| Previous digest | Subsequent digest |
Global Invasive Species Team listserve digest #081
Mon Apr 02 2001 - 17:30:02 PDT
--CONTENTS--
1. Weed Control Methods Handbook online! (Global)
2. Backpack sprayers (Alabama)
3. Essex rape (Nationwide)
4. California weed research grants (California)
5. Recent weed articles (Nationwide)
---------------------------------------
1. Weed Control Methods Handbook online! (Global)
From: Barry Rice (bamrice(at)ucdavis.edu)
TNC's Wildland Invasive Species Team is delighted to announce the
online publication of the Weed Control Methods Handbook. This handbook is
what every natural areas manager should know about weed control methods.
Consisting of seven chapters and six appendices, it reviews manual,
grazing, fire, biocontrol, and herbicide techniques. There are even
in-depth discussions of eleven different herbicides, plus a great deal of
supporting information on herbicide use. Nearly 200 pages if you were to
print out the entire book.
This meaty manual (but good even for vegetarians) is available, free for
the download at our web site:
http://tncinvasives.ucdavis.edu
---------------------------------------
2. Backpack sprayers (Alabama)
From: Keith Tassin (ktassin(at)tnc.org)
I am going to buy a Solo backpack sprayer and was wondering which one was
better to buy. The choices are the 425 with a Piston pump or the 475 with
a diaphragm pump. It will primarily be used on privet (Ligustrum), Kudzu
(Pueraria), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera).
---------------------------------------
3. Essex rape (Nationwide)
From: Mariquita Sheehan (msheehan01(at)fs.fed.us)
There is a request from the public to plant Essex rape for pheasant food,
but I am not sure what plant is meant. Is anyone familiar with it, what
is its scientific name, and if it is invasive?
---------------------------------------
4. California weed research grants (California)
From: Carri Benefield (cbenefield(at)cdfa.ca.gov)
The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is now requesting
research proposals from qualified research entities to perform research on
the biology, ecology, or management of noxious and invasive weeds.
Proposed research projects must be needs-based, applied and practical.
Proposals must be received at the CDFA Contracts Office no later than 3:00
PM on May 22, 2001.
To receive a copy of the general specifications and proposal format and
content requirements (officially referred to as the: Notice of Funds
Available for Research Grant Projects, NOFA #01-0005) contact Jan Howard,
CDFA Contract Analyst via email, jhoward(at)cdfa.ca.gov or fax, (916)
654-0395. The NOFA will be available to prospective grantees beginning
March 22nd, 2001. Further, all questions and requests regarding the NOFA
must be made in writing to Jan Howard by April 20th, 2001. Written
requests should identify the NOFA number, name of entity, contact name,
mailing address, phone number and fax number.
---------------------------------------
5. Recent weed articles (Nationwide)
From: John Randall (jarandall(at)ucdavis.edu)
Daehler, C.C. and D.A. Carino. 2000. Predicting invasive plants:
prospects for a general screening system based on current regional models.
Biological Invasions 2:93-102.
Daehler and Carino evaluated the performance of three different systems
designed to screen out invasive plants developed for other parts of the
world, by classifying known invasive plants of natural areas in the
Hawaiian Islands. The systems were originally designed for Australia, the
48 contiguous US states, and the fynbos of South Africa and evaluation was
conducted to determine if they might have wider applicability. Most
promising results were obtained with the Australian and US mainland
systems which both flagged all the invasives in the test data set and
rejected over 80% outright. Both rejected fairly low percentages of
non-invaders (14% and 10%) and none of these are economically important.
The South African system was less successful in this test. The North
American system is designed only for woody species but the Australian
system can handle woody and herbaceous species. All in all, results
suggested that the North American and Australian systems can be modified
for international use with relative ease.
Pearson, D.E., K.S. McKelvey and L.F. Ruggiero. 2000. Non-target effects
of an introduced biological control agent on deer mouse ecology.
Oecologia 122: 121-128.
The authors studied a grassland infested with spotted knapweed just
outside Missoula, MT where two gallfly biological control agents (Urophora
affinis and U. quadrifasciata) are well established but unfortunately not
exerting detectable impacts on knapweed abundance. They examined diets of
the native deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) and found that that
Urophora species constituted the primary item in their winter diets
(84-86%). Stomach contents revealed that individual mice consumed an
average of 247 Urophora larvae per day and lab trials indicated they could
eat nearly five times that many. Deermice actively selected areas with
high knapweed cover during the months when Urophora were present in galls
on the plants and reversed this in favor of meadows dominated by native
species at times of year when the gallflies were in the adult phase and
more mobile. This study indicates that establishment of Urophora
gallflies has inadvertently led to alteration of the diet, habitat
selection and foraging behavior of deer mouse and may sustain higher deer
mouse abundances than would otherwise be possible. In addition, deer
mouse predation may keep Urophora populations below a threshold necessary
to control spotted knapweed.