Sustainable Reclamation:Sustainable Reclamation: Evaluating Autumn Olive Control Strategies at

The Wilds Conservation Center, Cumberland, Ohio

Shana Byrd*, Director, Restoration Ecology Program, The WildsShana Byrd*, Director, Restoration Ecology Program, The WildsNicole Cavender, VP Science & Conservation, The Morton ArboretumNicole Cavender, VP Science & Conservation, The Morton Arboretum

Corine Peugh, Assistant, Restoration Ecology Program, The WildsCorine Peugh, Assistant, Restoration Ecology Program, The WildsJenise Bauman, Director, Conservation Science Training, The WildsJenise Bauman, Director, Conservation Science Training, The Wilds

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 serves as a conservation research and education center 100,000 visitor annually

History:History:

the Wildsthe Wilds

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

ElandSable Antelope

Southern White Rhinoceros

CheetahSichuan Takin

Bactrian Camels & Grevy’s Zebra

Ideal setting for studying how wildlife are currently using the habitat and Ideal setting for studying how wildlife are currently using the habitat and how we can improve it to benefit these populations. how we can improve it to benefit these populations.

Restore Ecosystem Functions & Biodiversity

Goals of the Wilds Restoration Ecology Program:Goals of the Wilds Restoration Ecology Program:

•increase biodiversityincrease biodiversity on a landscape scale on a landscape scale

•create habitatcreate habitat that is more that is more beneficial for wildlifebeneficial for wildlife

•study & facilitatestudy & facilitate the process of recovery the process of recovery

Eco - OpportunitiesEco - Opportunities::

Habitat ConservationHabitat Conservation

Wetland FunctionWetland Function

Carbon CaptureCarbon Capture

PollinationPollination

Conservation Centers for Species Survival

A dedicated collaboration applying unique resources to the study, management and survival of endangered species.

the Wilds - OhioFossil Rim Wildlife Center - TexasSan Diego Zoo Global – California

White Oak Conservation Center - FloridaSmithsonian 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 CoverModerate 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 Mechanical land clearing combined with

chemical treatment:chemical treatment: Fracture (herbicide re-sprout only) Cut stump (immediate herbicide)

Dense CoverDense 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.

Prior to treatment:

• GPS location data and metal marker tags were recorded for 25 random individual shrubs per plot.

•Total of 225 individuals tracked.

Project Set Up:Phase 1

Foliar Herbicide Treatment

CHEMICAL NAME(27.6% imazapyr isopropylamine salt) (60% metsulfuron methyl)

(Surfactant) (Drift Retardant)

August 2007

PRODUCT Arsenal Powerline Escort XP

Surf Plus 584 MSOMist Trol 336

Cost = $741 per hectare ($300 ac)

RATE16oz / 100 gal 2oz / 100 gal

16oz / 100 gal 4oz / 100 gal

Photo Credit: Mitch Kezar, Courtesy BASF

Mechanical Removal Treatment

EQUIPMENT

John Deer Backhoe 3110D

METHOD

Extracted the aboveground plant material and the main root ball

November 2007

Cost = $741 per hectare ($65 / acre)

Re-sprouting

Photo Credit: Mitch Kezar, Courtesy BASF

Dormant Herbicide Treatment

CHEMICAL(27.6% imazapyr isopropylamine salt) (61.6% triclopyr: 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyloxyacetic acid) (Surfactant)(Carrying Oil) (Drift Retardant)

PRODUCTStalkerGarlon 4

Invade 90AX-IT oilMist Trol 336

February 2008

Cost = $741 per hectare ($300 ac)

RATE16oz / 100 gal 1.5gal / 100 gal

1gal / 100 gal2.5gal / 100 galas needed / 100 gal

Temporary Footprint

Photo Credit: Mitch Kezar, Courtesy BASF

Both dormant (winter) and foliar Both dormant (winter) and foliar (summer) herbicide applications were (summer) herbicide applications were

applied with a 300 gal sprayer unit applied with a 300 gal sprayer unit using a handgun nozzle. using a handgun nozzle.

ResultsAugust 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: 2010-2011Management: 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):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

7-30-2010 10-19-2010

3-28-2011

Photo Point: Before & After Mechanical Land Clearing (fracture / re-sprout only)

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 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

% Cover

Pre-treatment 15-30% 15-30% 95-100% 95-100% 15-30%

*Note: Spot re-sprout (foliar) treatment will include additional costs of $50 per hour, as needed, which leaves cost variable.

Insights: Autumn Olive ManagementModerate cover*:

Foliar herbicideFoliar herbicide (Arsenal/EscortXP) application is most effective method

Very effective…But, resource intensive (in dense cover) = large quantities of mixed product

Dormant stemDormant stem application (Stalker/Garlon4) slightly less effective than the foliar treatment

May allow selective treatment in “off season”

Dense cover*: Mechanical land clearingMechanical 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 facilitating secondary non-native invasions 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 benefit local wildlife and increase biodiversitywildlife 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