| Previous digest | Subsequent digest |
Global Invasive Species Team listserve digest #089
Fri Jul 13 2001 - 16:19:17 PDT
--CONTENTS--
1. Dry land purple loosestrife (Colorado, USA)
2. Sonar herbicide (New York, USA)
3. Gaura coccinea (California, USA)
4. Aridlands Conservation Listserve (Nationwide)
5. Landscape Conservation Networks Website (Global)
6. Literature reviews (Nationwide)
---------------------------------------
1. Dry land purple loosestrife! (Colorado, USA)
From: Sheila Grother (sheilag(at)independence.net)
Regarding the listserve note on dry land purple loosestrife (Lythrum
salicaria). I cover an area that is essentially a high desert but where
irrigation water creates fields and even wetlands. The water is not
particularly well managed and purple loosestrife has become a serious
problem. On hillsides where pinon/juniper and sage brush dominate I have
seen single purple loosestrife plants. There is no surface water and the
roots of the other species are obviously in dry ground, yet there will be
a purple loosestrife plant happily growing among them. It is not common
but does occur. I hope we are not developing our own variety of dry land
purple loosestrife!
---------------------------------------
2. Sonar herbicide (New York, USA)
From: Sean D. Clarkson (sclarkson(at)tnc.org)
The Lake George Land Conservancy (LGLC), a TNC partner in upstate New
York, is looking for information on SONAR(*), a chemical used to combat
Eurasian water milfoil. Currently, there is an effort to use SONAR in Lake
George in an attempt to control the early stages of milfoil infestation.
LGLC is looking for any scientific information regarding the use of SONAR
and its effects on non-target aquatic species, water quality and clarity,
and the effectiveness of SONAR in controlling Eurasian water milfoil.
Other pertinent information regarding SONAR and aquatic conservation
efforts or leads on institutions or organizations that may be of help are
welcomed.
If you have any information on SONAR, or leads on where to find this
information, please contact me.
* 1-Methyl-3-phenyl-5-(3-(trifluoro-methyl)phenyl)-4 (1H)-pyridinone
(Fluridone)
---------------------------------------
3. Gaura coccinea (California, USA)
From: Nadilia Gomez (gome0046(at)tc.umn.edu)
I am starting a research project on early detection of invasive potential
in ornamental breeding programs. I have chosen to work with Gaura coccinea
(scarlet beeblossom) which is used in flower breeding programs and is also
listed as a noxious weed in California. I am trying to locate native and
weedy populations of this plant. Has anyone spotted aggressive populations
of this species?
---------------------------------------
4. Aridlands Conservation Listserve (USA)
From: Tim Whittier (twhittier(at)tnc.org)
We would like to invite everyone that is interested in conservation issues
of the arid west, especially those issues related to ranching and grazing
to join a new listserve that deals with these issues. Originally set up
to support the Aridlands Grazing Network, we invite all interested parties
to participate. We are providing this service to:
**Facilitate communication between individuals involved in conservation
in the arid west;
**Exchange information and advice on arid land conservation, especially
when issues related to grazing and ranching are involved;
**Provide a forum for your questions, ideas and answers about arid land
conservation and grazing;
**Provide alerts on research funding opportunities;
**Post notices about useful articles and tools;
**Serve as a vehicle to report the activities of the Aridland Grazing
Network.
This list is moderated by Tim Whittier and Bob Unnasch to ensure the
messages are concise and relevant. Tim will compile and send all messages
in "digest" format, which means you will receive at most one message for
the day. On most days the list will generate no messages. To subscribe,
send an e-mail to Tim Whittier at twhittier(at)tnc.org or call him at
208-343-8826.
---------------------------------------
5. Landscape Conservation Networks Website (Global)
From: Chris Wilson (clw7(at)cornell.edu)
The Ecological Management and Restoration Program is pleased to announce
the launch of the Landscape Conservation Networks Website
http://www.tnc-ecomanagement.org/. As many of you know, Landscape
Conservation Networks (LCNs) are a new learning vehicle for rapidly
advancing the effectiveness and scale of TNC's ecological management and
restoration strategies across many functional landscapes over a short time
period (12-24 months). Participants in each network "learn by doing,"
using an "advanced" site conservation planning/measures of success
framework, coupled with peer review, to ensure that landscape strategies
and innovations are consistent with Conservation by Design and employ
sound science and economics. LCNs tackle some of the most critical
threats faced by the Conservancy including, incompatible grazing and
forestry, invasive exotic species, altered fire regimes, and wetland
degradation.
The LCN website provides general information about how the networks are
organized, requirements for participation, and who to contact for further
information. There is also a detailed section about the Forest Management
Network (http://tnc-ecomanagement.org/Forest/), which includes:
* information about individual workshops (e.g., workshop summaries,
presentations given by guest speakers, participant lists, assignments
completed by the focal landscapes, etc.);
* resources (e.g., Web links, literature citations, etc.);
* and information about landscapes participating in the network (maps,
images, conceptual ecological models, viability rankings and criteria for
ranking, etc.)
Sections for additional networks, including the Wetland Management,
Aridlands Grazing, Eastern Invasives Management, and Fire Management
Networks, will be developed in the coming months. For more information
about the website please contact me.
---------------------------------------
6. Literature reviews (Nationwide)
From: John Randall (jarandall(at)ucdavis.edu)
Marchetti, M.P. and P.B. Moyle. 2001. Effects of flow regime on fish
assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecological Applications
11(2): 530-539.
The authors observed fish populations over a 5 year period along 37 km of
a stream in the Central Valley of California, downstream of a major dam
and diversion. Species assemblages segregated in an upstream to
downstream manner and distinct differences were found between assemblages
of native and non-native fishes and their associations with environmental
variables and habitat use. Native fishes tended to cluster in reaches
with cooler temperatures, lower conductivity, less pool habitat, faster
streamflow and more shaded stream surface. Numbers of native fish were
positively correlated with increased streamflow while non-native fish were
negatively correlated with increased streamflow. The first two years of
the study (1994-95) were very low flow years and the last two years
(1997-98) were very high flow years. Native species numbers increased
greatly in high flow years while most non-native species numbers
decreased. This study provides a clear demonstration that native fishes
in streams of western North America have different habitat requirements
and respond differently to temporal variations in flow than most
non-native species. It also supports arguments that restoration of
natural flow regimes in company with other restoration measures could help
stem the decline of native fishes in regulated stream in the west. The
authors briefly suggest how natural flows might be mimicked even in dry
years and outline a few restoration measures that would make larger areas
of streams favorable to native species.