Transcript Byrd (PowerPoint without audio)

Sustainable Reclamation:
Evaluating Autumn Olive Control Strategies at
The Wilds Conservation Center, Cumberland, Ohio
Shana Byrd*, Director, Restoration Ecology Program, The Wilds
Nicole Cavender, VP Science & Conservation, The Morton Arboretum
Corine Peugh, Assistant, Restoration Ecology Program, The Wilds
Jenise Bauman, Director, Conservation Science Training, The Wilds
History:
Nearly 10,000 acres of reclaimed surface-mine
land in southeastern Ohio
 AEP donated land in 1984
 Non-profit, opened to public in 1994
 Today, this land
the Wilds
serves as a conservation
research and education center
 100,000 visitor annually

the Wilds Mission
Advancing Conservation Through
Science, Education, and Personal
Experience
The Wilds Landscape
During Mining Operations
The Big Muskie
Autumn olive
(Elaeagnus umbellata)




Utilized in reclamation (ODNR 1983) to reduce erosion
and improve nitrogen content of the soil
Has since invaded open pastures, thereby reducing
quality of cool-season grasslands for obligate birds,
such as the Henslow’s Sparrow and other wildlife
species.
Conversion alters the function of these habitats by
interrupting the open space with woody vegetation
that may increase chances for nest predation
(Swanson 1996).
Control measures are difficult, due to abundant seed
production and aggressive re-sprouting.
Superior competitor (has done it’s job a little too well)…
The Wilds: Landscape Conversion
Dense cover
Southern White
Rhinoceros
Sichuan Takin
Cheetah
Bactrian Camels & Grevy’s Zebra
Sable Antelope
Eland
Ideal setting for studying how wildlife are currently using the habitat and
how we can improve it to benefit these populations.
Restore
Ecosystem Functions & Biodiversity
Goals of the Wilds Restoration Ecology Program:
Eco - Opportunities:
•increase biodiversity on a landscape scale
Habitat Conservation
•create habitat that is more beneficial for wildlife
•study & facilitate the process of recovery
Wetland Function
Carbon Capture
Pollination
Conservation Centers for Species Survival
A dedicated collaboration applying unique resources to the study,
management and survival of endangered species.
the Wilds - Ohio
Fossil Rim Wildlife Center - Texas
San Diego Zoo Global – California
White Oak Conservation Center - Florida
Smithsonian Conservation Biology
Institute - Virginia
C2S2 Collaborative Study Focus:
Managing Landscapes for Native Biodiversity
The Wilds Study Goal:
Remove autumn olive to improve habitat for imperiled
grassland nesting birds
Field Trials: Project Background

Objective:
 Test effectiveness of removals in varying degrees of infestation


Share techniques with land managers to assist in creating healthier
habitats for species in need of conservation (grassland obligates)
Five different techniques were explored in a two phase field trial
Phase 1 – (2007-2009) Received NFWF Project Funding –
 Evaluate Methods:
 Foliar herbicide applications
 Mechanical removal
 Dormant stem herbicide applications
 Moderate Cover ranging from 15-30%
Field Trials: Project Background
Phase 2 - (2010-2011) Received NRCS / EPA SWIF Project Funding –
 Evaluate Methods:
 Mechanical land clearing combined with
chemical treatment:
 Fracture (herbicide re-sprout only)
 Cut stump (immediate herbicide)
 Dense Cover ranging from 95-100%
Project Set Up:
Phase 1
May 2007
 Established 12
permanent plots
(each about 10 acres
in size) with interior
vegetation survey
plots

Among the plots,
three replications of
each treatment and a
control group were
designated.
Project Set Up:
Phase 1
Prior to treatment:
• GPS location
data and metal
marker tags were
recorded for 25
random individual
shrubs per plot.
•Total of 225
individuals
tracked.
Foliar Herbicide Treatment
August 2007
PRODUCT
Arsenal Powerline 
Escort XP 
CHEMICAL NAME
RATE
(27.6% imazapyr isopropylamine salt) 16oz / 100 gal
(60% metsulfuron methyl)
2oz / 100 gal
Surf Plus 584 MSO
Mist Trol 336
(Surfactant)
(Drift Retardant)
Cost = $741 per hectare ($300 ac)
16oz / 100 gal
4oz / 100 gal
Photo Credit: Mitch Kezar, Courtesy BASF
Mechanical Removal Treatment
November 2007
EQUIPMENT
John Deer Backhoe 3110D
METHOD
Extracted the aboveground plant material and the main root ball
Cost = $741 per hectare ($65 / acre)
Re-sprouting
Photo Credit: Mitch Kezar, Courtesy BASF
Dormant Herbicide Treatment
February 2008
PRODUCT
Stalker
Garlon 4
Invade 90
AX-IT oil
Mist Trol 336
CHEMICAL
(27.6% imazapyr isopropylamine salt)
(61.6% triclopyr: 3,5,6-trichloro-2pyridinyloxyacetic acid)
(Surfactant)
(Carrying Oil)
(Drift Retardant)
RATE
16oz / 100 gal
1.5gal / 100 gal
1gal / 100 gal
2.5gal / 100 gal
as needed / 100 gal
Cost = $741 per hectare ($300 ac)
Temporary Footprint
Both dormant (winter) and foliar
(summer) herbicide applications were
applied with a 300 gal sprayer unit
using a handgun nozzle.
Photo Credit: Mitch Kezar, Courtesy BASF
Results
August 2009 – Evaluated Individual Shrubs
Comparison of mechanical, foliar and dormant stem herbicide control
methods on total % mortality of autumn olive
Treatment
Foliar herbicide:
Total % Mortality
98 %
Arsenal Powerline™
Escort XP™
Dormant stem herbicide:
71 %
Stalker™
Garlon 4™
Mechanical removal:
15 %
John Deer 3110 D backhoe
Note: Percentages are based on total number of shrubs effectively killed.
Phase 2 Treatments: 2010-2011
Management: Dense Cover
ranging from 95-100%

Based on findings,
phase 2 of this study
initiated in 2010

Evaluate combined
mechanical & chemical
treatments:


cut stump w/ herbicide
fracture w/ re-sprout
spray only
Mechanical Land Clearing:
Cut stump herbicide &
Fracture re-sprout herbicide

Cut-stump (with herbicide treatment):




GyroTrac GT-25 cutter head
Ground brush into fine mulch and left stumps flush with
the ground.
Removal was directly followed with a conservative
application of a 3% concentrated solution of Stalker in
penetrating oil base applied to the remaining stumps.
Fracture (with re-sprout treatment only):



Skid-steer driven Fecon Bullhog model BH74 SS armed
with 30 single carbide tools on the drum head
Brush was fractured at ground level and the splintered
material was left to biodegrade.
Herbicide treatment was reserved only for spot
treatment of re-sprouts.
Photo Point: Before & After Mechanical Land
Clearing (fracture / re-sprout only)
7-30-2010
10-19-2010
Before
After
Photo Point: Before & After Mechanical Land
Clearing (fracture / re-sprout only)
10-19-2010
7-30-2010
3-28-2011
Results: Phase 2 trial


Hypothesis: cut stump treatment would provide most effective resprout control method
However, the cut stump treatment was less effective than the fracture
method (46%, 63% mortality respectively). Why?


Cut stump: resulted in smooth surface, may have effectively pruned shrub,
stimulated re-growth?
Fracture: resulted in damaged and coarse stump surface, may have
induced stress or inhibited vegetative recovery?
Further replicated studies are needed
to determine long term control & effectiveness.

Utimatey, both mechanical land clearing methods are effective at
removing the above ground woody biomass of the shrubs in areas
of dense cover*

Both methods reduced initial quantity of herbicide applications, as
compared to phase 1 (moderate cover).
Cost comparison of Elaeagnus umbellata
treatment by various methods
Treatment
Foliar herbicide
Dormant stem
herbicide
Land clearing:
cut stump with
herbicide
Land clearing:
fracture with
Re-sprout
herbicide only*
Mechanical
backhoe removal
only
Cost /
hectare
$741
$741
$1,166
$300*
$167
Time /
hectare
2 hrs
2 hrs
6.5 hrs
1.25 hrs
1.5 hrs
Labor /
hectare
2
2
2
1
1
15-30%
15-30%
95-100%
95-100%
15-30%
% Cover
Pre-treatment
*Note: Spot re-sprout (foliar) treatment will include additional costs of $50 per hour,
as needed, which leaves cost variable.
Insights: Autumn Olive Management
Moderate cover*:

Foliar herbicide (Arsenal/EscortXP) application is most
effective method


Very effective…But, resource intensive (in dense cover) = large
quantities of mixed product
Dormant stem application (Stalker/Garlon4) slightly less
effective than the foliar treatment

May allow selective treatment in “off season”

Dense cover*:

Mechanical land clearing offer greatest compromise
where access with spray equipment is difficult
All techniques require follow up management (total control).

Insights: Autumn Olive Management




All techniques resulted in
soil disturbance,
facilitating secondary
non-native invasions
Demonstrating need for
preemptive re-vegetation
strategies on newly
disturbed sites
Hardy seed & stock,
native to the US, may be
well-adapted and provide
appropriate wildlife habitat
Case study underway to
evaluate prairie species
mix in post-removal cover
Table 1. Based on successful conversion of CSG pasture:
Recommendations for reseeding hardy US native species to
improve wildlife habitat value and diversity following
invasive species removal in reclaimed mine lands.
Grass
Andropogon gerardii
Big Bluestem
Forb
Asclepias syriaca
Common Milkweed
Forb
Bidens cernua
Bidens
Forb
Helianthus maximiliani
Maximilian Sunflower
Forb
Monarda fistulosa
Wild Bergamot
Grass
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
Forb
Pycnanthemum virginianum
Virginia Mountainmint
Forb
Ratibida pinnata
Yellow Coneflower
Forb
Rudbeckia hirta
Blackeyed Susan
Forb
Rudbeckia laciniata
Cutleaf Coneflower
Forb
Rudbeckia subtomentosa
Sweet Coneflower
Forb
Rudbeckia triloba
Browneyed Susan
Grass
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
Forb
Symphyotrichum ericoides
White Heath Aster
Forb
Symphyotrichum laeve
Smooth Blue Aster
Forb
Symphyotrichum novae-angliae
New England Aster
Implications for Restoration

To create sustainable landscapes, restoration plans
should include planting native species that benefit local
wildlife and increase biodiversity (regardless of end
habitat target: forest, grassland, prairie, wetland).

Management priorities and trajectory likely based on
individual goals, expense, treatment timeline and the
resources available to meet the restoration plan.

When managed for long term conversion to more
productive cover, reclaimed mine lands provide
tremendous potential to serve as healthy habitat
corridors for species in need of conservation.
Acknowledgements











Conservation Centers for Species Survival (C2S2)
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS)
Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW)
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency – SWIF Funds (OEPA)
Muskingum College (Dr. Danny Ingold, Dr. Jim Dooley)
Townsend Chemical (Greg Ressler)
BASF, Project Habitat
FDC Enterprises (Fred Circle)
Sarbaugh Drilling (Elden Sarbaugh)
Wilds Interns and Volunteers