Newsletter Vol 14 Issue 4, 2006 – California Invasive Plant Council

Cal-IPC News
Protecting California’s Natural Areas
from Wildland Weeds

Vol. 14, No. 4

Winter 2007

Quarterly Newsletter of the California Invasive Plant Council

Stories from the North State:
Agencies and Citizens Work
Together to Take on Weeds
Volunteers with the Rotary Club of Redding’s
Stream Team battle Arundo wherever it is
found—even on steep embankments like
“Reynold’s Cliff,” near downtown Redding.
Photo: Randy Smith, Rotary Club of Redding’s Stream Team

Inside:
Shasta County Citizens Take on Weeds…………. 4
Dirty Data Methods for Weed Managers……….. 6
New “Dip-and-Clip” Technique ………………….. 7
Predicting Where Weeds Will Spread……………10

From the Director’s Desk
California
Invasive Plant
Council
1442-A Walnut Street, #462
Berkeley, CA 94709
(510) 843-3902
fax (510) 217-3500
www.cal-ipc.org
info@cal-ipc.org
A California 501(c)3 nonprofit organization

Protecting California’s natural areas
from wildland weeds through
research, restoration, and education.
STAFF
Doug Johnson, Executive Director
dwjohnson@cal-ipc.org
Elizabeth Brusati, Project Manager
edbrusati@cal-ipc.org
Melissa Dozier, Outreach Associate
mdozier@cal-ipc.org
Bertha McKinley, Office Manager
bmckinley@cal-ipc.org
DIRECTORS
Dan Gluesenkamp (2007)
Audubon Canyon Ranch
Mark Newhouser, Vice President (2007)
Sonoma Ecology Center
Wendy West, Secretary (2007)
U.C. Cooperative Extension
Jennifer Erskine Ogden, Treasurer (2007)
U.C. Davis
Steve Schoenig, Past President (2007)
California Dept. of Food & Agriculture
Jason Casanova (2008)
Los Angeles/San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council
David Chang (2008)
Santa Barbara Agricultural Commissioner’s Office
Joanna Clines (2008)
Sierra National Forest

Working within the system

n August of last year, Roy van de Hoek was cited for illegally removing trees from a City
of Los Angeles open space. The story was picked up widely by the media—who did this
guy think he was, killing trees in a park? And why would anyone take time to do that anyway? Eventually, a reporter even called us to get our reaction.
The trees included some from the Cal-IPC Inventory, like castor bean (Ricinus communis, Limited) and myoporum (Myoporum laetum, Moderate). Van de Hoek is a restoration
worker whose frustration with agency inaction got the better of him, so he decided to take
matters into his own hands. The impulse is one many of us recognize. We have a hard time
going for a hike without pulling a weed or three alongside the trail. Trees, however, require
more premeditation. And, dead trees are more likely to get noticed.
Without having all the details of Mr. Van de Hoek’s particular case, we can say that it
is best to work within “the system,” as difficult as that can sometimes be. Working within
the system means encouraging agency resource staff to address an infestation, or getting
approval to organize a volunteer effort. Not only do you (eventually) address the weeds,
you also begin to recruit the people. If you can institutionalize the response, it will be much
easier to get action for future weed projects. It may not be most expedient, but it builds the
best solution for the future.
Granted, such an approach requires a lot of patience for working with stakeholders and
addressing bureaucratic barriers. But this is precisely the challenge we need to address. Unless we bring our fellow citizens and institutions on board, our actions will be insufficient to
address the scale of the problem over the long haul.
It is also important to get a range of input when planning any conservation effort,
both to make sure that it is designed well and to make sure there is a team of supportive
partners. Site-specific factors make easy prescriptions difficult, and too often a casual weed
puller is not aware of these factors. Making individual decisions about what species should
be removed from public property is poor restoration practice and poor democratic process.
Acting alone misses the powerful opportunity for collaboration offered by invasive plants.
Our quest is biological at its core, but it is unavoidably cultural as well.

Bob Case (2008)
California Native Plant Society
Chris Christofferson (2007)
Plumas National Forest
Doug Gibson (2008)
San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy
Jason Giessow (2008)
Santa Margarita/San Luis Rey Weed Management Area
John Knapp (2007)
Catalina Island Conservancy
Marla Knight (2007)
Klamath National Forest
Tanya Meyer (2007)
Yolo County Resource Conservation District
Brianna Richardson (2007)
Montgomery Law Group, LLP
Bruce Saito (2008)
Los Angeles Conservation Corps
Affiliations for identification purposes only.
Last year of term noted.

Cal-IPC News

Winter 2007 – Volume 14, Number 4
Editors: Doug Johnson, Elizabeth Brusati, Melissa Dozier
Cal-IPC News is published quarterly by the California Invasive
Plant Council. Articles may be reprinted with permission from
the editor. Submissions are welcome. Mention of commercial
products does not imply endoresement by Cal-IPC. We reserve
the right to edit all work.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

Gorse monster in the Caspar Halloween Parade. Citizens in the town of Caspar in
Mendocino County are confronting the invasion of gorse on coastal prairie near town.
Story, page 12. Photo: Rochelle Elkan.
Correction: In our last newsletter, we ran a photo on this page showing Cal-IPC founders.
We reversed the identification of Sally Davis and Jo Kitz. We apologize for the error.

Wildland Weed NewsNewsNewsNewsNews
The California Department of Food and
Agriculture announced that Weed Management Areas in 18 counties have been
awarded funding from the $1.5 million
that was available this year. WMAs that
received funding include: Amador; Central
Sierra Partnership; Colusa, Glenn, and Tehama; El Dorado; Sierra-San Joaquin; Eastern Sierra; Lake Tahoe Basin; Los Angeles;
Low Desert; Mendocino Coast and Inland
Medocino Cooperative; Modoc; Santa Ana
River and Orange County; San Diego;
San Luis Obispo; San Mateo; Santa Clara;
Shasta; and Siskiyou. www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/
ipc/weedmgtareas/wma_index_hp.htm

The Center for Biological Diversity won
a lawsuit requiring EPA to reevaluate the
impact of pesticides on the California
red-legged frog, a threatened species under
the federal Endangered Species Act. This
ruling prohibits the use of 66 pesticides,
including some used by restoration workers, in and adjacent to core red-legged frog
habitats throuhout California until the EPA
completes formal consultations with US
Fish and Wildlife Service. The ruling does
exempt some restoration applications.
www.epa.gov/espp/stipulated-injunction.htm

Analysis of Australian policy conducted by
the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests
that screening imports for potentially
harmful foreign plant species is cheaper
than controlling escaped invasive plants.
Results show efforts to prevent the import
of invasives pay for themselves in just over
ten years and yield up to $1.8 billion savings
over 50 years. www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/screeing-for-invasive.html

Two companies in Florida are planning
plantations of Arundo donax as an alternative energy source. BioMass Investment
Group and Progress Energy Florida plan to
grow 20,000 acres of Arundo on a Florida
farm, then convert the biomass into liquid
fuel and burn it in a gas turbine to produce
electricity. The Florida Native Plant Society
has adopted a policy opposing commercial
production of Arundo and encouraging
eradication of existing stands of the reed.
marketplace.publicradio.orgshows/2006/12/06/
PM200612068.html, and www.fnps.org

US EPA issued a final rule on application
of pesticides on and near water bodies,
clariflying an interpretation that has slowed
resotration projects for several years. The
ruling states that a Clean Water Permit
is not required for aquatic application of
pesticides registered by EPA for such use.
(Implementation of this rule on the ground,
however, may still be subject to interpretation by local water quality control boards.)
cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_
id=41#pesticides

Point Reyes National Seashore announced
plans to cull 75% of the park’s exotic
deer. The remaining animals will eventually
be eradicated by birth control. The main
reasons given in support of the eradication
of over 1,000 deer are the growing herds’
negative impact on local ecosystems, competition for food with native species and negative economic impact on ranchers. www.
ptreyeslight.com/cgi/cover_story.pl?record=179

The USDA is soliciting input from researchers, industry and the public on protocol for
assessing the risk of horticultural plants
proposed for import. They have acknowledged that the “Q-37” regulations are too
lax, and unless tightened, will continue to
be a significant loophole in the nation’s efforts to stop new introductions of invasive
plants. Such assessment protocols were the
topic of a recent international workshop
held in Davis (story page 10). www.aphis.
usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html

UC Riverside researchers are investigating
how self-incompatible invasive plants can
overcome the limitations of small population size to take over wildlands. Using the
self-incompatible California wild radish as
a model. they found that plant populations
with a low degree of relatedness have lower
rates of reproductive sucess than populations
containing closely related plants. The hope
is that by controlling sexual compatibility
within an inavsive population, we might
reduce rate of spread. www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2007/01/070109171349.htm

Cal-IPC Updates
Field Courses…
Registration is now open for this spring’s
Wildland Weed Field Courses on Control
Techniques! See page 11 for details.
2007 Weeds Day at the Capitol…
Join us on March 14 in Sacramento to
catch up on the latest policy developments and meet with state legislators
about invasive plants. We will be concentrating on keeping (and maybe increasing)
the funding for Weed Management Areas
that we successfully restored last year. See
www.cal-ipc.org for details and to register!
Welcome new board members…
Cal-IPC members elected Jason Giessow
(Dendra, Inc.), Bob Case (CNPS East
Bay Chapter), Jason “Cas” Casanova (Los
Angeles & San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council), Doug Gibson (San Elijo
Lagoon Conservancy), and Bruce Saito
(Los Angeles Conservation Corps) to the
Board of Directors. The Board appointed
Tanya Meyer (Yolo County Resource
Conservation District) to fill the position
vacated by Jenny Drewitz, who has moved
to the Midwest. We will miss her.
Updated Bylaws and Articles…
Members also approved changes to
Cal-IPC’s Articles of Incorporation and
Bylaws, making both documents more
current and legally robust.
Amazing new book…
So much good information it took two
volumes to fit it all in. Weeds of California and Other Western States, from Dr
Joseph M. DiTomaso and Evelyn Healy, is
now available. See page 14.
Donations of securities…
Cal-IPC is now able to accept donations
of stock. Call us at (510) 843-3902 for
information.
We will be there:
Cal-IPC will set up its booth at the
first annual NorCal Botanists meeting
in Chico, January 18-19, and at the
annual EcoLandscaping Conference in
Sacramento, February 3. Stop by and say
hello if you attend!

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

Feature Article

Shasta County Citizens Take On Weeds
In Shasta County, agency employees are converting regular citizens into dedicated weed workers by teaching them
about the plants that threaten the local landscape.
By Melissa Dozier, Cal-IPC Outreach Associate

onsidering what Randy Smith has done
towards removing Arudo in Redding,
it’s funny to hear him say that four years
ago, he “wouldn’t have known Arundo from
a hot rock.” Invasive plant removal began
similarly for Phil and Suzanne Kane, who
live about 15 miles outside Burney. The
Kanes had noticed,
but not thought much
about, what Phil
described as “a pretty
purple flower on our
property.” Larry Dodds
of Burney first learned
of invasive plants when
letters from Shasta
County advised him to
remove a noxious weed
on his property. Larry
allowed the county to
spray a few times, but
was unsure about the
purpose and the possible negative effects of
the treatment on his
property.

counter. Two years ago, Randy was chair of
the Rotary Club of Redding’s Environment
Committee, and he and a group of volunteers repaired an eroded irrigation siphon on
More indirectly, it was also through
Canyon Hollow Creek. Steve Baumgartner
CDFA that Larry Dodds learned about the
of California Department of Fish and Game
squarrose knapweed on his property. Dodds
told Randy that it was a good project, but
that it was a shortlived victory. Smith
recalls, “He said that
unless we got a handle on Arundo, the
35 named streams in
Redding ‘would be
toast!’” Baumgartner
taught Smith about
Arundo. To Randy,
the worst part was
that it crowds out all
of the other vegetation, and does not
give anything back
to the ecosystem.
He recalls that in
the past two years
of removing and
wading through
For all of these
Arundo, “I have
people, the transforonly seen four birds’
mation from regular
nests. Nothing really
Shasta county resident
Future Arundo-Free Zone: Creeks like this one, which runs by Blue Mountain Road
uses it, and nothing
to Resident Weed
outside Redding, are the target of the Rotary Club of Redding’s Stream Team. Photo:
eats it. It has a high
Warrior hapened
Randy Smith.
silica content that
with education. Phil
can raise holy hell in
Kane describes it as a fluke when four years
and Pirosko were friends outside of the weed
the
GI
tract.”
Smith
says
that the negative
ago, he and his wife Suzanne attended an
world. She soon began to talk to him about
qualities
of
Arundo
have
made
his removal
organized weed tour led by Carri Pirosko
the letters he received from the county and
efforts
easier.
“Once
you
know
what it does,
of the California Department of Food and
the knapweed on his property. “Carri helped
nobody
is
a
friend
of
Arundo.
I
haven’t
Agriculture (CDFA). “We wanted to learn
me identify it, and taught me that it was
heard
from
one
private
landowner
who
more about our area,” Kane says. It was
a problem. Before, I knew starthistle and
wants
it
to
stay.”
then they learned that the purple flower
Italian thistle were problems, but knapweed
on their property was Centaurea squarrosa,
After learning about the problems
was just vegetation.” When he learned that
also known as sqarrose knapweed, a CDFA
caused by invasive plants, all four of these
knapweed chokes out native vegetation,
A-rated noxious weed. When they learned
residents have chosen different pathways
and that it has no nutritional value for local
about the effects of knapweed on the landfor removal. Phil and Suzanne Kane have
wildlife, he was won over. “I was a cynic,
scape, they decided to take action. To them,
learned how to spray their knapweed
but now I understand the problem.”
it was their obligation as citizens: they own
population themselves. They know how to
Randy Smith began his campaign against
280 acres of property in Shasta County, and
identify the developmental stage at which to
Arundo in Redding after an eye-opening en-

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

all of the neighboring lands were susceptible
to knapweed. They did not want to add to
the weed problems of their neighbors.

spray, and when to spray again as follow-up
treatment. In an effort to reduce herbicide
use, the Kanes have allowed Baldo Villegas
of CDFA to “get involved with his bugs.”
In the last few years, Villegas has released
three different kinds of biocontrol agents on
their property. Phil
Kane understands
that “we may have
to keep spraying
for six or seven
years,” but also
that “we like being
involved.” When
asked how things
are looking now,
Kane says that his
property has less
than 20% of the
knapweed coverage
it started with.

miles of Stillwater Creek. “It will be great
to have another 20 sets of hands and eyes to
get out and fight this. If we did it ourselves,
it would take two years.” Smith emphasizes
that invasive plant eradication is possible,
even with a small budget and a volunteer

because, as Smith says, “The more we accomplish, the more people want to participate.”
The work of these weed warriors compliments the historic commitment to weed
eradication by the
Shasta County Agricultural Commissioner and CDFA,
creating a larger
weed workforce
and adding new
eyes and ears for
discovering infestations. This leveraging of community
interest should be
a goal of all Weed
Management Areas
in the state.

Along with
Dodds now
empowerment of
allows Pirosko to
starting their own
come over to spray
weed control prohis knapweed. He
grams, these Shasta
says that their percounty residents
sonal connection
all emphasize that
Volunteers with the Stream Team from Redding’s Good News Rescue Mission show off
gave him confitheir campaign
their favorite Arundo control tools. Photo: Randy Smith.
dence. For Larry,
against invasive
knapweed is now
plants began only
a part of his life. “It’s contagious,” he says.
after they learned what these plants were doforce.
In
the
future,
Smith
wants
to
distrib“Once you start pulling it, you’re constantly
ing to their county. Dodds sums it up, sayute information about his project so that
looking out for it. Every knapweed plant
ing that his conversion happened through
“other
groups
who
feel
they
are
powerless
gets pulled – it’s almost an obsession.” He
education. “I was a cantankerous old guy,
(against
invasive
plants)
can
apprehend
the
noticed that the high school near his properbut through education and cooperation, I
error
of
that
mindset.
It’s
not
that
it’s
not
ty has knapweed, and that the cemetery next
was changed into a weed warrior.”
doable—it’s
the
will.”
The
Stream
Team
has
door has knapweed. He went out fishing,
become
a
self-sustaining
volunteer
project,
and while walking the river, he said, “Oh
wow—I’m surrounded by knapweed! I had
to stop, collect some samples in plastic bags,
and turn them in to CDFA.”
Arundo removal has now taken the
center stage in Randy Smith’s work with
the Rotary Club of Redding. As a first
step, he was trained by a licensed pesticide
applicator. Then, he formed a Rotary Club
volunteer crew called Stream Team, and in
the past two years has recruited the help
and knowledge of more than 17 California
agencies and organizations. With agency
and volunteer help, the Stream Team has
located, mapped, and treated both manually and chemically all of the major Arundo
outbreaks in the Redding area. Smith says,
“we will get Shasta County to be an Arundo
Free Zone before 2010.” Next summer,
Smith will work with the California Conservation Corps to remove Arundo along 16

Follow-up from the Stream Team of Redding:
With Arundo removed, spawning begins!
Apparently, the Redding ecosystem as a whole is feeling the effects of the
Arundo removal campaign. In mid-2006, a Churn Creek Bottom resident of
Redding called Randy Smith to report a Chinook salmon building a redd in the
creek that runs through his ranch. This was the first salmon that the resident
had ever seen at this site. It would seem that the double effects of weather (a
heavy rain year) and the Rotary Club of Redding’s Stream Team (debris removal
and Arundo eradication along this section of creek) have helped convert the
creek from a bed of uniform large cobble to a bed with a diverse range of sediment sizes, some of which are favorable for Chinook spawning.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

Tools and Techniques

Pseudo-replication, no replication, and a complete lack
of control: In praise of dirty data for weed managers
By Janet Klein, Marin Municipal Water District. Adapted from her paper in the 2006 Cal-IPC Symposium Proceedings.

eed managers sometimes consider
data collection to be an uneconomical expenditure of scarce resources, particularly when institutional focus, resource
limitations, site conditions, or overarching
management objectives preclude our ability
to meet the requirements of peer-reviewed
research. However, on-the-ground weed
managers are in possession of crucial quantitative information regarding weed control
efforts. If we take the time to compile this
information and supplement it with even
the most rudimentary field data, we are
able to allocate our scarce resources more
efficiently. Perhaps more importantly, we are
better able to clearly communicate what is
at stake in the struggle to control invasive
species.

propagules.

The Marin Municipal Water District
(MMWD) owns and manages approximately 22,000 acres of watershed lands in Marin
County. The nearly 19,000-acre Mt. Tamalpais Watershed is located on an urban-wildland interface, immediately adjacent to the
communities of Mill Valley, Sausalito, San
Rafael, and Fairfax. Over 120,000 acres of
public wildlands are immediately adjacent.
Included within our holdings are no fewer
than 900 acres of land infested with French
broom (Genista monspessulana). In 2005 the
district board suspended the use of herbicide
for vegetation treatment.

How bad is the problem, really?

MMWD faces many of the limitations
that land owners experience with regard
to our capacity to do research or formal
adaptive management as we control weeds.
The institutional focus is on drinking
water production, not land management or
biodiversity protection. The organizational
work ethic is that of “getting the job done,”
not “studying how to do the job,” leaving
few opportunities to develop a study design
or collect pre-treatment data. Our weed
management objective is sustained weed
suppression, so leaving sites unmanaged as
“controls” can increase future management
costs at those sites and threaten progress
made elsewhere when controls produce

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

Out of necessity, we focus our data collection and analysis efforts on getting to the
heart of our weed management program.
This information is critical not only for
MMWD resource management staff, but
also indispensable for our board of directors,
who hold the purse strings. It is also of great
value to adjacent land managers (state parks,
national parks, and local open space districts) as well as the local fire fighting agencies. Finally, it’s important for the general
public. However, due to the limitations of
our field crews, we must rely on quick-anddirty, yet robust, data that get right to heart
of what we most need to know. Below are
some of our key questions and the methods
we used to address them.
Distribution mapping: We focus on
species, location, approximate patch size,
relative abundance, and site conditions. The
emphasis is placed on broad characterizations of static management units rather than
capturing the boundaries of shifting weed
populations. We then translate our map
statistics into a metric easily understood by
the general public: football fields. To date,
we have surveyed approximately 3,000 acres
and delineated over 700 acres of French
broom within 150 management units.
All told, we estimate five percent—or the
equivalent of 870 football fields—of the Mt.
Tamalpais Watershed is infested with French
broom.
Stem density sampling: This approach
supplements mapping and provides a rough
estimate of broom abundance in particular
management units. We decided to measure
stem density since it is an easy measure for
our district board members to understand
and for our primary field data collectors
to gather. Field crews (typically teenagers)
randomly set out long rectangular quadrats
(5m x 0.2m) following a straightforward
protocol and count the number of broom
stems in 20-40 quadrats per management

unit. The data then undergo strict quality control measures. (“6 million stems”
indicates observer boredom rather than
high densities.) When combined with our
mapping work, stem density data enabled us
to quantify the problem and yield the very
crude but eye-opening estimate of 24-44
million broom plants on the watershed.

Why is French broom worse than
other invasive plants?
French broom grows so much faster than
native woody vegetation that it doubles or
even triples fuelbreak maintenance costs.
To demonstrate this, we did some very
quick-and-dirty sampling by measuring the
heights of native shrubs (average = 24.2 cm,
n=100) and French broom (average = 95.9
cm, n=100) along five miles of fuelbreak
that had been mowed six months previously.
The results of this one-hour sampling investment have persuaded many in the local
fire community that French broom within
our fuelbreak system cannot be ignored.

How long will it take to fix the
problem?
We can obtain quick-and-dirty estimates
of person hours per acre for each broom
treatment method by looking at our work
order and payroll data, which are organized
by vegetation mapping units. With five
years of records for 60 sites, we can calculate
a reasonably accurate average cost per acre
despite substantial differences in site conditions (e.g., topography, weed density, vegetation type). We also measured productivity
of volunteer weed workers by counting the
number of stems that volunteers pulled in 5
minutes. These data (cost per acre for staff
and volunteers), when combined with stem
density data, enable us to project how long
it would take to clear one acre of established
stands of French broom using various treatment methods (e.g., handpulling, mowing,
herbicide).
…continued on page

“Dip-and-Clip”: A new treatment for herbaceous weeds
By Jennifer Erskine Ogden, Mark Renz, and Sue Donaldson
Adapted from Erksine Ogden, J., M. Renz,
and S. Donaldson. 2006. A precision method
for the control of perennial herbaceous species
in sensitive locations. University of Nevada
Cooperative Extension Special Publication
06-09. Available: www.unce.unr.edu/publitions/SP06/SP0609.pdf

esearchers at UC Davis, New Mexico
State University, and University of
Nevada Cooperative Extension have tested
a new method that shows promise for
controlling small infestations of herbaceous
perennial weeds. It may provide an alternative method of control in sensitive habitats
where the use of herbicides is a concern. The
“dip-and-clip” method was modified from
the cut-and-treat technique, where herbicide
is applied to freshly-cut stems of trees and
large shrubs. Dip-and-clip was tested on
infestations of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea
diffusa), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia dalmatica) and perennial pepperweed
(Lepidium latifolium) in Douglas County,
NV, and the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Plants should be treated at the early
flowering stage when stems have bolted, but
before fruiting has begun. When attempting to control perennial herbaceous species,
monitoring and treatment should be performed yearly until the seedbank diminishes
and older plants do not resprout. Before
using any of these methods, read the label
on the herbicide container to ensure correct
use in the appropriate habitat. The full report on this method, listed above, contains a
table with recommended herbicide concentrations.
The following is an abridged version
of the method. Read the full report for additional instructions.
1. Wear personal protective equipment
such as gloves and eye protection. Mix
the herbicide solution in a container
wide enough to accommodate your
tool. Select sharp, durable clippers, but
avoid anvil-type tools that will crush
the stems and prevent the herbicide
from moving into the plant. The container and tool should be used only for
this purpose. Place the container on a
plastic sheet or in a bucket to contain
any spilled herbicide.

2. Dip the clipper blades into the solution
with the blades in an open position so
all cutting surfaces become wet. Hold
the plant you intend to cut with the
nonclipping hand, and cut the stem
with the dipped clippers at the lowest
point possible above the soil surface.
Clip the stem with the flat surface of
the clippers facing downward so that
the bottom portion of the stem (the
part connected to the root system)
receives the most direct application of
herbicide.
3. If removing the upper portion of the
cut stems, place them directly into a
plastic bag. Rinse the clipper blades
over the bottle of herbicide to remove
chemical residue.

1. After donning protective gloves, carefully dip the clipper blades into the herbicide solution. Do not let the solution
drip onto the ground.

4. Monitor the site regularly and re-treat
weeds and sprouts as needed. It may
take several years of repeat treatments
to eliminate the population.
Researchers compared the dip-and-clip
method to spot spraying and cutting alone
on Dalmatian toadflax, diffuse knapweed,
and perennial pepperweed. Spot spraying
provided similar levels of control for diffuse
knapweed and Dalmatian toadflax when
compared to the dip-and-clip method, but
much poorer control of perennial pepperweed. Spraying is problematic in many
sensitive locations, as adjacent plants can be
damaged. Cutting only, without herbicide
application, provided poor control in all
cases, and is not recommended for control
of these species. Researchers also found
that native species recovered better in the
treated Dalmatian toadflax sites than in the
untreated control sites.

2. Clip plants as close to the soil surface as
possible. Avoid touching the blades to
the soil.

The dip-and-clip method provides a tool
for controlling small weed infestations. It
can be used where volunteers are available,
or by landowners working on their property,
and disturbs the soil less than hand-pulling,
making this method less likely to promote
the spread of invasives in the soil.
Jennifer Erskine Ogden is a UC Davis postdoc and Cal-IPC Treasurer. Contact her at
jaerskine@ucdavis.edu. Mark Renz is with
New Mexico State University. Sue Donaldson
is with U. of Nevada Cooperative Extension.

3. Hold the clippers with the flat surface
facing downward to maximize the
amount of herbicide applied to the cut
stem.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

Dirty Data continued from page …
By combining our broom distribution
data, broom stem density data, and effort
data, we have identified 5000 stems per
acre as a rough threshold of success. At
this density, using highly selective control
methods, we can prevent seed production
with less than 16 person hours an acre. It is
at this point that we consider reintroducing
native perennial species to particularly species-poor sites. Stem density data collected
at the same site over multiple seasons does
allow us to confirm that we are trending in
the desired direction and approaching the
restoration threshold.

Table 1. Estimated per-acre costs for French broom treatments, MMWD, 2001-2006.
Methods

Two recent undertakings illustrate the
difficulties we often encounter when striving
to execute formal studies. In 2001 MMWD
conducted a goat grazing trial. The initial
study was designed to measure broom mortality in both treatment (grazed) and control
(ungrazed) plots. However, the goats exhibited a strong preference for native madrone
bark, and did not graze broom as quickly
as predicted, leaving half of the treatment
plots untreated at the end of the trial. This
information contributed to our assessment
that, within our management context, other
treatment options are preferable to goats.
We also conducted a formal, multifaceted trial of the Waipuna hot foam system
in 2006 following a limited trial in 2003.
The 2003 trial (unreplicated and without
controls), suggested the Waipuna system was
between 90 and 100% effective at killing
small French broom resprouts. In 2006, we
established four replicates of the treatment
and controls at three different locations. We
then ran the Waipuna machine in produc-

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

Person
Cost / Acre Cost / Acre
Hrs/Acre (1 Treatment) (10 Yrs.)

Currently Employed Methods
Excavator / Tiger Mower

MMWD

$350

$3,500

Power Brushcutting

Contractor or
MMWD

$500

$4,875

Prescription Burning

MMWD

Insufficient data

$1,500

$8,850

Mulching

MMWD

$475

$1,825

Propane Flaming

Contractor or
MMWD

$1,975

$6,025

Handpulling

Contractor
or AWOP or
Volunteer

300

$2,400

$9,850

Terra Torch

Contractor
w/ MMWD

$725

$2,775

Grazing (goats)

Contractor
w/ MMWD

$975

$5,300

Waipuna Hot Foam

MMWD

110

$3,550

$6,800

Contractor or
MMWD

$750

$2,825

Which treatments work?
We try everything. Sometimes we
conduct a single test, other times more
extensive trials. Our focus is on how well a
particular method meets our management
goals and how it ranks according to a wide
range of criteria (cost per acre, retreatment
interval, time to restoration, logistical
limitations, wildfire risk reduction, ecological protection, and invasive species spread
control). The results of trials are often fairly
self-evident, requiring only visual inspection. For example, annual winter mowing
that results a meter or more of regrowth
within six months is clearly not meeting our
goals.

Labor
Source

Experimental Methods

Suspended Methods
Cut Stump Treatment

tion mode for three months, during which
time it proved to be prohibitively expensive
and slow.

What does it cost?
Using work order and payroll data in
combination with density and distribution
data enables us to calculate overall costs per
acre for each treatment method. Included in
these estimates are crew costs, vehicles, fuel,
equipment, lease fees, and capital expenditures. For our organization, labor and
vehicle use are the most expensive components. Organizations with a different salary
structure may have radically different results. We found that of the four major types
of workers (MMWD staff, contractors,
adult offender work program participants,
and volunteers), the contractors were far
and away the most efficient. Volunteers are
the most costly, but they bring a culture of
advocacy and stewardship to the vegetation
management program that is invaluable.
The estimated value of their labor can also
be credited as matching funds for grants.
A table comparing costs for each treatment
(Table 1) is one of the most valuable tools

we have.

Conclusion
The quick-and-dirty data described here
may not satisfy academic research scientists,
but such data have helped us improve the
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of weed
management here at MMWD and inform
our district board members and the general public about the costs associated with
particular treatments. We currently spend
$250,000 a year for on-the-ground weed
control (excluding planning, monitoring,
and mapping). The district’s board members
can make an informed choice about whether
to increase spending to $750,000/year (what
it would take to treat all 870 football fields
of broom) or improve our efficiency by
allowing once again the use of cheaper and
more efficient methods such as cut-stump
herbicide treatments. Quick-and-dirty data
has helped us demonstrate our ability to
reduce broom densities to a level where we
can begin restoring native plant communities, but only if we have enough funding
and the right tools to do so.
Contact the author at jklein@marinwater.org.

Outreach

Who do you want to reach?
By Bree Richardson, Cal-IPC Board and Outreach Committee member

nderstanding of the invasive species issue has grown considerably among the
public, land managers, and policy-makers
in recent years. There is, however, a lot of
education left to do. Whether you want to
encourage gardeners not to plant weeds or
train volunteers to control weeds, materials
produced by Cal-IPC and other organizations are available to help. This is a sample
of what’s available to you foryour invasive
plant education efforts. Information on CalIPC materials can be found on page 14 and
at cal-ipc.org.

General public
The first task in invasive plant outreach
is explaining the problem and why people
should care. Cal-IPC’s Biological Pollution brochure provides an introduction to
invasive plant impacts in California. Many
local Weed Management Areas have also
printed brochures highlighting the worst
weeds in their region. Ecovisions (www.
ecovisions.org) produces the Plant Invaders video, which includes specific examples
and describes volunteer efforts in order to
encourage participation in control efforts.
In 2005, National Geographic and PBS
(www.pbs.org) broadcast Strange Days on
Planet Earth. Available on DVD, the first
episode of this four-part series focuses on
invasive species in a global context. Both of
these videos are suitable for presentations to
classes or local clubs.

Gardeners
The majority of invasive plants in California were introduced as ornamentals, and
each year we hear reports of more species
“jumping the fence.” Gardening is reputed
to be Americans’ #1 hobby, so what better
way to connect with people about invasives?
To recruit gardeners’ help in stopping
invasive plants, Cal-IPC has worked with
partners to develop Don’t Plant a Pest! brochures for different regions of the state (and
more are in development). These brochures
recommend alternatives to invasive ornamental plants, and are good for starting a
conversation about the role of gardeners and
other local citizens in stopping the spread of
invasives. The Los Angeles and San Gabriel

Rivers Watershed Council has produced
wallet-sized WeedWatch cards to promote
non-invasive alternatives for Southern California. Their template is available for others
to use in developing cards for their own
region (www.lasgrwc.org).

Restoration volunteers or classes
Audiences that have a general understanding of invasive plants may require
technical information on specific species
and their management. The resources below
can be helpful when preparing presentations to college classes, Native Plant Society
chapters, agriculture groups, or landowners,
and can also help you answer questions on
specific plants of local concern.
For biology and impacts, refer to CalIPC’s California Invasive Plant Inventory,
which ranks 200 invasive plants as threats to
California’s wildlands. Our online database
contains detailed information on each plant,
including regions and habitats invaded
in California, and citations for additional
information. For identification, you can’t
beat books and CDs produced by Dr. Joe
DiTomaso. Start with Weeds of California
and Other Western States, a two-volume
(plus CD!) masterpiece of western weed
identification and plant-specific information. Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the
West focuses on species found in and around
waterways. Two CDs are designed to aid
in identification: Grass and Grass-Like
Weeds of California and Broadleaf Weeds of
California allow you to identify plants using
characteristics visible to the naked eye.
For management techniques, the
standard reference remains Invasive Plants
of California’s Wildlands, which provides
information on some of the worst weeds in
California. It is posted in its entirety at calipc.org. Two 2006 reports, The Use of Fire
as a Tool for Controlling Invasive Plants and
Yellow Starthistle Management Guide, are
helpful for presentations focused on control
methods. The Weed Workers’ Handbook,
also available online as a pdf, describes management techniques along with helpful hints
on organizing a volunteer program.
The Nature Conservancy’s Weed Control

Methods Handbook contains control techniques, including extensive information on
herbicides, while their Element Stewardship
Abstracts are useful management summaries
written by TNC land managers (tncweeds.
ucdavis.edu). Ecovisions produces the video
series Managing an Invasive Alien Species,
with episodes focused on brooms, yellow
starthistle, and pampasgrass. These videos
focus on prevention and control of California’s most pervasive weeds, while seeking to
engender a deeper land ethic in the audience
(www.ecovisions.org).

Sources for photos
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Here are some resources for photos that will
wow your audience: The TNC Invasive
Species Initiative’s photo gallery arranges
photos by species. High-resolution versions
suitable for printed materials are available
for some photos (tncweeds.ucdavis.edu). The
Center for Invasive Plant Management’s
Image Gallery page lists links to many
online photo galleries (www.weedcenter.org).
Those who purchase Weeds of California
and Other Western States receive a CD of
3,000 copyright-free photos that may be
used for educational presentations. Also,
photos on federal government websites are
free of copyright when used for educational
purposes. Finally, many local Weed Management Area have photos of local interest.
Contact Bree Richardson at breemerr@yahoo.
com or Cal-IPC Outreach Coordinatory
Melissa Dozier at mdozier@cal-ipc.org.
• Reaching

Garden Clubs •

Bring a Cal-IPC speaker to your local garden club! Our gardener-specific presentation addresses the basics of invasive plants
and provides alternatives to invasive ornamental garden plants. Our speakers are
dedicated Cal-IPC members, many with
years of experience in invasive plant work.
To find a speaker for your local audience,
contact a Regional Coordinator listed
below, or email mdozier@cal-ipc.org.
SF Bay Area: Bob Case, bobcase@
astound.net; Central Valley, South:
Becky Waegell, bwaegell@cosumnes.org;
Central Valley, North: Susan Mason,
(530) 892-1666; Northern California:
Carol Gibbs, cgibbs@ca.blm.gov; Central
Sierra: Wendy West, wkwest@ucdavis.edu;
Central Coast: David Chang, dchang@
co.santa-barbara.ca.us

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

Project

Where will weeds go?
Cal-IPC launches Weed Risk Assessment project with international workshop

e all know an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure, especially for
weeds. But how can we know which new
weeds to look out for? Which weeds already
in California are most likely to expand into
new areas? Which non-native plants might
present a threat if introduced to California?
Such topics are the focus of the sub-discipline of Weed Risk Assessment (WRA).
Cal-IPC’s Inventory uses a criteria system
based on WRA principles to assess the
severity of weeds already in the state. A new
grant gives Cal-IPC the opportunity to begin work on answering more complex questions that will help weed workers’ ability to
prevent weed spread and new introductions.
The grant, through Dr. Joe DiTomaso
at UC Davis and the UC Integrated Pest
Management Program (UC IPM), funds
modeling of invasive plant distribution in
California using climate and other factors.
(See articles in Spring 2002 and Spring
2003 issues of Cal-IPC News for examples
of predictive modeling.) Modeling will focus
on 36 plants from our Inventory, choosing
species that represent a range of severity
and current distribution in California, as
well as some chosen because they are sold as
ornamentals.
To kick off the project, Cal-IPC organized the California WRA Workshop at UC
Davis on October 30-31 to discuss methods
for predicting the spread of invasive plants
in California. The invited participants
included leading researchers from Australia, Hawaii, and Florida who have been at
the forefront of developing tools to assess
how severe a problem plants will become.
The two-day meeting served to get CalIPC staff and others in the California weed
community up to speed about what’s being
done here and abroad. (Special thanks to
Rick Roush and the UC IPM program for
sponsoring the meeting.)
The program covered three main
areas—the science upon which WRA rests,
the techniques used in WRA, and the policies for implementing WRA findings. For
more information on the program and notes
on discussions, please see the proceedings at
cal-ipc.org.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

At the end of the session, participants
developed priorities for action. Because
many entities worldwide are working on the
same challenging issue, there is a great need
to for sharing of information, both on specific plants and on effectiveness of predictive
techniques. Hawaii and Florida have tested
the Australian system that is used to screen
all imports in that country, while USDA is
revising our national screening protocol for
horticultural introductions (Cal-IPC is submitting comment during their stakeholder
input period). It is an important time to be
engaged in this issue.
As we begin modeling, our first step
is to compile information on the current distribution of weeds in California.
Remarkably, there is little comprehensive
statewide information, even for most major
weeds. Thus we will be conducting a survey
through county WMAs
to collect rough data on
which weeds are present
in each area. This will
provide a much-needed
baseline. Distribution
maps from the surveys
will be posted online.
The predictive
modeling compares
climate parameters
from areas where the
plant is known to grow
globally with those
from California habitats. This will give us a
conservative estimate
of where these plants
are likely to spread in
the future (the estimate
can be refined using
other parameters, such
as soil type). Modeling software can also
run predictions under
scenarios for global
climate change, allowing us to generate more
realistic predictions.
Previous work, such as
the study of potential

gorse distribution in California conducted
by Jon Hall and Dr. Scott Steinmaus of Cal
Poly San Luis Obispo, will guide our efforts.
This project support several other efforts. Our work with the nursery industry
will be greatly aided by developing a basic
system for screening potential imports.
Our Inventory will benefit from improved
distribution information. Most importantly,
this study will provide a roadmap for early
detection efforts throughout the state by
showing which weeds might turn up where.
For more information, see the new page on
our website under “Research” or contact Doug
Johnson at dwjohnson@cal-ipc.org or Elizabeth Brusati at edbrusati@cal-ipc.org.

Participants from California and beyond at the October 2006
Weed Risk Assessment workshop at UC Davis.

New and Contributing Members
Thank you for your generous support! This list reflects new members
and donors since the last newsletter.
New Members
Crystal Acker (Sonoma Co. PRMD, Santa
Rosa), Donna Ball (H.T. Harvey & Assoc.,
San Jose), Shawn Brumbaugh (Santa Rosa),
Kerry Byrne (UC Davis, Davis), Shayna
Carney (Roseville Parks & Recreation Dept.,
Roseville), Justin Davila (Mill Valley), Ann
Jones (San Geronimo Valley Planning Group,
Woodacre), Bobby Kamansky (Kamansky’s
Ecological Consulting, Three Rivers), Robert
Kirkwood (Palo Alto), Noel Korten (Los Angeles), Jeremiah Mann (Davis), Wendy Mazzotti (Bishop), Marnie McKernan (Michael
Brandman Assoc., San Bernadino), George
McMenamin (Boulder Creek), Sean Micallef
(Zentner & Zentner, Oakland), Christal
Niederer (Foster City), Rich Rodeck (Marin
Co. Open Space District, San Rafael), Weena
Sangkatavat (BonTerra Consulting, Costa
Mesa), Bailey Smith (San Francisco), Carl
Thoelecke (Marin Co. Open Space District,
Kentfield), Rob Thompson (Thompson Wildland Management, Monterey), Andrea Vona
(Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy,
Rolling Hills Estates), Ruth Wash (Larkspur),
William Winchester (University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS)

tain, Daly City), Tom Dodson (Tom Dodson Assoc., San Bernadino), Wilma Follette
(Sausalito), Davis Fross (Native Sons Nursery,
Arroyo Grande), John and Hermi Hiatt (Red
Rock Audubon Society, Las Vegas, NV), Larry
Jones (Richmond), Audrey Miller (Ferndale),
Don Stiver (CNPS, El Cerrito), Stephen Underwood (CA State Parks, Hydesville)
New Life Member
Robert Kirby, Jr. (Berkeley)
Donations
Brian and Joyce Bender (Napa), Joe and Gina
Darin (Davis), Harriet Dhanak (El Cerrito),
Bruce Delgado (BLM, Marina), Nancy Harris
(CNPS, Huntington Beach), Renita Herrmann
(San Francisco), Ken Himes (CNPS, Belmont),
Mark Lawless (Poway), Eliza Maher (Center for
Natural Lands Management, Riverside), Tamia
Marg (Berkeley), Audrey Miller (Ferndale),
Susan Sanders (Nevada City), Susan Schwartz
(Friends of Five Creeks, Berkeley), Jake Sigg
(CNPS, San Francisco), Jennifer Tillman (Encinitas), Annette Wheeler (Los Altos Hills)
Donations for Cape Ivy Biocontrol
June Bilisoly (Portola Valley), Boz Williams
(Guerneville), CNPS Monterey Chapter

Contributing Members
Doug Allshouse (Friends of San Bruno Moun-

2007 Cal-IPC Field Courses
Registration open for March and April Courses! Others opening soon…

ind your way out of the iceplant, artichoke thistle, or arundo and come to a Cal-IPC
field course near you. Courses provide hands-on, practical demonstrations of weed
control methods, and training in the latest integrated management strategies. Courses are
taught by local instructors with years of on-the-ground experience.
Control Techniques: March 21
Paramount Ranch, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
Control Techniques: April 12
Turtle Bay Exploration Park, Redding
Control Techniques: May 17
Rancho San Antonio Preserve, Los Altos
Plus, NEW! Weed Mapping Course
Pre-Symposium: September 19
San Diego
Courses are $125 for Cal-IPC members,
and $145 for non-members. More informatio and registration at cal-ipc.org, or
call Melissa Dozier at 510-843-3902.

Conference Report

8th Annual Monterey
“War on Weeds”
Symposium

he theme of this year’s War on Weeds
(WOW) symposium at California State
University-Monterey Bay was “A Symphony of Weed Management Strategies.”
The many parts of this symphony included
eighteen speakers, tool demonstrations in
the parking lot (the famous “tool tailgate”),
exhibits, discussion groups, and weed alerts.
The movements of the symphony ranged
from the action packed (such as a live flaming demonstration from local weed-control
guru Ken Moore) to the heartwarming (a
series of afternoon talks on how to eradicate
weeds with a crew of volunteers or local
students).
In addition to the symposium, WOW
featured two field trips. Dr Joe DiTomaso of
UC Davis, also the WOW Keynote Speaker,
led a group to Clear Creek, a remote site
in San Benito County with a two-year-old
yellow starthistle management project. On
Saturday, the field trip headed to the Fort
Ord backcountry to examine the impact
of invasive plants on California’s coastal
ecosystem.
One of the most inspiring aspects of
WOW was the local focus; for Central
Coast weed warriors, all aspects of the symposium were relevant. Many talks covered
on control methods for locally problematic
species, including Lepidium, Eupatorium,
cape ivy and purple starthistle. We all still
remember the talk by Bruce Delgado, commander in chief of the War on Weeds, on
“My Summer at Yellow Starthistle Camp.”
In addition, local representatives from State
Parks, Fort Ord, the Elkhorn Slough Foundation, and the Monterey County WMA
gave updates on new and ongoing weed
projects. To top it off, the symphony of
management strategies gave way to an actual
symphony: local weed warriors on the accordion and the clarinet serenaded attendees
during registration and breaks.

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

Mendocino community considers gorse treatment
C

aspar, a small community on the Mendocino coast south of Fort Bragg, has a major problem with gorse. A dense infestaton next to
town, as well as lesser infestations on adjacent coastal bluffs, present a serious fire threat. (A similar coastal community in Bandon, OR,
burned to the ground in 1936.) Its seeds, like those of other leguminous weeds (such as brooms), remain viable for decades. The gorse in
Mendocino was almost eradicated in the 1940s, but has rebounded vigorously from the seed bank in the absence of vigilant ongoing followup efforts. In recent years, Caspar residents have strongly resisted the use of herbicides for controlling weeds. With rising awareness of the
gorse threat, and an increasingly active WMA on the coast, the community may be ready to tackle this thorny problem.
Note: The resolution reprinted below requests that the Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner treat gorse in the county as an
A-rated noxious weed. While the office does not have discretion to alter the rating (set by the state at B), it does have discretion to declare
an eradication effort. This is untenable, both because of the scale of the infestation, and property rights issues. We share the resolution as
illustration of the community’s mounting concern, which we hope will lead to effective collaboration between public and private partners.

Resolution of the Caspar Community to
County of Mendocino Commissioner of Agriculture

hereas: The citizens and property owners of Caspar are threatened by the
rapid proliferation of non-native noxious weed, Gorse (Ulex europaea), as
a major fire hazard and environmental threat with exponential growth forcing out
native plants.
hereas: Gorse now heavily infests hundreds of acres bordering our
community with approximately 75% of this land owned by the State of
California and managed by State agencies who have been unable to control the
spread of Gorse on Jug Handle State Reserve or the Caspar Headlands.

W
W
W
W

hereas: Gorse growth is expanding and creating a seed reservoir and
home base for many new infestations appearing elsewhere in the coastal
community.
hereas: Many responsible residents and property owners are becoming
overwhelmed by the increasing labor and expense of trying to keep Gorse
away from their homes and land.
hereas: Gorse is highly flammable, easily ignited and nearly impossible
to extinguish. Burning Gorse produces 30 foot flames with intense heat,
and roots of the plant can carry fire underground. A Gorse fire burned the town
of Bandon, Oregon killing eleven people and destroying 480 buildings. Gorse
is expanding rapidly on both sides of busy California Highway 1 where such a
disaster could be ignited in our own community.

hereas, the Caspar Community has in regular meetings discussed the
infestation of Gorse, consulted with local biologists on Gorse growth,
and referred the issue of Gorse expansion for review to the Mendocino Coast
Cooperative Weed Management Area, and whereas the results of these meetings,
consultations and reviews have been useful and informative.

hereas: Gorse is now ranked as a Category B Noxious Weed; and the
Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner has discretionary authority
to raise its priority to Category A, thus offering various additional options in
addressing this urgent problem.

herefore: The Caspar Community requests the Commissioner of Agriculture
use discretionary authority to manage Gorse as a Category A Noxious Weed
and bring resources of the Commissioner’s office, to our aid and assistance to
contain and eradicate this infestation.
So resolved this 11th day of August 2006 by The Board of Caspar Community
Caspar, California

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

Gorse Wine
12 cups of gorse flowers
1 gallon of water
4 cups of sugar
1 1/2 cups seedless white raisins
2 oranges
2 lemons (or 1/4 oz. citric acid)
2/3 cup strong tea or 8 drops grape
tannin
2 heaping teaspoons all-purpose wine
yeast
1 teaspoon yeast nutrient
Put the flowers into the fermenting
bucket immediately. Boil half the water,
half the sugar and the chopped raisins
together for 1 to 2 minutes, then pour
over flowers. Thinly peel the rind from
the oranges and the lemons, and add to
the bucket. Squeeze out the joice and
add that too. Add the cold tea or the
tannin and stir thoroughly. Make up
to 1 gallon with cold water, or cooled
boiled water if you prefer. This should
give you a tepid mixture, about right for
adding the yeast from the starter bottle.
Add the yeast and yeast nutrient, stir
well and cover. Ferment for one week,
stirring daily. After two or three days,
when fermenting well, add the remaining sugar and stir to dissolve. Strain
through a sieve or cloth and siphon into
a gallon jug or bottle. Fill up to the neck
or the jug with cool, boiled water, if
necessary (the less surface area exposed
with all wines the better), fit a fermentation lock or secure a plastic garbage bag
with a rubber band over the neck of the
jug. Rack when clear, bottle and keep for
six months.
Reprinted from casparcommons.org/Gorse/
Wine.htm

Readings &
Resources
Taxonomic Names: Not sure if a plant
you read about is the same as one with a
different name in The Jepson Manual? The
Jepson Herbarium at UC Berkeley has an
online Index to California Plant Names
that cross-references names used in various
sources with those used in the Jepson
Manual and its upcoming revision.
ucjeps.berkeley.edu/jepson_flora_project.html
Database: The Jepson Herbarium has
also launched a new Ecological Flora
of California. EFCal will serve as a
comprehensive database of ecological
characteristics including life history,
phenology, morphology and other traits
for the California flora. A pilot database is
online. ucjeps.berkeley.edu/efc/

Website: The 2006 Tamarisk Research
Conference has posted extensive materials
online, including abstracts, presentations
and posters, and breakout session
summaries. www.weedcenter.org/tamarisk_
conf_06/conference_home.html
Online key: A draft interactive key
and plant character data set for U.S.
wetland monocots is available for
testing on-line or by downloading
the PLANTS Identification-Wetland
Monocots application. Unlike a traditional
dichotomous key, this key makes
identifcation easier by letting you select
multiple characters simultaneously.
npdc.usda.gov/technical/plantid_wetland_
mono.html
Book: Measuring Plant Diversity: Lessons from the Field, by USGS ecologist
Tom Stohlgren, presents field and analysis
methods that can more accurately describe
plant biodiversity and help evaluate vulner-

ability to invasion. www.oup.com/us/catalog/
general/subject/LifeSciences/Ecology
Reference lists: Annotated Bibliographies
on the Ecology and Management of
Invasive Species. From Garry Oak
Ecosystems Recovery Team in British
Columbia. www.goert.ca/resources/biblio.htm
Weed Photos: Trying to identify a weed?
The Center for Invasive Plant Management
has a list of websites with photo galleries.
www.weedcenter.org/inv_plant_info/image_
galleries.html
Recipes: If you can’t beat ‘em, eat ‘em.
The Invasive Species Cookbook by J.M.
Franke (subtitle: Conservation Through
Gastronomy) features gourmet recipes by
top chefs, along with information on each
species. Have pasta with garlic mustard
pesto and Japanese knotweed pie for
dessert. Available for resale by nature centers
and similar institutions. $24.95. www.
bradfordstreetpress.com

Book Review

American Perceptions of Immigrant and Invasive Species:
Strangers on the Land, by Peter Coates
University of California Press, 2006, 256 pp., hardcover $39.95, www.ucpress.edu.

nvasive species have gained more
attention in the past few years, from
President Clinton’s Executive Order
on Invasive Species to last year’s cover
article in National Geographic. American
Perception of Immigrant and Invasive
Species shows that American interest
in (and controversy surrounding) the
effects of introduced species reaches
back more than a century. It traces the
history of introductions, the struggles to
stop them when things went wrong, and
Americans’ attitudes to invasive species
since the 1800s. It focuses on the 1890s
to 1920s, then jumps to the most recent
30 years. This book serves as both an
entertaining history to put modern weed
work in context, and a thought-provoking
discussion of how work against invasive
species has sometimes been confounded
with racist and nativist attitudes. Extensive
footnotes in the back give additional
details on the facts and quotations used
throughout the book. Cal-IPC rates a
mention in several places.
The book is divided into five chapters,

with the first serving as an introduction.
The second describes birds brought into
the US, focusing on the English (or house)
sparrow, an ill-fated attempt at biological
control against canker worms that by
the late 1800s had become a symbol of
what are now called invasive species.
The third chapter contrasts the work
of “plant explorers” searching for new
agricultural and horticultural species
with policy developments of the
early 1900s such as USDA’s Q-37 rule
on inspection of imported plants. The next
chapter concentrates on an example familiar
to most Californians: eucalyptus, specifically
its shifting history from a “miracle” plant,
to a not-very-useful but still familiar part of
the landscape, to recent battles over removal
projects.
Finally, Coates examines the language
used in describing invasive species and the
charges that those who are against invasive
species are by extension against all nonnatives, whether plant, animal, or human.
He also covers some of the metaphors
and strong expressions commonly used

to describe
invasions.
The
author,
who teaches
American and
Environmental
History at a British
university, offers
a good overview of
the history and issues
surrounding attitudes
towards invasive
species.
This is a useful book for
weed workers interested in the context
of their work, or who need to consider
the implications of the language they use
in public outreach. Coates concludes,
“Attitudes to immigrant people and
actions against them may parallel and
resemble attitudes to immigrant flora and
fauna and policy toward them. But that
does not mean that they are invariably
identical or directly comparable or that
there is a clear causal relationship between
them.”

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

Publications Available from Cal-IPC
Order at www.cal-ipc.org or call (510) 843-3902.
CA tax and shipping costs will be added.
Now Available!
Weeds of California and Other Western
States (two volumes)
Joseph M. DiTomaso and Evelyn Healy
UC Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2006
Identification guide to 750 weed species, with
3000 color photos. Detailed descriptions of
morphology and biology. Includes a CD-ROM
with all photos. $100.00

Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands
Carla C. Bossard, John M. Randall and Marc
C. Hoshovsky, Eds.
University of California Press, 2000
Biology and control information on 70 of the
state’s worst wildand weeds. Maps, photos,
illustrations. 360 pp. $25.00

The Weed Workers’ Handbook
Aquatic and Riparian Weeds of the West
Joseph M. DiTomaso and Evelyn Healy
UC Agriculture & Natural Resources, 2003
Comprehensive identification guide to the
West’s riparian weeds. Photos, identification
keys. 440 pp. $40.00

Cal-IPC and The Watershed Project, 2004
Biology and control information on 25 SF
Bay Area wildland weeds, plus background on
organizing local projects. Illustrations. 120 pp.
$9.20

Grass and Grass-like Weeds of California

California Invasive Plant Inventory

Joseph M. DiTomaso.

Cal-IPC, 2006
Summarizes the impacts, potential for spread,
and distribution of more than 200 nonnative plants that invade wildlands in
California. 39 pp. Currently out of print.
Online pdf at cal-ipc.org.

California Weeds, 2004
Menu-driven CD-ROM identification guide
to more than 200 invasive grasses and native
perennials used in restoration. Requires
Windows 95 or higher, 650 MB free harddrive space. $32.00
Broadleaf Weeds of California
Joseph M. DiTomaso.
California Weeds, 2006
Expert computer-based identification guide
to 722 broadleaf weeds of California.
Requires Windows 95 or higher. $40.00
Buy both CD-ROMs for $60.00
Don’t Plant a Pest! brochures
Wildland-safe alternatives to invasive plants
sold at nurseries. 14 panels. Choose: San
Francisco Bay Area, Southern California
(English or Spanish), Central Coast, Central
Valley, Sierra Foothills, Tahoe Basin, or Trees.
$30.00/100 brochures [up to 10 free]
Biological Pollution brochure
Describes ecological and economic impacts of
invasive plants in California for a general
audience. Tri-fold. $12.00/100 brochures;
$110.00 /1000 brochures [up to 10 free]

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

The Use of Fire as a Tool for
Controlling Invasive Plants
Joseph M. DiTomaso and Douglas W.
Johnson, Eds., 2006
Captures current state of knowledge on the
use of fire to manage invasive plants in
wildlands. Also available as online pdf.
49 pp. $5.00
Yellow Starthistle Management Guide
Joseph M. DiTomaso, Guy B. Kyser,
and Michael J. Pitcairn, 2006.
Comprehensive overview of treatment
methods for yellow starthistle. Also
available as online pdf. 78 pp.
Free (shipping charge applies)

The WILDLAND WEED CALENDAR
Cal-IPC Field Courses:
Control Techniques

Spring Garden Tours

Evolutionary Change in Human-Altered
Environments: An International Summit

March 21, 2007
Paramount Ranch, Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area

February 8-10, 2007
UC Los Angeles

April 12, 2007
Turtle Bay Exploration Park, Redding

International summit of evolutionary biologists, conservation practitioners, and policy
makers to synthesize current knowledge and
develop plans to mitigate impacts.
www.ioe.ucla.edu/CTR/ioesymposium.html

May 17, 2007
Rancho San Antonio Preserve, Los Altos

Across the state, local groups are organizing annual tours of environmentallyfriendly gardens. Some gardens use all
native plants, others are just resource efficient, but invasives are never welcome.
Let us know if you have a tour in your
area, or start your own!

Know of an event that should be posted here?
Please contact edbrusati@cal-ipc.org.

Info and registration at www.cal-ipc.org.
CA Native Grasslands Association

National Invasive Weeds Awareness Week
February 25-March 2, 2007
Washington, D.C.
Weed workers from across the country
descend on the Capitol to bring invasive
plants to the attention of Congress.
www.nawma.org/niwaw/niwaw_index.htm
Invasive Weeds Day at the Capitol
March 14, 2007
Sacramento
Join weed workers from around the state to
visit legislators, advocate for WMA funding,
and hear the latest on invasive plant policy
initiatives.
www.cal-ipc.org/policy/state/ciwad.php

May 17-19, 2007
Santa Barbara
CNGA’s annual conference, held this year
jointly with the Cal-Pacific Society for
Rangeland Management.
www.cnga.org
Society of Wetland Scientists
June 10-15, 2007
Sacramento
This year’s theme is “Water, Wetlands and
Wildlife: Resolving Conflict and Restoring
Habitat.” Abstracts due February 15.
www.sws.org/sacramento2007/index.html

Quotable

“Whenever I think of that night’s talk with the kudzu pioneer, I have

a special feeling of pride in what might be called our American willingness
to try something new.”
David Fairchild, USDA Section for Foreign Seed and Plant Introduction, early
1900s, in American Perceptions of Immigrant and Invasive Species (reviewed page 13.)
Fairchild introduced the navel orange, pistachio, and seedless grape to California.

“Regulating the movement of plant and animal species based on
whether
or not the
fringe
of theEnergy
environmental
movement
considers
“B
ob Niekum
with
Progress
Florida says
most environmental
them ‘native’ or ‘non-native’ has very little to do with sound science and

groups favor the project [to grow Arundo donax for biofuels production].
verythe
much
to do
with controlling
private
But
Florida
Native
Plant Society
and aproperty.”
few other groups oppose it.
He says their fears are unfounded. ‘There are always going to be people
Peyton
Thethings.
NationalI Center
for Public
Policywhich
Researchis, Citizens
regarding aOpposed
letter signedtoby
that
areKnight,
against
call them
COVE,
numerous property rights groups and delivered to Senate Environmental and Public Works
Virtually
” Inhofe (R-OK) warning about the invasive species legislation.
CommitteeEverything.’
Chairman James
www.nationalcenter.org
Report
on biofuels on Marketplace, National Public Radio, December 6, 2006.

Bay-Friendly Garden Tour
Alameda County, April 29, 10am-4pm
Features more than 40 public and private
gardens using “bay-friendly” landscaping
techniques. www.BayFriendly.org
Bringing Back the Natives Tour
East SF Bay, May 6, 2007
Self-guided tour showcases native plant
gardens, with a schedule of free talks
throughout the day.
www.bringingbackthenatives.net
Theodore Payne Native Plant Tour
Los Angeles, April 28 & 29, 2007
www.theodorepayne.org/Tour/tour.html

Ecological Society of America &
Society for Ecological Restoration,
Joint Annual Meeting
August 5-7, 2007
San Jose
More than 3000 ecologists will gather
to discuss “Ecological Restoration in a
Changing World.” www.esa.org
9th International Conference on the
Ecology and Management of
Alien Plant Invasions
September 17-21, 2007
Perth, Australia
Abstracts due February 16.
www.congresswest.com.au/emapi9
Cal-IPC Symposium &
Pre-Symposium Mapping Field Course
September 19-22, 2007
La Bahia Resort Hotel, San Diego
This year’s Symposium will be held in sunny
San Diego. Call for papers will be published
this spring. www.cal-ipc.org

Cal-IPC News Winter 2007

Cal-IPC Membership Form
We’re working to protect California’s wildlands from invasive plants—join us!
Cal-IPC’s effectiveness comes from a strong membership that includes scientists, land managers, policy makers, and concerned citizens.
Please complete this form and mail with check or credit card number. Additional donations support our projects. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, and donations beyond regular membership rates are tax deductible. Join or donate online at www.cal-ipc.org.
2007 Individual Membership
2007 Institutional Membership
Regular
$35
Regular
$150
Family $60
Small company
Contributing $75
or nonprofit
$100
Life
$1,000
Joint Cal-IPC/SERCAL $60 Donations
Joint Cal-IPC/CNGA $70
for Cal-IPC programs: $____
Cal-IPC/SERCAL/CNGA $100
for Cape Ivy Biocontrol: $____
Student/Volunteer $15
(info online at cal-ipc.org)
Mail this form with check (payable to “Cal-IPC”) or credit card info to
Cal-IPC, 1442-A Walnut Street #462, Berkeley, CA 94709, or…
Fax form with credit card info to 510/217-3500, or…
Phone us at 510/843-3902 with contact and credit card info.
Check here if you would prefer to receive the Cal-IPC News as a link
to a pdf file online rather than a paper copy.
Occasionally, we share our members’ addresses with like-minded organizations. Check here if you do not want your information shared.

California
Invasive Plant
Council
1442-A Walnut Street, #462
Berkeley, CA 94709
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Please check
your mailing label to make sure
your membership is current.
Thank you!

Name
Affiliation
Address
City

State Zip

Phone
E-mail
Credit Card No.

Exp. Date

Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Berkeley, CA
Permit No. 1435