20(3):290-292. This study found that glossy buckthorn invasion decreases the total cover and alters the species dominance of the herbaceous layer in riparian savanna in the Allegheny National Forest, western Pennsylvania. Earlier work indicated riparian zones are hotspots for vascular plant diversity within the region. The authors assessed buckthorn density, total herbaceous cover and cover by species in 2 uninvaded and 2 invaded riparian savanna plots. Buckthorn density was about 10 times higher, canopy density signficantly higher and total herbaceous cover significantly lower in invaded plots. Species richness of non-woody plants (ferns and allies, forbs and graminoids) was not significantly different between invaded and uninvaded plots, however. Total species richness and woody species richness were actually significantly greater in the herbaceous layer of invaded plots. The herbaceous layer of invaded plots was similar in composition to that in uninvaded plots, but different species dominated. The increased species richness in invaded plots was primarily due to greater richness of woody species seedlings in the herbaceous layer. However, the authors suggest that glossy buckthorn will maintain and increase a dense, persistent canopy by filling gaps with root sprouts and thereby suppress the other woody species as well as the herbaceous layer. McKinney, M.L. and J.L. Lockwood. 1999. Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends in Ecology & Evolution (TREE) 14(11):450-453. Most species (losers) are declining as a result of human activities while a few species are increasing and replacing them (winners). Declining species are concentrated in certain taxa and increasing species are concentrated in different taxa with the result that overall diversity is being more sharply reduced as whole groups decline and remaining 'winners' are concentrated in just a few groups. Diversity loss is also exacerbated by invasions by a relatively few, highly successful non-native species which further homogenize global flora and fauna. As in past mass extinctions, species with broad diets and tolerance, rapid dispersal and high reproduction occur disproportionately among 'winners'. Not a good paper to read if you are already feeling blue. Amsberry, L., M.A. Baker, P.J. Ewanchuck and M.D. Bertness. 2000. Clonal integration and the expansion of Phragmites australis. Ecological Applications 10(4): 1110-1118. Study conducted in 2 sites in coastal Massachusetts and Rhode Island examined whether physical stresses and competition in low marsh slows the spread of Phrag and whether physiological integration of Phrag clones enable them to spread into stressful low marsh habitat they couldn't invade otherwise. Physical stresses in low marsh did limit Phrag survival and growth, particularly in Spartina alterniflora marsh. Competition appeared to play a smaller role in low marsh. Rhizome-severing experiments demonstrated that clonal integration helps Phrag invade low marsh, particularly in high-salinity habitats. The paper touches on but does not answer questions about why over the past approximately 30 years Phrag, a species native to the region, appears to have been aggressively invading low and mid-marsh habitats that it did not occupy earlier. --ON DEFINING TERMINOLOGY REGARDING INVASIVE SPECIES - ONE GOOD, ONE NOT. Richardson, D.M. P. Pysek, M. Rejmanek, M.G. Barbour F.D. Panetta and C.J. West. 2000. Naturalization of alien plants: concepts and definition. Diversity and Distributions 6: 93-107. Six authors hailing from 4 continents plus New Zealand make an effort to clear up confusion about the terminology used to describe the establishment of non-native plants. Based on an extensive survey of the scientific literature they propose use of a minimum set of key terms as follows: INTRODUCTION means a plant species has been transported by humans across a major geographical barrier; NATURALIZATION starts when abiotic and biotic barriers to survival and regular reproduction in the site of introduction are surmounted; INVASION requires that the introduced plants produce reproductive offspring in areas distant from the original site of introduction - approximate scales >100 m in less than 50 years for taxa spreading by seeds and >6m within 3 years for taxa spreading vegetatively. Note that this definition of INVASION differs from that used in the Presidential Executive Order on Invasive Species which requires that an 'invasive species' not only spread from the site of introduction but cause significant economic and/or environmental harm. Richardson et al advocate the use of terms like PESTS or WEEDS for the species that have harmful effects and TRANSFORMERS for those that change the character, condition, form or nature of ecosystems over substantial areas. A simple schematic diagram (Figure 1) helps clarify their proposed definitions. They urge that instances where native species form new populations or move into habitats where they had been absent or sparse be referred to as 'colonization' or 'encroachment' rather than invasion to avoid confusion. Finally, they urge that clear definitions be given or referred to in all invasion biology papers, no matter what terms are used. Davis, M. A. and K. Thompson. 2000. Eight ways to be a Colonizer; two ways to be an Invader: a proposed nomenclature scheme for invasion ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. July 2000:226-230. Overall, a paper that adds more confusion than clarity to the issue; NOT recommended. The paper outlines some good ideas such as the importance of distinguishing between different types of invaders based on 1. whether they disperse short on long distances; 2. whether they are common or novel to the environment they invade and; 3. whether they have small or great impacts on the habitats they invade. The authors confuse matters, however, by advising that species which have been in an area a long time should no longer be considered non-native (or exotic, alien, etc.) and then give no time-line for this but instead advise that it will be up to the ecologist to define this in the context of the system. They offer the many old-field species that came to eastern North America centuries ago as examples but a few paragraphs later use purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) as an example of a novel invader although it too was introduced to North America at least two centuries ago. --NEW BOOK Now available in better book stores: "Invasive Plants of California's Wildlands" edited by Carla C. Bossard, TNC's very own John M. Randall, and Marc C. Hoshovsky. University of California Press, Berkeley. 360 pp. $29.95 paperback See http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9109.html for more information. The book was written for wildland managers in California and adjacent states. It contains introductory chapters on the impacts and control of invasive plants plus 74 'Species Accounts' covering a total of 83 species from the California Exotic Pest Plant Council (CalEPPC) List of Pest Plants (some Accounts cover 2 or more similar species in the same genus). Each species account includes photographs and line drawing of the plant and sections on how to identify it, where it can be found, how it impacts natural areas, how it reproduces and grows and how to control it. Current and former TNC staff who contributed species accounts include Ed Alverson, Tamara Kan, Rob Klinger, Andrea Pickart, Oren Pollack and John Randall. I wish I had a financial motive for posting this notice but all royalties from the book go to CalEPPC rather than the editors or authors. Copies are available from CalEPPC at a $5 discount ($24.95) plus sales tax of $1.93 plus $5.00 shipping = $31.88. If you order more than one copy, the shipping for each additional book is only $2.00. Orders should be sent to KW Publications (profits go to CalEPPC) via fax: 858-271-1425; email: mkellysd(at)aol.com. |
||||||||
