Invasive Threats

2/24/2010

1

Southern Indiana CWMA

Invasive ThreatsInvasive Threats

Emerald Ash Borer

http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/eab/index.php

Emerald Ash Borer

http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/eab/index.php

Emerald Ash Borer

Fly up to 3 to 6 miles¼ mile/yr rate of spread

2/24/2010

2

Emerald Ash Borer

Site No. 81109/11/2009

Chestnut Blight

Insidious ThreatInsidious Threat

Green, growing, attractive, wonderful fragrance, and even

useful

SO. . .

Must be good!

Why Sudden Explosion?

• Invasion time lag

• Changing climate

• Sterile hybrids• Sterile hybrids –chromosomal mutation or cross pollination resulting in fertile, highly invasive weed

2/24/2010

3

Invasion Horticultural Pathway• Consumer demand for novel plants

• Mass-production and transportation

• E-commerce, global commerce

• Enhance, accelerate establishment & spread

• Reichard (1997):• Reichard (1997):

235 woody invasives

• 82% landscaping

• 14% ag.

• 3% erosion control

• 1% accidental

Invasion Horticultural Pathway(Culley and Hardiman, 2007, BioScience Vol. 57 No. 11)

1. Cultivars may escape

2. Cultivars cross-fertilize with related native or introduced spp. (interspecific hybrid)

3. Genetically distinct cultivars of same spp cross-fertilize (intraspecific hybridization) – novel genotypes not occuring in native rangeoccuring in native range

4. Rootstock of grafted individuals sprout and cross-fertilize with scion

5. Rootstock itself invasive

6. Chromosomal mutation

7. Preadapted for invasion – selected for traits

Characteristics of Invasive Plants

• Fast growing• Prolific reproducers• Vigorous sprouting/suckering• Establish following disturbance• First to leaf out and last to drop leaves• Seed disseminated by wind, animals,

humans• Few or no natural enemies

Characteristics of Invasive Plants

• Allelopathy• Seed bank• Short establishment period where

inconspicuous followed by explosiveinconspicuous followed by explosive growth and spread

• Promoted for conservation, wildlife, landscaping

• Population centers are at urban/rural interface and along infrastructure corridors (hwys & utilities)

2/24/2010

4

Climate Change?Dukes et al. 2009

Can. J. For. Res.• Warmer is better for

invasives– Incr. metabolism,

reproduction, dispersal

– Northward/elevationalexpansion

– Decr. winter mortaility

• More complex for insects and pathogens

Climate Change?

• Plants disproportionately benefit– High phenotypic plasticity

– Broad environmental tolerance

Dukes et al. 2009 Can. J. For. Res

tolerance

– Better at keeping up with changes

– Traits that facilitate long range dispersal

– Rapidly establish in new suitable climates where natives less well adapted.

– Incr. CO2 – recent rapid proliferation of many invasive plants?

Ailanthus, Tree of HeavenAilanthus, Tree of Heaven

• Rapid growth– Seedlings: 3 to 6 ft/yr– Sprouts: 10 to 14 ft/yr

• Absence of insect and• Absence of insect and disease

Pinnately compound leaves~5 to 20 pairs leaflets

James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service

Ailanthus, Tree of Heaven

Corbett and Manchester 2004 Inter. J. Plant Sci.

F il f d i l E

Sarah Corbett, U. of Florida

Fossils found in early Eocene

and middle Miocene in Asia, Europe, and North America

2/24/2010

5

Ailanthus, Impact on Forests

Knapp & Canham, 2000– If ailanthus can

establish in old growth gaps, it has potential for further invasionu t e as o

– Disturbance in forest facilitates spread


• Hutchinson, et al. 2004– Studied forest

management-related disturbance on ailanthus

t bli h t i 166establishment in 166 acre hardwood forest in Ohio

– Pretreatment, 32 ailanthus stems > 4” dbh, few seedlings

– Thinning + understory prescribed burn

Southern Ohio: 3 growing seasons after thin and burn treatments

• Hutchinson, et al. 2004 (cont.)– 3 yrs later: 692 1.5’ to

10’ tall ailanthus stems per acre widely distributed

– when present at low predisturbancedensities, ailanthus can disperse widely and establish in high densities following forest management activities.

Ailanthus, Impact on ForestsCarter and Fredericksen 2006 For. Ecol. and Man. 242:671-677• 18 NIPF forests SC Virginia with logging history• Recently logged vs. mature (30-40 yrs.)• 12.6% ailanthus saplings in recently logged stands

browsed• 33% seedlings and 42% saplings in mature stands• 33% seedlings and 42% saplings in mature stands

browsed

Species

Recently logged Mature

Seedlings Saplings Seedlings Saplings

Ailanthus 25051 786 791 603

Red Maple 15473 988 36625 709

Yellow-poplar 36264 6909 4645 983

Sassafras 1641 148 1362 5

White Ash 867 264 12894 319

2/24/2010

6


Gomez-Aparicio and Canham 2008 Ecol. Mono.

• Even at low densities increased nutrient availability and cycling rates and soil pH.

• Ail. litter 2 to 4 X higher Ca,

Leslie J. Mehrhoff, U. of Conn.

Mg, K• High quality litter and high

litter biomass – high N mineralization

Ailanthus, Impact on ForestsGomez-Aparicio and Canham 2008 J. Ecol. 96:447-458

Allelopathy vs. Higher Fertility:• Allelopathy proportional to

density regardless of size• Inversely proportional to

di t 0 ithi 5 f t k

Catherine Herms, Ohio State U.

distance – 0 within 5m of trunk• N. red oak and sugar maple

seedlings had net negative response

• Red maple seedlings, net positive response

• Species specific response –red maple competitive advantage

Ailanthus, Impact on ForestsKota et al. 2007 Biol Invasions 9:197-211

Regeneration dynamics:• Seed disperse at least 650 ft.

by wind• Capable of germinating under

l li ht l l

Catherine Herms, Ohio State U.

low light levels• Leaf litter inhibits germination

in first year.• 2nd year germination higher in

intact forest – seed under litter layer.

• Soil seed bank longevity at least one year – yet needs to be resolved.

Ailanthus, Impact on ForestsKota et al. 2007 Biol Invasions 9:197-211

Regeneration dynamics:• Only one year window for

ailanthus establishment following disturbanceN th t h 2nd• North aspects may have 2nd

year window• Tulip % germination low (9%),

but seed bank viability up to 7 yrs.

• Tulip and ailanthus had similar 2 yr. height growth

• On north aspect, tulip had superior growth

Chuck Bargeron, The U. of Georgia

2/24/2010

7

Ailanthus, Impact on ForestsKaproth and McGraw 2008 Forest Sci. 54(5):490-496Ailanthus seed dispersal by water:• Trees 65 ft. from river dispersed

18% of seed into water.

• 33 ♂ trees in 1 km (0.62 mi.) ♂ ( )stretch within 328 ft. of bank dispersed 17.8% of total seed, or 62,124 seeds into water.

• 88% of recovered seed washed to shore 2.5 miles down stream.

• Small number recovered 5 miles downstream within 24 hrs.

Ailanthus, Impact on ForestsKaproth and McGraw 2008 Forest Sci. 54(5):490-496Ailanthus seed dispersal by water:• Seed submerged 5 mo. retained

94% germinability.• Seed in water had 15% higher

i ti th d i ilgermination than seed in soil.• Floods will carry seeds further

downstream and disperse seed to higher elevations

• Water bodies may protect seed from extreme cold and may represent large seed bank that can disperse seed over long distances

Gypsy Moth

Wilting

Ailanthus WiltCourtesy of Dr. Donald Davis, Penn State University

Verticillium albo-atrum

If you see these symptoms, please contact:

Joanne Rebbeck USFS

[email protected]

740-368-0054

InitialSevere

2/24/2010

8

Declining Trees Mortality

Vascular Discoloration

Healthy Ailanthus Wilting Ailanthus

USDA Hand Book 386 – Diseases of Forest and Shade Trees of the U.S., George Hepting, 19711936 outbreak of V. albo-atrum Ailanthus in Philadelphia

Ailanthus ManagementBurch and Zedaker 2003 J. of Arboriculture 29(1):18-24

Low Volume Basal Bark, June application

TreatmentMortality %

(1 YAT)Mean Stems Per

Acre (2 YAT)

Garlon 4 20% + HY-Grade EC 100 a 685% 00 a 685

Garlon 4 20% + 1% Stalker + “ 98 a 1331

Garlon 4 15% + 3% Stalker + “ 80 b 786

Garlon 4 20% + 3% Stalker + “ 1089

Garlon 4 20% + 5% Tordon K (Aqumix) 100 a 121

Garlon 4 20% + 5% Tordon K (Eco-Pak) 100 a 81

Garlon 4 20% + 5% Tordon K (Arborchem)

99 a 81

Stalker 9% + HY-Grade EC 100 a 363

Manual cutting 21 c 5645

2/24/2010

9

Ailanthus ManagementLewis and McCarthy 2008 North. J. Appl. For. 25(2)E-Z-Ject Lance 83.5% imazapyr dry granular, late JuneStems 3 to 5 in. dbh, 4 injections/stem• 100% mortality 62 WAT• 1% neighboring stems

killed 12 WAT17 5% neighboring stems• 17.5% neighboring stems killed 62 WAT

• Avg. 2.5 non-target stems killed/treated stem

Ailanthus ManagementLewis and McCarthy 2008 North. J. Appl. For. 25(2) (cont.)

• Over 20% and ~18% non-target 0-2 in dbh ailanthus and other spp, respectively, within 10 ft. killed.t 0 t ed

• 12% and 5% non-target 2-4 in dbh and 4-6 in dbhstems, respectively, within 10 ft. killed.

• BLC, YEP, BLG most sensitive

• Pawpaw unaffected• Mortality declined with

distance

Kudzu

• Engulfs everything in path

• Engulfs everything in pathpath

• 7 million acres + in Southeast

• 12 million acres overall

path

• 7 million acres + in Southeast

• 12 million acres overall

Kenneth Cote, IDNR

2/24/2010

10

Kudzu

• Biofuelfeedstock

• UseUse existing infestations

• Likely not feasible

Phragmites• DNA sequencing – now considered native

to U.S.

• Fossil records– 40,000 years in southwest

– Several thousand years on Atlantic andSeveral thousand years on Atlantic and Pacific coasts

• Geographic range and abundance greatly increased in last 100 years

• Explosion result of introduction of a non-native genotype of the species (soil ship ballast?)

Chinese Silvergrass or Chinese Maidengrass

Miscanthus sinensis• Starting to get

established in IN



established in IN

• Miscanthus x• Miscanthus x giganteus

• Apparently sterile

2/24/2010

11



established in IN

• Miscanthus x• Miscanthus x giganteus

• Apparently sterile

• Proposed biofuelfeedstock

• Univ. Illinois

Callery Pear• 1918

• Meyer (USDA), Reimer (S. Oregon Exp. Stn.)

• Fire blight resistant rootstock for Common

Dan Tenaglia, Missouriplants

rootstock for Common pear orchard production

• 1952 “Bradford” cultivar

• “sterile”? – self-incompatible

Callery Pear• Other callery cultivars

developed –‘Aristocrat’, ‘Chanticleer’, ‘Autumn Blaze’, ‘Redspire’

S t f t t k

James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service

• Sprout from root stock

• allowing cross pollination

• Fruit eaten by birds -starlings

Callery Pear• Callery offspring

• Thorns

• Insect and disease resistance

• Wide environmental

Loewenstein, Auburn University

environmental tolerance

• Plant hardiness zone 5 – 9

• Rapid growth

2/24/2010

12

Callery Pear• Early bloom and

leafout, late leaf fall

• “Ideal invasive weed”

• 1964-65 1st escape

• Herbaria record:

James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org

• Herbaria record:

• 1964-1979 2%

• 1980-1989 17%

• 1990-1999 31%

• 2000-2003 50%

Callery Pear (Bradford)• 1994, Florida CES – “little invasive

potential”

• Now in natural areas in 26 states• Western Martin

Co., Crane

James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org

• Forest understory

• Regen. openings

Garlic MustardImpacts on Forests

• Stinson et al., 2006– Release

phytochemicals with fungicidal properties into soil.to so

– Reduced or eliminated mycorrhizalcolonization on 16 native forest plants including sugar maple, red maple, and white ash seedlings.

David Cappaert

Japanese Stilt GrassMicrostegium vimineum

• Native of Asia (India to Japan

• Also called Chinese packing grass – used to To

rre

y B

ot

Clu

b,

pack porcelain for shipment

• Not intentionally planted• First herbarium record

1919, streambank near Knoxville, TN

Fai

rbro

the

rs &

Gra

y, 1

97

2, B

ull

Vol

99

(2)9

7-1

00

2/24/2010

13

Japanese Stilt GrassMicrostegium vimineum

• By 1957 found throughout south from MS east to FL and north to PA, NJ, and OH

• IN• 1940 no record (Deam)• 2002 19 south. IN

counties (Overlease)

Jap. Stilt Grass

• Variable seed production from year-to-year – July to Sept. rainfall– Can grow and

produce seed in as Soc

iety

Gibson et al. 2002 J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 129(3):207-219

plittle as 5% full sunlight

– Maximum growth and seed production at 25-50%

• High density stands after poor seed years – soil seed bank

Ted

Bod

ner,

Sou

ther

n W

eed

Sci

ence

Jap. Stilt Grass

• Limited by low light under pawpaw stands

• 1% ambient light• Interactions between

midstory and overstory Soc

iety

Cole and Weltzin 2005 Biol. Inv. 7:477-488

midstory and overstorycanopies can inhibit stiltgrass establishment by reducing sunflecks at forest floor.

Ted

Bod

ner,

Sou

ther

n W

eed

Sci

ence

2/24/2010

14

Jap. Stilt Grass

• 95.5% stiltgrass + 4.5% deertongue(Dicantheliumclandestinum) seed• Full sun – DT 22

times biomass of SG Soc

iety

Flory et al. 2007 Natural Areas J. 27:124-132

• Part shade – DT 2 times biomass of SG

• Full shade – SG 10 times biomass of DT

• Resident plant communities reduced by invasions in part shade but not full sun or full shade.

Ted

Bod

ner,

Sou

ther

n W

eed

Sci

ence

Jap. Stilt Grass

• SG + deer herbivory - recalcitrant understory, stalls succession.

• Removing deer herbivory alone did not decrease SG dominance.

• Series of droughts + deer exclusion shifted dynamics

Webster et al. 2008 Oecologia 157:497-508

Series of droughts deer exclusion shifted dynamics• Cessation of herbivory – woody plants to perforate

impervious SG barrier• Interannual SG cover variation provides window of

opportunity for woody recruitment.

Valley Forge NHP, May 2009

Valley Forge NHP, May 2009

2/24/2010

15

Jap. Stilt Grass

• SG seed spread with disturbance• litter removal – 21 in.• Litter removal + soil dist. – 28 in.• No dist. – 9 in.

Marshall and Buckley 2008 Biol. Inv. 10:531-538

• Although SG can d ispread in

undisturbed forest understory, ground-level disturbance incr. rate

Jap. Stilt Grass

• Tree seedling richness negatively correlated with SG

• Maintaining tree seedling bank in understory may help reduce SG establishment in forest interior

Huebner 2009 Biol Inv.

Rauchert et al. 2009 Biol. Inv.• Most SG seed fall within 3.2 ft.• 95% of SG in fastest spreading

patches dispersed within 12 ft.• Gravitational dispersal – slow

spread• Other dispersal vectors dwarf

John M. Randall, TNC

Jap. Stilt Grass

• Intensive survey 79,000 acre forest tract in MD

• 1113 sample plots

Mortensen et al. 2009 Inv. Pl. Sci. & Mgt. 2:191-199

• 24% had SG• SG stronglySG strongly

assoc. with roads• Spread 2X as fast

on roads• Prob. Of SG on

east aspect roads 83%

Jap. Stilt Grass Management

• VA & NC• Herbicide

• Sethoxydim (Poast) 8 oz. a.i./ac• Imazapic (Plateau) 1 oz. a.i./ac• Fenoxaprop-P 2.8 oz. a.i./ac

Ti i

Judge et al. 2005 Weed Tech. 19:912-917

• Timing• May 10, Jul 18, Oct 7 2002• May 9, Jun 6, Aug 12 2003

• 83-89% SG biomass reduction across all trt. – no diff.• 79-94% seed head reduction – no. diff.• 70-89% 2nd yr. stand reduction – no. diff.• No timing diff.• Diff. in selectivity

2/24/2010

16


• Treatments• Applied annually - autumn

• Hand weeding• Mowing• Glyphosate 1 lb a.i./ac

A li d 1 2 ti d d

Judge et al. 2008 Inv. Pl. Sci. & Mgt. 1:111-119

• Applied 1 or 2 times per yr. as needed• Hand weeding• Fenoxaprop-P 2.8 oz. a.i./ac

• All treatments• 1st yr – 10% incr cover, 52% decr. seed bank• 2nd yr – 69% decr cover, 88% decr seed bank• 3rd yr – 82% decr cover, 93% decr seed bank

• After 3rd yr, SG seed bank not completely depleted


• Selective treatments – greater native spp. richness and % cover

• Mowing detrimental to native woody populations• Glyphosate did not improve native spp richness and

decreased woody plant cover

Judge et al. 2008 Inv. Pl. Sci. & Mgt. 1:111-119 (cont.)


• 8 sites in IN• Treatments

• No trt. Reference• Hand weed• Fluazifop-P-butyl (Fusilade DX) 12 oz/ac – POST 4th wk

July 2005 and 3rd wk June 2006

Flory and Clay 2009 J. Appl. Ecol. 46:434-442

July 2005 and 3rd wk June 2006• Pendimethalin (Pendulum Aquacap) 19.2 oz/ac – POST

4th wk July 2005 and 3rd wk June 2006 and PRE 2nd wk Apr 2007, 2 to 4 weeks prior to SG germination.

• 2nd yr• HW – 50% SG cover • Fluazifop POST – 5% SG cover• Pendimeth. POST+PRE – 2% cover (mostly bare

ground)


• 2nd yr

Flory and Clay 2009 J. Appl. Ecol. 46:434-442 (cont.)

2 yr• Native grass cover greatest on HW • Forb cover greatest (43%) on Fluazifop POST• Tree seedling density greatest (123%) on Fluazifop

POST. HW and Pendimeth. no diff. from reference.

Chris Evans, University of GeorgiaChris Evans, University of Georgia

2/24/2010

17

Jap. Stilt Grass Management Jap. Stilt Grass Management


Asian Bush HoneysuckleAsian Bush Honeysuckle

2/24/2010

18

58% less radial stem growth in invaded forests compared to non-invaded53% less basal area growth

Hartman & McCarthy (2007) Studied the impacts of Amur HS on native forest overstory productivity using dendrochronology

growthInvaded sites 33% decline in radial growth following invasionInvaded sites had only 5% increase in BA following invasion compared to 20% increase on non-invaded sites.

Japanese Knotweed

Tom Heutte, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org

Invasive SpeciesControl Options and

Strategies

Invasive SpeciesControl Options and

Strategies

Invasive Plant Management

Prevention

• Maintain healthy forest

• Integrate invasive mgt. with forest mgt planmgt. plan

• Plant natives

• Clean equipment

2/24/2010

19

Bioenergy

• NNIS initially imported for erosion control and forage

• Exotics sought after for biofeedstock

SIMILAR TRAITS!

• Rapid growth

• Perennial

• Absence of pests

Horticulture1. Breeder/growers i.d. invasive spp and cultivars

before release

2. I.d. traits for screening stock for invasiveness

3. Test competitive ability

4 Test in environments where potential to spread4. Test in environments where potential to spread

5. Test cross-pollination with other cultivars and spp.

6. Develop alternatives to potential invadersa) Completely sterile cultivars

b) Native

7. Public education

Invasive Plant Species Assessment Working Group

25 invasive or potentially invasive plants assessed or in process


Early Detection

• Learn to i d• Learn to i.d.

• 1-3 years walk or ride property to monitor

2/24/2010

20


Rapid Response

Search & Destroy Missions

Hand pulling/grubbingp g g g

Spot treatments

Selecting Control Methods

• No Silver Bullet - No one treatment will do it all!

• Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM)

Invasive Vegetation Control

Seek guidance of forester or other

t tivegetation management profesional

2/24/2010

21

Large scale and mechanized treatment options - BHS

Successful Invasive Management

• Working with partners across boundaries (Cooperative Weed Management Areas)

• Consistent strategy over multiple years• Consistent strategy over multiple years

• Farm Bill funding – EQUIP, WHIP

• Reactivate Weed Control Boards

• County Roads, State Highways, Utilities

• PLANNING

Invasive BMPs

• Forestry

• Road construction and maintenance

• “Dangerous Travelers: Controlling In asi e Plants Along America’sInvasive Plants Along America’s Roadways.” US Forest Service training video

• WI, NH

2/24/2010

22

Invasive Species Awareness Month

Indiana Invasive Species Council

• Invasive Species Task Force was created in 2007, published findings and recommendations in July 2008

• Main recommendation was to• Main recommendation was to create an Invasive Species Council

• This recommendation went forward as HB 1203 in 2009 session

2/24/2010

23

Signing of HB 1203 –Creating an Invasive Species Council for Indiana

Invasive Species Council Membership11 members:• Dean of Purdue University School of Agriculture or designee

• Director of Indiana State Department of Agriculture or designee

• Commissioner of Indiana Department of Transportation or designee

• State Veterinarian or designee

DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Aquatic Invasive Species• DNR – Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator

• DNR – Division of Entomology and Plant Pathology’s Terrestrial Invasive Species Coordinator

• One individual representing research on invasive species

• Two individuals representing industries affected by invasive species

• Two individuals representing conservation organizations

Invasive Species Council Duties

1. Recommending project priorities, funding, and rules and laws to the appropriate entities;

2. Recommending a lead state agency to develop invasive species inventories and data management systems for each taxon;

3. Communicating with agencies and organizations outside of Indiana to enhance consistency and effectiveness in invasive species work;

4. Coordinating education and outreach for invasive species;

5. Convening or supporting an invasive species meeting at least once per biennium;

Invasive Species Council Duties

6. Assisting government agencies in reviewing their invasive species policies and procedures and addressing any deficiencies or inconsistencies;

7. Assisting state agencies in reviewing agencies’ performance measures for accountability on their invasiveperformance measures for accountability on their invasive species actions;

8. Receiving reports from any governmental agency regarding actions taken on recommendations of the council; and

9. Applying for and providing grants for education concerning or management of invasive species.

2/24/2010

24

Southern Indiana CooperativeWeed Management Area

Show your Hoosier Roots, Go Native – Not Invasive!


Show your Hoosier Roots, Go Native – Not Invasive!

MissionTO PROTECT, RESTORE, AND ENHANCE SOUTHERN INDIANA’S LANDSCAPES BY COORDINATING EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY, PREVENT AND CONTROL INVASIVE SPECIES


Goals and Objectives

2.1 Identify and Prioritize ThreatsGoal 1: Develop a list of the top 10 invasive species threats; for each threat identify prevention/control strategies.



Objective 1.2: Create a web-based GIS database of existing populations of invasive species, using a common mapping process.Objective 1.3: Create a system to monitor the prevention/control reduction or spread of each priority species.

2/24/2010

25


2.2 Education and AwarenessGoal 2: By 2014 at least 25% of landowners mustGoal 2: By 2014, at least 25% of landowners must have basic knowledge of the 10 most important invasive species, including identification of the species and how to (or where to get information on) prevention and/or control.


Objective 2.1: Develop a system to measure landowner understanding of the priority threats.Obj ti 2 2 D l t t d li i f tiObjective 2.2: Develop a system to deliver information to fill knowledge gapsDevelop and regularly update an introductory brochureDevelop and regularly update a presentation and exhibit that can be used by volunteers and member organizationsProvide basic identification, prevention and control information on the SICWMA web siteProvide technical training to volunteers and member organizationsProvide information to garden centers, landscapers, and other retailers and professionals that deal in plant materials



2.3 Prevention/Detection/Early ResponseGoal 3: Within 3 years (by July 1, 2012) develop an operating process for early detection and rapid response to new infestations of invasive species.


Objective 3.1: Develop an education strategy for prevention of new species introductions, specifically d ti k t k h ld b t b t teducating key stakeholders about best management

practices.Work with boating and fishing industry to educate about prevention of aquatic invasivesPromote the use of boot brush stations at trailheadsEncourage timber harvesting contractors, consulting foresters, public forest managers to prevent introduction of invasives in harvest areasInclude county highway departmentsInvestigate a “Grow Native” promotional campaign, possibly in cooperation with RC&Ds

2/24/2010

26


Objective 3.2: By July 1, 2010, develop a strike team to identify, locate and recommend (or facilitate) control for the following categories of threatsfor the following categories of threats

Objective 3.3: Develop a Rapid Response Toolkit by January 1, 2011

Objective 3.6: Develop a system to map each occurrence of new infestations of invasive species and to monitor effectiveness of control efforts



Goal 5: Develop by July 1, 2009 and maintain a functional organization.

.


Objective 5.1: Establish and maintain an organizational structure including the following elements:g gEstablish MOUs or letters of support with member organizationsEstablish a system of on-the-ground partners (at least 1 in each county) by July 1, 2014

Objective 5.2: By July 1, 2010, find sufficient temporary funding to support staff, with sustainable funding by July 1, 2014.

2/24/2010

27

What is MC-IRIS?It’s a group of concerned citizens who have joined together to address the threat of invasive species in Monroe County.

Pulling wintercreeper along Clear Creek

Wintercreeper

What is MC-IRIS doing?

• Producing and disseminating educational materials on invasive species for Monroe County residents

• Working on demonstration projects to g p jshow best management practices for invasive species in Monroe County

• Collecting information on locations of invasive species in Monroe County

The Top Twelve (Or So) Invasive Plant Species of Monroe County

• Asian bush honeysuckle (Lonicera maackiI, L. morrowii, L. tatarica, and L. x bella)

• Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata)• Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) • Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)• Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum also known asJapanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum, also known as

Fallopia japonica)• Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) • Kudzu (Pueraria montana) • Multiflora rose (Rosa multifora)• Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) • Wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei) • Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)• Border privet (Ligustrum obtusifolium)

2/24/2010

28

New weed management area

Invasive Weed Management

• Here to stay• Not business as

usual• Must be managed• Must be a plan• Must be

cooperation

Documents

Invasive Threats