2. I ♥ Weeds and People Master’s degree in Social Science, Interdisciplinary at SFSU. Thesis at Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and employment at Acterra. Experiment with one method of controlling hemlock on the preserve GIS mapping and data review Literature analysis and program recommendations about volunteerism
4. Invasive Species 50,000 alien species have invaded the US.¹ Estimated cost to US: $137 billion/year.² Second most powerful threat to biodiversity worldwide. ² HIPPO H = Habitat Loss and Fragmentation I = Invasive Plants P = Pollution P = Population (human overpopulation) O = Overconsumption
10. Related Research Replanting Oversowing with biologically similar natives (Simmons)4 Effective competitors (Dukes)5 Alellopathy Andrews6: Early growth and senescing is worst. Recommends fall/winter removal, re-sow with native grass seed
11. Site selection 2007 populations of Conium were GPS’d to compare with 2001 maps. Four areas were selected for: ease of access, over 75% hemlock coverage, relevancy to Acterra’s work, and volunteer safety. 49 ½ m² quadrats, monitor for 15 months Randomized quadrat locations and treatments.
13. Study Design Hand-pull and re-seed with native plants of similar biology. Elymus glaucus - Blue Wild Rye Perennial native bunchgrass, can be found in shady areas. Achilleamillefolia–Yarrow Grows near hemlock, prolific, mid-summer seed. Hemizoniacongesta ssp. Luzulifolia - Hayfield tarweed Late summer seed, forms dense stands. Originally 5 treatments: Control, pull, replant grass, replant forbs, replant mix.
14. Results Pre-treatment Conium counts varied from 35 plants per quadrat to 700. High plot attrition. No statistically significant difference between any of the treatments and the control. No statistically significant correlation found for Conium maculatum regrowth and: Soil moisture Canopy % or canopy species Slope or aspect Ecotype or plant associates
15. Graph of results March, 2008 15 months after treatment January, 2007 Pre-treatment
16. Recommendations Larger quadrat size – entire plot area instead of quadrats. Natural boundary, no seed rain. Live plants, not seed. Large size (G), not plugs. Different plants – shade loving, rhizotomatous. Baccharis douglasii – Marsh baccharis Heracleumlantanum – Cow parsnip Leymus triticoides – Wet meadow rye Rubusursinus – CA blackberry Anything you see growing interspersed with hemlock. Research sites AWAY from restoration areas.
18. Observations Hemlock has increased in quantity and spread to new areas since 2001. Spread has primarily occurred along trails and waterways. Photo by David Smernoff
19.
20.
21. Recommendations Mapping protocols. Focus on seed-head clipping and other trailside control work. Share info at interp. and volunteer events. Signage, outreach to recreation users. Consider signs at infestation site / trails. Photo by Richard Bicknell
23. Background 26 % of US - 61 million people a year6 Why people volunteer (Measham and Barnett)7 Helping a cause Social interaction Improving skills Learning about the environment General desire to care for the environment Desire to care for a particular place
24. Program planning Integrated educational component Games, acronyms, audience participation Skill-building Project-specific: plant ID, clinometer, research methodology Program-wide: Educational materials, combined interpretive focus with volunteer work days Teamwork, meet new people Sense of place: “You are the stewards of this land.” Biocultural diversity.
25. Biocultural diversity = Life + Culture + Difference Connection between Native American cultural areas and ecological niches.8 2124 of CA’s endemic plants overlapped geographically with 14 language families and dialects of 72 endemic Native languages.9 Diverse peoples = Diverse ecologies?
26.
27.
28. Implications Cocks (2006): Learn dynamics of various groups’ biocultural values (focus on recreation, resource use, etc.) Use those as starting points for building additional approaches towards community based conservation.
29. Results and Recommendations Results Volunteer participation rose sharply 750 – 1350. Participants demonstrated knowledge acquisition & satisfaction with experience. Increased community participation builds future support base. Recommendations Program planning - continue satisfying Measham and Barnett’s six factors Without essentializing individuals, integrate a biocultural approach into Stewardship work.
30. Acknowledgements This is a community and collaborative success. The 2007-08 ASP team: Verna Kirkendall, Claire Elliott, Sheri Lubin, Deanna Giuliano, and other Acterra folk provided invaluable support and assistance. Maps are courtesy of Paulo Philippides. Cyrus Hiatt also helped with mapping and data management. Christine Zable counted about a million hemlock plants. Tom Cochrane provided plant ID help throughout. The Rangers were awesome, as usual. Thank you to all the volunteers, friends, family, colleagues, professors, fellow students, and everyone else who helped.
31. References 1. Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. (2004). Update on Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Alien-Invasive Species in the United States. Ecological Economics, Vol. 52, pp. 278-288. 2. Wilson, Edward O. 2002. The Future of Life. Random House, New York, New York. 229 p. 3. Conservation International (2006). California Floristic Province. Retrieved May 8, 2006 from http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/california_floristic/biodiversity.xml. 4. Simmons, M. (2005). Bullying the Bullies; The Selective Control of an Exotic, Invasive Annual (Rapistrumrugosum) by Oversowing with a Competitive Native Species. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 13, pp. 609-615. 5. Dukes, Jeffrey. (2001). Biodiversity and Invasibility in Grassland Microcosms. Oecologia, Vol 126, pp. 563 - 568. 6. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Volunteering in the United States, 2008. Economic news release retrieved May 21, 2009 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm. 7. Measham, Thomas B. and Barnett, Guy B. (2007). Environmental volunteering: motivations, modes and outcomes. Socio-economics and the environment in discussion : CSIRO working paper series; 2007-03. 30 p. 8. Kroeber (1963) cited in Maffi, Luisa, (2005). Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 34, pp. 599-617.
32. References 9. Chung, Eugene R. (2000). Biocultural Diversity Hotspots and GIS Analysis: Alta California as a Case Study. Abstract. Presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Society for Economic Botany. Retrieved 05/25/07 from: www.econbot.org/_organization_/07_annual_meetings/meetings_by_year/2000/abstracts_2000.pdf. 10. Cocks, Michelle (2006). Biocultural Diversity: Moving Beyond the Realm of 'Indigenous' and 'Local' People. Human Ecology, Vol. 34, pp. 185 - 200.
