sandbur
5 year old buck +
It sounds like it mines the soil.
http://www.myminnesotawoods.umn.edu...r+2015&utm_campaign=MMWemail&utm_medium=email
http://www.myminnesotawoods.umn.edu...r+2015&utm_campaign=MMWemail&utm_medium=email
Buckthorn changes the soil nutrients
- Thread starter sandbur
- Start date
D
dipper
Guest
Black locust does the same. Invasives not good
sandbur
5 year old buck +
I felt it might be improving the soil after reading the article. At least improving the sand where so much of it grows on my place.
I don't think you were "supposed" to get something from it positive or negative. It wasn't so much meant to be a good or bad, but rather just reporting that in fact it does change soil composition, and in what manner.
As far as the "residual effect" (I forgot the exact term that was used) I wonder why the berries didn't germinate in the seed bank. Overall I think it did a really good job of relaying "science" to "everyday people". I use quotes because I'm a firm believer that we can absolutely use and understand science without science degrees, it's just a matter of knowing terminology. There's no reason that "everyday people" can't use science.
I'm still waiting for that to happen for Autumn olive! From what I've seen if you knock the A/O out and put something in its place, it won't dominate, but will still definitely be present. IME, the problem is when you have mature bushes that put out berries that subsequently get crapped everywhere within a few hundred yards :P
They're certainly good at what they do! Most of these invasives have a short(er) lifespan, but reproduce heavily. It's pretty neat thinking about how different reproductive and survival strategies have evolved. I at least think it's pretty darn interesting!
Oh yeah, it's all over the Michigan Sportsman forum. I just don't really see where it can grow that natives can't take its place. Wetter areas? elderberries, blueberries, chokecherry, aronia. Dry areas? Hazelnuts, am. plum. I can certainly see the appeal in regards to its hardiness and vigor, but I think that in the long term it's kind of a silly thing to do when we have so many options here in the Midwest.
sandbur
5 year old buck +
I thought the article said that in one study, once the buckthon was reduced in numbers the soil reverted back to it's original form. I imagine it depends on the type of soil-sand would revert more quickly.
That's true, and most of those species, in fact most shrubby fruit producing species desire high N. I understand completely that there are reasons, and I can be sympathetic to them. I think the best word I can use to describe it is silly. I'm not vehemently opposed to anyone planting it, I just think it can be done without.
I would suppose so. I know in our backyard where it's wet, we have seedling every single year. In the next few years I've convinced my parents to let me put in some ninebark and ROD. They kind of like the thick barrier it gives, so they were a bit hesitant.
D
dipper
Guest
Some pin head 100 years ago thought the same way when he planted that crap. I'll carry scars the rest of my life from those thorns. The only thing interesting about invasives is their death!
D
dipper
Guest
Invasives don't grow because of soil issues.
I'm 100% against them, I'm just saying that the concept of a single species changing nutrient cycling in an entire mini-ecosystem is interesting. While I've yet to find Buckthorn on my property (luckily it's A/O, Barberry, and MAYBE multiflora rose), I have the same feeling about AO. I can't tell you the number of times I've had those thorns whip back and then break off in my skin. Not fun.
D
dipper
Guest
I know they fill a niche due to excessive deer numbers. The deer browse native and the invasive flourish. If u want a sea of garlic mustard, cause nothing else will grow. I can drop some off to find out?
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
While that may be true, every landowner owes it to the local ecosystem to do everything in their power to refill that mismanaged "niche" with native species and eradicate any and all non-native invasives. It all boils down to responsible land ownership and management, unfortunately all to many landowners don't care enough to take the time to be responsible owners.:mad: Thus you end up with comments like the last two sentences in stu's post, which are unfortunately spot on.:(
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
I would agree stu, the hypocrisy starts at the highest levels and the state Hwy Depts and DNR's do little to combat this in many situations, so why should the common man concern himself with it. I get sick of contacting the USFWS about flushes of purple loosestrife growth out in the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge(which I do multiple times a year) and having them do nothing about it. Given it is a Federal Refuge, I will not pull them myself for fear of being reported by some idiot that thinks I'm destroying the plants on the Refuge. The thing with native invasives is that they usually have a natural "control", i.e. something that keeps them from taking over and becoming large monocultures. Granted, many of those "controls" are not present in areas where the potentially invasive species are present, so the "control species" is technically irrelevant in those situations, but it is far easier and more responsible to use those native controls than it is to have to introduce another non-native species to control the non-native invasives that are present, which we do all too many time without knowing the whole of the consequences of the situation years down the road.
I agree with both of you guys. I've contacted a few state parks on their infestations with Phragmites and buckthorn, and from what I've seen, their biggest problem is that it's such a resource heavy (time, equipment, labor etc...) task that they can't get all of it done. They do little sections and then go from there. My view has evolved a little bit in the fact that I no longer see it necessary/possible to eliminate ALL of the Nonnative invasives on my land, but more to cut them back severely enough that through planting and natural regen I get natives to fill their roles of dominance. Like you said, I can do it, but since state land is 300 yards away, and my neighbors love the stuff, I'll always have it. I guess I see it as an impossibility rather than something I don't want to do. That's kind of my focus with the GRIN project I have. Get as many other berry and seed laden bushes out there for the birds to shit out, and eventually I'll have more natives. Once more of them are sprouting, I can cut down the A/O in new places and hopefully they'll transition to a native of some sort.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be 100% ok with eliminating all non native invasives on my property, however I don't see it as an extremely efficient way to improve habitat. I think that at least on my 20 acres, going 1000 square feet at a time is a better and more manageable way to go. Although I still walk through the woods turkey hunting with a little spray bottle of gly in case I find some barberry. I just don't want that stuff to get a huge foothold, and preventing it is easier than trying to do what I'm doing with A/O
Don't get me wrong, I'd be 100% ok with eliminating all non native invasives on my property, however I don't see it as an extremely efficient way to improve habitat. I think that at least on my 20 acres, going 1000 square feet at a time is a better and more manageable way to go. Although I still walk through the woods turkey hunting with a little spray bottle of gly in case I find some barberry. I just don't want that stuff to get a huge foothold, and preventing it is easier than trying to do what I'm doing with A/O
D
dipper
Guest
Sorry to hear that rally. I found out there is one technician to chat invasives in the entire county.
Some parts of the government don't know. I would complain if you know some form of the government is planting invasives. They probably don't know
Some parts of the government don't know. I would complain if you know some form of the government is planting invasives. They probably don't know
