Love Your Land

So maybe you’ve thought about it, and you’ve decided to do some invasive plant management on your property. There are other things to spend your hard earned money on - a trip to Aruba, that 120” flatscreen - but restoring your landscape seems like the thing to do. You’ve got a pretty good idea what your objectives are, what resources you have to draw on, and what’s important to you in terms of managing your property. You’ve looked and asked around, and you’ve found there are a number of different ways to go about this kind of work. Most - or all - of the time you’ve heard that herbicide is the go-to, “gold standard” of invasive removal and management; if you have a lot - like, a lot - of very large invasive shrubs or buckthorn you’ve heard about machine chipping; and if you’ve talked to certain specialists (such as, ahem, myself) you’ve heard about mechanical, combination, and chemical-free treatments. If you’ve dug into the internet a little you’ve also probably heard about goats and other novel approaches. The question is, which approach is best?

The answer, as always in matters concerning the natural world, is: it depends. What I would like to introduce to the discussion of invasive management, a practice that I feel is required for responsible land stewardship, is the idea of ecologically sensitive invasive removal. So - what does this mean? First, it means that everything’s a tradeoff. Herbicides are relatively inexpensive and easy to apply, and are very effective at inducing mortality, but their use introduces powerful chemicals into the ecosystem. Machines like skid steers and crane chippers can clear acres of the worst woody invasive infestations in hours or days; they also leave thick carpets of wood chips, chew and compact the soil, and crush everything underfoot. Neither of these options are good or bad; depending on the circumstances either could actually in the end be the most ecologically beneficial option. So while it’s essential to weigh the tradeoffs in terms of one’s objectives, values, and resources, to me what “ecologically sensitive” means is the health of the land must - must - be the ultimate goal and metric for stewarding any given landscape. Because if this is not the “gold standard” of land management then we are headed for serious consequences, and sooner rather than later.

So what do I mean, specifically, by “ecologically sensitive”? To start with, how does the management strategy affect and benefit the soil? Again, you have to think in terms of tradeoffs. The long term benefits of removing very large expanses of woody invasives, and returning native communities, might be worth the soil disturbance and compaction you get from large machines. On the other hand, this might not be the best option if time is not a priority and the invasives could be managed by hand with chainsaws. Yes, wood chips will protect and add organic matter to the soil; they also prevent herbaceous recovery and can take years to decay. A practiced chainsaw operator can clear large areas of woody invasives fairly quickly with very little soil compaction and disturbance, while leaving brush piles and “coarse woody debris” that are critical for long term soil health and development. Also, because hand removal has a fraction of the impact on the soil than the big machines, this leads to a much faster recovery for both soil and aboveground community. Again, everyone has to weigh the tradeoffs for their particular situation, but chainsaw removal is clearly far less disruptive, and in my opinion in most situations by far the better option in terms of the health of the soil.

“Ecologically sensitive” can also mean the minimal and targeted use of herbicide. Some examples of this are cut stump and spot spraying herbicide treatments. Cut stump, a fairly common and well known strategy, is the direct application of herbicide to the surface of a freshly cut woody invasive stump, usually through the use of a sponge applicator or spray bottle. This method virtually guarantees zero overspray and runoff, uses very small amounts of herbicide, and is extremely effective. With spot spraying, an alternative to foliar spraying, you first brushcut an invasive to the ground, then“spot spray” the initial regrowth using a fraction of the herbicide as foliar. These strategies require considerably more labor than basal bark and foliar herbicide treatments but use far less herbicide; another advantage is you don’t have dead standing material everywhere, which can inhibit native infill or restrict access. For myself, in terms of herbicide use, “ecologically sensitive” ultimately indicates the mindset of using the least amount of herbicide possible for any given set of conditions, including the possibility of no herbicide at all, with the first and last question being what set of strategies produces the best short, medium, and long term outcomes for this landscape?

The discussion of herbicide use brings up what I’d consider to be the essence of “ecologically sensitive” land restoration: having the knowledge and awareness of any given landscape’s ecosystems, knowing the costs and benefits of methods used for invasive management, and having the mindset of always managing for the long term health of the land. In the end it’s our decisions that determine what our land will be in the near and long term future. If we educate ourselves on Earth systems and maintain a stewardship mindset, the probability of engaging in “ecologically sensitive” practices seems likely to be pretty high.