Hi,

I am a graduate student at Virginia Commonwealth University researching the VA coastal marshes. As in many other parts of the east, Phragmites australis is enroaching on sensitive wetland habitat for birds and other species. I have been throwing around some things in my head about novel ways to deter Phragmites. Does anybody have ideas, experiences, or references that are "outside the box" of the normal mow and spray management practices? (I don't mind if they were disasters or just funny ).

Thanks,

Jeremy Fennell

Jeremy asked:

"...As in many other parts of the east, Phragmites australis is enroaching on sensitive wetland habitat for birds and other species. I have been throwing around some things in my head about novel ways to deter Phragmites. Does anybody have ideas, experiences, or references that are "outside the box"...?

Dear Jeremy,

Phragmites form dominant wetlands vegetation communities that should be protected. Efforts to remove and control phragmites have resulted in the destruction of good wetlands and habitat. Phragmites along with certain other species have been determined by "experts" to be "invasive" and therefore undesirable for various reasons.

In the past few years, there has been a new regulatory industry built on the premise of saving our environment from the threat of invasive species. Invasive species practitioners oppose Darwin's theory of natural selection and seek to manage eco-systems by restoring pre-existing dominant species.

Species that thrive in phragmite dominated wetland eco-systems should not be disturbed. Projects that impact phragmite wetlands should be required to mitigate the impacts in like-kind.

Many thriving wetlands tend to be dominated by so-called "invasive" species. Education and reason informs us that all species must always adapt to a changing environment, and some species adapt better than others. This is a point of contention that has confounded many who have fought unsuccessfully to eradicate phragmites and other invasive species.

Whoa Johnny,
Natural selection by nature's doing is one thing, but man-influenced introduction is another. Native plants have developed along with their natural controls, not usually the case with the introduced exotics. Using you arguement of letting natural selection to sort things out in the everglades would leave us with melaleuca and cattails in the marsh and Old-world climbing fern, Australian pine and Brazilian pepper on the tree islands. The repercussions to the wildlife that depend on this sensitive habitat would be catasthrophic, but I guess that would be the next level of selection. You may want to visit one of the exotic pest plant council websites or meetings to get a little better perspective on this issue.
Ray

Ray also offers a path for Jeremy to take in looking for information. The various state Exotic Pest Plant Councils would be a good starting place for seeking this type of information. Just search on "state name" and exotic pest plant council.

another good place to search would be the Global Invasive Species Initiative, a Nature Conservancy program. You can find them at:

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/index.html

Ray Miller said:

"...Whoe Johnny.... Using you argument of letting natural selection to sort things out in the everglades would leave us with melaleuca and cattails in the marsh and Old-world climbing fern, Australian pine and Brazilian pepper on the tree islands. The repercussions to the wildlife that depend on this sensitive habitat would be catasthrophic,..."

Dear Ray,

I grew up in South Florida and enjoyed the forests, savannas, and swamps in and around the everglades. Melaleuca, cattails, climbing fern, australian pine, and brazilian pepper vine, were well established years ago, and are very common throughout South Florda. Yet there is little evidence of a catastrophe.

Most native spieces such as deer, possums, armadillows, skunks, rabbits, hogs, field mice, snakes, birds, insects, frogs, etc. have adapted to the changing eco-systems. Some species like climbing ferns and peppervine while others do not. Despite the maleleuca trees, alligators are not threatened or endangered in South Florida.

I am not convinced that humans should intervene and somehow manage heathy natural eco-systems which contain non-native species, to achieve some academic or regulatory "goal" that is different from the natural selection that occurs when these eco-systems remain undisturbed.

Many species of wildlife thrive in the everglades and it remains a natural wonderland. There may be some new plants and animals but it is simply wrong to attempt to create a false sense of crisis by describing this situation as catastrophic. Hurricanes are catastrophic, not invasive species.

I have yet to see a catastrophic maleluecca or australian pine forest in South Florida.

Attempts to eradicate these plant communities do not provide significant benefits to the environment, but instead benefits a fairly small number of government employees and consultants who are employed to "control" invasive species. These efforts have largely failed, but proponents still demand more public and private funding.

Invasive species is not a good vocation for serious young environmental professionals when compared to meaningful pursuits like providing safe drinking water, sanitation, and clean food in developing countries.

I hope that federal, state, and local governments will divert funding from invasive species and use our tax dollars responsibly to assist people who are suffering from real catastrophies.

quote:

Invasive species is not a good vocation for serious young environmental professionals when compared to meaningful pursuits like providing safe drinking water, sanitation, and clean food in developing countries.

Johnny,

I appreciate your eloquent and stimulating comments. I do, however, take a offense at this one. A "serious young environmental professional" can focus on whatever he or she sees fit to help the cause. Who is anyone to say what environmentalists should do or what constitutes a catastrophe? Granted, I agree that from an anthropocentric standpoint invasive species are nothing compared to a hurricane, but Phragmites's encroachment on habitat effects many other species and the ecosystem functions associated with those species. I am sure migratory birds in the VA coastal marshes would peck your eyes out if they heard you say that invasive species should not be managed, but left alone.

I agree that humans at times create new problems to solve the old ones, but just because a problem does not have an easy solution, doesn't mean that we should just say, "well, that's nature taking its course."
It all comes down to a difference in philosophy.


Jeremy

Johnny,

With all due respect your argument lacks any credibility. Based on your response I can only assume that the kudzu that ravages our native trees here in VA is a good thing??? Or at least not worth spending money to control. That's way off base.

Have you studied the species richness, diversity, and distribution prior to invasives and compared it to times after invasives or is your observation about the thriving wildlife in FLA based on a cursory window survey. It takes a lot of work to see the subtle changes over time, not just passing glances. Are there more hogs now or less. Are deer finding the cover they need to thrive, not just to survive. Does the homogenous nature of Phragmites landscapes cater to traditional species diveristy or hinder it?? These are not small questions with easy answers and unless you immerse yourself in the process you have no real clue!

While I am not an isolationist, nor do I underestimate the positive role that the U.S. can have in helping bolster developing countries, I do not see the link between trying to protect our natural environment here at home and helping people abroad. They are not at all related. Furthermore, our water quality in the U.S. sucks overall. How many rivers are safe enough to eat the fish you catch? Not many! Maybe by paying more attention to protecting our natural ecosystems and preventing development in vital areas we can improve our own water quality, solidify our shorelines, and be more proactive in preventing catastrophe. After all, wetland destruction in Louisiana only helped to intensify the blow of Katrina in New Orleans and surrounding areas. Clearly reactive thinking helped intensify the Katrina catastrophe.

For the best online database for invasive wetland/aquatic vegetation go to

http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/search80/NetAns2/

This database is sponsored by the Univ. of FL Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants.

http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/

I just did a search on "phragmites AND control" and got over 1,000 hits!! Some are bound to be novel control methods.

David Trible said:

Johnny,
With all due respect, your argument lacks any credibility


Dear David,

Kudzu may ravage some native trees in Virginia but it may also benefit the eco-system in ways that may not be obvious from a cursory overview. The value of “controlling invasive species” is a small question with an easy answer. When compared to other pressing human needs, invasive species do not merit public money, and efforts to control them almost always fail.

The link between protecting our environment and helping people abroad is also straightforward. Over the last 35 years, America has made tremendous progress in cleaning and restoring its environment. Today, our overall air and water quality is much better than it was 35 years ago. This is not the case in many developing countries. Each year, millions of people die from environmental impacts resulting from unsafe drinking water, poor sanitation, and contaminated food. Your statement that “water quality in the U.S. sucks overall” is inaccurate but typical of the common tendency to exaggerate, overstate, and mis-represent complex environmental issues such as water quality, as dire and catastrophic.

I offer a credible and compassionate argument that is based on a mature a understanding of the reality that our government has limited public resources. Given a choice, we should give priority to environmental calamity which could be remedied with cost effective, proven technologies that result in greater human benefits than spending public money on futile programs to control invasive species.

Invasive species that threaten public health and commerce may merit our attention, but species or combinations of species that alter eco-systems, either tangibly or intangibly, are merely a well studied biological phenomenon that may be interesting from an academic standpoint but hardly a matter that merits serious concern.

In conclusion, wetlands loss in Louisiana is due to geomorphic processes that occur naturally in many river deltas throughout the world. The weight of sediment deposits gradually depress the ocean floor, and along with subsidence caused by oil and water extraction, cause coastal wetlands to gradually sink and become open water. Louisiana leads the nation in total acres of annual wetlands loss. The conversion of wetlands to open water is irreversible. Redirecting the river to manage sediment flow may produce some localized effects, but there is no practicable method to reverse the geomorphic process and stop the continuing loss of coastal wetlands in the Mississippi delta.

Jeremy,
Notwithstanding the howling in the wilderness by the intentionally uninformed, I do have a couple of answers for your question. On a project in Manahawkin, N.J., Phragmites rhizomes were inadvertently spread over several acres of a site intended for forested wetland construction. When rhizome pieces begin to grow they send up shoots before growing roots. Consequently they are easy to pull for a short time after sprouting. A half day by a BSA troop and most of the Phragmites was remobved by simpy pulling the newly sprouted rhizome segments.

Another instance was the desire to remove a dense stand of Phragmites by excavating to a depth of three feet and hauling all of the soil away. This technique was ineffective because a significant amount of the rhizome system was deeper than three feet.

In Currituck Sound, Phragmites stands are self limiting and often not monotypic, while in South Dakota and Montana Phragmites is not often an invasive species, so much for stereotypes. Good luck on your project and don't let ignorance in others impede your progress.
Gary Pierce

quote:

Given a choice, we should give priority to environmental calamity which could be remedied with cost effective, proven technologies that result in greater human benefits than spending public money on futile programs to control invasive species

Johnny,
I see your rational for your reasoning now. You think humans are separate from nature and not part of it.
Ray

Hi all,

This is tending towards some negative discussions here. Let's keep it nice and continue the interesting dialogue that's gone on so far.


Andy Cole

While I don't agree with some of what Johnny is saying , part of what I hear creates a very interesting debate. We have a lot of serious environmental issues in the United States that can be fixed or at least helped. The eradication of quite a few of the invasive species is costly and completely ineffective. We just can't stop some of these species. So, with the extremely limited resources that the government has for environmental "fixes", is the eradication of invasive species a good use of the money? Why not devote that money to problems that we can actually have an effect on?

How ironical, Johnny. You originally defend your position by supporting a Darwinian view of nature and Mr. Miller now accuses of you of a Judeo-Christian understanding of mankind.

I love this stuff. "God help me, I do love it so." Jeremy starts-out with an innocent grad student question about phrag control and before we know it, we're involved in a philosophical debate about man and nature.

Rodeo applied to the tassles in the fall can be an effective technique for small populations. Larger populations may need a more comphrehensive strategy that looks at spending resources at preventing new establishment, trying to decrease the expanding edge, rather than trying to completely eliminate the species. For a graduate project, one thought might be to look at control strategies throughout a watershed, rather than at a single site. In that manner, you might be able to compare single point spray, single point dig up, treat the ramet, treat the genet etc as viable options and look at how they succeed in relation to landscape parameters. This would of course, require that you have access to a database that covers a number of projects. There is alot of controversy in the literature on the best way to control non-native species that have established in large areas, so research looking at landscape level control would have implications for conservation issues in other areas and other invasive species. I encourage you to look at a bigger picture than a factorial experiment of black plastic, black plastic +mow, herbicide + mow, burn, etc.

Also, as for the conservation element, there is a mounting body of literature that is looking at the genetic differences within the species referred to as Phragmites australis. It appears that the giant reed is a native species and that it was historically important in the culture of at least the pre-European Indian cultures in the arid west. Recent genetic studies have shown that there is a large difference in the invasiveness of the native giant reed vs a giant reed hybrid. I am not sure how that would fit into your research but it is worth noting.

If you really want to get rid of Phragmites, you need to figure out how to convert it into a fuel for automobiles. Forget about nature and economic resources, let capitalism control it.

hummm...
Phalaris is supposed to be a good source of DMT ... and it's still around.

Perhaps capitalism isn't the answer to everything.