February 11th, 2007
David Della,
Chair - Parks, Education, Libraries and Labor Committee
Seattle City Council
re: Chapel in Discovery Park
Dear Mr. Della:
We are writing today to express our concern and register our disagreement with recent decisions regarding the Building 632, known as the Chapel of Discovery Park.
Briefly, we oppose any action on the part of the City to significantly restore or renovate the existing structure and continue to support the eventual removal of the Chapel building from Discovery Park. This is a reaffirmation of a previous Discovery Park Advisory Council (DPAC) resolution in June of 2003 to support the removal of the Chapel.
Why do we believe this?
First, both the 1972 Discovery Park Master Plan and the 1986 Discovery Park Development Plan stipulate that the primary role and central purpose of the Park is “to provide an open space of quiet and tranquility” and that “future pressures to carve out sites for various civic or special activities …. must be resisted with resolution”.
Second, the Chapel has been essentially non-used and inaccessible to the public for many years. The recently proposed improvements “to allow the Chapel to become a functional Seattle Parks gathering place” represents a new and dramatically different use of the building and one that is inconsistent with Park purposes.
Third, we do not feel it’s appropriate that the City of Seattle be in the position of appearing to support a place of worship.
Lastly, we believe that any significant renovation of this building should be deferred until the role of the Chapel in the Park is publicly debated and clarified. It should not be granted special status within Discovery Park and should receive only routine maintenance, consistent with the other structures owned by the City.
Sincerely,
Pete Galloway – DPAC member
Philip Vogelzang – DPAC member
Tom Palm – DPAC member
Julia Allen – DPAC member applicant
cc Ken Bounds
Greg Nickels
Seattle City Council
Saturday, June 09, 2018
Sunday, January 01, 2017
SHORE PINES (PINUS CONTORTA) IN DISCOVERY PARK.
Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I the only one? All over Discovery Park are planted hundreds and hundreds of shore pine in an effort to "reforest" or "restore" the park. Pinus Contorta. Shore Pine. I'm seeing it everywhere. It makes me wonder what the hell is going on with forest restoration in the park? Have the Parks Department staff come under some type of spell, thinking that somehow, planting thousands of pine trees in the Park is a good thing?
Let me outline why I think it is most definitely NOT a good thing. The idea behind planting trees in the Park is to improve habitat for wildlife. This usually means birds. The bigger, the taller and the older growth the trees the better, as that provides a richer palette for more diverse bird and other wild life populations. That is our goal, at least it's mine. Unfortunately, shore pines do not fulfill this goal, in any way shape or form. It is with a great deal of confidence that I can say here and now that shore pine DO NOT WORK! They do not develop into a canopy (best for biodiversity), most of them just stop growing at around 10 years of age and fall over. Seriously. I will be happy to show you hundreds of dead shore pine carcasses that we've planted have failed and had to pull up. Seriously. Isn't it time we actually examine what we're doing and ask is it working? Shore Pines are NOT!
If you want old growth, if you want biodiversity, if you want refugia for wildlife you need a canopy. In Magnolia, located in the mid Puget Sound that means you want to be investing your time and money in a tree that will grow and thrive like Douglas Firs, Hemlocks and Western Red Cedars. The good news is, because these are also used in industrial tree farming, seedlings of these trees are extremely cheap and easy to obtain. And so should be the obvious choice of trees for forest restoration work at Discovery Park.
If you look at the time, effort and expense it requires to plant one tree in the park, would you rather plant something that will stick around for maybe 10-20 years, then die? Or would you be better off planting something that will stick around for many hundreds of years - i.e. conifers like hemlock, doug fir and cedar.
Let me outline why I think it is most definitely NOT a good thing. The idea behind planting trees in the Park is to improve habitat for wildlife. This usually means birds. The bigger, the taller and the older growth the trees the better, as that provides a richer palette for more diverse bird and other wild life populations. That is our goal, at least it's mine. Unfortunately, shore pines do not fulfill this goal, in any way shape or form. It is with a great deal of confidence that I can say here and now that shore pine DO NOT WORK! They do not develop into a canopy (best for biodiversity), most of them just stop growing at around 10 years of age and fall over. Seriously. I will be happy to show you hundreds of dead shore pine carcasses that we've planted have failed and had to pull up. Seriously. Isn't it time we actually examine what we're doing and ask is it working? Shore Pines are NOT!
If you want old growth, if you want biodiversity, if you want refugia for wildlife you need a canopy. In Magnolia, located in the mid Puget Sound that means you want to be investing your time and money in a tree that will grow and thrive like Douglas Firs, Hemlocks and Western Red Cedars. The good news is, because these are also used in industrial tree farming, seedlings of these trees are extremely cheap and easy to obtain. And so should be the obvious choice of trees for forest restoration work at Discovery Park.
If you look at the time, effort and expense it requires to plant one tree in the park, would you rather plant something that will stick around for maybe 10-20 years, then die? Or would you be better off planting something that will stick around for many hundreds of years - i.e. conifers like hemlock, doug fir and cedar.
Friday, December 30, 2016
MY CRIMINAL PAST
In the winter of 1998 as, as an inexperienced forest restoration volunteer in Discovery Park I was faced with the daunting challenge of removing an entire hillside of old growth Himalayan Blackberry. I had just adopted a 4-5 acre site referred to as "number 9" by Park staff and was just starting to get a lay of the land and understand just what I was getting myself into. There were extensive stands of Scots Broom on the site, with a few, but rapidly expanding patches of Himalayan Blackberry (BB). And this patch was the worst.
It was clearly the oldest and most vigorous. It grew on a north sloping hill and had tapped into rich soil and a high water table. The thicket stood nearly 15 feet high and covered a region of hillside measuring roughly 1000 feet square. It may not have been the largest BB patch in the Park, but it was certainly the largest I was going to have to face. At the base of the hill ran a paved bicycle and pedestrian pathway. On the other side of this path was another large patch of the same. Maintenance crews kept the path clear of the blackberries but had done little else. At the top of the hill, the blackberries had crept over the top to a flat plateau and were beginning to infiltrate into a Scotts Broom patch. Most of the blackberry canes were over an inch thick. This thing towered over anyone who came near. Nothing else was growing on the hillside.
Having just started as a volunteer for the City, I had little experience or knowlege of the Parks department, it's staff or protocols. I was vaguely aware of a rule forbidding the use of power tools by volunteers, but felt it was likely a don't ask, don't tell arrangement. After unsuccessfully trying hand clippers, loppers, a shovel, machete's and handsaws (I have a strong aversion to the use herbicides), I decided that a small hand held power tool solution was the next step. Thinking that a simple weed wacker would get the job done, I tried my our old cheapo suburban model and immediately realized it wasn't up to the job of cutting through 1 inch BB canes. So I stopped by a lawn mower and power tool place nearby and found a used 2-stroke heavy duty weed whacker called the Green Machine. On a long aluminum straight shaft, it had a nice heft. I had them replace the wimpy string spool with a heavy duty metal cutting disc known as a "brush cutter".
Here was the weapon I needed to take out this patch. Powerful and very effective. For around $150 I was out the door eager to take on the savage invaders. I waited till the next rainy day (muffle chain saw noise - I thought) and proceeded to whack away at the patch. It took a surprisingly short period of time to mow down the entire patch. As I recall, I had the whole patch down in 2 mornings of work. Since they were on a north facing hill (hence the name North Slope), it was relatively easy to mow and muscle these huge canes into the valley below. By the time I was through there was a gigantic pile of mulched BB cane at the bottom.
Since this was January, I knew I only had a few months before 1) ground birds started nesting and 2) blackberries would come roaring back. I had tried at other sites to take on these patches wholesale. This rapidly had become an endless job. Instead, I thought of organizing my work around a single planting zone that could be easily maintained over the years with perhaps one or two weeding and overall upkeep visits per year.
I built my strategy around the Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Extremely fast growing, shooting out thick bushy branches and hopefully smothering the soon-to-be recurrent himalayan blackberries. These babies grow in virtually any Pacific NW conditions. Dry, wet, sunny, parially shady. I had about 15-20 doug fir 2-3 year seedlings - meaning they were about 18 inches tall. These were planted by careful, meticulous removal of all BB rootballs in a circle 4-6 foot around. The seedlings were planted in the center of these invasive-free zones. Still, they looked forlorn and raggedy. Little green shavers, surrounded by devastated BB canes.
Every 6 month or so, my plan was to stop in and easily remove the few BB swarming over the growing tree. Planting these took just a few days.
No surprise, these things took off like rockets. Today (winter 2005), some of the biggest are 20 feet tall. By my crude estimate, most of them are adding 2 - 3 feet of height per year.
Do the ends justify the means? Probably not. Imagine what would happen to our Parks if some lunatic takes a brush cutter or even worse (chain saw) to every park in the Seattle Parks system. Complete chaos. Not to mention the injuries suffered - some potentially life threatening. Do I condone what I did? No. Absolutely not. But I am not the only citizen of this City that has broken the rules because of frustration with the pace of (or lack thereof) habitat restoration in Discovery Park, or whatever remaining green space is left. Am I the only citizen frustrated by the apparent inability of Parks department to act as good stewards of our public lands? No.
It was clearly the oldest and most vigorous. It grew on a north sloping hill and had tapped into rich soil and a high water table. The thicket stood nearly 15 feet high and covered a region of hillside measuring roughly 1000 feet square. It may not have been the largest BB patch in the Park, but it was certainly the largest I was going to have to face. At the base of the hill ran a paved bicycle and pedestrian pathway. On the other side of this path was another large patch of the same. Maintenance crews kept the path clear of the blackberries but had done little else. At the top of the hill, the blackberries had crept over the top to a flat plateau and were beginning to infiltrate into a Scotts Broom patch. Most of the blackberry canes were over an inch thick. This thing towered over anyone who came near. Nothing else was growing on the hillside.
Having just started as a volunteer for the City, I had little experience or knowlege of the Parks department, it's staff or protocols. I was vaguely aware of a rule forbidding the use of power tools by volunteers, but felt it was likely a don't ask, don't tell arrangement. After unsuccessfully trying hand clippers, loppers, a shovel, machete's and handsaws (I have a strong aversion to the use herbicides), I decided that a small hand held power tool solution was the next step. Thinking that a simple weed wacker would get the job done, I tried my our old cheapo suburban model and immediately realized it wasn't up to the job of cutting through 1 inch BB canes. So I stopped by a lawn mower and power tool place nearby and found a used 2-stroke heavy duty weed whacker called the Green Machine. On a long aluminum straight shaft, it had a nice heft. I had them replace the wimpy string spool with a heavy duty metal cutting disc known as a "brush cutter".
Here was the weapon I needed to take out this patch. Powerful and very effective. For around $150 I was out the door eager to take on the savage invaders. I waited till the next rainy day (muffle chain saw noise - I thought) and proceeded to whack away at the patch. It took a surprisingly short period of time to mow down the entire patch. As I recall, I had the whole patch down in 2 mornings of work. Since they were on a north facing hill (hence the name North Slope), it was relatively easy to mow and muscle these huge canes into the valley below. By the time I was through there was a gigantic pile of mulched BB cane at the bottom.
Since this was January, I knew I only had a few months before 1) ground birds started nesting and 2) blackberries would come roaring back. I had tried at other sites to take on these patches wholesale. This rapidly had become an endless job. Instead, I thought of organizing my work around a single planting zone that could be easily maintained over the years with perhaps one or two weeding and overall upkeep visits per year.
I built my strategy around the Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Extremely fast growing, shooting out thick bushy branches and hopefully smothering the soon-to-be recurrent himalayan blackberries. These babies grow in virtually any Pacific NW conditions. Dry, wet, sunny, parially shady. I had about 15-20 doug fir 2-3 year seedlings - meaning they were about 18 inches tall. These were planted by careful, meticulous removal of all BB rootballs in a circle 4-6 foot around. The seedlings were planted in the center of these invasive-free zones. Still, they looked forlorn and raggedy. Little green shavers, surrounded by devastated BB canes.
Every 6 month or so, my plan was to stop in and easily remove the few BB swarming over the growing tree. Planting these took just a few days.
No surprise, these things took off like rockets. Today (winter 2005), some of the biggest are 20 feet tall. By my crude estimate, most of them are adding 2 - 3 feet of height per year.
Do the ends justify the means? Probably not. Imagine what would happen to our Parks if some lunatic takes a brush cutter or even worse (chain saw) to every park in the Seattle Parks system. Complete chaos. Not to mention the injuries suffered - some potentially life threatening. Do I condone what I did? No. Absolutely not. But I am not the only citizen of this City that has broken the rules because of frustration with the pace of (or lack thereof) habitat restoration in Discovery Park, or whatever remaining green space is left. Am I the only citizen frustrated by the apparent inability of Parks department to act as good stewards of our public lands? No.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
LETTER TO MAYOR NICKELS ON ARMY RESERVE AND BRAC PROCESS
November 2006
From: Discovery Park Advisory Council
Re: U.S. Army Reserve Parcel
To: Mayor Nickels:
The Discovery Park Advisory Council (DPAC) would like to express our views regarding future development of the U.S. Army Reserve Parcel, which lies between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. We hope these proposals will be supported by the Friends of Discovery Park, the Magnolia Community Club, Heron Habitat Helpers, Sustainable Ballard, and other local stakeholders.
The Army Reserve Parcel is located strategically between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine, separating two of the City’s most important wildlife reservoirs. The divestiture of Army Reserve ownership provides an unprecedented opportunity to link these two reserves.
The Army Reserve Parcel also contributes significantly to the watershed of Wolfe Creek in Kiwanis Ravine and Salmon Bay. Salmon Bay is a vital regional salmon habitat. This potential change in ownership opens the door to possible reductions in contaminated surface runoff (oils and other wastes) into the Wolfe Creek watershed -- and improve the overall water quality of the Salmon Bay estuary for migrating salmon.
Within the context of your Green Seattle Partnership initiated last year and your just-announced draft Urban Forest Management Plan, we believe that strong City advocacy is needed to protect this Parcel, which contains lands within the City’s designated “critical area ordinance” for 40% or more steep slope, potential slide area, and fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, this Parcel contains lands included in a draft-in-process Department of Planning & Development Director’s Rule establishing the Kiwanis Ravine Great Blue Heron Management Area.
Because of its value to wildlife, DPAC urges the designation of a City-sanctioned wildlife corridor, to include the Army Reserve, the privately owned areas between Kiwanis Ravine and Discovery Park and Bay Terrace Road. This special wildlife corridor designation would enhance the ability of fish and wildlife to utilize the greater Salmon Bay/Kiwanis Ravine/Discovery Park Ecosystem.
We therefore propose the following:
1) The City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation should seek and obtain legal title to all unused open space, green belts, fences, medians, parking strips, and forested areas as well as any potential future open space which might be designated in the Army Reserve Parcel.
2) Any existing buildings or pavement not currently used should be removed and converted to open space. This is especially true of the large parking lot in the extreme NE corner of the property, which covers a relatively steep slope with surface runoff into Kiwanis Ravine.
3) All landscaping within the Army Preserve Parcel be native plantings only. Specifically, we urge the planting of future nesting trees for the great blue herons of Kiwanis Ravine. Make this corridor a showcase of your draft Urban Forest Management Plan.
4) Any new uses of the Army Reserve Parcel should not be allowed to impact Discovery Park or Kiwanis Ravine more than current use. As an example, the number of vehicles entering the parcel, noise, lighting, pets off leash, etc. should not increase as a result of change in ownership or use.
5) All exterior lighting in the Army Reserve Parcel should be wildlife friendly and minimize night time light pollution, with full cut-off fixtures and the light source fully shielded.
6) Any exterior construction activities occurring within the Army Reserve Parcel be restricted to seasons not in conflict with the nesting season of either the Great Blue Herons of Kiwanis Ravine or Bald Eagles using the Discovery Park peninsula for nesting. In addition, the developers of any proposed construction in the Parcel would be required to submit an Environmental Impact Statement, prior to issuance of a building permit, detailing how their construction will not harm wildlife.
7) All trees 6 inches in diameter measured at 4 ½ feet above the ground shall be retained within this corridor, unless the tree is diseased or threatens life or property. This would significantly increase the tree canopy in the Discovery Park/Kiwanis Ravine/Salmon Bay Wildlife Corridor and improve ability of wildlife to move through the area.
8) Exteriors of any new construction or changes to existing buildings be designed so as not to attract, increase or cause flying birds to collide with the structure.
We also believe the City should support improvements in the Discovery Park/Kiwanis Ravine/Salmon Bay ecosystem by: (a) establishing Kiwanis Ravine as the City’s first official nature preserve, wildlife refuge, or similar name with special regulations protecting the Great Blue Heron nesting season, (b) taking steps to initiate the daylighting of Wolfe Creek through Commodore Park into Salmon Bay – reconnecting this watershed and its freshwater estuary to aid the migration of millions of salmon, and (c) linking management of the entire complex – the two parks, the wildlife corridor, and daylighted Wolfe Creek in Commodore Park.
We understand the challenges that this represents and urge you to support the greater Discovery Park Ecosystem. This is an historic opportunity for all citizens of Seattle. We are confident of your support.
Sincerely - The Discovery Park Advisory Council
CC: Seattle City Council members
Ron Sims
Larry Phillips
Christine Gregoire
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Jim McDermott
Norm Dicks
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Rep. Helen Sommers
Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson
Phil Lane – UIATF
Paul Thompson – Friends of Discovery Park
Magnolia Community Council
Sustainable Ballard
Heron Habitat Helpers
From: Discovery Park Advisory Council
Re: U.S. Army Reserve Parcel
To: Mayor Nickels:
The Discovery Park Advisory Council (DPAC) would like to express our views regarding future development of the U.S. Army Reserve Parcel, which lies between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. We hope these proposals will be supported by the Friends of Discovery Park, the Magnolia Community Club, Heron Habitat Helpers, Sustainable Ballard, and other local stakeholders.
The Army Reserve Parcel is located strategically between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine, separating two of the City’s most important wildlife reservoirs. The divestiture of Army Reserve ownership provides an unprecedented opportunity to link these two reserves.
The Army Reserve Parcel also contributes significantly to the watershed of Wolfe Creek in Kiwanis Ravine and Salmon Bay. Salmon Bay is a vital regional salmon habitat. This potential change in ownership opens the door to possible reductions in contaminated surface runoff (oils and other wastes) into the Wolfe Creek watershed -- and improve the overall water quality of the Salmon Bay estuary for migrating salmon.
Within the context of your Green Seattle Partnership initiated last year and your just-announced draft Urban Forest Management Plan, we believe that strong City advocacy is needed to protect this Parcel, which contains lands within the City’s designated “critical area ordinance” for 40% or more steep slope, potential slide area, and fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, this Parcel contains lands included in a draft-in-process Department of Planning & Development Director’s Rule establishing the Kiwanis Ravine Great Blue Heron Management Area.
Because of its value to wildlife, DPAC urges the designation of a City-sanctioned wildlife corridor, to include the Army Reserve, the privately owned areas between Kiwanis Ravine and Discovery Park and Bay Terrace Road. This special wildlife corridor designation would enhance the ability of fish and wildlife to utilize the greater Salmon Bay/Kiwanis Ravine/Discovery Park Ecosystem.
We therefore propose the following:
1) The City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation should seek and obtain legal title to all unused open space, green belts, fences, medians, parking strips, and forested areas as well as any potential future open space which might be designated in the Army Reserve Parcel.
2) Any existing buildings or pavement not currently used should be removed and converted to open space. This is especially true of the large parking lot in the extreme NE corner of the property, which covers a relatively steep slope with surface runoff into Kiwanis Ravine.
3) All landscaping within the Army Preserve Parcel be native plantings only. Specifically, we urge the planting of future nesting trees for the great blue herons of Kiwanis Ravine. Make this corridor a showcase of your draft Urban Forest Management Plan.
4) Any new uses of the Army Reserve Parcel should not be allowed to impact Discovery Park or Kiwanis Ravine more than current use. As an example, the number of vehicles entering the parcel, noise, lighting, pets off leash, etc. should not increase as a result of change in ownership or use.
5) All exterior lighting in the Army Reserve Parcel should be wildlife friendly and minimize night time light pollution, with full cut-off fixtures and the light source fully shielded.
6) Any exterior construction activities occurring within the Army Reserve Parcel be restricted to seasons not in conflict with the nesting season of either the Great Blue Herons of Kiwanis Ravine or Bald Eagles using the Discovery Park peninsula for nesting. In addition, the developers of any proposed construction in the Parcel would be required to submit an Environmental Impact Statement, prior to issuance of a building permit, detailing how their construction will not harm wildlife.
7) All trees 6 inches in diameter measured at 4 ½ feet above the ground shall be retained within this corridor, unless the tree is diseased or threatens life or property. This would significantly increase the tree canopy in the Discovery Park/Kiwanis Ravine/Salmon Bay Wildlife Corridor and improve ability of wildlife to move through the area.
8) Exteriors of any new construction or changes to existing buildings be designed so as not to attract, increase or cause flying birds to collide with the structure.
We also believe the City should support improvements in the Discovery Park/Kiwanis Ravine/Salmon Bay ecosystem by: (a) establishing Kiwanis Ravine as the City’s first official nature preserve, wildlife refuge, or similar name with special regulations protecting the Great Blue Heron nesting season, (b) taking steps to initiate the daylighting of Wolfe Creek through Commodore Park into Salmon Bay – reconnecting this watershed and its freshwater estuary to aid the migration of millions of salmon, and (c) linking management of the entire complex – the two parks, the wildlife corridor, and daylighted Wolfe Creek in Commodore Park.
We understand the challenges that this represents and urge you to support the greater Discovery Park Ecosystem. This is an historic opportunity for all citizens of Seattle. We are confident of your support.
Sincerely - The Discovery Park Advisory Council
CC: Seattle City Council members
Ron Sims
Larry Phillips
Christine Gregoire
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Jim McDermott
Norm Dicks
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Rep. Helen Sommers
Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson
Phil Lane – UIATF
Paul Thompson – Friends of Discovery Park
Magnolia Community Council
Sustainable Ballard
Heron Habitat Helpers
Saturday, March 10, 2007
MAGNOLIA NEWS EDITORIAL BY BOB KILDALL
The following is a guest column written by Bob Kildall published in the Magnolia News February 2007 -
Doug Taylor’s letter (Magnolia News 2-7-07) poses the question why the money from the settlement agreement is planned to be used to demolish the Nike building in Discovery Park.
The settlement agreement was a legal document between Metro (now Metropolitan King County) and five environmental and civic groups that sought the replacement of the large existing sewage digesters with a system with less odor and consuming less land. By giving up their appeal these citizens allowed Metro’s secondary plant to be built without further delays. These same citizens had supported secondary treatment.
In turn Metro agreed to terms in the agreement to form a citizen’s committee and provided $5-million to study treatment processes that might reduces the impact on the park by the year 2000. If these studies failed they would pay a settlement of $3-million dollars plus interest. After a decade that totaled over $5-million.
The funds would come to the city with this proviso:
“All funds paid under this subsection shall be dedicated to improvements to Discovery Park consistent with the primary function and central purpose as defined in the Discovery Park Master Plan, and if any funds remain, to the acquisition and improvement of saltwater beaches.”
This section of the plan is found under the Park Guiding Principles and reads:
“The primary role of this park in the life of the city is dictated by its incomparable site. That role should be to provide and open space of quiet and tranquility for the citizens of this city—a sanctuary where they might escape the turmoil of the city and enjoy the rejuvenation which quiet and solitude and an intimate contact with nature can bring. It should be accepted that this park cannot satisfy all of the recreational needs of all of the citizens of Seattle. It can only complement the other elements in the park system. This park should not be asked to serve too many functions. It will best serve this city if it is permitted to serve one primary function and to serve that function well.”
The next paragraph in the principles is named “Future Structures and Activities. It states:
“In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to carve out areas of the park in order to provide sites for various civic structures or space for special activities. There will in the future be structures and activities without number for which, it will be contended, this park can provide an “ideal site” at no cost. The pressures for those sites may constitute the greatest single threat to the park. They must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the park will be so fragmented that it can no longer serve its central purpose. Only those activities and only those structures should be accepted which are in harmony with the overall theme, character and objective of the park. There must be a deep commitment to the belief that there is no more valuable use of this site than as an open space.”
These are two sections are part of nine paragraphs that comprise the guiding principles.
Removing the Nike building to restore the property as a natural area conforms with the Park’s Plan’s ultimate objective. That was “…the acquisition of all lands which presently comprise the site of Fort Lawton.” It also fulfills the Magnolia Community Club’s 1969 Fort Lawton Park Recommendations. The ten recommendations were based on a club’s survey that had called for a natural park. The survey was led by Club members Bill Jeske and Ed Mueller. They had citizens canvass every third home on Magnolia with the oversight by the University of Washington’s Bureau of Community Development.
Since then there have been nearly 150-proposals for “just a piece of the park.” But a host of citizens believe in defending the primary function-central purpose of this Park. We live in a country where Nature is being often overlooked and trashed and constantly diminished. Discovery Park helps fulfill our open space needs and the needs for solitude from the stress of urban living for the citizens yet to come. Removing the Nike site is one way to return that part of the Park to Nature.
Robert Kildall
February 13, 2007
Doug Taylor’s letter (Magnolia News 2-7-07) poses the question why the money from the settlement agreement is planned to be used to demolish the Nike building in Discovery Park.
The settlement agreement was a legal document between Metro (now Metropolitan King County) and five environmental and civic groups that sought the replacement of the large existing sewage digesters with a system with less odor and consuming less land. By giving up their appeal these citizens allowed Metro’s secondary plant to be built without further delays. These same citizens had supported secondary treatment.
In turn Metro agreed to terms in the agreement to form a citizen’s committee and provided $5-million to study treatment processes that might reduces the impact on the park by the year 2000. If these studies failed they would pay a settlement of $3-million dollars plus interest. After a decade that totaled over $5-million.
The funds would come to the city with this proviso:
“All funds paid under this subsection shall be dedicated to improvements to Discovery Park consistent with the primary function and central purpose as defined in the Discovery Park Master Plan, and if any funds remain, to the acquisition and improvement of saltwater beaches.”
This section of the plan is found under the Park Guiding Principles and reads:
“The primary role of this park in the life of the city is dictated by its incomparable site. That role should be to provide and open space of quiet and tranquility for the citizens of this city—a sanctuary where they might escape the turmoil of the city and enjoy the rejuvenation which quiet and solitude and an intimate contact with nature can bring. It should be accepted that this park cannot satisfy all of the recreational needs of all of the citizens of Seattle. It can only complement the other elements in the park system. This park should not be asked to serve too many functions. It will best serve this city if it is permitted to serve one primary function and to serve that function well.”
The next paragraph in the principles is named “Future Structures and Activities. It states:
“In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to carve out areas of the park in order to provide sites for various civic structures or space for special activities. There will in the future be structures and activities without number for which, it will be contended, this park can provide an “ideal site” at no cost. The pressures for those sites may constitute the greatest single threat to the park. They must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the park will be so fragmented that it can no longer serve its central purpose. Only those activities and only those structures should be accepted which are in harmony with the overall theme, character and objective of the park. There must be a deep commitment to the belief that there is no more valuable use of this site than as an open space.”
These are two sections are part of nine paragraphs that comprise the guiding principles.
Removing the Nike building to restore the property as a natural area conforms with the Park’s Plan’s ultimate objective. That was “…the acquisition of all lands which presently comprise the site of Fort Lawton.” It also fulfills the Magnolia Community Club’s 1969 Fort Lawton Park Recommendations. The ten recommendations were based on a club’s survey that had called for a natural park. The survey was led by Club members Bill Jeske and Ed Mueller. They had citizens canvass every third home on Magnolia with the oversight by the University of Washington’s Bureau of Community Development.
Since then there have been nearly 150-proposals for “just a piece of the park.” But a host of citizens believe in defending the primary function-central purpose of this Park. We live in a country where Nature is being often overlooked and trashed and constantly diminished. Discovery Park helps fulfill our open space needs and the needs for solitude from the stress of urban living for the citizens yet to come. Removing the Nike site is one way to return that part of the Park to Nature.
Robert Kildall
February 13, 2007
Friday, January 20, 2006
THE 500 AREA - LESSONS LEARNED
The vast majority of Discovery Park was once covered with buildings – typically military barracks or offices. Most of these have been demolished, although many still remain, including the Nike building, building 653 and the Capehart housing units. In addition, there are many sites that used to contain military buildings and pavement but have had no significant restoration efforts applied to them. Examples of this type of restoration challenge include the old theater site, the old ball field near Capehart and the triangular shaped parcel of land just south of Capehart. Most of these sites contained buildings, parking lots or roads in the past that were removed but without significant restoration efforts to follow with the presumption that "mother nature" would take over and self restore. Predictably, this approach has been less than successful. Generally speaking they are now infested with the usual mix of invasives like Scots Broom and Himalayan Blackberry and very little native plant life. Their ability to support habitat is low. And they represent an ongoing source of invasive seed production, threatening the rest of the Park.
When return of the 500 Area was announced in the mid to late 1990s (to include demolition of all 24 barracks and removal of all pavement), members of the Friends of Discovery Park and the Discovery Park Advisory Council decided to lend their support in making restoration of this parcel a priority, and to hopefully to improve upon the previous method of restoration. Coincident with the announcement were several public input meetings for the development of a Vegetation Management Plan for the Park by Jones and Stokes. These public meetings further galvanized public support for an effective approach to restoring this site.
The 500 Area is a 9 acre site occupied for many years by the US Army Reserve. It contained approximately 24 old wooden barrack buildings. Historic aerial photos show it to be part of a much larger complex of barracks which extended nearly to Emerson on the south border of the Park. In the early 1990’s, Discovery Park advocates (including Bob Kildal and Heidi Carpine) worked closely with the City and Senators Slade Gorton and Patty Murray to allow transfer ownership of this parcel to the City once the Army Reserve was finished with it. Once members of the Advisory Council learned that a specific date of property transfer had been decided upon, we realized this could represent a new opportunity to improve upon the old scrape-and-walk approach. DPAC applied for and received a Small and Simple grant for $10,000.00 from the City’s Department of Neighborhoods. After interviewing several firms, the landscape architect firm of Charles Anderson was selected. Three public input meetings were held, after which a restoration plan for the site was developed and approved by the City. Meanwhile, the US Army subcontractor began demolishing the buildings, hauling away pavement and removing fuel oil contaminated soils. The original plan was set to cost nearly $1 million. However, when it became apparent the demolition costs were going to be less than originally budgeted (!), the US Army agreed to fund some limited restoration with the left over funds (approximately $300k). Charles Anderson re-worked and downscaled the plan to bring it within this much tighter budget. It was submitted to and approved by the City. The minimalist plan funded by the US Army markedly reduced the overall number and variety of native plants available to be planted, and implemented other cost saving changes like less coverage by wood chip compost (hogfuel).
Details of the 500 Area restoration plan are available elsewhere including at the Discovery Park library. Briefly it called for the creation of 24 “cells” built in the outline of the old barrack buildings. These cells would contain a large variety of native plants, bordered by weed control fabric, which would eventually spill out of the cell and repopulate the surrounding areas with a large variety of diverse native plants. Because of the cost saving considerations above, the wood chip compost was only used on approximately 40% of the parcel, restricted to the northern end. The southern end of the parcel received no composting material. Alder was planted throughout the composted area in the north end of the parcel, in between the cells. No alder was planted in the south end, just the native plant “cells”. All planting was completed in mid winter 2002.
By early spring of 2003, the development of several large pools of standing water occurred as the result of heavy spring rains. These seasonal wetlands were felt to represent ideal and very unique (to the Park) wildlife habitat to many observers. Unfortunately the water covered portions of the trail, leading to many complaints by the public. Additionally, there was concern by City experts as to the stability of the slope on the eastern edge of the parcel. All of these issues led to the City to demand of the Army Reserve to put in place an extensive network of drainage tiles, removing most standing water from the site. This was done the following year.
The 500 Area today, 4 years later:
The following are subjective observations and are not supported by careful data accumulation. Nonetheless, there are some clearly evident trends that are worth looking at. First, the alder have been phenomenally successful, many growing from 4-6 feet tall to over 20 feet tall in just 4 years. As a result, the area planted with alder enjoys a relatively dense canopy during the hot summer months, providing cool shade to the understory, as well as a thick layer of decomposing alder leaves every fall. Secondly the native plant cells have been allowed to become overgrown with invasives. The weed control fabric has not controlled any weed growth, rather, represents an impediment to weed removal. Once the weeds grow through the fabric, they are extremely difficult to pull and eradicate. Thirdly, the southern end of the parcel (which received no compost layer or alder over-planting) has much less shade and canopy and is much more invaded by weeds. Lastly, the heavy invasive seed load from the Nike building site and the entire western margin of the parcel has rapidly moved into the previously open 500 area.
So what have we learned from this experience? Obviously, a more detailed analysis could and should be done, but here are my “back of the envelope” thoughts.
First, what did we do right?
1) composting – the “hogfuel” used has been very successful in reducing the ingrowth of invasives, though not 100%. Comparing the composted area of the site with the non-composted area is very instructive. The south end is nearly overgrown with non-native grasses, Scots Broom and Himalayan BB. The north end is relatively free of invasives. In fact, many native pioneers are sprouting up in the area.
2) use of alder – the nitrogen poor soil present when pavement is removed seems to be ideal soil to plant alder in. As many others have stated, alder is an ideal short lived restoration tree. It’s rapid growth, extensive shade production and soil nitrogen fixation capabilities are perfect for a damaged site like the 500. It’s clearly working very well.
3) residual mature trees – during the planning process, several DPAC members went with Parks personnel on a walk through the site, examining the existing trees for the presence of disease and need for removal. Many trees were considered “unhealthy” by Parks staff and felt to be good candidates for removal. Objections were raised and nearly all of them allowed to remain instead. Remember - these trees spent most of their lives growing between buildings and parking lots with many limbs removed to prevent damage to the buildings. As a result, many of them are sickly and prematurely aged. Despite this, they have provided an ideal seed source for the restoration process. A great example of this can be found in the northern end of the parcel where a battered and beaten hemlock has dropped seed producing hundreds if not thousands of hemlock seedlings in a single year.
4) early planning – What was most surprising to citizens involved in the process was the complete lack of planning on the part of Parks. It was this element that spurred us to work as hard on this project as we did. It’s not clear what would have happened had DPAC not taken the initiative and gotten a plan started, but it’s doubtful we would have had as positive outcome as we did.
5) leveraging - a small grant of $10k was turned into a major restoration project worth more than $300k from the US Army. The City was given at no charge (or very small one) a restored parcel – with very little effort on follow-up (see below). A clear demonstration of what remarkable yields a small but propitious investment can produce.
6) use of outside expertise – the use of an outside landscape architectural firm brought skills, experience and expertise to bear that Parks does not have. Outsiders bring fresh perspectives to the job that are frequently quite useful.
What did we do wrong?
1) invasives on the margin – like so many projects in the Park, invasives covering the hillside just west of the 500 area were not removed. As a result, their seed production dropped on the previously “clean” 500 area, contaminating the project.
2) weed control fabric – although the cells seemed like a good idea, the placement of weed control fabric has only hindered removal of the weeds invading the cells. For whatever reason (lack of hogfuel?), Himalayan Blackberry has aggressively moved into the cells and grown into the fabric, making it almost impossible to remove entirely. Rather than representing native restoration potential, they’ve become invasive problem areas.
3) poor cooperation between Parks staff, DPAC and outside consultant – from nearly the beginning, there seemed to be very limited input from Parks staff – or at least limited communication of concerns to either DPAC or the landscape architect. The assumption that all of Parks agreed and supported the plan based on the official Parks approval of the plan was not valid.
4) lack of followup – because actual ownership of the property remained in the hands of the Army for several years afterwards, Parks staff was reluctant to perform the much needed followup maintenance that was presumed as part of the plan. This also became an issue when individual volunteers organized their own work parties in the area. Volunteers were told not to do any work in the area because of liability concerns.
Conclusions:
Projects on this type of scale are not easy. They present many logistical, financial and organizational challenges that test the capacity of any organization. The current 500 Area reflects all of the conflicting demands that are on our City Parks staff and budget. Unfortunately, we have more, not fewer of these in our immediate and intermediate future as a Park community. It is mandatory that all parties (Parks administration, local Parks staff, citizen advocates and non-profit groups) sit down in a non-confrontational manner well in advance of the action and hash out groundrules for the restoration process. It takes very little to send a complex process like this sideways. The natural habitat of Discovery Park is threatened. We can’t afford anything less than success. And we as the public, have both the right and responsibility to see to it that it happens.
When return of the 500 Area was announced in the mid to late 1990s (to include demolition of all 24 barracks and removal of all pavement), members of the Friends of Discovery Park and the Discovery Park Advisory Council decided to lend their support in making restoration of this parcel a priority, and to hopefully to improve upon the previous method of restoration. Coincident with the announcement were several public input meetings for the development of a Vegetation Management Plan for the Park by Jones and Stokes. These public meetings further galvanized public support for an effective approach to restoring this site.
The 500 Area is a 9 acre site occupied for many years by the US Army Reserve. It contained approximately 24 old wooden barrack buildings. Historic aerial photos show it to be part of a much larger complex of barracks which extended nearly to Emerson on the south border of the Park. In the early 1990’s, Discovery Park advocates (including Bob Kildal and Heidi Carpine) worked closely with the City and Senators Slade Gorton and Patty Murray to allow transfer ownership of this parcel to the City once the Army Reserve was finished with it. Once members of the Advisory Council learned that a specific date of property transfer had been decided upon, we realized this could represent a new opportunity to improve upon the old scrape-and-walk approach. DPAC applied for and received a Small and Simple grant for $10,000.00 from the City’s Department of Neighborhoods. After interviewing several firms, the landscape architect firm of Charles Anderson was selected. Three public input meetings were held, after which a restoration plan for the site was developed and approved by the City. Meanwhile, the US Army subcontractor began demolishing the buildings, hauling away pavement and removing fuel oil contaminated soils. The original plan was set to cost nearly $1 million. However, when it became apparent the demolition costs were going to be less than originally budgeted (!), the US Army agreed to fund some limited restoration with the left over funds (approximately $300k). Charles Anderson re-worked and downscaled the plan to bring it within this much tighter budget. It was submitted to and approved by the City. The minimalist plan funded by the US Army markedly reduced the overall number and variety of native plants available to be planted, and implemented other cost saving changes like less coverage by wood chip compost (hogfuel).
Details of the 500 Area restoration plan are available elsewhere including at the Discovery Park library. Briefly it called for the creation of 24 “cells” built in the outline of the old barrack buildings. These cells would contain a large variety of native plants, bordered by weed control fabric, which would eventually spill out of the cell and repopulate the surrounding areas with a large variety of diverse native plants. Because of the cost saving considerations above, the wood chip compost was only used on approximately 40% of the parcel, restricted to the northern end. The southern end of the parcel received no composting material. Alder was planted throughout the composted area in the north end of the parcel, in between the cells. No alder was planted in the south end, just the native plant “cells”. All planting was completed in mid winter 2002.
By early spring of 2003, the development of several large pools of standing water occurred as the result of heavy spring rains. These seasonal wetlands were felt to represent ideal and very unique (to the Park) wildlife habitat to many observers. Unfortunately the water covered portions of the trail, leading to many complaints by the public. Additionally, there was concern by City experts as to the stability of the slope on the eastern edge of the parcel. All of these issues led to the City to demand of the Army Reserve to put in place an extensive network of drainage tiles, removing most standing water from the site. This was done the following year.
The 500 Area today, 4 years later:
The following are subjective observations and are not supported by careful data accumulation. Nonetheless, there are some clearly evident trends that are worth looking at. First, the alder have been phenomenally successful, many growing from 4-6 feet tall to over 20 feet tall in just 4 years. As a result, the area planted with alder enjoys a relatively dense canopy during the hot summer months, providing cool shade to the understory, as well as a thick layer of decomposing alder leaves every fall. Secondly the native plant cells have been allowed to become overgrown with invasives. The weed control fabric has not controlled any weed growth, rather, represents an impediment to weed removal. Once the weeds grow through the fabric, they are extremely difficult to pull and eradicate. Thirdly, the southern end of the parcel (which received no compost layer or alder over-planting) has much less shade and canopy and is much more invaded by weeds. Lastly, the heavy invasive seed load from the Nike building site and the entire western margin of the parcel has rapidly moved into the previously open 500 area.
So what have we learned from this experience? Obviously, a more detailed analysis could and should be done, but here are my “back of the envelope” thoughts.
First, what did we do right?
1) composting – the “hogfuel” used has been very successful in reducing the ingrowth of invasives, though not 100%. Comparing the composted area of the site with the non-composted area is very instructive. The south end is nearly overgrown with non-native grasses, Scots Broom and Himalayan BB. The north end is relatively free of invasives. In fact, many native pioneers are sprouting up in the area.
2) use of alder – the nitrogen poor soil present when pavement is removed seems to be ideal soil to plant alder in. As many others have stated, alder is an ideal short lived restoration tree. It’s rapid growth, extensive shade production and soil nitrogen fixation capabilities are perfect for a damaged site like the 500. It’s clearly working very well.
3) residual mature trees – during the planning process, several DPAC members went with Parks personnel on a walk through the site, examining the existing trees for the presence of disease and need for removal. Many trees were considered “unhealthy” by Parks staff and felt to be good candidates for removal. Objections were raised and nearly all of them allowed to remain instead. Remember - these trees spent most of their lives growing between buildings and parking lots with many limbs removed to prevent damage to the buildings. As a result, many of them are sickly and prematurely aged. Despite this, they have provided an ideal seed source for the restoration process. A great example of this can be found in the northern end of the parcel where a battered and beaten hemlock has dropped seed producing hundreds if not thousands of hemlock seedlings in a single year.
4) early planning – What was most surprising to citizens involved in the process was the complete lack of planning on the part of Parks. It was this element that spurred us to work as hard on this project as we did. It’s not clear what would have happened had DPAC not taken the initiative and gotten a plan started, but it’s doubtful we would have had as positive outcome as we did.
5) leveraging - a small grant of $10k was turned into a major restoration project worth more than $300k from the US Army. The City was given at no charge (or very small one) a restored parcel – with very little effort on follow-up (see below). A clear demonstration of what remarkable yields a small but propitious investment can produce.
6) use of outside expertise – the use of an outside landscape architectural firm brought skills, experience and expertise to bear that Parks does not have. Outsiders bring fresh perspectives to the job that are frequently quite useful.
What did we do wrong?
1) invasives on the margin – like so many projects in the Park, invasives covering the hillside just west of the 500 area were not removed. As a result, their seed production dropped on the previously “clean” 500 area, contaminating the project.
2) weed control fabric – although the cells seemed like a good idea, the placement of weed control fabric has only hindered removal of the weeds invading the cells. For whatever reason (lack of hogfuel?), Himalayan Blackberry has aggressively moved into the cells and grown into the fabric, making it almost impossible to remove entirely. Rather than representing native restoration potential, they’ve become invasive problem areas.
3) poor cooperation between Parks staff, DPAC and outside consultant – from nearly the beginning, there seemed to be very limited input from Parks staff – or at least limited communication of concerns to either DPAC or the landscape architect. The assumption that all of Parks agreed and supported the plan based on the official Parks approval of the plan was not valid.
4) lack of followup – because actual ownership of the property remained in the hands of the Army for several years afterwards, Parks staff was reluctant to perform the much needed followup maintenance that was presumed as part of the plan. This also became an issue when individual volunteers organized their own work parties in the area. Volunteers were told not to do any work in the area because of liability concerns.
Conclusions:
Projects on this type of scale are not easy. They present many logistical, financial and organizational challenges that test the capacity of any organization. The current 500 Area reflects all of the conflicting demands that are on our City Parks staff and budget. Unfortunately, we have more, not fewer of these in our immediate and intermediate future as a Park community. It is mandatory that all parties (Parks administration, local Parks staff, citizen advocates and non-profit groups) sit down in a non-confrontational manner well in advance of the action and hash out groundrules for the restoration process. It takes very little to send a complex process like this sideways. The natural habitat of Discovery Park is threatened. We can’t afford anything less than success. And we as the public, have both the right and responsibility to see to it that it happens.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE PLANTS by Clay Antineau
BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE PLANTS
Clayton Antieau
Botanist and Watershed Planner
206-233-3711; FAX 206-233-1527; clayton.antieau@ci.seattle.wa.us
Seattle Public Utilities, City of Seattle, Watershed Management Division, Cedar River Watershed
19901 Cedar Falls Road SE, North Bend, WA 98045-9681
Clayton J. Antieau 2001
Published in the Conference Proceedings: Haase, D.L. and R. Rose, editors. 2001. Native Plant Propagation and Restoration Strategies. Sponsored by the Nursery Technology Cooperative and Western Forestry and Conservation Association. December 12-13, 2001.
ABSTRACT
Weeds are often not the cause, but symptoms of depleted ecosystem integrity−often legacies of on-going or past poor management practices. Unless ecological causes of weed invasions are understood in integrated, ecosystem-scale frameworks, weed management projects are often doomed to fail. It may be useful to consider weed management tools as either “ecosystem” tools or "agricultural-scale" tools. Ecosystem tools are usually used on small scales, are minimally disruptive, have longer-term impacts on community development, but act slowly. Agricultural tools are typically used on larger scales, but usually have highly disruptive, short-term effects on ecosystems.
Several lessons emerge from experiences managing weeds in their ecosystem contexts. These include needs to understand relevant ecological concepts and the importance of integrated approaches, to implement regular monitoring with provision for true adaptive management, and to pursue new technologies/strategies. There is also need for information clearinghouses where interested parties share weed management experiences and seek information resulting from others’ experiences.
KEYWORDS: WEEDS, INVASIVE SPECIES, WEED MANAGEMENT, ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT, PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA, POLYGONUM CUSPIDATUM, CYTISUS SCOPARIUS
INTRODUCTION
Noxious weeds pose serious challenges to the management and restoration of ecosystems throughout the Pacific Northwest. Aggressive weeds displace desirable habitat and species diversity, often persisting in the face of active weed control efforts. Weed management is a large topic, covering myriad weed species growing in many places, and involving many management strategies and tools. Further, effective weed management is strongly situational, paying close attention to the details of space and place. The limited time allotted this paper precludes detailed discussion of specific weed management situations or problems. However, a useful global approach might be to contrast a traditional weed management philosophy with an alternative philosophy that fits more snugly with the goals and objectives of watershed restoration. Such exploration may help you more fully understand the complexities of the weed infestations you might be working on in your specific restoration efforts. Thus, this paper reviews foundational considerations, illustrated using a couple of the more widespread invasive weeds in the maritime Northwest. The "foundation" component focuses on understanding weed infestations in the contexts of the ecosystems in which they occur and of the key ecosystem processes they disrupt. Understanding these ecosystem contexts provides insights into possible management strategies for these and other weeds, and promises greater success in achieving restoration goals.
TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO WEED MANAGEMENT
I'm a botanist and planner on a team of biologists and other scientists that manage the Cedar River Watershed, the main source of drinking water for 1.3 million citizens of Seattle and surrounding communities. The 91,000-acre Watershed is closed to unrestricted public access and managed for abundant, high quality water and fish and wildlife habitat. Contrary to how that may sound, the Watershed is far from pristine, having endured 150 years of timber extraction, road building, stream channelization and cleaning, mining, and urban development. Land management is guided by a Habitat Conservation Plan (developed under the Endangered Species Act), which is essentially a watershed restoration plan that directs us to repair past damages. One of my responsibilities in the Watershed is to set the direction of weed management in the Watershed by developing weed management plans, implementing weed management projects, monitoring, and so forth. The task is challenging because herbicides are not allowed in the Watershed.
Team members who manage the Watershed use working definitions of restoration to broadly guide their work. The definition I like is from Apfelbaum and Chapman (1997):
"….a practical management strategy that uses ecological processes in order to maintain ecosystem composition, structure, and function with minimal human intervention."
In addition to being a botanist and planner, I am also a horticulturist trained within the traditional agricultural context of that discipline. I consider the traditional or "agricultural" approaches to weed management that I am familiar with and contrast those with this definition of ecosystem restoration. Two contrasts appear immediately. First, traditional approaches to weed management embed an implicit assumption that humans will always be involved in managing weeds, whereas a goal of restoration strives to eventually eliminate the need for human interventions. The second contrast focuses on ecosystem processes. Traditional weed management is preoccupied with the weed itself, purposefully removing it from the ecological context in which it occurs. Traditional weed management asks "How do I control this weed?"
We are familiar with the traditional tools used to answer that question: row-cropping or strip-cropping; intercropping; rotations; cover or competition crops; cultivation (e.g., disking); fallow; herbicides; mowing/chaining; predation (grazing; biocontrols); fire; and so forth. Some of these have a long track record, with a commensurately long legacy of adverse impacts to natural and social resources: Widespread Herbicide Use (contaminated surface/ground waters, altered soil floras, altered wildlife, estrogenic activity, threats to human health, etc.); Introduced Organisms/Pests (escaped biological controls, escaped seedings of exotic grasses etc.); and Large-scale Habitat Modification (biodiversity loss,
increased erosion/sedimentation, flooding/drought, etc.).
ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTS IN WEED MANAGEMENT
What's the Right Question to Ask? Or, What are Useful Ecosystem Themes in Weed Management?
What happens if we stop asking "How do I control this weed?", and start asking "Why do I have this weed?" Upon contemplation, answers to this question generate several themes, three important themes being the following:
1. Weeds are not the cause, but symptoms of depleted ecosystem integrity⎯often the legacy of on-going or past poor management practices. This is illustrated by historic overgrazing in the shrub- and desert-steppe of the Columbia Basin. Grazing destroyed the microbiotic crusts that were integral to the health of that ecosystem, leading to erosion, biodiversity loss, and catastrophic biological invasions. (See http://www.soilcrust.org/ for a discussion of the structure, function, and ecology of microbiotic crusts.)
2. Unless ecological causes of weed invasions are addressed and understood in an integrated, ecosystem-scale framework, weed management efforts are often doomed to fail. This is illustrated by frequently observed replacement of one managed weed with a non-managed weed, as in the case of bio-predated purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) being replaced by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea).
3. Ecological restoration takes time and operates on scales much different than the regulatory, political, and fiscal timescales that humans are used to. This is illustrated by formerly forested wetlands that are now swards of reed canarygrass. Placement of coarse woody debris initiates a key ecosystem process in these ecosystems that operates on a scale of centuries.
Weeds Compromise Ecosystem Integrity
If weeds are placed back into the ecosystem contexts in which they occur, we discover some enlightening facts about the biology and ecology of those weeds. In particular, one of the more enlightening areas of discussion is how weeds disrupt key ecosystem processes. Altered key ecosystem processes and services include the following, among others:
nutrient cycling and carbon cycling (Scot’s broom)
sediment erosion and deposition rates (spartina)
disturbance intensities and frequencies (cheat grass)
evapotranspiration, water cycling, and hydroperiods (tamarisk; reed canarygrass)
soil chemistry and soil biological processes (Russian knapweed)
habitat availability for native plants/animals/other organisms (reed canarygrass)
primary productivity (ryegrass)
food web interactions/characteristics (trophic levels)
genetic integrity (hawkweeds)
resilience to disturbance (incl. biological invasions) (Scot’s broom)
biodiversity (spotted knapweed; cheat grass; reed canarygrass)
If this is what weeds do, can humans intervene specifically to interrupt these disruptions, effectively using ecosystem processes as weed management tools? Recent scientific research and field experiences confirm this is possible. Successful weed management may not be about managing individual species, but rather managing natural ecosystem processes essential to ecosystem integrity.
"ECOSYSTEM" TOOLS CONTRASTED WITH "AGRICULTURAL" TOOLS
It may be useful to consider weed management tools as either “ecosystem” tools or "agricultural-scale" tools. Ecosystem tools are usually used on small scales, are minimally disruptive, have longer-term impacts on community development, but act slowly. Agricultural tools are typically used on larger scales, but usually have highly disruptive, short-term effects on ecosystems. What are some "ecosystem" tools that have been used to manage weeds?
ALLELOPATHY
COMPETITIVE EXCLUSION (planting, mulching, seeding, shading)
MICROBIOTIC SOIL CRUSTS
SOIL HEALTH (flora and fauna)
DOWNED/BURIED WOOD (feed the carbon cycle)
MICRO- AND MACRO-TOPOGRAPHY (de-leveling)
BIODIVERSITY
SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES (pH/nutrient management)
PREDATION (biological controls; grazing)
HYDROPERIOD ALTERATION (flooding/drainage)
EDGE EFFECTS (planting circles)
To illustrate the implementation of some of these "ecosystem" tools, I'll use macro-nutrient management (anti-fertilization), edge effects (planting circles), soil health, and downed and buried wood.
Macro-nutrient Management
Many weed species are known to be especially competitive in the presence of free (ionic) macro-nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Native plants are generally more competitive when soils are less fertile or lack free macro-nutrients. In disturbed ecosystems, nutrient cycling is altered to distinctly favor weeds. A technique for immobilizing free nutrients adds large quantities of carbon (such as compost or sugar). The soil fungi and bacteria increase on this energy source, immobilizing any available nitrogen and phosphorus. Desirable native species and their mycorrhizal associates are introduced during this 1 to 2 year window and benefit from reduced weed vigor. This process, sometimes called "anti-fertilization," is best used on soils that naturally have low fertility (such as sands or sandy-textured soils) and was first described by St. John (1988).
Edge Effects
The zone where two or more different plant communities come together is known as "edge." Edge environments are areas of ecological tension deriving from gradients of light, moisture, cover, and food. For those weed species forming monocultures (such as reed canarygrass), large-diameter planting circles or blocks have been used to successfully introduce "edge" (Antieau 2000). Herbicides are typically used to eliminate the weed from within a planting circle. Once the grass is dead, the blocks or circles are densely planted with desirable native vegetation such as willows, appropriate conifers, and/or deciduous shrubs. As planted areas of dense vegetation grow, their canopy begins to reduce the vigor and cover of adjacent areas of weeds, largely due to shading. As shaded weeds decline in vigor and density, desirable native plants become established and the planting circles "enlarge" into the weed infestation.
Soil Health
Biological soil processes have only recently come to light as integral ecosystem processes. Much is still unknown, but work by Elaine Ingham, Michael Amaranthus, and others has demonstrated the intimate and essential relationships that above-ground vegetation has with fungal, bacterial, and non-vertebrate soil inhabitants (Amaranthus 2001; Ingham and Molina 1991; Perry and Amaranthus 1990; USDA, NRCS 1999). Mycorrhizal associations have been shown to impart ecosystem resiliency to weed infestations (St. John 1999).
Downed and Buried Wood
Until recently, the role of wood in ecosystems was poorly understood. We now know wood is integral to key ecosystem process because it houses and feeds fungal and animal organisms, provides critical moisture reserves, and becomes germination and growing substrate for natural (shade-tolerant) conifer regeneration (in wetter parts of the maritime Northwest). In forested ecosystems, canopy loss facilitates and supports the invasion of invasive herbaceous species through a variety of mechanisms. The absence of wood in these ecosystems continues to impede natural successional processes that potentially keep weeds at bay.
ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTS APPLIED TO SPECIFIC WEED SPECIES
Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)
Reed canarygrass is a typical disturbance-response species, often indicating past clearing, cultivation and leveling, altered hydroperiods, purposeful seeding, etc. However, it is also thought to be native in at least some parts of the Pacific Northwest (Antieau 2000). Infestations in formerly forested habitats are thought to dramatically alter soil flora. Long-term management themes focus on establishing forests that cast deep year-round shade (where appropriate, as in Puget Trough), getting wood back into/onto the soil, and introducing biodiversity. Innovative means of getting there include planting circles (edge effects), pole plantings, de-leveling (micro-topographic diversity), and coarse woody debris placement (carbon cycling; soil flora; plant succession).
Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum, P. sachalinense, and hybrids)
Japanese knotweed is increasingly a problem in wetter parts of the Pacific Northwest. This species is generally considered a disturbance-response species, following road-building, clearing, and cultivation activities. It is also known to invade flood-disturbed zones in riparian and wetland ecosystems. The species is suspected of altering soil flora in formerly forested areas. Long-term management themes focus on competitive exclusion (establishing tree canopies that cast deep shade during the growing season and getting wood back into/onto the soil. Innovative means of getting there include competitive exclusion using made materials (cardboard, carpets….) and then followed by dense plantings of desirable species. Untested ecosystem methods include micro-nutrient management (boron) and managing soil pH, but the environmental impacts of such approaches have not been well-examined.
Scot's Broom (Cytisus scoparius)
Scot's broom is often a typical indicator of soil disturbance (road-building, clearing, and cultivation), but is also known to invade grassland and oak ecosystems that have damaged microbiotic crust systems. Infestation is thought to lead to dramatically altered soil biota and altered nutrient cycling. Long-term ecosystem management themes focus on limiting seedling establishment by establishing plant canopies that inhibit germination/establishment (to wit, re-establish microbiotic crusts, i.e. competitive exclusion) or re-establishing fire regimes. Innovative means of getting there include re-establishing microbiotic crusts via “seeding.”
CONCLUSION
Weeds are often not the cause, but a symptom of depleted ecosystem integrity−often the legacy of on-going or past poor management practices. It is important to be able to assess the potential ecological causes of weed invasions, and then address and understand these in an integrated, ecosystem-scale framework. Successful weed management may not be about managing individual species, but rather managing natural ecosystem processes essential to ecosystem integrity. Those ecosystem processes may be the most effective tools for managing weed infestations over the long term.
Lessons emerge from our experiences in managing weeds as components of ecosystems. These include needs to understand relevant ecological concepts and the importance of integrated approaches, to implement regular monitoring with provisions for true adaptive management, and to pursue new technologies and strategies. There is also need for information clearinghouses where interested parties can share weed management experiences and seek information resulting from others’ experiences.
LITERATURE CITED
Amaranthus, Michael. 2001. Mycorrhizal management: a look beneath the surface at plant establishment and growth. Land and Water, September/October: 55-59.
Antieau, Clayton. 2000. Emerging themes in reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) management. Proceedings, American Water Resources Association 2000 Summer Specialty Conference (Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-land Use Watersheds). August 28-31, Portland, Oregon.
Apfelbaum, Steve and Kim Chapman. 1997. Ecosystem Management. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Ingham, E.R. and R. Molina. 1991. Interactions between mycorrhizal fungi, rhizosphere organisms, and plants. In Microorganisms, Plants and Herbivores, P. Barbosa (ed.). John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Perry, David and Michael Amaranthus. 1990. The plant-soil bootstrap: microorganisms and reclamation of degraded ecosystems. In Environmental Restoration, John Berger (ed.). Island Press, Washington, D.C.
St. John, Ted. 1999. Nitrate immobilization and the mycorrhizal network for control of exotic ruderals. California Exotic Pest Plant Council News 7(1): 4-5, 10-11.
St. John, Ted. 1989. Soil disturbance and the mineral nutrition of native plants. In Proc. 2nd Native Plant Revegetation Symposium, April 15-18, 1987, J. P. Rieger and B.K. Williams (eds.).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). 1999. Soil biology primer. Publication PA-1637. August.
AUTHOR
Clayton J. Antieau M.S., Ph.C. is a horticulturist, botanist, and environmental scientist who enthusiastically combines these disciplines to offer unique abilities and perspectives in horticultural and environmental education and environmental science. Clay currently works for the City of Seattle, implementing the Habitat Conservation Plan for the City's municipal drinking water supply, the Cedar River Watershed. Clay is a recognized local authority and educator in Northwest native plants and has taught or lectured on this, wetland science, restoration science, and related subjects at the University of Washington and numerous technical and community colleges around Washington.
Clayton Antieau
Botanist and Watershed Planner
206-233-3711; FAX 206-233-1527; clayton.antieau@ci.seattle.wa.us
Seattle Public Utilities, City of Seattle, Watershed Management Division, Cedar River Watershed
19901 Cedar Falls Road SE, North Bend, WA 98045-9681
Clayton J. Antieau 2001
Published in the Conference Proceedings: Haase, D.L. and R. Rose, editors. 2001. Native Plant Propagation and Restoration Strategies. Sponsored by the Nursery Technology Cooperative and Western Forestry and Conservation Association. December 12-13, 2001.
ABSTRACT
Weeds are often not the cause, but symptoms of depleted ecosystem integrity−often legacies of on-going or past poor management practices. Unless ecological causes of weed invasions are understood in integrated, ecosystem-scale frameworks, weed management projects are often doomed to fail. It may be useful to consider weed management tools as either “ecosystem” tools or "agricultural-scale" tools. Ecosystem tools are usually used on small scales, are minimally disruptive, have longer-term impacts on community development, but act slowly. Agricultural tools are typically used on larger scales, but usually have highly disruptive, short-term effects on ecosystems.
Several lessons emerge from experiences managing weeds in their ecosystem contexts. These include needs to understand relevant ecological concepts and the importance of integrated approaches, to implement regular monitoring with provision for true adaptive management, and to pursue new technologies/strategies. There is also need for information clearinghouses where interested parties share weed management experiences and seek information resulting from others’ experiences.
KEYWORDS: WEEDS, INVASIVE SPECIES, WEED MANAGEMENT, ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT, PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA, POLYGONUM CUSPIDATUM, CYTISUS SCOPARIUS
INTRODUCTION
Noxious weeds pose serious challenges to the management and restoration of ecosystems throughout the Pacific Northwest. Aggressive weeds displace desirable habitat and species diversity, often persisting in the face of active weed control efforts. Weed management is a large topic, covering myriad weed species growing in many places, and involving many management strategies and tools. Further, effective weed management is strongly situational, paying close attention to the details of space and place. The limited time allotted this paper precludes detailed discussion of specific weed management situations or problems. However, a useful global approach might be to contrast a traditional weed management philosophy with an alternative philosophy that fits more snugly with the goals and objectives of watershed restoration. Such exploration may help you more fully understand the complexities of the weed infestations you might be working on in your specific restoration efforts. Thus, this paper reviews foundational considerations, illustrated using a couple of the more widespread invasive weeds in the maritime Northwest. The "foundation" component focuses on understanding weed infestations in the contexts of the ecosystems in which they occur and of the key ecosystem processes they disrupt. Understanding these ecosystem contexts provides insights into possible management strategies for these and other weeds, and promises greater success in achieving restoration goals.
TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO WEED MANAGEMENT
I'm a botanist and planner on a team of biologists and other scientists that manage the Cedar River Watershed, the main source of drinking water for 1.3 million citizens of Seattle and surrounding communities. The 91,000-acre Watershed is closed to unrestricted public access and managed for abundant, high quality water and fish and wildlife habitat. Contrary to how that may sound, the Watershed is far from pristine, having endured 150 years of timber extraction, road building, stream channelization and cleaning, mining, and urban development. Land management is guided by a Habitat Conservation Plan (developed under the Endangered Species Act), which is essentially a watershed restoration plan that directs us to repair past damages. One of my responsibilities in the Watershed is to set the direction of weed management in the Watershed by developing weed management plans, implementing weed management projects, monitoring, and so forth. The task is challenging because herbicides are not allowed in the Watershed.
Team members who manage the Watershed use working definitions of restoration to broadly guide their work. The definition I like is from Apfelbaum and Chapman (1997):
"….a practical management strategy that uses ecological processes in order to maintain ecosystem composition, structure, and function with minimal human intervention."
In addition to being a botanist and planner, I am also a horticulturist trained within the traditional agricultural context of that discipline. I consider the traditional or "agricultural" approaches to weed management that I am familiar with and contrast those with this definition of ecosystem restoration. Two contrasts appear immediately. First, traditional approaches to weed management embed an implicit assumption that humans will always be involved in managing weeds, whereas a goal of restoration strives to eventually eliminate the need for human interventions. The second contrast focuses on ecosystem processes. Traditional weed management is preoccupied with the weed itself, purposefully removing it from the ecological context in which it occurs. Traditional weed management asks "How do I control this weed?"
We are familiar with the traditional tools used to answer that question: row-cropping or strip-cropping; intercropping; rotations; cover or competition crops; cultivation (e.g., disking); fallow; herbicides; mowing/chaining; predation (grazing; biocontrols); fire; and so forth. Some of these have a long track record, with a commensurately long legacy of adverse impacts to natural and social resources: Widespread Herbicide Use (contaminated surface/ground waters, altered soil floras, altered wildlife, estrogenic activity, threats to human health, etc.); Introduced Organisms/Pests (escaped biological controls, escaped seedings of exotic grasses etc.); and Large-scale Habitat Modification (biodiversity loss,
increased erosion/sedimentation, flooding/drought, etc.).
ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTS IN WEED MANAGEMENT
What's the Right Question to Ask? Or, What are Useful Ecosystem Themes in Weed Management?
What happens if we stop asking "How do I control this weed?", and start asking "Why do I have this weed?" Upon contemplation, answers to this question generate several themes, three important themes being the following:
1. Weeds are not the cause, but symptoms of depleted ecosystem integrity⎯often the legacy of on-going or past poor management practices. This is illustrated by historic overgrazing in the shrub- and desert-steppe of the Columbia Basin. Grazing destroyed the microbiotic crusts that were integral to the health of that ecosystem, leading to erosion, biodiversity loss, and catastrophic biological invasions. (See http://www.soilcrust.org/ for a discussion of the structure, function, and ecology of microbiotic crusts.)
2. Unless ecological causes of weed invasions are addressed and understood in an integrated, ecosystem-scale framework, weed management efforts are often doomed to fail. This is illustrated by frequently observed replacement of one managed weed with a non-managed weed, as in the case of bio-predated purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) being replaced by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea).
3. Ecological restoration takes time and operates on scales much different than the regulatory, political, and fiscal timescales that humans are used to. This is illustrated by formerly forested wetlands that are now swards of reed canarygrass. Placement of coarse woody debris initiates a key ecosystem process in these ecosystems that operates on a scale of centuries.
Weeds Compromise Ecosystem Integrity
If weeds are placed back into the ecosystem contexts in which they occur, we discover some enlightening facts about the biology and ecology of those weeds. In particular, one of the more enlightening areas of discussion is how weeds disrupt key ecosystem processes. Altered key ecosystem processes and services include the following, among others:
nutrient cycling and carbon cycling (Scot’s broom)
sediment erosion and deposition rates (spartina)
disturbance intensities and frequencies (cheat grass)
evapotranspiration, water cycling, and hydroperiods (tamarisk; reed canarygrass)
soil chemistry and soil biological processes (Russian knapweed)
habitat availability for native plants/animals/other organisms (reed canarygrass)
primary productivity (ryegrass)
food web interactions/characteristics (trophic levels)
genetic integrity (hawkweeds)
resilience to disturbance (incl. biological invasions) (Scot’s broom)
biodiversity (spotted knapweed; cheat grass; reed canarygrass)
If this is what weeds do, can humans intervene specifically to interrupt these disruptions, effectively using ecosystem processes as weed management tools? Recent scientific research and field experiences confirm this is possible. Successful weed management may not be about managing individual species, but rather managing natural ecosystem processes essential to ecosystem integrity.
"ECOSYSTEM" TOOLS CONTRASTED WITH "AGRICULTURAL" TOOLS
It may be useful to consider weed management tools as either “ecosystem” tools or "agricultural-scale" tools. Ecosystem tools are usually used on small scales, are minimally disruptive, have longer-term impacts on community development, but act slowly. Agricultural tools are typically used on larger scales, but usually have highly disruptive, short-term effects on ecosystems. What are some "ecosystem" tools that have been used to manage weeds?
ALLELOPATHY
COMPETITIVE EXCLUSION (planting, mulching, seeding, shading)
MICROBIOTIC SOIL CRUSTS
SOIL HEALTH (flora and fauna)
DOWNED/BURIED WOOD (feed the carbon cycle)
MICRO- AND MACRO-TOPOGRAPHY (de-leveling)
BIODIVERSITY
SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES (pH/nutrient management)
PREDATION (biological controls; grazing)
HYDROPERIOD ALTERATION (flooding/drainage)
EDGE EFFECTS (planting circles)
To illustrate the implementation of some of these "ecosystem" tools, I'll use macro-nutrient management (anti-fertilization), edge effects (planting circles), soil health, and downed and buried wood.
Macro-nutrient Management
Many weed species are known to be especially competitive in the presence of free (ionic) macro-nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Native plants are generally more competitive when soils are less fertile or lack free macro-nutrients. In disturbed ecosystems, nutrient cycling is altered to distinctly favor weeds. A technique for immobilizing free nutrients adds large quantities of carbon (such as compost or sugar). The soil fungi and bacteria increase on this energy source, immobilizing any available nitrogen and phosphorus. Desirable native species and their mycorrhizal associates are introduced during this 1 to 2 year window and benefit from reduced weed vigor. This process, sometimes called "anti-fertilization," is best used on soils that naturally have low fertility (such as sands or sandy-textured soils) and was first described by St. John (1988).
Edge Effects
The zone where two or more different plant communities come together is known as "edge." Edge environments are areas of ecological tension deriving from gradients of light, moisture, cover, and food. For those weed species forming monocultures (such as reed canarygrass), large-diameter planting circles or blocks have been used to successfully introduce "edge" (Antieau 2000). Herbicides are typically used to eliminate the weed from within a planting circle. Once the grass is dead, the blocks or circles are densely planted with desirable native vegetation such as willows, appropriate conifers, and/or deciduous shrubs. As planted areas of dense vegetation grow, their canopy begins to reduce the vigor and cover of adjacent areas of weeds, largely due to shading. As shaded weeds decline in vigor and density, desirable native plants become established and the planting circles "enlarge" into the weed infestation.
Soil Health
Biological soil processes have only recently come to light as integral ecosystem processes. Much is still unknown, but work by Elaine Ingham, Michael Amaranthus, and others has demonstrated the intimate and essential relationships that above-ground vegetation has with fungal, bacterial, and non-vertebrate soil inhabitants (Amaranthus 2001; Ingham and Molina 1991; Perry and Amaranthus 1990; USDA, NRCS 1999). Mycorrhizal associations have been shown to impart ecosystem resiliency to weed infestations (St. John 1999).
Downed and Buried Wood
Until recently, the role of wood in ecosystems was poorly understood. We now know wood is integral to key ecosystem process because it houses and feeds fungal and animal organisms, provides critical moisture reserves, and becomes germination and growing substrate for natural (shade-tolerant) conifer regeneration (in wetter parts of the maritime Northwest). In forested ecosystems, canopy loss facilitates and supports the invasion of invasive herbaceous species through a variety of mechanisms. The absence of wood in these ecosystems continues to impede natural successional processes that potentially keep weeds at bay.
ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTS APPLIED TO SPECIFIC WEED SPECIES
Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)
Reed canarygrass is a typical disturbance-response species, often indicating past clearing, cultivation and leveling, altered hydroperiods, purposeful seeding, etc. However, it is also thought to be native in at least some parts of the Pacific Northwest (Antieau 2000). Infestations in formerly forested habitats are thought to dramatically alter soil flora. Long-term management themes focus on establishing forests that cast deep year-round shade (where appropriate, as in Puget Trough), getting wood back into/onto the soil, and introducing biodiversity. Innovative means of getting there include planting circles (edge effects), pole plantings, de-leveling (micro-topographic diversity), and coarse woody debris placement (carbon cycling; soil flora; plant succession).
Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum, P. sachalinense, and hybrids)
Japanese knotweed is increasingly a problem in wetter parts of the Pacific Northwest. This species is generally considered a disturbance-response species, following road-building, clearing, and cultivation activities. It is also known to invade flood-disturbed zones in riparian and wetland ecosystems. The species is suspected of altering soil flora in formerly forested areas. Long-term management themes focus on competitive exclusion (establishing tree canopies that cast deep shade during the growing season and getting wood back into/onto the soil. Innovative means of getting there include competitive exclusion using made materials (cardboard, carpets….) and then followed by dense plantings of desirable species. Untested ecosystem methods include micro-nutrient management (boron) and managing soil pH, but the environmental impacts of such approaches have not been well-examined.
Scot's Broom (Cytisus scoparius)
Scot's broom is often a typical indicator of soil disturbance (road-building, clearing, and cultivation), but is also known to invade grassland and oak ecosystems that have damaged microbiotic crust systems. Infestation is thought to lead to dramatically altered soil biota and altered nutrient cycling. Long-term ecosystem management themes focus on limiting seedling establishment by establishing plant canopies that inhibit germination/establishment (to wit, re-establish microbiotic crusts, i.e. competitive exclusion) or re-establishing fire regimes. Innovative means of getting there include re-establishing microbiotic crusts via “seeding.”
CONCLUSION
Weeds are often not the cause, but a symptom of depleted ecosystem integrity−often the legacy of on-going or past poor management practices. It is important to be able to assess the potential ecological causes of weed invasions, and then address and understand these in an integrated, ecosystem-scale framework. Successful weed management may not be about managing individual species, but rather managing natural ecosystem processes essential to ecosystem integrity. Those ecosystem processes may be the most effective tools for managing weed infestations over the long term.
Lessons emerge from our experiences in managing weeds as components of ecosystems. These include needs to understand relevant ecological concepts and the importance of integrated approaches, to implement regular monitoring with provisions for true adaptive management, and to pursue new technologies and strategies. There is also need for information clearinghouses where interested parties can share weed management experiences and seek information resulting from others’ experiences.
LITERATURE CITED
Amaranthus, Michael. 2001. Mycorrhizal management: a look beneath the surface at plant establishment and growth. Land and Water, September/October: 55-59.
Antieau, Clayton. 2000. Emerging themes in reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) management. Proceedings, American Water Resources Association 2000 Summer Specialty Conference (Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-land Use Watersheds). August 28-31, Portland, Oregon.
Apfelbaum, Steve and Kim Chapman. 1997. Ecosystem Management. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Ingham, E.R. and R. Molina. 1991. Interactions between mycorrhizal fungi, rhizosphere organisms, and plants. In Microorganisms, Plants and Herbivores, P. Barbosa (ed.). John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Perry, David and Michael Amaranthus. 1990. The plant-soil bootstrap: microorganisms and reclamation of degraded ecosystems. In Environmental Restoration, John Berger (ed.). Island Press, Washington, D.C.
St. John, Ted. 1999. Nitrate immobilization and the mycorrhizal network for control of exotic ruderals. California Exotic Pest Plant Council News 7(1): 4-5, 10-11.
St. John, Ted. 1989. Soil disturbance and the mineral nutrition of native plants. In Proc. 2nd Native Plant Revegetation Symposium, April 15-18, 1987, J. P. Rieger and B.K. Williams (eds.).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). 1999. Soil biology primer. Publication PA-1637. August.
AUTHOR
Clayton J. Antieau M.S., Ph.C. is a horticulturist, botanist, and environmental scientist who enthusiastically combines these disciplines to offer unique abilities and perspectives in horticultural and environmental education and environmental science. Clay currently works for the City of Seattle, implementing the Habitat Conservation Plan for the City's municipal drinking water supply, the Cedar River Watershed. Clay is a recognized local authority and educator in Northwest native plants and has taught or lectured on this, wetland science, restoration science, and related subjects at the University of Washington and numerous technical and community colleges around Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)