Byrd Wed AM 11 30

							            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             Sichuan Takin                    Cheetah
 Rhinoceros




                                                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:
                                                       Habitat Conservation
•increase biodiversity on a landscape scale
                                                        Wetland Function
•create habitat that is more beneficial for wildlife     Carbon Capture
•study & facilitate the process of recovery                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               CHEMICAL NAME                        RATE
Arsenal Powerline    (27.6% imazapyr isopropylamine salt) 16oz / 100 gal
Escort XP            (60% metsulfuron methyl)              2oz / 100 gal

Surf Plus 584 MSO     (Surfactant)                           16oz / 100 gal
Mist Trol 336         (Drift Retardant)                       4oz / 100 gal

                         Cost = $741 per hectare ($300 ac)
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         CHEMICAL                               RATE
Stalker         (27.6% imazapyr isopropylamine salt)   16oz / 100 gal
Garlon 4        (61.6% triclopyr: 3,5,6-trichloro-2-   1.5gal / 100 gal
                pyridinyloxyacetic acid)
Invade 90       (Surfactant)                           1gal / 100 gal
AX-IT oil       (Carrying Oil)                         2.5gal / 100 gal
Mist Trol 336   (Drift Retardant)                      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                                                       Total % Mortality

Foliar herbicide:                                                    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)
  7-30-2010               10-19-2010




              3-28-2011
Results: Phase 2 trial
   Hypothesis: cut stump treatment would provide most effective re-
    sprout 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   Land clearing:   Land clearing:      Mechanical
                                     herbicide    cut stump with    fracture with    backhoe removal
                                                    herbicide         Re-sprout           only
                                                                   herbicide only*

Cost /              $741              $741          $1,166            $300*              $167
hectare


Time /              2 hrs            2 hrs          6.5 hrs         1.25 hrs            1.5 hrs
hectare


Labor /                2                2               2                1                 1
hectare


% Cover           15-30%            15-30%         95-100%          95-100%            15-30%
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
                                   Table 1. Based on successful conversion of CSG pasture:
   All techniques resulted in         Recommendations for reseeding hardy US native species to
                                       improve wildlife habitat value and diversity following
    soil disturbance,                  invasive species removal in reclaimed mine lands.
    facilitating secondary         Grass   Andropogon gerardii             Big Bluestem
    non-native invasions           Forb    Asclepias syriaca               Common Milkweed
                                   Forb    Bidens cernua                   Bidens
   Demonstrating need for
                                   Forb    Helianthus maximiliani          Maximilian Sunflower
    preemptive re-vegetation
                                   Forb    Monarda fistulosa               Wild Bergamot
    strategies on newly
                                   Grass   Panicum virgatum                Switchgrass
    disturbed sites                Forb    Pycnanthemum virginianum        Virginia Mountainmint
   Hardy seed & stock,            Forb    Ratibida pinnata                Yellow Coneflower
    native to the US, may be       Forb    Rudbeckia hirta                 Blackeyed Susan

    well-adapted and provide       Forb    Rudbeckia laciniata             Cutleaf Coneflower
                                   Forb    Rudbeckia subtomentosa          Sweet Coneflower
    appropriate wildlife habitat
                                   Forb    Rudbeckia triloba               Browneyed Susan
                                   Grass   Sorghastrum nutans              Indiangrass
   Case study underway to         Forb    Symphyotrichum ericoides        White Heath Aster
    evaluate prairie species       Forb    Symphyotrichum laeve            Smooth Blue Aster

    mix in post-removal cover      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