|
|
|
|
The Global Invasive Species Team | |
|
||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Global Invasive Species Team listserve digest #089 Fri Jul 13 2001 - 16:19:17 PDT --CONTENTS-- 1. Dry land purple loosestrife (Colorado, USA) 2. Sonar herbicide (New York, USA) 3. Gaura coccinea (California, USA) 4. Aridlands Conservation Listserve (Nationwide) 5. Landscape Conservation Networks Website (Global) 6. Literature reviews (Nationwide) --------------------------------------- 1. Dry land purple loosestrife! (Colorado, USA) From: Sheila Grother (sheilag(at)independence.net) Regarding the listserve note on dry land purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). I cover an area that is essentially a high desert but where irrigation water creates fields and even wetlands. The water is not particularly well managed and purple loosestrife has become a serious problem. On hillsides where pinon/juniper and sage brush dominate I have seen single purple loosestrife plants. There is no surface water and the roots of the other species are obviously in dry ground, yet there will be a purple loosestrife plant happily growing among them. It is not common but does occur. I hope we are not developing our own variety of dry land purple loosestrife! --------------------------------------- 2. Sonar herbicide (New York, USA) From: Sean D. Clarkson (sclarkson(at)tnc.org) The Lake George Land Conservancy (LGLC), a TNC partner in upstate New York, is looking for information on SONAR(*), a chemical used to combat Eurasian water milfoil. Currently, there is an effort to use SONAR in Lake George in an attempt to control the early stages of milfoil infestation. LGLC is looking for any scientific information regarding the use of SONAR and its effects on non-target aquatic species, water quality and clarity, and the effectiveness of SONAR in controlling Eurasian water milfoil. Other pertinent information regarding SONAR and aquatic conservation efforts or leads on institutions or organizations that may be of help are welcomed. If you have any information on SONAR, or leads on where to find this information, please contact me. * 1-Methyl-3-phenyl-5-(3-(trifluoro-methyl)phenyl)-4 (1H)-pyridinone (Fluridone) --------------------------------------- 3. Gaura coccinea (California, USA) From: Nadilia Gomez (gome0046(at)tc.umn.edu) I am starting a research project on early detection of invasive potential in ornamental breeding programs. I have chosen to work with Gaura coccinea (scarlet beeblossom) which is used in flower breeding programs and is also listed as a noxious weed in California. I am trying to locate native and weedy populations of this plant. Has anyone spotted aggressive populations of this species? --------------------------------------- 4. Aridlands Conservation Listserve (USA) From: Tim Whittier (twhittier(at)tnc.org) We would like to invite everyone that is interested in conservation issues of the arid west, especially those issues related to ranching and grazing to join a new listserve that deals with these issues. Originally set up to support the Aridlands Grazing Network, we invite all interested parties to participate. We are providing this service to: **Facilitate communication between individuals involved in conservation in the arid west; **Exchange information and advice on arid land conservation, especially when issues related to grazing and ranching are involved; **Provide a forum for your questions, ideas and answers about arid land conservation and grazing; **Provide alerts on research funding opportunities; **Post notices about useful articles and tools; **Serve as a vehicle to report the activities of the Aridland Grazing Network. This list is moderated by Tim Whittier and Bob Unnasch to ensure the messages are concise and relevant. Tim will compile and send all messages in "digest" format, which means you will receive at most one message for the day. On most days the list will generate no messages. To subscribe, send an e-mail to Tim Whittier at twhittier(at)tnc.org or call him at 208-343-8826. --------------------------------------- 5. Landscape Conservation Networks Website (Global) From: Chris Wilson (clw7(at)cornell.edu) The Ecological Management and Restoration Program is pleased to announce the launch of the Landscape Conservation Networks Website http://www.tnc-ecomanagement.org/. As many of you know, Landscape Conservation Networks (LCNs) are a new learning vehicle for rapidly advancing the effectiveness and scale of TNC's ecological management and restoration strategies across many functional landscapes over a short time period (12-24 months). Participants in each network "learn by doing," using an "advanced" site conservation planning/measures of success framework, coupled with peer review, to ensure that landscape strategies and innovations are consistent with Conservation by Design and employ sound science and economics. LCNs tackle some of the most critical threats faced by the Conservancy including, incompatible grazing and forestry, invasive exotic species, altered fire regimes, and wetland degradation. The LCN website provides general information about how the networks are organized, requirements for participation, and who to contact for further information. There is also a detailed section about the Forest Management Network (http://tnc-ecomanagement.org/Forest/), which includes: * information about individual workshops (e.g., workshop summaries, presentations given by guest speakers, participant lists, assignments completed by the focal landscapes, etc.); * resources (e.g., Web links, literature citations, etc.); * and information about landscapes participating in the network (maps, images, conceptual ecological models, viability rankings and criteria for ranking, etc.) Sections for additional networks, including the Wetland Management, Aridlands Grazing, Eastern Invasives Management, and Fire Management Networks, will be developed in the coming months. For more information about the website please contact me. --------------------------------------- 6. Literature reviews (Nationwide) From: John Randall (jarandall(at)ucdavis.edu) Marchetti, M.P. and P.B. Moyle. 2001. Effects of flow regime on fish assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecological Applications 11(2): 530-539. The authors observed fish populations over a 5 year period along 37 km of a stream in the Central Valley of California, downstream of a major dam and diversion. Species assemblages segregated in an upstream to downstream manner and distinct differences were found between assemblages of native and non-native fishes and their associations with environmental variables and habitat use. Native fishes tended to cluster in reaches with cooler temperatures, lower conductivity, less pool habitat, faster streamflow and more shaded stream surface. Numbers of native fish were positively correlated with increased streamflow while non-native fish were negatively correlated with increased streamflow. The first two years of the study (1994-95) were very low flow years and the last two years (1997-98) were very high flow years. Native species numbers increased greatly in high flow years while most non-native species numbers decreased. This study provides a clear demonstration that native fishes in streams of western North America have different habitat requirements and respond differently to temporal variations in flow than most non-native species. It also supports arguments that restoration of natural flow regimes in company with other restoration measures could help stem the decline of native fishes in regulated stream in the west. The authors briefly suggest how natural flows might be mimicked even in dry years and outline a few restoration measures that would make larger areas of streams favorable to native species. |
||||||||
