Summit Lunchtime Discussion
Topic: "Research and Management Priorities Discussion"
Leaders: Tim Abbott and Robin Harrington
September 17, 2005
General Themes:
1. Treatment and Restoration
Participants noted the need to distinguish between treatment objectives, such as whether the control methods achieved the desired impact on the target invasive species, and progress toward achieving restoration goals as a result of that treatment. Several speakers noted the importance of understanding the ecological outcomes management is intended to achieve. They stressed the need for applied research not only with regard to the effectiveness of control techniques for the target invasive species but the impacts of those techniques on achieving ecological outcomes. Several participants stressed the importance of managing habitats as a whole, and not focusing on target species.
Betsy Lyman noted that land managers do not always have a clear idea of what ecological state is the best outcome for their control area. Pre and post-treatment monitoring is very valuable for adaptive management, but is not always a funding priority for grantors. It was suggested that researchers and managers should stress the impacts of ecosystem restoration on endangered or at risk species, in order to attract funding. Others requested research on re-invasion by other species (such as garlic mustard) after certain treatments (mechanical, chemical or after prescribed fire). Managers also need to know how to modify their sites to reduce susceptibility to invasion, both in uninvaded sites, and following removal treatments.
2.Documenting Invasive Potential of Candidate Invasive Species
Participants in this discussion were self-selected and did not appear to involve those whose primary activities are horticultural. As a result, this group did not identify the need to determine the invasive potential of cultivars of invasive species. Tim Abbott cited the lack of documented evidence of species displacement by candidate invasive species as a key criterion in the Massachusetts assessment process and requested researchers to contact MIPAG for a list of species where data in this area is not presently available. Other participants requested research into the mechanisms through which species invade to be used for threat assessment and prioritization of management and rapid response.
3.Ecosystem function Under Invasion and After Treatment
Many participants cited the need to understand species interaction and impacts on ecosystem function both with an invasion and after treatment. One manager was interested in the potential allelopathic effect of Norway maple litter on native forest vegetation. A concern was expressed: how to determine which management techniques to use in each ecosystem, such as northern hardwoods forest versus early successional habitats. Some called for better understanding of the impacts of removing invasives without replacing the ecological benefits they do provide for desirable species such as migratory birds or ecosystem function such as vegetated buffer for aquatic systems. Participants again observed that new invasions often follow treatment of the original invaders and requested research into the best restoration techniques, including replanting with non-invasive species, to achieve clear ecological outcomes. Several people wanted more information on soil chemistry, and how this affects plant-soil interactions, and therefore restoration. One participant was particularly interested in ecosystem restoration on high pH soils.
4.Practical Tools for Management
Don Bishop asked for a clearinghouse of best management practices so that the good methods that some researchers and managers have developed for control and restoration are known and widely available to others. Several respondents noted the clear need for better outreach and communication from researchers to land managers, since there are several good sources of this data, such as TNC's Wildland Invasive Species Program, that may need further publicity.
5.Mechanisms for Effective Partnerships
Some researchers noted that funding is often available for management but not for monitoring and evaluation of results. There is increasing emphasis on measurable outcomes from donors and it should be possible to include this important element in management proposals for funding. One participant shared his observation that New England is blessed with many small colleges and universities and these represent a wealth of untapped and eager researchers looking to support management objectives. One graduate student noted that the growth of on-line dating may support the establishment of a similar service pairing researchers with land managers. A participant from Fort Drum, NY welcomed researchers to consider using the resources and large acreage of this and other military installations for their research projects
Compiled by Discussion Leaders:
1. Tim Abbott, Owner and Principal
Greensleeves Environmental Services: Conservation and Stewardship Consultants
Cell: 860-605-5625 Land: 860-824-720
Email:
2. Robin Harrington
Department of Natural Resources Conservation
University of Massachusetts
Holdsworth Natural Resource Center Hall
Amherst, MA 01003
Phone: 413-577-0204
Email: