Top.Mail.Ru
just another stupid LJ
? ?
just another stupid LJ [entries|friends|calendar]
brate

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

[12 Jan 2005|07:49pm]
[ mood | thoughtful ]

I finished reading today:

A Practical Guide to Prairie Reconstruction
by Carl Kurtz

This was lent to me by the refuge manager of the NWR that us USGS folks share an office with. She had been assistant manager of a tallgrass prairie refuge in the midwest.

It was my introduction, as it were, to prairie ecology. It's a basic instruction book on tallgrass prairie reconstruction. When to plant, what to plant, when to mow/burn/spray herbicide. Soil prep before planting... etc...

Pretty basic stuff, but all brand new to me. The major themes being...
*species diversity
*preemptive weed control

Basically a diverse established prairie habitat will crowd out invasives. Natives have evolved in that habitat and are, ultimately, better at existing there than weeds. But they have evolved to be part of a dynamic, diverse, and established prairie.

For restoration purpose this means that invasives will present problems only during the first few years if the diversity is adequate. Low diversity will allow weeds to colonize even years after establishment.
Disturbance is part of any habitat, especially one as dynamic as tallgrass prairie. Prairies with a high species diversity will have multiple species whose primary ecological function is to colonize disturbed areas. Some of these colonizers will be specialized for capitalizing on specific disturbance conditions. So that when a disturbance occurs, there is a native species in the seed bed to move in.
In a prairie with low species diversity, there will not be as many disturbance specialized native species. This leaves a ecological vacuum that invasives are ready to exploit.
This is why species diversity is so important in restoration of prairies, (or any other ecosystem, I would assume). Invasives love a vacuum and high diversity minimizes vacuums.

But, of course, restoration itself is a huge disturbance. There are people with soil tillers, compactors, and seed broadcasting equipment. Biologists poking around for critters. Which is why it's important to prevent weed predominance during the critical first years of restoration with timely and routine management.

Most prairie species are perennials while most invasives are annuals. This allows for a window of opportunity in which preventing weeds from going to seed will not significantly decrease the viability of the natives. Natives will continue to establish their root stock and sprout from that.

Techniques for weed control include spraying herbicide, mowing, and burning.

Mowing will remove seed heads from invasives and mowing level can be controlled to destroy seed heads while leaving stalks and greenery in order to allow natives to continue forming rootstock. Mowing can also be timed carefully to before invasive seeds are viable but late enough to prevent reseeding. So the weed lifecycle is halted while the natives keep going. (This technique seems like it would be useful in a variety of ecosystems.)

Burns are also important. Fire induces germination. In the first few years, fire can be used to induce any dormant invasive seeds remaining in the soil to germinate in order to manage the adult plants with mowing or spraying. Fire of course induces natives to germinate as well. (Doubleplus there. Two birds, one stone. Useful.)

This was the bulk of the information I took from the book. General prairie characteristic and soil prep were also new to me. (synopsis 1: prairies are cool and as the growing season progresses, the predominant species change into taller and taller species. synopsis 2: erosion is bad, mmmm-kay. and can be partially prevented by soil compaction.) But didn't inspire further gedanken exploration.

Along those lines... much of the above are my thoughts only, not actual scientific knowledge. Especially the why diversity is good and gets rid of bad weeds paragraphs.

post comment

[10 Jan 2005|08:35pm]
[ mood | listless ]

4x10 PU
2x20 crunch
1x(15 per side) side crunch
1x30 LU

post comment

rant #1, followed by self reflection [04 Jan 2005|04:14pm]
so..
i met someone new at a relaxed social event (contra dance).

immediate impression was that she was a 'cool girl'. typical city dyke. chit chat, blah blah. what do you do? exchange of superficial personal information. everything is going alright. she talked too much. i don't trust people that talk too much. or more specifically, people that have to make bullshit little comments on every topic of conversation to show that they know something about everything.*

but then she said she had worked as a farmer. serious personal red flags. she had come from a suburban/urban background. college educated. and only my age (24). there's not a lot you can do in between college and 24. and become a farmer is not one of them. you can work on a farm, you can play with goats and educate city kids about sustainable living, but that is not farming. hell, i worked on a farm one summer, but i'm not fuckin farmer. i do sometimes joke that i was a migrant farm worker. as a joke. the fact is that 'migrant farm worker' or 'farmer' titles have rather important cultural significance. and i judged that this woman did not actually have the complete cultural experience of farmer. you can run around in corn fields, milk goats, and pick strawberries. but that's not farming. until the hail coming into your orchard and every fruit knocked down takes a chunk of your mortgage payment, or your childs college fund getting eaten by gypsy moths, or a phytophora mold rotting the crops that would pay for the new tractor you so desparately need, you are not a farmer.

basically its the typical middle/upper-class romanticization of the rural life (and it's connection with lower class) that bugs me. technically i was a migrant farm worker. but i didn't depend on the $$ i got from it. it was a very fun summer job, a chance to see the east coast, a first adventure. i knew that it would be over, that i could go home to shelter, food, medical care and all those other middle class/white privileges. that i could always count on my class background to provide for me.
i don't feel comfortable, nor do i think it is right to appropriate a title (migrant farm worker) that has such race/class cultural meaning, and i get pissed off when others do it with such nonchalance.

at the same time. i know i am very guilty of this myself. and much of my dislike and aversion to this woman and her ******** stems from my recognition of this trait in myself.

* - i wonder if i do this. i think i might at times, in order to show people that i am interested in what they are talking about. of course that is a valid reason that makes the whole exchange a positive social interaction when i do it. but with her it obviously shows her insecurity and inability to admit ignorance.
post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]