Eradicating Montbretia

Thanks very much for your advice, Oldtree.

I have heard of home-made 'wipers' for applying glyphosate, maybe that's the way to go.

I would imagine a paint brush would drip all over the place. These wiper gizmos are supposed to deliver the chemical only to the leaves of the target plant, though I've never used one:

http://www.weedsbluemountains.org.au/weed_wiper_use.php

Sounds like a few experiments are in order!

recedite wrote: »

I like visiting Kerry in late summer; the roadside hedgerows turn a lovely fiery red with all the montbretia and fuchsia. Brilliant.

You may think it looks nice, but where there is now a single species, i.e. montbretia - or any other invasive species introduced by humankind, there were once dozens or even hundreds of different species of native plants, with all of the native species of insects, birds and animals they support. You may think it's funny or witty to be flippant about that, but that is because you're not able to understand what it really means: a massive loss of biological diversity and wealth that has taken aeons to develop.

'What has biological diversity and wealth got to do with me?' you may ask.

Everything.

Our well-being as a species (which means you, your family, mates, children, grandchildren etc) is wholly dependent to the well-being of the environment we live in, of which biological diversity is a key indicator. All of which is besides the point that these native species and the ecosystems of which they are part have a priceless inherent value regardless of how essential they are to us.

You need to find out what's really going on in the world.

recedite wrote: »

Don't lecture me on ecology. You're the one spraying the poisons.

If using chemicals can be avoided, I won't use them; and they certainly won't be sprayed. Unfortunately in some instances the alternative of doing nothing is far, far worse.

Give me a good reason why I shouldn't lecture you on ecology, you don't seem to know anything about it judging by your first comment.

recedite wrote: »

I don't buy into the idea that if an organism gets blown in on a storm, its benevolent, but if it gets here on a boat, it's automatically devastating. They are what they are, regardless of their mode of transport.

Nobody is saying there is anything automatic about introduced species becoming invasive or devastating; only a small proportion do so, but the risk is always there because nobody knows how a species will behave in a new environment. Many introduced species are unable to survive unassisted, some get by, and a small proportion become invasive and, yes, devastating. Unfortunately it is a small proportion of an enormous number of species that have been, and continue to be, introduced, so the result is that there are quite a few of them and their effects are often massive. To repeat my example above, the present conservation status and future prospects for Irish sessile oak woodlands, probably our richest land-based natural habitat, as well as other important types of native woodland, are categorised as BAD, and that is mostly due to invasive rhododendron.

If you think I'm exaggerating, take a look here (pages 62-65):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20108608/The-Status-of-EU-Protected-Habitats-and-Species-in-Ireland

For more general info on invasives, and the ecological damage they are doing, you could start here:
http://invasivespeciesireland.com/
or here:
http://www.botanicgardens.ie/gspc/pdfs/quercusreport.pdf

recedite wrote: »

I don't see montbretia taking over the whole country anytime soon. It likes roadside verges in the southwest.

You are right that it spreads along roads and streams/rivers, but it doesn't stop there - it is also invasive of other habitats, like woodland.

recedite wrote: »

Rhododendron can be a problem, yes. The policy of eradication was doomed to failure from the start. If a big oak falls, all that needs to be done is to select an oak seedling in the clearing and cut back the rhododendron around it for a few years until the oak seedling is taller.

This comment cannot be taken seriously.

recedite wrote: »

Lets be honest here, the oak forests of Ireland were cut down by people.
The bogs are being stripped by people. We are the invasive species doing all the damage.

Quite true, but nobody is going to suggest we eradicate ourselves!

Also, we have to work with the situation as we find it now: 99% of the native woodlands are gone, cut down by our ancestors. But it's imperative that what remains is conserved (and restored where degraded), and the main obstacle to that is invasive species, including rhododendron but also sika deer, feral goats etc., etc.

It is vitally important that people understand just how much ecological damage invasive species - introduced by... people - do. They are seriously damaging almost every habitat we have - on both land and water, not only woodland. If this issue were taken as seriously as it deserves to be, some progress could be made on curtailing that damage, instead of, for example, people continuing to buy and plant rhododendron in their gardens all up and down the country because 'the flowers are gorgeous', and because you can pick them up for €2.99 apiece in Lidl.

recedite wrote: »

According to this recent research, goats walked here across the land bridge from the Continent, which would make them a native invasive species.
But their numbers were generally kept in check by hungry people.
Not sure whether that means they should be protected or eradicated.

Interesting article. It doesn't say what evidence there is for their presence prior to the disappearance of the land bridge. I would be surprised if there weren't other opinions on that. Either way, I would think it's fair to say that the feral goats of today are the products of millennia of interbreeding with escaped or released domestic goats.

In any case, you are right to point out that the crucial issue here is density. They have no predators apart from the odd hunter. If you have on average one goat for every 10km2, there won't be a problem, but if you have large groups of up to 100 hanging around a particular area, they will eat everything in sight and do enormous damage ecologically - especially in native woodland. Apparently in Killarney NP they are shot on sight. However I have heard that they actually maintain certain important habitat types in the Burren by keeping the hazel in check, so I suppose it's a question of judging their impact on a case by case basis.

fits wrote: »

Ok so ecosystems are not static things. They change and evolve over time. Also I do not believe that humans are outside ecosystems. We are part of it. I sincerely doubt that montbretia is causing serious damage (but am open to correction on that) compared to say... pesticide applications, intensive agriculture, or even other less benign invaders such as Japanese knotweed or even rhododendron.

neither fuchsia or montbretia were native in the south west, but at what point do they become native?

You are mistaken to think that we are part of any ecosystems in the sense that you mean. We may have been part of another, African, savannah-type ecosystem 100,000 or so years ago but definitely not now. That is not to say we don't depend on ecosystems: we do so completely.

But human activity is generally highly destructive of natural ecosytems through what ecologists call HIPPO, for short. That is, in descending order of impact:

H - Habitat destruction (i.e. cutting rainforests etc.)
I - Invasive introduced species (i.e. rhododendron, montretia, etc)
P - (over)Population
P - Pollution
O - Overharvesting (overfishing, hunting of wildlife, etc.)

These 5 main ways in which our species impacts on the natural world are often mutually exacerbating, combining with one another to cause massive damage. Note that invasive species is no. 2 in order of importance.

You are absolutely right to say that ecosystems are not static; on the contrary, they are often incredibly dynamic, though not in the sense of a constant and rapid transferal of species geographically. Species do naturally move from one area to area, but only at a tiny, tiny, fraction of the rate with which humans move them, often from one side of the world to another. Islands, whose ecosytems are often particularly delicate, are particularly vulnerable to this problem. Hawaii for example, has been decimated by introduced species: to see native birds, plants, and many other types of organisms on the islands is now extremely difficult. They have nearly all either become extinct or been driven to remote difficult-to-reach places by introduced invasive species.

It's essential that people, especially those concerned with ecology, become educated on this issue, because there is still a lot of confusion about it, for e.g. equating the differentiation between native and introduced species with racism among people, a totally erroneous and absurd analogy.

This is way too serious a problem worldwide for any lack of clarity on what the issues are, the damage being done, and the possible solutions.