RINHS and The Nature Conservancy of Rhode Island announce a request for proposals for the 2008 John Wald Science Grants. These small grants are made to support research addressing RINHS and TNC priorities. We anticipate funding three to five projects for between $2,000 and $4,000 per project on or before May 1, 2008. Applications following the format described below must reach the Rhode Island Natural History Survey office by 5 P.M., Monday, 25 February 2008.

Download the full program description as a PDF : wald_rfp_2008_FINAL

For information on funded Wald grants of the past visit RINHS’s Wald web page.

Overview:
This grant program is funded by an endowment created in memory of the late John Wald, an editor, writer, photographer, and outdoorsman. The objective of this program is to provide small grants in aid of research for projects addressing priorities of The Nature Conservancy of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island Natural History Survey. The results of research funded by this program will advance knowledge of Rhode Island’s biota and be used to identify critical lands for conservation in Rhode Island and to provide information for the stewardship of existing protected lands.

Priorities:
A John Wald Science Grant may be awarded to any highly ranked project meeting the needs of RINHS and TNC-RI for scientific information that benefits the understanding or stewardship of biological diversity in RI. Nonetheless, this year, priority will be given to proposals addressing Rhode Island’s marine and coastal species and ecosystems—the status and trends of species or community diversity, or ecological health as well as methodological research directed at improving assessments of these factors. Projects could, for example, apply ecosystem-based management to Narragansett Bay (or other RI marine areas) and marine resources important to Rhode Island, tie habitat factors to fisheries management, develop information on habitat or diversity trends through historical methodologies, or integrate marine, freshwater, or terrestrial ecosystems. Projects could investigate bio-indictors for monitoring general environmental conditions, restoration outcomes, or directional changes of natural or anthropogenic origin. Researchers are encouraged to demonstrate creative use of existing but previously under-utilized data sources, in addition to generating new field data. We recommend contacting RINHS or TNC prior to submitting your proposal if you have any questions on the relevancy of the project or on the type of specific outcomes that would be most applicable to this grant opportunity.

Contact information:
Kira Stillwell, Program Administrator
RI Natural History Survey (RINHS)
Tel: (401) 874-5800
programadmin@rinhs.org

Dr. Caroly Shumway, Dir. of Conservation Science
The Nature Conservancy
(401) 331-7110X 13
cshumway@tnc.org

Interested applicants should be sure to consult the full program description as a PDF wald_rfp_2008_FINAL or on RINHS’s Wald web page.

Share This

Okay, so Laura Meyerson, a URI assistant professor with interests in invasive species, ecological restoration, and public policy asked me what I thought were the worst invasive species in Rhode Island. She was getting ready to talk to a reporter, which explained the naive tone of the question. But it got me thinking, what would you learn if you polled various people working in the fields of ecology, natural history, environmental management and conservation, etc.? I’m not sure you’d learn much about the relative effect of various invasive species, but I bet you’d get some great information on which species have a psychological impact, why, and on whom. This could be useful for any of us engaged in public outreach or who fund raise around the invasive species issue.

And so in a spirit of exploration, I share with you a slightly annotated inventory of the baddies in my ecological anxiety closet and invite you to submit your own by commenting on this post or by emailing RINHS at info@rinhs.org. In keeping with the spirit of the original question, we’re not setting any ground rules. Folk taxonomies are to be encouraged, in fact, so list however many you want, grouped in what ever categories help you to make sense of what’s going on out there, and there are no demerits for mangling the names, latin or otherwise (I sure hope not, looking at my list).

David Gregg’s list:

My vote for worst already here, in no particular order (and excluding deep history, e.g. green crab, periwinkle, dutch elm disease, chestnut blight, etc.):
Japanese Knotweed
Russian/Autumn Olive
Japanese Shore Crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus (De Haan, 1853))
Barberry
Asiatic Bittersweet
Hemlock Wooly Adelgid
Didemnum (spp)

Bad things that only just got here, not a clear, big impact yet:
Water Chestnut
Japanese Stilt Grass (Microstegium)
Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea)

Bad things not here yet but its only a matter of time:
Zebra Mussel
Emerald Ash Borer
Chinese Mitten Crab
Mile-a-Minute Vine
Snakehead fish
Spiny Water Flea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi)
“Didymo” or “Rock Snot” (Didymosphenia geminata)

Bad things not here yet (or not established) but likely to get a boost with global warming
Kudzu
Lionfish
maybe Nutria
Water Hyacinth
Giant Salvinia
Fire Ant

Other bad things already here that I chose not to list as #1 but where
intelligent minds may disagree:
Ailanthus
Phragmites australis
Privet (spp)
Norway Maple
Myriophyllum (spp) e.g. Eurasian Water Milfoil and Parrot Feather
Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar)
Winter Moth (Operophtera brumata)
Porcelinberry
Multiflora Rose
Rugosa Rose
Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.)

Things that we’re currently ignoring but shouldn’t be:
bamboo (spp)
Chinese Silver Grass, Zebra Grass, or Eulalia (Miscanthus sinensis etc.)

So send in your thoughts. If we get a lot of feedback maybe we’ll do a more formal poll.

Share This

Attached at the bottom of this message is the text of an email that’s been circulating in invasive species circles, originally from the Maryland Extension Office. For those of you not sure what to make of the update, let me help: it’s bad news. To put it another way, USDA-NRCS is collecting and freezing ash seeds so the species doesn’t go extinct (read about this initiative). Get it now?

Emerald Ash Borer or EAB (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) is a beetle of the Buprestidae family, commonly known as the metallic wood boring beetles. Generally, the adult beetle lays eggs in or under the bark of trees and the larvae feed on the sapwood under the bark. They pupate in galleries in the wood and emerge through holes in the bark. Obviously, they can be severely injurious to the tree.

People who collect insects to look at (as opposed to those who collect them for scientific purposes) think Buprestidae are the bomb because they are (especially in the tropics) shiny, colorful, and sometimes have funky tufts. Also, they are mostly diurnal (active in the day), which means they tend to be wary and fast (hard to collect) and hence less well represented in collections (perceived as rare).

Emerald Ash Borer is native tonortheastern China and Japan. It was first detected in the U.S. in Michigan in 2002. It probably entered the country in wooden packaging (pallets, etc.). It is shiny green and about 1/2 inch long. Adults leave a distinctive “D”-shaped hole in the bark when they emerge in June. It only attacks trees in the ash genus (Fraxinus). Ash is an economically, culturally, and aesthetically important tree. It is an important component of hardwood forests (upland and wetland) throughout eastern North America.The wood is useful for handles, baskets, furniture, and other stuff. This is a tough street tree and has been planted widely in cities, especially in the mid-west (doh!).

EAB is not known from Rhode Island, and although I hope it stays that way, I’m not counting on it. DEM monitors for EAB periodically, paying particular attention to Providence and the Port of Providence. Neighboring states (CT, MA, VT, NH) monitor extensively so presumably we’ll get a heads-up from them as EAB spreads into our area.

Here’s a great link with all the info on EAB that you could possible want, including info on identification:
www.emeraldashborer.info

Official info can also be had from the U.S. Forest Service:
USFS

Original Message —–
From:
To: ma-eppc@yahoogroups.com;tree_stewards@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 10/29/2007 3:53:11 PM
Subject: [ma-eppc] Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Update

The following note is from the Maryland Extension office’s current IPM report.

Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Update
I attended the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Research Conference in Pittsburgh, PA this week and thought you would appreciate some of the information that was presented. Philip Bell, USDA APHIS, reported that EAB has been found in Michigan, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The find in West Virginia is very recent(2007). Gina Davis, Michigan Department of Agriculture, also confirmed EAB in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan near the Canadian border in Mackinac County, Brevort Township. This is a new area of spread in Michigan. In Pennsylvania, researchers believe the EAB has been in PA for at least 7 years. S. E. Spichiger, PA Department of Agriculture, is working with Greg Hoover, PA State University, in developing an educational outreach program. PA Department of Agriculture has hired 35 people for sampling in the state. Fifteen billboards have also been posted in PA on Emerald ash borer to increase public awareness.

Ken Marchant, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, reported on the EAB situation in Ontario. In Canada they created a firebreak to try to stop the spread of EAB, but unfortunately it failed. The problem was that by the time they found infested areas, the emerald ash borer had already been present for several years. Canada stopped cutting infested trees because they found it not to be cost effective. Marchant said that once an ash tree is dead it will fall within 18 months, which creates a liability problem for municipalities. Ash trees make up about 50% of the street trees in most cities in Ontario. Merchant also noted that, with millions of street trees in Ontario, the potential for spread and damage from EAB is very high. In Canada they are registering all wood mills, pallet makers, and saw mills to prevent EAB from getting into processed wood.

A.A. Cosse, USDA, reported on the biology and behavior of the emerald ash borer. Cosse noted that male EAB seem to locate females more readily when they are located in the sun, and do not do well in shade. There are long-chained, heavy pheromone compounds on the cuticle of the female. In the sun the pheromone volatilizes more and attracts the males. Once the male is close to the female, he finds her visually. The shape of the beetle is what attracts the male to the female.

Heat Treating Firewood to Kill EAB Larvae
Scott Myers, the Brighton Institute, has been doing work on investigating methods to kill emerald ash borer larvae in firewood. He tested multiple temperatures, 50 °C 65 °C (122 °F to 149 °F) at 15, 30, 45 and 60 minute intervals. He reports that heating firewood to 65 °C (149 °F) for 30 minutes provides a safe starting point that resulted in 100 % mortality in his studies. Scott feels that firewood processors with large kilns and temperature probes could meet this required temperature and treatment time fairly efficiently. This might have practical use for firewood suppliers that are shipping to other states, but more research is needed. Small firewood processors may find it impossible to accurately treat their firewood at a responsible cost. Kelli Hoover, PA State University, will be presenting at the January USDA Interagency Research Forum on Gypsy Moth and other Invasive Species in Annapolis on alternative methods of treating firewood.

Notes on Ash
Plant breeders are looking for variation in ash seedlings. Since ash produce male and female trees, there should be some variability out there. They are sampling seedlings from various parts of the US to see if they can find genes for EAB resistance. White ash is considered an upland species and the green ash is considered a lowland species. The black ash performs best in wetland areas.

Chemical Control Research
Phillip Lewis, USDA APHIS, looked at aerial application of spinosad and found that it lasts about 7 days before the spore count drops down to very low levels. Dow Agro Chemical has developed a synthetic form of spinosad called XDE-175. This synthetic spinosad lasts longer and is more toxic to pests. In a trial that Lewis et. al conducted, they found that synthetic spinosad was slightly more toxic to EAB. A mix of regular spinosad and synthetic spinosad XDE-175 extends efficacy for up to 2 months. Lewis feels that spinosad has the potential to control EAB adults when it is applied during their feeding stage. Deb McCullough, Michigan State University, reported that trunk sprays and trunk injections of emamectin benzoate (Syngenta Company) gave 100% mortality. This product is not registered with EPA. More work needs to be done with this product, and hopefully it will receive EPA registration in a couple of years. In their trials, Safari applications worked well and Safari with Pentra Bark was slightly better. Nate Royalty, Bayer Company, and Dave Smitley, Michigan State University, are doing work on rates of imidacloprid soil applications for different sized trees. They found that imidacloprid worked on small trees, but did not give good control on large trees. They found that larger trees require 8 to 12 weeks uptake the imidacloprid. Weakened trees do not uptake imidacloprid as well.

Share This

The Rhode Island Land and Water Partnership has a new online resource library with a good array of materials that would be useful for small (or not so small) community-based conservation organizations: sample policies and forms, advice on volunteer management, pointers for effective land use planning and stewardship, etc., are available. The Rhode Island Land and Water Partnership was formed in 2003 to improve networking among, foster learning in, and enhance the capacity of Rhode Island’s land trusts, watershed groups, and other community-based, grassroots conservation organizations. This is the collaboration that produces the annual Land and Water Summit that we all have come to look forward to. Information on the Summit is also available on the website.

Land and Water Partnership

Share This

Okay, there’s not much funny about water chestnut, especially if you’re a swimmer and its seedpod is sticking out of your foot, you’re a fisherman and its just eaten another $5 lure, or you’re a lakeside landowner and your luxurious shangrila has just dropped $50,000 in value because the water’s unusable. But consider the sculptural power and tactile magnetism of this otherwise murderous seedpod.

I found this humdinger (it’s almost 2″ from point to point) in Belleville Pond, in North Kingstown, RI, in October when I went to confirm the first ever sighting of water chestnut in Rhode Island. Yup, removed from its watery context, it sure looks like it comes from space. Or maybe it’s a buffalo effigy carved from bark by some ancient race? Sounds preposterous?

After I got back from the pond, I sat with the seed pod on my desk trying to put my finger on the feeling that I’d seen this creepy thing somewhere before. Some prior encounter had left an unshakable impression. In my head, in fact, I actually had a picture of myself tapping it and trying to decide if it was a thin layer of copper over wood, or perhaps something else. But where WAS I in the picture?

About twenty four hours later it hit me: in a previous life, in which I had been researching the history of the Haffenreffer Museum’s archaeological collections, I had found a strange, unrecognizable object wired to a wooden display panel among scores of readily recognizable prehistoric stone tools. Now I remember thinking at the time, “It’s in a museum collection assembled by Rudolf Haffenreffer as a tribute to the cultural achievements of American Indians. Is this some weird buffalo effigy? It has horns. Could it be copper, now heavily patinated, laid over a wooden form?” In the end I dropped the question and illustrated the whole display board in the catalog for my 1994 exhibit on Rudolf Haffenreffer (see Gregg, 1994, fig III-1–p. 134).

Photo: Cathy Carver, courtesy Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University

Now you can just imagine the person, around 1920, probably some handyman on the Haffenreffer farm, who was charged with wiring up an appropriate museum display out of a shoebox full of arrowheads and other stuff. Using the idiom of the day he dutifully imposed the expected scientific orderliness on the points, scapers, awls, and knives. But he was certainly stumped by the water chestnut seed he found among them. Like many, many archaeologists before and since, he punted and wired it up in the top middle of the board, where it is undoubtedly displayed as a “ritual object,” central to the otherwise comprehensible material world arrayed around it, but to outsiders fundamentally mysterious.

Museum records say the lithics on the board are from a “Bigelow Collection” (Haffenreffer didn’t do much hands on collecting, instead buying the collections of farmers and amateur archaeologists). We are pretty sure the collection was in the museum and wired up before 1923. Most of the lithics are cataloged as either from the Fall River, Massachusetts, area or from Missouri. Unfortunately the seedpod is not cataloged and we know nothing of its origin. Water chestnut was introduced into the U.S. in the mid- to late 19th century in the Boston area so it is certainly plausible that it is local. If it were from Rhode Island it would pre-date the next occurrence, in Belleville Pond, by almost a century.

Some good papers on the effects of water quality on lakeside property values:
Halstead, J.M., J. Michaud, S. Hallas-Burt, and J.P Gibbs. 2003. Hedonic analysis of effects of a nonnative invader (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) on New Hampshire (USA) lakefront properties. Environmental Management 32(3): 391-398

http://www.wisconsinlakes.org/AboutLakes/PDFs/EconomicsShorelandProtection.pdf

http://www.co.cass.mn.us/esd/intralake/bsu_study.pdf

David W Gregg, The Archaeological Collection, pp. 134-165, in Shepard Krech III, ed., 1994, Passionate Hobby: Rudolf F. Haffenreffer and the King Philip Museum, Bristol, RI: Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University.

Share This

I took the results of all the past RI BioBlitzes (including participation and taxa found) and generated the following interesting charts. Because of year-to-year recording inconsistencies, not all taxa were comparable from one year to the next. The taxa I included in the chart are the ones that were more or less consistent: vascular plants, birds, reptiles and amphibians, spiders and kin, beetles, butterflies and moths, and dragonflies and damselflies.

Share This