sustainable reclamation: sustainable reclamation: evaluating autumn olive control strategies at the...
Post on 27-Mar-2015
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainable Reclamation:Sustainable Reclamation: Evaluating Autumn Olive Control Strategies at
The Wilds Conservation Center, Cumberland, Ohio
Shana Byrd*, Director, Restoration Ecology Program, The WildsShana Byrd*, Director, Restoration Ecology Program, The WildsNicole Cavender, VP Science & Conservation, The Morton ArboretumNicole Cavender, VP Science & Conservation, The Morton Arboretum
Corine Peugh, Assistant, Restoration Ecology Program, The WildsCorine Peugh, Assistant, Restoration Ecology Program, The WildsJenise Bauman, Director, Conservation Science Training, The WildsJenise Bauman, Director, Conservation Science Training, The Wilds
Nearly 10,000 acres of reclaimed surface-mine land in southeastern Ohio
AEP donated land in 1984 Non-profit, opened to public in 1994 Today, this land serves as a conservation research and education center 100,000 visitor annually
History:History:
the Wildsthe Wilds
the Wilds Mission
Advancing Conservation Through Science, Education, and Personal Experience
The Wilds Landscape
During Mining Operations
The Big Muskie
Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata)
Utilized in reclamation (ODNR 1983) to reduce erosion and improve nitrogen content of the soil
Has since invaded open pastures, thereby reducing quality of cool-season grasslands for obligate birds, such as the Henslow’s Sparrow and other wildlife species.
Conversion alters the function of these habitats by interrupting the open space with woody vegetation that may increase chances for nest predation (Swanson 1996).
Control measures are difficult, due to abundant seed production and aggressive re-sprouting.
Superior competitor (has done it’s job a little too well)…
The Wilds: Landscape Conversion
Dense cover
ElandSable Antelope
Southern White Rhinoceros
CheetahSichuan Takin
Bactrian Camels & Grevy’s Zebra
Ideal setting for studying how wildlife are currently using the habitat and Ideal setting for studying how wildlife are currently using the habitat and how we can improve it to benefit these populations. how we can improve it to benefit these populations.
Restore Ecosystem Functions & Biodiversity
Goals of the Wilds Restoration Ecology Program:Goals of the Wilds Restoration Ecology Program:
•increase biodiversityincrease biodiversity on a landscape scale on a landscape scale
•create habitatcreate habitat that is more that is more beneficial for wildlifebeneficial for wildlife
•study & facilitatestudy & facilitate the process of recovery the process of recovery
Eco - OpportunitiesEco - Opportunities::
Habitat ConservationHabitat Conservation
Wetland FunctionWetland Function
Carbon CaptureCarbon Capture
PollinationPollination
Conservation Centers for Species Survival
A dedicated collaboration applying unique resources to the study, management and survival of endangered species.
the Wilds - OhioFossil Rim Wildlife Center - TexasSan Diego Zoo Global – California
White Oak Conservation Center - FloridaSmithsonian Conservation Biology
Institute - Virginia
C2S2 Collaborative Study Focus: Managing Landscapes for Native Biodiversity
The Wilds Study Goal: Remove autumn olive to improve habitat for imperiled
grassland nesting birds
Field Trials: Project Background Objective:
Test effectiveness of removals in varying degrees of infestation
Share techniques with land managers to assist in creating healthier habitats for species in need of conservation (grassland obligates)
Five different techniques were explored in a two phase field trial
Phase 1 – (2007-2009) Received NFWF Project Funding –
Evaluate Methods: Foliar herbicide applications Mechanical removal Dormant stem herbicide applications
Moderate CoverModerate Cover ranging from 15-30%
Field Trials: Project Background
Phase 2 - (2010-2011) Received NRCS / EPA SWIF Project Funding –
Evaluate Methods: Mechanical land clearing combined with Mechanical land clearing combined with
chemical treatment:chemical treatment: Fracture (herbicide re-sprout only) Cut stump (immediate herbicide)
Dense CoverDense Cover ranging from 95-100%
Project Set Up:Phase 1
May 2007 Established 12
permanent plots (each about 10 acres in size) with interior vegetation survey plots
Among the plots, three replications of each treatment and a control group were designated.
Prior to treatment:
• GPS location data and metal marker tags were recorded for 25 random individual shrubs per plot.
•Total of 225 individuals tracked.
Project Set Up:Phase 1
Foliar Herbicide Treatment
CHEMICAL NAME(27.6% imazapyr isopropylamine salt) (60% metsulfuron methyl)
(Surfactant) (Drift Retardant)
August 2007
PRODUCT Arsenal Powerline Escort XP
Surf Plus 584 MSOMist Trol 336
Cost = $741 per hectare ($300 ac)
RATE16oz / 100 gal 2oz / 100 gal
16oz / 100 gal 4oz / 100 gal
Photo Credit: Mitch Kezar, Courtesy BASF
Mechanical Removal Treatment
EQUIPMENT
John Deer Backhoe 3110D
METHOD
Extracted the aboveground plant material and the main root ball
November 2007
Cost = $741 per hectare ($65 / acre)
Re-sprouting
Photo Credit: Mitch Kezar, Courtesy BASF
Dormant Herbicide Treatment
CHEMICAL(27.6% imazapyr isopropylamine salt) (61.6% triclopyr: 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyloxyacetic acid) (Surfactant)(Carrying Oil) (Drift Retardant)
PRODUCTStalkerGarlon 4
Invade 90AX-IT oilMist Trol 336
February 2008
Cost = $741 per hectare ($300 ac)
RATE16oz / 100 gal 1.5gal / 100 gal
1gal / 100 gal2.5gal / 100 galas needed / 100 gal
Temporary Footprint
Photo Credit: Mitch Kezar, Courtesy BASF
Both dormant (winter) and foliar Both dormant (winter) and foliar (summer) herbicide applications were (summer) herbicide applications were
applied with a 300 gal sprayer unit applied with a 300 gal sprayer unit using a handgun nozzle. using a handgun nozzle.
ResultsAugust 2009 – Evaluated Individual Shrubs
Comparison of mechanical, foliar and dormant stem herbicide control methods on total % mortality of autumn olive
Treatment Total % Mortality
Foliar herbicide: 98 %Arsenal Powerline™Escort XP™
Dormant stem herbicide: 71 %Stalker™Garlon 4™
Mechanical removal: 15 %John Deer 3110 D backhoe
Note: Percentages are based on total number of shrubs effectively killed.
Phase 2 Treatments: 2010-2011Management: Dense Cover
ranging from 95-100%
Based on findings, phase 2 of this study initiated in 2010
Evaluate combined mechanical & chemical treatments:
cut stump w/ herbicide fracture w/ re-sprout
spray only
Mechanical Land Clearing: Cut stump herbicide &
Fracture re-sprout herbicide
Cut-stump (with herbicide treatment): GyroTrac GT-25 cutter head Ground brush into fine mulch and left stumps flush with
the ground. Removal was directly followed with a conservative
application of a 3% concentrated solution of Stalker in penetrating oil base applied to the remaining stumps.
Fracture (with re-sprout treatment only):Fracture (with re-sprout treatment only): Skid-steer driven Fecon Bullhog model BH74 SS armed
with 30 single carbide tools on the drum head Brush was fractured at ground level and the splintered
material was left to biodegrade. Herbicide treatment was reserved only for spot
treatment of re-sprouts.
Photo Point: Before & After Mechanical Land Clearing (fracture / re-sprout only)
7-30-2010 10-19-2010
Before After
7-30-2010 10-19-2010
3-28-2011
Photo Point: Before & After Mechanical Land Clearing (fracture / re-sprout only)
Results: Phase 2 trial Hypothesis: cut stump treatment would provide most effective re-
sprout control method However, the cut stump treatment was less effective than the fracture
method (46%, 63% mortality respectively). Why? Cut stump: resulted in smooth surface, may have effectively pruned shrub,
stimulated re-growth? Fracture: resulted in damaged and coarse stump surface, may have
induced stress or inhibited vegetative recovery?
Further replicated studies are needed to determine long term control & effectiveness.
Utimatey, both mechanical land clearing methods are effective at removing the above ground woody biomass of the shrubs in areas of dense cover*
Both methods reduced initial quantity of herbicide applications, as compared to phase 1 (moderate cover).
Cost comparison of Elaeagnus umbellata treatment by various methods
Treatment Foliar herbicide Dormant stem herbicide
Land clearing: cut stump with
herbicide
Land clearing: fracture with
Re-sprout herbicide only*
Mechanical backhoe removal
only
Cost /
hectare $741 $741 $1,166 $300* $167
Time /
hectare 2 hrs 2 hrs 6.5 hrs 1.25 hrs 1.5 hrs
Labor / hectare
2 2 2 1 1
% Cover
Pre-treatment 15-30% 15-30% 95-100% 95-100% 15-30%
*Note: Spot re-sprout (foliar) treatment will include additional costs of $50 per hour, as needed, which leaves cost variable.
Insights: Autumn Olive ManagementModerate cover*:
Foliar herbicideFoliar herbicide (Arsenal/EscortXP) application is most effective method
Very effective…But, resource intensive (in dense cover) = large quantities of mixed product
Dormant stemDormant stem application (Stalker/Garlon4) slightly less effective than the foliar treatment
May allow selective treatment in “off season”
Dense cover*: Mechanical land clearingMechanical land clearing offer greatest compromise
where access with spray equipment is difficult All techniques require follow up management (total control).
Insights: Autumn Olive Management All techniques resulted in
soil disturbance, facilitating secondary facilitating secondary non-native invasions invasions
Demonstrating need for preemptive re-vegetation strategies on newly disturbed sites
Hardy seed & stock, native to the US, may be well-adapted and provide appropriate wildlife habitat
Case study underway to evaluate prairie species mix in post-removal cover
Table 1. Based on successful conversion of CSG pasture: Recommendations for reseeding hardy US native species to improve wildlife habitat value and diversity following invasive species removal in reclaimed mine lands.
Grass Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem
Forb Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed
Forb Bidens cernua Bidens
Forb Helianthus maximiliani Maximilian Sunflower
Forb Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot
Grass Panicum virgatum Switchgrass
Forb Pycnanthemum virginianum Virginia Mountainmint
Forb Ratibida pinnata Yellow Coneflower
Forb Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan
Forb Rudbeckia laciniata Cutleaf Coneflower
Forb Rudbeckia subtomentosa Sweet Coneflower
Forb Rudbeckia triloba Browneyed Susan
Grass Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass
Forb Symphyotrichum ericoides White Heath Aster
Forb Symphyotrichum laeve Smooth Blue Aster
Forb Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster
Implications for Restoration
To create sustainable landscapes, restoration plans should include planting native species that benefit local benefit local wildlife and increase biodiversitywildlife and increase biodiversity (regardless of end habitat target: forest, grassland, prairie, wetland).
Management priorities and trajectory likely based on individual goals, expense, treatment timeline and the resources available to meet the restoration plan.
When managed for long term conversion to more productive cover, reclaimed mine lands provide tremendous potential to serve as healthy habitat corridors for species in need of conservation.
Acknowledgements
Conservation Centers for Species Survival (C2S2) National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS) Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency – SWIF Funds (OEPA) Muskingum College (Dr. Danny Ingold, Dr. Jim Dooley) Townsend Chemical (Greg Ressler) BASF, Project Habitat FDC Enterprises (Fred Circle) Sarbaugh Drilling (Elden Sarbaugh) Wilds Interns and Volunteers
top related