REMINDER

MA-EPPC presents our

INVASIVE PLANTS, Research, Removal and Renewal Conference

Wed Aug 15 and Thurs Aug 16, 2007

University of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA

 

The following topics will be presented: the extent of invasive plants

in the Mid-Atlantic region, the latest invasive plant control

strategies, native plants that are good alternatives to invasives,

Federal invasive plant efforts, how deer contribute to the spread of

invasive plants,new technologies to measure and monitor invasive plant

populations, how to motivate volunteers, and how native plant recovery

can prevent spread of invasive plants.

 

More details and a downloadable brochure are available at

http://www.ma-eppc.org

 

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

Nursery and landscape professionals

Natural resource managers

State and local officials

Managers of parks, preserves and conservation districts

Invasive plant management and restoration specialists

Extension agents and environmental educators

Public and botanical garden managers

Researchers, students and gardeners

Garden and outdoor writers

Interested homeowners

Golf course and recreational land managers

YOU

 

Please distribute this message to any interested individuals or groups

you know.

 

We look forward to another great meeting this year!

 

Thank you

 

Jan Ferrigan

MA-EPPC Board President

 

 

 

 

 

REMINDER

MA-EPPC presents our

INVASIVE PLANTS, Research, Removal and Renewal Conference

Wed Aug 15 and Thurs Aug 16, 2007

University of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA

 

The following topics will be presented: the extent of invasive plants

in the Mid-Atlantic region, the latest invasive plant control

strategies, native plants that are good alternatives to invasives,

Federal invasive plant efforts, how deer contribute to the spread of

invasive plants,new technologies to measure and monitor invasive plant

populations, how to motivate volunteers, and how native plant recovery

can prevent spread of invasive plants.

 

More details and a downloadable brochure are available at

http://www.ma-eppc.org

 

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

Nursery and landscape professionals

Natural resource managers

State and local officials

Managers of parks, preserves and conservation districts

Invasive plant management and restoration specialists

Extension agents and environmental educators

Public and botanical garden managers

Researchers, students and gardeners

Garden and outdoor writers

Interested homeowners

Golf course and recreational land managers

YOU

 

Please distribute this message to any interested individuals or groups

you know.

 

We look forward to another great meeting this year!

 

Thank you

 

Jan Ferrigan

MA-EPPC Board President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upcoming Seminar

 

“Invasive Plants:  Research, Removal and Renewal

August 15 and 16, 2007

at the University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA

 

Certain plants that have been introduced to ecosystems cause a great deal of harm and have become a threat to biological diversity.  These invasive plants reduce populations of other plants and the animals that depend upon them.  This is a problem we all face and we can all contribute to the solutions.  Our quality of life ultimately depends on the health of our natural resources. 

 

In this seminar you will find out:

 

the extent of the invasive plant problem in the mid-Atlantic region;

 

the latest invasive plant control technologies;

 

native plants that are good alternatives for invasive garden plants;

 

Federal invasive plant efforts;

 

how deer contribute to the spread of invasive plants;

 

new technologies to measure and monitor invasive plant populations; and

 

how native plant  recovery prevents the spread of invasive plants.

 

 

For a complete brochure, contact the Morris Arboretum

at 215-247-5777, ext. 156 or 125 or jlm@...

 

Sponsored by the Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council

and the Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania

 

 

 

 

Lisa L. Smith

Consulting Ecologist

286 Stoneylonesome Rd.

Stahlstown, PA 15687

wildflower@...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Ailanthus weed busters. Can anyone help Tom network for his graduate work.  

Are the fungi native or non-native? What is their origin? Thanks.

 

Marc Imlay, PhD

 

Conservation biologist, Anacostia Watershed Society

(301-699-6204, 301-283-0808 301-442-5657 cell)

Board member of the Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council,

Hui o Laka at Kokee State Park, Hawaii

Vice president of the Maryland Native Plant Society,

Chair of the Biodiversity and Habitat Stewardship Committee

for the Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club

From: Richard Gardner [mailto:rtgardner3@...]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 6:30 PM
To: Marc Imlay; Marc Imlay
Subject: LETTER

 

Marc,

 

  I hope this works.  Thanks.

 

                                      Tom

 

I am a grad student researching biocontol of Ailanthus altissima at the University of Maryland, College Park.  I have locally seen sapling death caused by wilt, terminal death of branches and proportionally large lesionson the trunks/branches of trees.  If you have seen similar, please drop me a note so I can get samples to identify the pathogen responsible.  Thanks.

 

                                                           Tom Gardner

                                                            rtgardner3@...

Richard Gardner
410.726.3045 (cell)

 

 

Richard Gardner
410.726.3045 (cell)

 

 

Biocontrol Science and Technology
	Publisher:	Taylor & Francis
	Issue:	Volume 16, Number 6 / 2006
	Pages:	547 - 566
	URL:	Linking Options
	DOI:	10.1080/09583150500531909

 

Assessing potential biological control of the invasive plant, tree-of-heaven, Ailanthusaltissima Jianqing Ding A1, Yun Wu A2, Hao Zheng A1, Weidong Fu A1, Richard Reardon A2, Min Liu A1 A1 Institute of Biological Control, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, P.R. China A2 Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA Forest Service, Morgantown, WV, USA Abstract: Tree-of-heaven, Ailanthusaltissima, is a deciduous tree indigenous to China and introduced into North America and Europe. It is a serious threat to ecosystems in introduced areas, as the plant is very competitive, and also contains allelopathic chemicals that may inhibit growth of surrounding native plants. In addition, the plant contains secondary chemicals that make it unpalatable to some insects. In this paper we assess potential biological control of this plant by reviewing literature associated with natural enemies of the plant from both its native and introduced regions in the world. Our literature surveys revealed that 46 phytophagous arthropods, 16 fungi, and one potyvirus were reported attacking tree-of-heaven, some apparently causing significant damage in China. Two weevils, Eucryptorrhynchus brandti and E. chinensis, are major pests of the plant in China and are reportedly restricted to tree-of-heaven, showing promise as potential biological control agents. Nymphs and adults of a homopteran insect, Lycorma delicatula and larvae of two lepidopteran species, Samia cynthia and Eligma narcissus, may also cause severe damage, but they are not host specific. Two rust fungi, Aecidium ailanthi J. Y. Zhuan sp. nov. and Coleosporium sp. have been reported on tree-of-heaven in China and are also promising potential candidates for biological control of the plant. Nine insect herbivores and 68 fungi are associated with tree-of-heaven in its introduced range in North America, Europe, and Asia. An oligophagous insect native to North America, the ailanthus webworm, Atteva punctella, may be a potential biocontrol agent for the plant. Among the fungal species, Fusarium osysporum f. sp. perniciosum, caused wilt of tree-of-heaven in North America and may have the potential to control the plant, but its non-target effect should be carefully evaluated. Our review indicates that there is potential for using insects or pathogens to control tree-of-heaven. Keywords: Biological control of weeds, Ailanthus altissima, invasive plant, Eucryptorrhynchus brandti, Eucryptorrhynchus chinensis, Atteva punctella

 

The author’s field research leads him to believe that Ailanthus altissima is dying in North America due to a mixture of insect herbivory and pathogenic endophytic fungal infections.  The author believes that there are many insect species using Ailanthus altissima as an energy source and at least two fungal species infecting the plant.  Field observation in Maryland, anecdotal evidence and one article from New York City  and work done by Jay Stipes in Virginia further leads the author to believe that the rate of fungal infection is enough to either control or eradicate Ailanthus altissima from North America.  Additionally, the Ailanthus webworm, Atecva punctata, appears to be a significant herbivore on Ailanthus altissima leaves.

 

To this time the following pathogens and herbivores have been identified for Ailanthus altissima:

fungus: Verticillium wilt (Verticillium albo-atrum), Verticillium dahliae, Shoestring root rot (Armillaria mellea), Phymatotrichum root rot (Phymatotrichum omnivorum), Cristulariella moricola, Cristulariella pyramidalis, Fusarium oxysporum, Botryosphaeria obtuse, Botryosphaeria rhodina, Cerrena unicolor, Nectria cinnabrina and Ganoderma applanatum.

The insects are: Ailanthus web-worm (Atteva punctella), cynthia moth (Samia Cynthia, Asiatic garden beetle (Maladera castanea), Atteva fabricella and Placosphaeria spp. (Magnani 1975).

 

References

1. Pirone, P. P. 1959. Tree maintenance, 3d ed. Oxford University Press, New York. 436 p.
2. Baker, Whiteford L. 1972. Eastern forest insects. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication 1175. Washington, DC. 642 p.
3. Goor, A. Y., and C. W. Barney. 1968. Forest tree planting in arid zones. Ronald Press, New York. 409 p.
4. Wright, Ernest, and H. R. Wells. 1948. Tests on the adaptability of trees and shrubs to shelterbelt planting on certain Phymatotrichum root rot infested soils in Oklahoma and Texas. Journal of Forestry 46:256-262.

 

Misra, R. M. 1978. A mermithid parasite of Attera fabricella. Indian Forester 104(2):133-134.

French, W. J. 1972. Cristulariella pyramidalis in Florida: an extension of range and new hosts. Plant Disease Report 56(2): 135-138.

Magnani 1975

 

Stipes, R.J. 1995. A tree grows in Virginia. Va. J. Sci. 46:105.

 

Feret, P.P. 1985. Ailanthus: Variation, cultivation, and

frustration. J. Arboric. 11(12):361–368.

 

 

The Handbook of American Fungi

 

Diseases of Trees and Shrubs

 

Insects Which Feed on Trees and Shrubs

 

 

 

 

Hi folks,

 

Your readers can go to www.anacostiaws.org and click on programs

then click on Non-Native Plant Removal

for A Report on the Progress of Invasive Plant Control Program at AWS

Maryland Native Plant Society, Anacostia Watershed Society and Sierra Club Habitat Stewardship Committee Report for 2006

 

Marc

 

 

From: Marc Imlay [mailto:ialm@...]
Sent: Sun 1/14/2007 9:10 AM
To: ficmnew
Subject: [ficmnew] Habitat Stewardship 2006 for MNPS, AWS and Sierra Club

 

 

Maryland Native Plant Society, Anacostia Watershed Society and Sierra Club

Habitat Stewardship Committee Report for 2006

 

Non-native invasive species of plants such as English Ivy, Japanese Stiltgrass

and Kudzu are covering the natural areas that we in the conservation movement

have worked so hard to protect from habitat destruction, erosion and water

pollution.  Just as we are making progress on wetlands, stream bank stabilization,

and endangered species, these plants from other parts of the world have typically

covered 20-90% of the surface area of our forests, streams and meadows.

Many of us feel demoralized and powerless to combat these invaders that

have few natural herbivores or other controls.

The Maryland Native Plant Society, Anacostia Watershed Society and Sierra Club

are establishing a program to provide local groups and public and private

landowners with several models to draw upon in the region. We are assisting in

developing a major work effort (three to five years) at each site to remove massive

populations of about a dozen species. Regular stewardship projects are conducted

in all seasons including winter, early spring, late spring, summer, and late summer. 

This high-intensity program is followed by a low-intensity annual maintenance

program to eliminate plants we have missed, plants emerging from the seed bank,

and occasional plants migrating in from neighboring areas.

 

Attachment A announces regular monthly projects at over 40 sites in Maryland

almost all of which were initially started as a result of on-the-ground workshops

conducted by current MNPS members in Charles County and Montgomery

County. The Nature Conservancy has also conducted projects on natural areas

for many years. MNPS and the Sierra Club sponsor the monthly projects at

Chapman Forest (800 acres), Swann Park (200 acres) and Greenbelt National

Park (1.5 square miles). They co-sponsor Little Paint Branch Park (150 acres)

and Cherry Hill Road Community Park (15 acres) removals in Beltsville and

Magruder Park in Hyattsville MD (15 acres) with the Anacostia Watershed

Society and provide considerable assistance to the other projects. 

 

These sites serve as a visible example of what can be accomplished. MNPS

with Montgomery County and Prince Georges County MNCPPC, Sierra Club

and Anacostia Watershed Society developed signs, announcements, flyers,

safety and plant identification handouts, sign in sheets and evaluation forms

(attachment B).  A summary of AWS generated invasive plant control progress

in 2006 (attachment C) is in chronological order where AWS engaged a total

of 1082 volunteers at 12 selected parks including one native plant restoration

site. Swann Park had 99 volunteers and Chapman Forest had 78 volunteers.

 

The biggest challenge is to ensure that in subsequent years all the successful

projects are carried on by responsible entities. Our advice to others considering

similar projects are to recognize that restoration of our native ecosystem is

realistic but requires an appropriate level of work effort.

 

Many of us have done extensive surveys of this area and find that at least 80%

of the natural areas are salvageable with a combination of mechanical and

carefully targeted chemical control and no requirement for re-vegetation.

The natives return on their own since they initially covered the majority of

the surface area. We remove all the class 1 and class 2 exotic species,

typically 5-20 species, because otherwise if you just eradicate one exotic

another one may replace the one removed.

 

Our policy is to use carefully targeted, biodegradable herbicides in natural areas,

such as glyphosate and triclopyr, that do not migrate through the soil to other

plants. Instead of spraying invasive trees such as Ailanthus, Norway Maple,

and Chinese Privet we inject concentrated herbicide into the tree either by

basal bark, hack and squirt or cut stump. Seedlings are easy to hand pull. We

wait for wet soil after a rain to hand pull, first loosening with a garden tool such

as a 4 prong spading fork so the center of the plant rises perceptively. At the

200 acre Swann Park, where we are essentially in maintenance phase after 5

years, 17 of the 19 non-native species are eradicated or nearly so. Only Japanese

Stiltgrass and Garlic Mustard remain serious. Attachment D.

 

All the methods, techniques and/or findings of these projects can be used

where the initial cover of non-native invasive species is less than 30% of the

total plant cover and adequately where under 70% cover. At higher percent

coverage the chemical component is more overwhelming and native plant

re-vegetation may be necessary with native species that are not cultivars and

are obtained from the wild or from nursery stocks originally collected locally

in the wild. There are several well researched species mixes that include 12-16

herbaceous and shrub species including nitrogen fixers. Attachment E

summarizes the status of native plant restoration at Woodworth Park.

 

Over 120 professionals and volunteers participated in The Demolition Derby

Field Session of the WEED BUSTERS Invasive Plant Workshop at Frelinghuysen

Arboretum, Morristown, New Jersey, August 9, 2006 which provided practical

experience with sites where it is best to use mechanical control and sites where

it is efficacious to employ chemical control of Japanese Stiltgrass, Wineberry,

Garlic Mustard, Oriental Bittersweet, Multiflora Rose, Japanese Barberry, and

Tree of Heaven.  Other invasive species include Porcelain-berry, Mile-a-Minute

and Japanese Knotweed. My presentation was How Our Monthly Invasive Plant

Removal Project Restored Habitats in 40+ Maryland Sites”. This non-native

invasive plant removal reaches maintenance phase following major work efforts

at each site through a 5 year long combination of mechanical and carefully

targeted chemical control.

 

Carole F. Bergmann serves as Forest Ecologist/Field Botanist for the Maryland

National Capital Park & Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) in Montgomery County,

MD and presented Mobilizing Citizens to Battle Invasives in a Large County Park

System” Learn from our 8 years of experience of reaching out to educate,

encourage and train 480 citizen volunteers to direct their time and effort towards

forest stewardship as WEED WARRIORS

 

 

Following is my original exploration to a broad audience about the pros and

cons of combining true prairie and native meadow restoration with alternative

energy. This was followed up by a productive discussion this Fall (attachment F):   

 

-----Original Message-----

At the meeting today we talked about the need for ecological research on growing

native American Switch Grass as both a bio-fuel and component of prairie and

meadow restoration. We at the Anacostia Watershed Society are planning to

grow Switch Grass along the banks of the Anacostia as a component of restoration

and may be able to contribute to the research.

 

The following article by Danielle Murray, Earth Policy Institute, advocates

environmentally responsible sources of biomass energy. In particular she notes that

"One likely candidate is Switch Grass, a tall perennial grass used by farmers to

protect land from erosion. It requires minimal irrigation, fertilizer, or herbicides

but yields 2-3 times more ethanol per acre than corn does."

 

Research is urgent to determine if switch grass is a practicable source of bio-fuel

when harvested from native prairie and meadow restoration. It is great as a crop

but if it is also good when harvested as a dominate component of native ecosystem

restoration we would have an environmental benefit as well as an alternative energy

benefit. Native prairie restoration would get a much needed boost across millions

of acres in vast areas of the United States that were natural prairies in pre-colonial

times.

 

Fortunately the research just takes a few years unlike forest restoration research.

Research will probably yield good results but is still necessary for us to be sure.

 

Maintenance of these open ecosystems is carried out by a mosaic pattern of fire

and/or grazing that follows the natural pattern of fire and grazing by bison and

other grazers. Maintenance mowing is done once a year in mid or late summer

about one foot above ground. Switch grass is a dominant component of native

American prairie and meadow species along with Indian Grass, Joe-pye Weed

and Bluestem.

 

It would be great to have your opinion on the status of research on this issue and

what we should advocate. Could you also forward this to researchers with the

Kansas restoration project. Cheers.

 

Marc Imlay, PhD

Conservation biologist, Anacostia Watershed Society
(301-699-6204, 301-283-0808)
Board member of the Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council,
Hui o Laka at Kokee State Park, Hawaii
Vice president of the Maryland Native Plant Society,
Chair of the Biodiversity and Habitat Stewardship Committee
for the Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club.

 

Thanks again everyone! Marc

 

 

Remember our five year goal: It is considered standard that such invasive plant

removal projects are normally done throughout the region, the nation, and the world.

 

 

 

 

Marc,

 

I got your request about deer and invasives.  I think you might like to take a read over our recent paper (see attached).  It may have some information you might find useful.  We are in the process of writing up the entire 4 year study in which we grew 11,512 seedlings (79% of which were exotic to CT) from 566 deer pellet piles.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Scott

Scott C. Williams
Department of Forestry and Horticulture
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
123 Huntington Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06504
Ph: 203-974-8527 - Fax: 203-974-8502
http://www.caes.state.ct.us/

 

Thank you all for the many responses to the request in November and

December, 2006, for research findings on the effect on native plants of

partial control of specific species of invasive plants, as opposed to no

control or complete control in areas where deer densities are documented

to be 30 per square mile or greater. With the extirpation of the cougar

and wolf predators at most sites and limited predation by coyotes, it is

essential to have managed hunts to reduce deer to 10-20 per square mile.

 

I am soliciting research findings specifically for areas where invasive plants

are being removed and deer are not being controlled. It has been suggested

by deer managers that certain species of non-native invasive plants, such as

Japanese honeysuckle that deer eat, thorny or toxic exotics and other

non-native invasive plants that deer avoid such as Japanese Stiltgrass, should

only be partially controlled so the deer can not find, or so that the deer avoid

the native plants.   

 

Deer density is often measured in various ways such as by noting the

presence or absence of greenbrier leaves at the browse level as well as by

aerial photography. Is there a threshold level of deer density below which

invasive plant managers do not have to be concerned with deer issues?  

 

I was very pleased to note in the response from Robert Line that “We do not

have any sites where we are controlling invasives and not controlling deer.”

That is the approach taken at Chapman Forest in Maryland.

 

The responses, in general, argue that no such adjustment in management of

invasives to leave some invasives is appropriate to better protect native species

where deer are not being controlled.  Several responses describe research

which may yield information but research more specifically focused on this

question is important and urged to assist invasive plant managers very

frustrated by this question on a daily basis. See Bates, December 13, 2006

below, and Nowicki November 21, 2006.  Natives may hypothetically be

greater in abundance  in the early years of the study but not in the end stages

of the study where invasives are removed and deer are not controlled.

 

 

Marc Imlay, PhD

 

Conservation biologist, Anacostia Watershed Society

(301-699-6204, 301-283-0808 301-442-5657 cell)

Board member of the Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council,

Hui o Laka at Kokee State Park, Hawaii

Vice president of the Maryland Native Plant Society,

Chair of the Biodiversity and Habitat Stewardship Committee

for the Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club

 

 

From: naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com [mailto:naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Line Robert L. (DNREC)
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:00 AM
To: naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [naturalareasassociation] Interaction of non-native invasive plant removal and deer control

 

Mark,

 

We have been conducting a study with deer exclosures in areas of our Piedmont state parks for the past several years.  In general results indicate that deer are suppressing both natives and non-natives, especially multiflora rose in our study sites.  Basically deer will eat anything and everything until nothing is left.  Some of our northern suburban parks had upwards of 175 to 200 deer per sq. mile estimated from seven years of spotlight data we collected indicating the depth of our problem…and it could get worse if we are not successful.

 

We do not have any sites where we are controlling invasives and not controlling deer.  We have one site with a very low deer population that is not hunted, but it is not a priority on limited resources at this time.  Got a grant suggestion for such a study?

 

Editorial comments:  We will all fail in ecological restoration efforts if we do not control deer. The idea that some invasives should be kept around for deer browse only comes from deer managers managing their seasons for hunters and non-hunters alike under modern conditions.  It is all they know.  They see deer eating Japanese honeysuckle and so it must be a good thing.  After all, some places there isn’t a whole lot else to eat.

 

Modern deer management (which is really more people management) has become what wildlife biologists term “socially sustainable deer management” which basically means that their telephones are not ringing off the hook with complaints from hunters, homeowners, car insurance industry, Lyme disease victims and anti-hunters.  It has more to do with policy than biology.

 

Deer have the ability to browse and graze hundreds of different species of plants.  They adapt their food habits to the season.  In drought years it may vary considerably from wet years, agricultural areas will differ from suburban areas.  They ‘taste test’ food for nutritional value and regularly search out the most nutritious available food at the time.  For example, most of the year they avoid tulip trees, but in the fall they love the yellow leaves right when they fall to the ground.  Hunters take advantage of constant search for nutrition with food plots, a potential technique available to land managers to help kill more deer in some locations where food availability has been depressed and/or degraded (most of the eastern half of the US with the exception of agricultural zones).  Yet food plots themselves could become a potential threat for introducing new as yet unknown invasive herbs to the woods.  Check out the plant mixes in these things. 

 

Recent studies of deer consuming & moving bush honeysuckle fruit reminded me of past restoration efforts I completed in Florida where raccoons were moving invasive fruit all over our restoration sites planting new generations of invasives, but when the sites began to recover, raccoons switched their diets to the once again available native fruits and began helping to restore sites instead of degrade them. 

 

Even if we get some of our parks deer populations under control, and control invasives too (both monstrous challenges) it will take decades for many sites to recover after 25 - 50 years of deer over-population.  And we need to get our wildlife agencies on board with these efforts.   Of course the third leg of this stool is reintroducing fire as an ecological component in oak woodlands… we need all three.

 

Rob Line
Environmental Stewardship Program
Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway, Dover DE 19901
(302)739-9220 office; (302)388-4485 cellular

 

 

 

From: Lisa Nowicki [mailto:lnowicki@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:52 PM
To: 'Marc Imlay'
Subject: RE: [ma-eppc] Interaction of non-native invasive plant removal and deer control

 

Hi Marc,

 

I am doing a study at one of our preserves that may relate to your study; however, the project is very young and only two summers of data have been collected.

 

We have 3-30x60 study plots set up, each w/ a different treatment:

a.    deer exclosure fencing, invasive species removal

b.    deer exclosure fencing, invasive species removal, supplemental native plantings

c.    invasive species removal

I can explain why there is no control.  This project was designed as a demonstration and education tool for restoration, not for scientific study.  the goal is to restore the entire 100-acre preserve to a more natural, diverse native ecosystem and to educate and promote ecological restoration along the way.

 

We annually collect a species list in 3 subplots (3-10x10m for shrub layer, 15-1x1m for herb layer) within each of a, b, and c plots.  We also collect % coverage class

data for non-natives.

 

We have one collection of pre-treatment data (May 2005), and two collections of post-treatment data (Sept 2005 and May 2006).

 

Please call or email me if you would like to discuss.  I may be able to tweek my study if it relates to our goals (since we are trying to control the deer damage).

 

My 2005 summer intern compared the May 2005 and Sept 2005 data.

The May 2006 data has not yet been analyzed.

 

Lisa

Lisa Y. Nowicki
Conservation Biologist
Heritage Conservancy
85 Old Dublin Pike
Doylestown, PA  18901
(215) 345-7020, ext 134
fax (215) 345-4328
www.heritageconservancy.org

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Scott_Bates@... [mailto:Scott_Bates@...]

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:48 AM

To: pwiecz@...; marc@...

Cc: Sue_Salmons@...; Jil_Swearingen@...

Subject: Deer and Invasives

 

Peter - Deanna Dawson and I led an investigation looking at the differences in regeneration, overstory and understory composition, and vertical foliage cover at different heights that would affect ground-nesting birds at Catoctin and the Frederick City Watershed but we did not collect data on invasive species.

 

Bill McShea and his crew have been working on the proposal below that would serve as a preliminary to what you are asking for but does not directly address the question of a specific density.  If we ever do see deer densities as low as 30 per square mile it would be interesting to compare invasives or indicators such as greenbrier.  At this point only Prince William has densities less than 30-40 per square mile.

 

 

 

 

Project Title: Assess Impacts of Deer/Invasive Plant Interactions on Native Vegetation at Potomac Gorge

 

Description

 

This proposed cutting-edge research will use deer exclosures and control plots in an experimental design to test the interaction of these two critical factors on vegetation diversity. The objectives of this proposal are to 1) monitor herbaceous plant diversity with respect to native and invasive species; 2) investigate the consequences of reduced deer browsing on the abundance and diversity of herbaceous species; 3) monitor tree regeneration at GMT and GF at a percent relative precision level (coefficient of variation) on an annual basis of 25% or less; 4) investigate the relative importance of deer browsing on rates of tree regeneration; and 5) investigate whether initial density of invasive species affects the response of woody and herbaceous species to reduced deer browsing. Obtaining this critical yet missing information will help shape Park management practices related to the deer/invasive species interface in vegetation and ecosystem management.

 

 

Justifications

 

RESOURCE CATEGORY: Natural Resource Information. This project will provide information to improve natural resource knowledge, condition, and management, and as such it is not eligible for funding under the other programs. Because the proposed study is experimental, directed toward a specific resource management issue, and results in a set of management recommendations over a limited time-span, it does not fall within other NPS funding guidelines.

 

 

Multi-Park Proposal: CHOH and GWMP

 

 

Multi-Year Proposal: FY05-07

 

 

Amount requested by year: $20,000 in FY05; $19,700 in FY06; and $20,000 in FY07. Total = $59,700

 

 

PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATORS: William McShea, Smithsonian Institution/Wildlife Conservation Society; Chad Stewart, Smithsonian Institution; Scott Bates, National Park Service, National Capital Region, National Park Service

 

 

PROJECT STATEMENT:

 

 

BRIEF PROJECT OVERVIEW. The Potomac Gorge is one of the most biologically diverse sites in the Eastern United States, with over 200 rare species and natural communities. The 2001 NPS/TNC Potomac Gorge Site Conservation Plan ranked deer overbrowse as a top threat to the natural resources of the Gorge. The Plan postulated the interaction between deer browse and the spread of invasive species, and the need to understand how these two factors are affecting natural resources in the Gorge. The relationship between deer herbivory and invasive species proliferation has received little study, despite its significance for natural areas management.

This

proposed cutting-edge research will use exclosures and control plots in an experimental design to test the interaction of these two critical factors on vegetation diversity. The proposed research is a high priority for both Parks, significant to advancing park management goals, and critical to understanding the Potomac Gorge and other regional Park ecosystems.

 

 

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY. The Goldmine Tract (GMT) forest on the Maryland side of the Potomac River has been described as the largest extant block of Piedmont forest in Maryland (Bartgis et al. 1993). On the Virginia side of the Potomac Gorge (POGO), Great Falls National Park (GF) contains old growth sites that are rare in the state and the region (Abrams and Copenheaver 1999). The POGO Site Conservation Plan (SCP) lists these upland forest blocks as a priority conservation target or focus for natural resource management (Allen and Flack 2001). The SCP also cited deer overbrowsing as a threat to the upland forest blocks, and recommended that conservation action be undertaken to limit the size of deer populations to protect native plant species and natural communities.

 

 

The upland forest blocks of the Goldmine Tract and Great Falls National Park (VA) support both rare and common species and regionally representative natural communities. There are at least 10 recorded threatened and endangered plant species in these upland forest blocks.

In

some cases, deer overbrowse is believed to be directly responsible for the loss of rare and threatened species (Wiegand pers. comm. 2004). Deer overpopulation negatively impacts tree regeneration, an important ecological process that is critical to long-term ecosystem health and the parks' natural resource protection mandate (DeCalesta 1997, Horsley et al.

2003). Deer browsing is also implicated in low abundances of several herbaceous species (Fletcher et al. 2001).

 

 

Whereas deer effect the survival of plant species through browsing, invasive plant species can reduce survival of native species through competition for resources and changes in microenvironment (Ehrenfeld and Scott 2001). The affects of deer and invasive species on native plants do not work independently. Deer browsing can focus on native species or plants that rise above the height of invasive species. Deer browsing may also shift the ratio of vines to shrubs in the understory, since vines can escape deer browsing through rapid growth. Invasive species are more common in disturbance habitats (Hobbs 2000), and deer may create disturbance microenvironments through their feeding and bedding activities, and their creation of trails that become converted to human social or unofficial trails in heavy recreational use areas like the Potomac Gorge. The reduction of deer browsing on plant communities could tip the balance so that competitive interactions and microenvironments favor native species over their invasive competitors. A caveat is that whether invasive or native species come to dominate a specific site following deer reduction might depend on initial abundances of plant species. Multiple stable states are possible within plant communities and starting points determine which stable state is achieved (Schmitz and Sinclair 1997).

 

 

Current deer density (Fall 2003) at GMT is 39.9 deer per square kilometer and 35.1 per square kilometer at GF. The recommended threshold for taking conservation action within the NPS National Capital Region (NCR) is 20 deer per square kilometer (based on Tilghman 1989), suggesting that deer densities are nearly twice the level whereby action should be taken.

Invasive species are common and pervasive throughout both GMT and GF, including garlic mustard (Allaria petiolata), mile-a-minute (Polygunum perfoliatum), and Japanese stiltgrass or eulalia (Microstegium vimineum).

Our hypothesis is that management of tree regeneration and herbaceous plant diversity must take an approach that includes the potential interaction between limiting factors, such as deer damage and invasive species.

 

 

The objectives of this proposal are to 1) monitor herbaceous plant diversity with respect to native and invasive species; 2) investigate the consequences of reduced deer browsing on the abundance and diversity of herbaceous species; 3) monitor tree regeneration at GMT and GF at a percent relative precision level (coefficient of variation) on an annual basis of 25% or less; 4) investigate the relative importance of deer browsing on rates of tree regeneration; and 5) investigate whether initial density of invasive species affects the response of woody and herbaceous species to reduced deer browsing. Obtaining this critical yet missing information will help shape Park management practices related to the deer/invasive species interface in vegetation and ecosystem management.

 

 

TREE REGENERATION - PREVIOUS BASELINE SURVEY. As a preliminary study, eleven regeneration plots were measured at the Gold Mine Tract and 26 were measured at Great Falls in July and August of 2003 to determine whether trees were adequately stocked with regard to low versus high deer densities. Each plot is centered on a GPS coordinate. Four 1-meter radius circles were located 30 meters in each cardinal direction from the marked coordinate. Tree seedlings (dbh < 2.54 cm) were tallied by species and height. Height classes were divided into four categories (weighted scores in parentheses): 5 cm -30 cm (1); 30 cm -100 cm (2); 100 cm -150 cm (15), and > 150 cm (30). A weighted score of 10 or more indicated a plot stocked for low deer density; a score of 30 or more indicated a plot stocked for high deer density. The final weighted score for each plot was the average score of the four circles. Seedlings of all woody tree species were recorded, although species that proliferate with high deer densities, such as paw paw and spicebush (Asimina triloba and Lindera benzoin), were not included as part of the weighted score. At least 50% of the circles must attain a weighted score of 10 for a plot to be adequately stocked for low deer densities and a weighted score of 30 for high deer densities.

 

 

At GMT, four of eleven plots were found to be adequately stocked for low deer density. GF had two out of 26 plots stocked for low deer density.

None

of the plots were adequately stocked for high deer densities, suggesting that these forest tracts are not self-sustaining under current recruitment rates. That is, if current deer browse levels continue, it is unlikely that these forests will be able to regenerate and persist over time.

 

 

While these results indicated low tree regeneration, climate and sample size must be taken into consideration. Precipitation during the April-May-June period in 2003 was 15.64 inches, well over the mean of 10 inches for the District of Columbia. In 2002, during the same period, precipitation was 9 inches, slightly below normal. The number of plots in this initial investigation could also be considered to be low. Assuming a percent relative precision (Sutherland 1996) of 25%, an additional 25 plots should be added to GMT for a total of 36. Sixty-two plots should be added to GF for a total of 88. This should be considered the minimal sample size needed to examine a single factor, such as deer browsing, on woody seedling recruitment.

 

 

PROPOSED STUDY DESIGN. The proposed research involves three phases: (1) an initial survey in Summer 2005 to establish 225 open vegetation study plots at GMT and GF; (2) construction of 65 fenced deer exclosures in Winter 2006; and (3) herbaceous vegetation response resurvey in Summer 2007. A follow-up phase (to be funded by the project partners, not the proposed SPIN project award) in 2008-2010 will ensure that exclosure integrity is maintained, and that tree species regeneration is resurveyed in year 6, by which time seedling response to deer exclusion should be apparent.

 

 

INITIAL OPEN PLOT VEGETATION SURVEY - SUMMER 2005. In Summer

(June-September) 2005, we will lay out and survey 125 open vegetation plots within GF and 100 plots within GMT. Each plot will be composed of 4 replicate 1 x 1 m squares whose corners are placed 1 m from the plot center on each cardinal direction. During the survey, each square will be delineated with wire flags and measuring tapes. There will be 5 permanent stakes (wooden or metal) left at each sample plot. Those stakes will be placed at the center point and the distant corner of each sample square.

A

subset of these plots (n = 65) will later be fenced at 4 m x 4 m with the vegetation squares in the center (see Figure 1, to be distributed by Diane Pavek to the review team). Plot locations will be determined with GIS using a stratified random procedure. Eligible locations will be on slopes of less than 20%, within upland Quercus or Fagus dominated habitat (Lea and Simmons 2002), located > 50 m from another plot, and not on a habitat boundary.

Slope and aspect for each regeneration plot will be recorded. The spatial location of the plot will be placed with a GIS and metrics for elevation, and distances to habitat edge, streams, and trails will be determined.

Base

maps for each metric will be obtained from each park.

 

 

Within each 1x1 m square we will identify to species all plants < 0.3 m in height. We will record the abundance of all species, except those with > 20 individuals which will be placed in abundance classes (i.e. 21-50; 51-100;

> 100). For coverage species, such as ferns and grasses, aerial coverage

will be estimated for 4 classes (1-10%; 11-25%; 25-75%; 76-100%) using ocular estimates. All woody seedlings will be examined for browse damage (i.e. removal of terminal bud on twigs).

 

 

Foliage height diversity will be used to measure cover available to wildlife. This will be measured by counting the number of stems touching a pvc pole marked to indicate 6 height classes (0-0.1, 0.1-0.3, 0.3-0.5, 0.5-1.0, 1.0-1.5, and 1.5-2.0 meters). Measurements will be taken every 40 centimeters along the 3 m lengths of the sapling square. There will be 30 measurement points within each exclosure and the values for each height category will be averaged for the plot. All saplings (dbh < 2.5 cm and height of 0.3-2 m.) within the larger square encompassed by the outline of the 4 seedling squares will identified, and examined for browse damage.

Browse damage will be expressed as the number of twigs damaged/total number of twigs examined. The total number of saplings will be counted within the

4 1-meter blocks. The area of 4 1-meter blocks is 9 meters, which is similar to Marquis' (1992) threshold (10.50). At least 2 saplings per plot will be required for adequate stocking for saplings. Live tree densities will be measured by using a 10 degree basal area prism at plot center.

Trees will be identified to species and their diameter at breast height

(dbh) will be measured with a metric dbh tape. The 4 x 4 meter square will also serve as deer pellet-group plots. Squares will be cleared of all pellet-groups and will be checked after 60 days. We will use 2 measures of deer use, pellet-groups within the plot and the mean number of pellets for all plots within 1 km of the plot.

 

 

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. Following 90% completion of the initial survey, sample plots will be examined for regeneration abundance and proportion of invasive species. Gross categories of "low" and "high" will be derived from examining a distribution of values for the plots and using the median value to divide the plots. We will examine the plot distributions and locate the remaining 10% of the plots to include under-represented categories.

Although 4 categories of plots are possible, we anticipate only 3 categories to be common and will not strive to fill the 4th category of both high invasive species and regeneration stock. The final distribution of plots will be: 60 plots in low regeneration stock and low invasive species; 60 plots in high regeneration stock and low invasive species; and

105 plots in low regeneration stock and high invasive species.

 

 

From the initial survey of 225 plots in 2005 we can conduct some analyses.

Our dependent variable is the number of woody seedlings per plot and independent variables are the numbers of pellet-groups (local and

regional)

, percent coverage of grasses and ferns, percent twigs browsed, tree density, proportion of native to invasive herbaceous species, slope, aspect, and landscape metrics will be examined using step-wise linear regression for factors that correlate with regeneration abundance (Stout

1999) at GMT and GF. The number of woody saplings and the mean number of stems in each foliage height class will also be used as dependent variables in a step-wise linear regression with the same independent variables. If the densities of woody seedlings and saplings are low, a logistic regression with presence/absence of seedlings and saplings will be used for the analysis.

 

 

EXCLOSURE PHASE: FALL 2005 - FALL 2007. In Winter 2006, we will erect fenced deer exclosures around 65 of the 225 vegetation study plots: 45 at GF and 20 at GMT. From the pool of low invasive species plots, we will select 16 plots with low regeneration stock and 16 with high regeneration stock for fenced exclosures. From the high invasive species pool, we will select 33 plots for exclosures. We will subdivide this last group and, within 15 plots, we will manually remove all invasive species within the

4x4 m study plot prior to construction of the fence (Fall 2005) and repeated visits to the plots during the first growing season (Spring-Summer

2006) will maintain the plots free of invasive species. At the same time we will manually remove invasive species from 15 plots within the control group for this category, and revisit these sites to remove invasives on the same schedule as the fenced plots. The fenced and control plots will be in proportion to the available habitat on each park, with roughly 2/3 of the plots on GF. In summary, there will be 65 plots fenced to exclude deer during the Fall-Winter of 2005/2006, with 160 plots as control. GF will contain 45 of these fenced plots and GMT will contain 20. The number of fenced plots is consistent with the amount of variation observed in the pilot vegetation study.

 

 

The fenced exclosures will be 4.0 m. x 4.0 m, with a height of 2 m. A 1-meter buffer from the fence within the exclosure should be maintained to reduce edge effects, serve as a buffer in our invasive removal protocol, and to allow room for vegetation disturbance during exclosure construction.

Even limiting the number of exclosures to the smallest number required to yield statistically significant results, this project would require about 1040 m of fencing. There is a low visibility plastic fence designed for deer exclosures (Benner's Gardens) that would use metal stakes (less disturbance than wooden posts), and fence construction using this material would cost about $6.25/meter (or $6500 for all fencing materials).

Cultural

resource staff would approve all fenced sites, and we have some leeway in the site selection process, as the 65 sites would be selected from among the 225 surveyed vegetation plots. We would use standing trees when possible to reduce ground disturbance, and all locations would be searched with a metal detector prior to sinking stakes.

 

 

In Spring 2007 we will inspect all invasive-removal plots and remove invasives where warranted. The resurvey of vegetation will be conducted in Summer 2007 (June/September). It will ideally be conducted by the same botanist contracted for the original survey, but either way will entail the same protocol. All woody and herbaceous vegetation will be identified and counted; vegetation structure quantified; and deer pellets recounted for control plots.

 

Scott Bates

NCR-NPS Wildlife Biologist

 

From: naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com [mailto:naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of yakimapark@...
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 8:32 PM
To: naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [naturalareasassociation] Interaction of non-native invasive plant remova...

 

I cannot imagine that planting exotics would "protect" native vegetation.  Having studied deer and elk over many years in New Mexico, and observed that "ice cream" plants are always nuked- it doesn't matter what they are growing with.  The presence of non-natives had absolutely no effect that I could observe, except that they take up space that palatable plants would inhabit and the non palatable ones put even more pressure on the smaller amount of remaining native palatable vegetation.  Non-natives also seem to support populations of exotic invasive invertebrate plant pests.  I certainly probably would not recommend planting them in this kind of situation.- Marcia H. Wolfe

 

 

---

From: Hairston-Strang, Anne [mailto:ASTRANG@...]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:57 PM
To: ialm@...
Subject: FW: Oh Deer! Environmental Forum on the Web

 

Marc,

You had asked about deer density thresholds some time ago.  This references 20/mi2.  I have heard others lower-don’t have cites handy.

Anne

 

Anne Hairston-Strang, Ph.D.

Forest Hydrologist

580 Taylor Ave., E-1

Annapolis, MD  21401

410-260-8509/ 410-260-8595 FAX

astrang@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Rodgers [mailto:frodgers@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:47 AM
To: Cacapon Institute
Subject: Oh Deer! Environmental Forum on the Web

 

 

---

From: Risa Marmontello [mailto:earthmate@...]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:58 PM
To: 'Marc Imlay'
Subject: RE: [ma-eppc] Interaction of non-native invasive plant removal and deer control

 

Marc,   How common is it for deer to eat Japanese Honeysuckle?   Is it something they browse when they have trouble getting to ground plants?  I notice they will eat English Ivy growing up trees in heavy snow.  But have never noticed them eating Honeysuckle. 

 

Risa

 

---

From: naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com [mailto:naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marilyn Ortt
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:56 PM
To: naturalareasassociation@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [naturalareasassociation] Interaction of non-native invasive plant removal and deer control

 

Anyone who thinks deer will control Japanese honeysuckle should come to mid-Ohio Valley - we have too many/much of both and I don't really see much evidence of serious browse on the honeysuckle.

I don't have anything quantitative though.

Marilyn Ortt

 

 

---

From: Marc Imlay [mailto:ialm@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 2:34 AM
To: 'ma-eppc-brd@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [ma-eppc-brd] Interaction of non-native invasive plant removal and deer c...

 

Steve, I agree about the role in dispersal. We should remove all the multiflora rose and reduce the deer population to a natural range.  If we do nothing to reduce the density of deer, however, the question I have been asked is at that specific deer density, would native plants benefit from partial reduction of multiflora rose more than total reduction. They will virtually disappear if we do not reduce the invasive species. But what happens to the native species if we do an incomplete job and control some invasive plant species and eradicate, or almost eradicate, the other invasive plant species? If so, which ones and how much control is best?

 

Double Cheers.

 

             Marc

 

---

From: ma-eppc-brd@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ma-eppc-brd@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of steveyoung@...
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:05 PM
To: ma-eppc-brd@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ma-eppc-brd] Interaction of non-native invasive plant removal and deer c...

 

Marc, I think a related issue is the role the deer may play in dispersal of the invasives. I haven't researched this at all, but my gut instinct is that the deer play a *major* role in dispersal of some of the worst problem plants including Garlic Mustard and Microstegium. For example, seeds getting in their coats and/or their feet and getting tracked around. In particular this, if true, would argue against intentionally leaving some of the invasives...? I would hope that others may have found some literature on this or at least have better-informed views.

 

I have noted that in the park behind my Mother-in-law's in Montgomery County, the dense deer population seems to be helping to keep the Multiflora Rose in check due to heavy browsing.

 

Cheers,

 

               Steve

 

Cacapon Institute

P.O. Box 68, High View, WV  26808

 (304) 856-1385 (tele)  --  (304)856-1386 (fax) 

ci@...  --  www.cacaponinstitute.org

 

 “This was great!  This was the hardest school work that I have done in my whole life.”  2005 “Oh Deer!” Environmental Forum Participant

 

 Dear Watershed Organizers, Educators, and Friends,

 

Cacapon Institute is currently enrolling high school classes in the upcoming “Oh Deer!” Environmental Forum.  Housed in our internet-based Potomac Highlands Watershed School, students participating in the Forum explore the ecological, agricultural, and societal issues caused by having too many deer.  Students then challenge one another across the internet to find socially and environmentally acceptable solutions to this complex environmental problem. 

 

The Forum provides environmental organizations of all sorts with an opportunity to engage both students and community in their issues and their missions, and to build their capacity as an organization. You are invited to participate in the Oh Deer! Forum by recruiting a local teacher and class, and then joining in their exploration of the science and politics of this issue.  Please share this invitation with interested organization, schools, and teachers.

 

Cacapon Institute’s (CI) internet-based Environmental Forums challenge students to think deeply about complex issues that are relevant to their lives – and challenge their peers across the internet to do the same.  The result can be electrifying:

 

‘I was shocked and amazed to observe the strong stances that many of my students took on their points of views…The most rewarding experience for me was the students’ response at the end of consensus work.  All the students leaned back in their chairs and collapsed with a sense of satisfied accomplishment.’  Sharon Harman, Ph.D., Petersburg H.S., West Virginia

 

Housed in CI’s web-based Potomac Highlands Watershed School, our Environmental Forums are available throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to high school classes in social studies, science, vocational agriculture and others.  In addition to the Environmental Forum, the Potomac Highland Watershed School has elementary, middle, and high school activities.  The web site also has teacher resources including lesson plans for increasing understanding of, and enhancing appreciation for, water resources and land management.  Please visit us at www.cacaponinstitute.org/e_classroom.htm.

 

Sign Up Now For The October 2006 Forum!

 

Oh Deer!

As we all know, the actions of people can dramatically affected the health of ecosystems.  In the Oh Deer! Forum students investigate the impacts of overabundant deer populations on forest health, agriculture, homeowners, hunters, and even deer themselves.  They then challenge each other to find socially acceptable remedies to this problem.  How big is the problem?  Many foresters believe that deer populations denser than 20 per square mile are responsible for the lack of forest regeneration.  In parts of the Mid-Atlantic region overpopulation has reached as high as 60 per square mile!  WVU researchers found that deer foraging threatens the survival of ginseng, a medicinal plant that generates more than $2 million in income annually.  A 1980 survey of WV farmers indicated deer cost farmers as much as $35 million every year.  Join us to learn more and watch students seek solutions to this hot-button problem.

 

In addition to the Oh Deer! Forum in October, we host a Stream Cleaner Environmental Forum on Water Quality and Best Management in the spring.  Available to any public or private high school with internet access, the web based, multi-school learning exchanges challenge students in a simulated stakeholder process to explore the science and societal impact of environmental issues.  They then use this knowledge to engage their peers across the internet and to propose solution to serious and pressing environmental problems.  To see students’ performance in the 2005 Environmental Forums just click on the go to Cacapon Institute’s E-Classroom High School at  www.cacaponinstitute.org/high.htm and click on the phone.

 

How Does a PHWS Environmental Forum Work?

In addition to a broad range of links and reading material found on typical web sites, the Potomac Highlands Watershed School’s Environmental Forums have four unique elements to broaden students’ knowledge and engage them in environmental issues.

1.       Native Guides – In addition to background reading, slide shows, and links to scientific materials the Forum includes essays from real life experts who tell their personal story.

2.       Stakeholder Group – Students are directed to form small stakeholders groups representing farmers, land owners, environmentalists, etc. and draft “Point Of View” position papers that are posted on the Forums web page.

3.       Position Papers – After the POVs are posted on the web, students in participating schools check out their peer’s work, pose Thoughtful Question across the web, and refine their positions.

4.       Final Consensus Plans – After posting POVs, questioning their peers, and modifying their positions, students, as a class, then must balance the concerns of all the stakeholder groups to negotiate a consensus position that is acceptable to all.

Coming in Spring 2007

Stream Cleaner Environmental Forum on Water Quality and Best Management (SCE Forum). The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and an important source of livelihood, recreation, and cultural heritage that, after years of pollution, is in trouble.  All of the states in the Bay watershed are working to reduce the flow of nutrients and sediment to the Bay, which will help restore it to health.  This effort will impact every community in the region for many years.  Classes participating in the SCE Forum spend three weeks learning about water quality science that is used to understand the Bay’s problems and monitor changes, the “best management practices” that are used to reduce the flow of pollution from our lands, the politics of seeking solutions acceptable to our diverse community, and the challenge of fostering widespread public acceptance and implementation of the voluntary land use changes needed to protect our local waters and the Bay.  Their challenge as a class is to propose a solution that really cleans our streams and that their community would find acceptable.  The classes that propose the best solutions will be funded to install projects on or near their school property to demonstrate the use of best management practices and to use as long-term living classrooms.  The SCE Forum’s activities fit into the need for broad-based education and outreach that are a Chesapeake Bay Program priority for increasing public awareness and personal involvement in restoring local watersheds.

 

If you are interested in participating, can recommend a school to participate, or would like additional information, please contact Frank Rodgers at (304) 856-1385 or by email at ci@...

Sincerely,

 

Frank Rodgers
Education & Outreach Director
ISA Certified Arborist

These projects are funded by the MARPAT Foundation, the Spring Creek Foundation, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the members of Cacapon Institute.

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: NativePlantseast@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NativePlantseast@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Tufts
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:34 AM
To: margaret.chatham@...; NativePlantseast@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NativePlantseast] Poncirus trifoliata

 

Margaret:

 

What hardy orange has going for it, in part, are deer. It is likely

that the foliage contains lots of nasty toxins so even small, young, relatively thornless plants are left

alone. Once it gains some stature, the formidable thorns probably

deer-proof it so that even if its fecundity is about zero, it can slowly

spread.

 

In our woodlands, it almost acts like a holly, doing quite well in oak

woods w/ or without a lot of soil moisture.

Although it blooms, it rarely produces fruit. But it must-- as it

continues to increase slowly in my area. I am wondering if one of its

Asiatic invasive insect buddies might not assist it in producing more

fruit. We are seeing a great increase in the number of giant resin bees

in our area as well.

 

People have different views of invasiveness and mine have changed

radically over the past thirty years. I used to dismiss exotic plants

that began to appear in our local ecosytems as naturalizing species.

Having seen a number of species explode in their ability to naturalize

however, I've really revised my definitions and any exotic species that

I see increasing year by year I think of as invasive.

 

Craig Tufts

 

 

 

>>> margaret.chatham@... 2/1/2007 10:36 PM >>>

Iąm interested to hear hardy orange being called invasive. Where Iąve

Seen it in the woods, I would rather call it persistent than invasive:

long-lived plants, slooowly spreading from old homestead plantings, but not

jumping all over the place. And while the fruit may technically be edible, Iąve

heard it wants a lot of sugar * better for marmalade than fresh eating, which

may be why itąs more likely to seed where the fruit falls than to be carried

away by hungry critters. But with thorns like those, only a determined human

is likely to remove it. Maybe it spreads more in sunnier places than where

Iąve seen it?

Margaret Chatham

 

---

From: Daniel Gluesenkamp [mailto:gluesenkamp@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:11 AM
To: 'Marc Imlay'
Subject: RE: [APWG] Interaction of non-native invasive plant removal and deercontrol

 

Hi Mark,

 

I’d love to hear what you find!  I’m sure many people are writing you with the same request.

 

Take care,

 

-dan

 

     ____________________________________________
      Daniel Gluesenkamp, Ph.D.
      Habitat Protection and Restoration
      Audubon Canyon Ranch
      707-935-8417 office
      415-939-6681 mobile

---

From: Ray Mims [mailto:rmims@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:16 AM
To: ialm@...
Cc: mtravaglini@...
Subject: Re: [APWG] Interaction of non-native invasive plant removaland deercontrol

 

You may talk to the DC/Maryland TNC. They are trying to remove invasives and also have a huge deer problem.  As well they have been doing a multiyear project with the Smithsonian looking at the effect of Deer browsing on invasives and native plants in the Potomac Gorge.

 

 

Ray Mims

 

 

 

---

From: Pfaffko, Mary (DDOE) [mailto:mary.pfaffko@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 7:32 AM
To: Marc Imlay
Subject: RE: [ma-eppc] Interaction of non-native invasive plant removal and deer control

 

Hi Mark,

 

It's too bad that I can't attend the Mid-Atlantic pest conference since I'm very interested in the deer management/invasive plant issue!

 

I would love to learn what you find out about research done on the issue, or any other info you have on it.

 

Thanks for working on this!

Mary

 

Mary Pfaffko
Wildlife Biologist
Fisheries & Wildlife Division
DC Department of the Environment
51 N St., NE, 5th floor
Washington, DC 20002
202.535.1739
mary.pfaffko@...

---

From: Patricia_DeAngelis@... [mailto:Patricia_DeAngelis@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:48 AM
To: Marc Imlay
Subject: Re: [APWG] Interaction of non-native invasive plant removal and deercontrol

 

Wow - what an interesting concept! It goes to show - we really can't thing of anything as black or white, can we?

Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
Botanist - Division of Scientific Authority
Chair - Plant Conservation Alliance - Medicinal Plant Working Group
US Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 750
Arlington, VA  22203
703-358-1708 x1753
FAX: 703-358-2276
Working for the conservation and sustainable use of our green natural resources.
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>

 

 

---

From: Jeanne Kavinski [mailto:jkavinski@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 7:27 AM
To: Marc Imlay
Subject: RE: [ma-eppc] Interaction of non-native invasive plant removal and deer control

 

Mark,

 

Are you familiar with the work of the Northern Research Station of the USDA Forest Service, formerly the Northeastern Research Station? Dr. Stephen Horsley has done work in a related area.

 

Dr. Ralph Nyland at SUNY ESF has also done a literature search and presented at the recent Society of American Foresters Annual meeting in Pittsburgh, Pa.

I will see Steve today and can pose more specific questions.

·         Northern Research Station - USDA Forest Service

 

Best regards,

 

Jeanne Marie

 

Jeanne Marie Kavinski, CTE, CF

Arboriculture/Horticulture

Duke Farms

80 Route 206 South

Hillsborough, New Jersey 08844

Phone:  908 - 243 – 3655

Fax:     908 - 722 - 3703

Email: jkavinski@...

 

New Jersey Certified Tree Expert 435

Society of American Foresters Certified Forester 3361

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Dremann [mailto:craig@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:10 AM
To: ialm@...
Cc: craig@...
Subject: Deer & grasses don't mix?--could try an experiment

 

Dear Marc,

 

Read your posting on aliens.  Deer don't eat grass, only broadleaf

plants, and trees and shrubs, because their teeth aren't designed for

grasses.  Grasses are unique in that they contain small silica bodies

that called phytoliths ("plant-stones") that are harder than steel. 

 

I don't think the deer are avoiding any exotic grasses, just because

they are exotics, but just because they are grasses.  You could try an

experiment of offering cut hay of alfalfa (which they should eat), and

hay of other grasses including the exotics in questions, and see if any

is eaten.

 

That's what we do before we try to do ecological restoration in a

particular area, we set out test plots containing the plants we want to

plant out, to see what is out there that will eat them.  We've always

have been surprised at what is eaten, and what is of no interest.

 

Perhaps that's an important aspect of a "naturalized exotic plant"--it

is a species that has been introduced into an area that is lacking an

animal or insect that eats it, thereby allowing the plant to live

outside of an ecosystem structure, to persist and spread?

 

Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333

 

From: Peter Wieczorowski [mailto:pwiecz@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:25 PM
To: marc imlay
Cc: AnacostiaWatershedSociety
Subject: Deer management reply
 
Dear Marc –
 
I apologize for taking so long to respond to email you sent about deer management and its relation to invasive exotic plant management.  I simply missed your email until now, I’m embarrassed to admit.
 
You raise some important points, many of which are on the minds of local NPS natural resource managers, too.  I recently attended a NEPA-related public information meeting in Rock Creek Park for their nascent, draft deer management plan and have spoken with NPS and DC government personnel on the subject.
 
In a nutshell, most, if not all, information on deer impact and invasives is anecdotal, such as “Microstegium  seems to thrive where deer are overpopulated”.  To the best of my knowledge, which is limited, there have been no studies on either the correlation of browsing to invasive spread or the spread of invasives through scat and fur transportation.  It is commonly accepted that most of the worst exotics are unpalatable to deer, and I recall hearing of a recent study that suggests that deer can somehow be trained to avoid eating certain native plants, but conclusive research seems to be wanting.
 
However, as you know, extensive research has been done on sustainable deer population levels, with an eye to ecosystem preservation and restoration.  Here is a link to the draft management plan for Catoctin Mountain Park (NPS).  http://www.nps.gov/cato/parkmgmt/upload/DeerEIS.pdf
 
I spoke with Donna Swauger, the Catoctin plan’s contact person, and ordered a hard copy for myself today, and asked her to mail you one, too.  It should arrive next week.  This voluminous report (300+ pages) covers the subject of deer management exhaustively – it’s a real tome – but in the sections on invasives it doesn’t cite hard research, unlike its sections on sustainable populations, native plant impacts, etc.  Nevertheless, I refer you to page 344 and onward where you will find its comprehensive reference section.
 
I also found these pages pertinent – 15, 21, 44, 45, 63, 107, 120 (impact on other wildlife), 158 (deer management program costs).  I only gave it a cursory read and no doubt you will find other sections equally interesting.
 
Rock Creek’s deer management draft plan should be out early in 2007.  I imagine it will be similar in scope and nature.
 
Locally, Scott Bates of the Center for Urban Ecology (NPS) is a coauthor.  I will forward your question to him separately and see if he has any ideas on the subject..
 
Best wishes,
Pete
 

--------------------------------------
Peter R. Wieczorowski (veech-or-OF-skee)
DC Woodlands
Washington, DC
(202) 966-9825
www.dcwoodlands.org

 

 

---

From: Scott C. Williams [mailto:scott.williams@...]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:16 AM
To: marc imlay
Subject: Deer and Invasives

 

Marc,

 

I got your request about deer and invasives.  I think you might like to take a read over our recent paper (see attached).  It may have some information you might find useful.  We are in the process of writing up the entire 4 year study in which we grew 11,512 seedlings (79% of which were exotic to CT) from 566 deer pellet piles.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Scott

Scott C. Williams
Department of Forestry and Horticulture
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
123 Huntington Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06504
Ph: 203-974-8527 - Fax: 203-974-8502
http://www.caes.state.ct.us/