MWCA Weed Times

A quarterly publication of the

Montana Weed Control Association

Weed Times

Volume 35, Issue 1, Spring 2017

Remediation of Agricultural Montana’s Invasive Mussel The 2017 Legislative Session
Runoff Using Biofilms Response Swings Into Gear Page 10
Page 5
Page 6

Keep Watch. Take Action. Make Change.

Sustainable Management 22Are Drones in Your Future? Managing Sulfur Cirquefoil in
of Non-Native Thistles on Natural Areas

12Colorado’s Western Slope 24

3 As the Weed World Turns ... 20 Watch Out for Palmer Amaranth in
5 Science Fair: Remediation of your Conservation Plantings
Agricultural Runoff Using Biofilms 22 Are Drones in Your Future?
6 Montana’s Invasive Mussel Response 23 Invasive mustards: hoary alyssum,
Swings into Gear perennial pepperweed, and whitetop
10 The 2017 Legislative Session 24 Managing Sulfur Cirquefoil in Natural
12 Sustainable Management of Non- Areas
Native Thistles on Colorado’s Western 26 OPINION: Invasion Biology: Specific
Slope Problems and Possible Solutions
15 Weed Suppressive Bacteria for 34 Spring has Sprung in Montana Melting
Cheatgrass Low Elevation Snowpack, High
16 Don’t Plant those “Bee Friendly” Elevation Snowpack Holding Strong
Wildflowers Cheerios is Giving Away 38 The Robbins’ Report

Thanks to our Premier Business, Founding and Legacy Members whose business ads appear in this issue!

2 MWCA

Weed Times AS THE WEED

EDITORIAL TEAM Jill Allen WORLD TURNS ...
Becky Kington Pam Barnett
Janie Alt Pam Converse By Becky Kington
Amber Burch Mike Miller MWCA Executive Director
Margie Edsall Kellieann Morris
Tracy Mosley Pam Schwend Spring Greetings MWCA Members! At least I think it is spring, we had snow
Kaaren Robbins at about the 5,000-foot level this morning, so winter is still hanging on.
Between vacation time in Arizona and coming home with some virus that kept
The Montana Weed Control me down for a good three weeks, time has been a blur.
Association is a member-supported
non-profit organization based out I would like to commend Amber Burch, our new president, who hit the ground
of Twin Bridges, Montana. The running and has kept me very busy with getting the ball rolling with updating
Association has been around since important MWCA documents, pushing committees and work groups to be
the 1960s and currently has over 800 active and focusing on transparency for MWCA. She has been putting in
members. The MWCA is Montana’s more than her share of volunteer hours for MWCA, and I appreciate her
central location for information on efforts.
integrated noxious weed management.
The MWCA goal is to facilitate and That being said, it has been a busy spring for MWCA, especially with the
foster long-term, ecologically based, legislature in session. MWCA has held four board orientation webinars for
integrated noxious weed management new board members, conducted their annual spring meeting in Miles City and
programs throughout Montana. We held two spring weed manager trainings; one in Kalispell and one in Miles
facilitate this goal through education, City.
research and networking.
I’d like to give a big shout out to Jed Fisher of Flathead County who was
MWCA Office able to secure a meeting room in downtown Kalispell free of charge. We had
Becky Kington about 45 attendees, and it was a great training. In Miles City, Kaaren ran the
Executive Director show, and as it has been in the past, there was a strong turnout for another
P.O. Box 315 great training. Please mark your calendars now for our fall weed manager
Twin Bridges, MT 59754 training in Butte on October 10 – 12 at the newly remodeled Copper King
Office 684 - 5590 Hotel. They have installed the latest Rib and Chop House there and have
Fax 888 - 664 - 4153 several nice golf courses in the vicinity for the annual Moon Cup…. weather
Cell 925 - 0708 permitting.
[email protected]
The MWCA board has updated and approved of the newest policies and
Copyright © 2017 MWCA bylaws and set their annual goals of which Amber will highlight in the summer
continued on page 4.

The views expressed in newsletter
articles and submissions are those
of the respective authors and do
not necessarily represent the views
of the MWCA. It is the purpose of
this periodical to share a variety
of viewpoints and information. We
recommend that you contact your local
weed professionals for information in
your particular circumstances. Weed
Times is published quarterly and
provided free to our members.

The mission of the Montana Weed
Control Association is working
together to strengthen and support
noxious weed management efforts
in Montana.

MWCA 3

Weed world turns continued from page 3

Weed Times. Unfortunately, we were not approved to hold The bill MWCA and MACo had to increase vehicle fees for
our golf fundraiser at Mountain Sky again, so we are looking county noxious weed programs failed, but we’ll try again in
at other fundraising options. If you are reading this and 2019. There were several bills regarding aquatic invasive
have a great fundraising idea, please pass it along to me or species and only a few regarding terrestrial weeds. For a
one of our board members. full report on this session, please refer to page 10. I would
like to commend our 2017 core public policy group for their
It has been surprising quiet in regard to a turn-around in attention and immediate action this session. Those folks
county weed coordinator positions. Stillwater County is still were Amber Burch, Dave Burch, Kellieann Morris, Jill Allen,
looking for a full time, permanent weed coordinator, but they Pam Converse, Amy Adler, Karen Laitala, John Moodry,
have hired Lindsey Clark to take the reins in the interim. In Jesse Scott, Bryce Christiaens and Dan Dobler. Your
Granite County, Dan Lucas took another position with MSU, participation made a huge difference this year.
and the new coordinator is Ben Hauptman. In Sweet Grass
County, Evelyn Halverson is stepping down as coordinator So the whitetop and knapweed rosettes are coming up (as
and will work part time through the summer. Taking her are the temps) and weed season is just about here. Please
place is Connie Weston. There are several coordinators remember to check out www.mtweed.org for events such
who are talking retirement this year, which could change up as crew trainings and private applicator trainings and for
the weed world in 2018. bids and equipment on our classified page. If you are a
Facebook user, please visit and like the Montana Weed
The legislative session has been another wild and wooly Control Association page. Have a safe and productive
one, and by the time this reaches your hands, it will be over. spring fighting noxious weeds!

FOUNDING MEMBER

Jim Gordon Clint Saunders

Sales Specialist Sales Specialist

6818 So. 12th Street 17630 Rocky Mountain Rd.
Huntley, MT 59037 Belgrade, MT 59714
Office 406.348.2009 Cell 406.224.1077
Cell 406.855.6292 [email protected]
[email protected]

4 MWCA

Remediation After reviewing their project materials and interviewing
of Agricultural the pair, the MWCA judges learned the pesticide solutions
Runoff Using tested were well above labeled rates for the application.
Biofilms It was suggested that this might have been the cause of
the poor results. Brink suggested that these rates would
Senior, Jordan Williams, and Junior, Christian Block, from only be found in a concentrated spill situation rather than
North Toole County High School in Sunburst, Montana, through normal, labeled use. Dave encouraged them to
displayed their project, Remediation of Agricultural Runoff meet with their local extension agent or weed coordinator
Using Biofilms, at the 2017 Montana Science Fair held for assistance with the pesticide mixtures should they wish
at the University of Montana in March. Christy Schram, to continue this project.
Ravalli County Weed District and Dave Brink, Mineral
County Weed District and MSU Extension, represented When Jordan and Christian were asked if they would
the MWCA as judges reviewing junior high and high consider continuing the project, they replied, “First, we
school science projects from across the state. Jordan would like to conduct further experimenting with more
and Christian received the MWCA Division 1 Award herbicides and pesticides since farmers don’t just use the
recognizing the outstanding high school project relating to three tested. This will show if biofilms will have an effect
noxious weeds, along with the $100 cash award. Jordan on different chemicals. And second, we would change the
and Christian did a fantastic job. We hope they continue amount of biofilms we used to see if additional biofilms
this project next year and we are very excited to see the would have a greater effect. We would do this by placing
results. biofilms within the filtration device at each layer. Lastly,
we would like to see if making the biofilms with different
The purpose of their project: To determine if biofilms have bacteria would render a different effect. We would compare
a positive effect on the reduction of chemical levels in the different types of biofilms with t-Tests to see if one
water contaminated by agricultural runoff. biofilm was a more effective remediator than others.”

Their expert hypothesis was that biofilms would effectively Contact information: Jordan Williams (Senior, North Toole
remediate water contaminated with agricultural runoff, County High School), PO Box 708, Sunburst, MT 59482,
while their null hypothesis was that biofilms would have no [email protected].
effect.
Christian Bloch (Junior, North Toole County High School),
The pair tested solutions of Dicamba DMA Salt, PO Box 121, Sunburst, MT 59482, [email protected].
2,4-D LV6, and Malathion separately. These pesticides
were chosen because they learned from a local MWCA Division 1 Award
supplier that these chemicals, especially in their
community, are commonly associated with runoff Best project relating to noxious weeds
concerns. Biofilm areas are thin slimy bacteria that
adheres to a surface. One example would be the plaque Mineral County Weed Coordinator, Dave Brink congratulates the MWCA
that grows on your teeth. They continued to say that Division 1 Award winners Jordan Williams and Christian Bloch of North Toole
biofilms can be both beneficial and harmful to humans. County High School.
A beneficial aspect of biofilm is the use in sewage water
management. Biofilm can remediate any contaminated MWCA 5
groundwater and helps to make sewage water cleaner. A
harmful aspect is that biofilms can carry human infectious
agents into the environment; like plaque causing tooth
decay and gum disease.

Following their testing protocols, Jordan and Christian
concluded, “…we conditionally accept our hypothesis that
biofilms would reduce the effect of chemical contamination
in water due to agricultural runoff.” The results supported
our belief that a biofilm would remediate the chemicals
contained in 2,4-D LV6 and Malathion. However, biofilms
did not remediate Dicamba DMA Salt, as it did not show
a statistically significant chemical decrease following
biofilm filtration. In addition, the t-Tests revealed that the
biofilm filtration had a significant effect on both 2,4-D LV6
concentrated and 2,4-D LV6 diluted, as well as in the pH
of Malathion. The biofilms neutralized the basic solutions
and clarified the cloudy samples. In reviewing our results,
we conclude that biofilm filtration had the most statistically
significant effect on the pH of the chemicals.”

Montana’s invasive mussel Silos on the southwest side of the lake and Shannon on
response swings into gear April 15 the north end near the dam. At Tiber, the Tiber Marina and
VFW ramps, both near the dam, are open to all boaters.
Thursday, April 13, 2017/Categories: Mussel Response News/Tags: Other boat ramps on each reservoir are open to certified
local boaters only.
On April 15, Montana’s full response to the invasive
mussels begins statewide with more than 30 inspection On both reservoirs, local boater ramps will be clearly
stations, decontamination stations for boats leaving Tiber matamrkuesds.eMlreasppsofnosree.amcth.groevs.ervoir are also available online
and Canyon Ferry Reservoirs and a broad outreach and
education effort to help ensure people recreating on Watercraft inspection stations will be operating around
Montana’s waterways are practicing clean, drain and dry Montana starting April 15, with specific attention given to
techniques at all times. inspecting watercraft that may be coming into Montana
The biggest changes will be seen by those recreationists from out of state or cross the Continental Divide into the
at Tiber and Canyon Ferry. In March, the Montana Fish Columbia River Basin. People traveling with watercraft,
and Wildlife Commission approved rules requiring boaters both motorized and nonmotorized – including canoes,
on Canyon Ferry and Tiber reservoirs to launch and exit at paddleboards and kayaks – must stop when they
designated boat ramps, unless they are officially certified encounter an inspection station.
as local boaters on those specific waters by Montana Fish,
Wildlife and Parks. Key points to remember are:
While local boaters won’t be required to decontaminate
their vessels with hot water each time they leave Tiber • Boats coming into Montana from out of state must get
or Canyon Ferry – they’ll still be required to stop at an inspected prior to launching – No Inspection? Don’t
inspection station where they’ll be expedited through after launch.
a brief interview. The program is designed to decrease
volume at decontamination stations and allow a focus on • Watercraft traveling across the divide into the
boats traveling elsewhere. Columbia River Basin must get inspected prior to
The local boater program will allow watercraft owners to launching.
complete educational training on aquatic invasive species
and sign an agreement with FWP pledging to only use the • Certified local boaters will not be required to
bisoaavt aaitlaebitleheornTliinbeeraot rmCuasnsyeolrnesFpeornrysere.mset.rgvoovir.. This training decontaminate their boat each time they leave Tiber
At Tiber and Canyon Ferry boat ramps will be designated or Canyon Ferry but they still must stop at inspection
as open either to all boats or certified local boaters only. stations.
Currently, two boat ramps at each reservoir are open for
all boaters. At Canyon Ferry, these boat ramps are the • Should a certified local boater want to use the
watercraft at another waterbody, as part of the local
6 MWCA boater pledge, the owner is required to get the
watercraft decontaminated.

• Transporting surface water – from lakes, ponds,
river and streams – in Montana is illegal. Use clean
domestic water to transport live bait.

• Generally, decontamination only will require thoroughly
cleaning, draining, and drying, which can be done in
a matter of minutes. A full hot water decontamination
of a more complex boat with ballasts or live wells
takes an average of up to 30 minutes and can
include spraying the exterior and flushing interior
compartments with pressurized hot water (140°F). In
the most extreme cases, the motor’s cooling system
will need to be flushed.

• Clean. Drain. Dry – it’s simple and it will save people
time at inspection stations. Clean all mud, debris and
vegetation off your watercraft. Drain all ballasts, bilges,
live wells and motors. Dry equipment, any standing
water and the insides of compartments.

• Containing the risk of spreading mussels from the
reservoirs to other areas is a key component of
Montana’s implementation plan. When boaters
transport water in their boats they can spread
destructive mussel that are so small at the larvae
stage they can only be seen under a microscope.

• To combat the spread of all aquatic invasive species,
Montana officials urge boaters and anglers to Clean,
Drain, Dry their watercraft, trailers and equipment
when they leave the water as a guarantee that they’re
not spreading invasive mussels. A cleaned, drained
and dry boat also will make for a quick inspection.

mFot.rgmovo.re information, please go online to musselresponse.

Become a Certified Local Boater TpaukbelicttheestiTnegs/tte! shttsttpasr:t/?/atepsptsid.f=w3p8.9m6t4.g2o5v/commed/
Take the Test In Person
In October 2016 invasive mussel larvae were discovered If you would like to take the test in person, please visit your
for the first time in Montana. Tiber Reservoir was local FWP regional office.
confirmed positive for larvae and Canyon Ferry Reservoir You will be issued local boater stickers once you pass the
was listed as unconfirmed suspect for larvae. In response test, present your certificate and complete a registration
to those discoveries, all boats recreating in these two form at the regional office.
lakes will require decontamination upon exit of these To complete your registration and to receive your local
waterbodies. The local boater program was created to boater stickers, please bring these items to your regional
ease this process for local boaters who recreate primarily FWP office:
at Tiber Reservoir or primarily at Canyon Ferry Reservoir. • printed certification from test, AND
What is the Local Boater Program? • the following information for each vessel you want
The program is applicable only for Canyon Ferry or Tiber
Reservoirs. local stickers for: vessel license number, trailer license
There will be boat ramps on these reservoirs that will be number, and a description of the vessel.
designated as “local boater only” boat ramps. Only vessels Contact Us
that have been certified by the program will be allowed For general questions about the Local Boater Program,
to use these ramps. It will allow you to avoid the need for please call (406) 444-2449 or contact your local FWP
decontamination if your next boating trip is on the same regional office.
waterbody.
The purpose of the program is to decrease the volume of MWCA 7
boats at the decontamination stations and to allow FWP to
focus on boats traveling elsewhere.
Boat Ramps on Tiber and Canyon Ferry Reservoirs
Most boat ramps located around Tiber and Canyon Ferry
Reservoirs are open to “local boaters.” The maps below
indicate the current status of each boat ramp on these
waterbodies. Local boaters who use a local boat ramp
are not required to seek out a decontamination station
when they exit the waterbody if their next planned boat
outing will be on the same waterbody. Local boaters are
required to visit a decontamination station after exiting the
waterbody if their next planned trip is on a waterbody other
than the waterbody that they are a local boater on.
4M/a4p/1:7Chatntpy:o//nfwFpe.mrryt.gRoevs/fewrvpoDiroBc.ojsapt?Rida=m8p06S2t0a.tus as of
mMta.gpo: vT/ifbweprDRoecs.ejsrpv?oiidr =R8a0m62p1Status as of 4/4/17 http://fwp.
Completing the Local Boater Program
To be certified as a local boater, the boat and/or aquatic
equipment user will need to:
1. Take the Test Online
2. Download and read the Local Boater Program

Education and Certification tutorial.
3. Take the online test. A passing score (80%) will

immediately generate an online certificate for you to
complete.
4. Print out your certificate and keep this in your records.
You will need to present your certificate at a FWP
office and complete a registration form so your local
boater stickers can be issued to you. (If you lose your
certificate, you will need to retake the online test and
print out another certificate.
To complete your registration and to receive your local
boater stickers, please bring these items to your regional
FWP office:
• printed certification from test, AND
• the following information for each vessel you want
local stickers for: vessel license number, trailer license
number, and a description of the vessel.
Download Tutorial http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.jsp?id=80574.

Aquatic Invasive Species Grants – Call for Applications

DEADLINE: Grant applications must be submitted via email or postal mail by close of business Thursday, June 1, 2017.
The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) offers state-funded grants for the prevention
and control of aquatic invasive species (AIS). The goal of the grants is to protect the natural resources of Montana from
severe and unacceptable damage from aquatic invasive species.
Eligible Activities: Activities include but are not limited to:  (1) outreach and education; (2) prevention; (3) early
detection and rapid response; (4) control; (5) treatment demonstration, research or design; or (6) other related
opacdntfit?ohvneesrM.=Po2rn0et1fae6nr-ae1n0Nc-2oe5xwi-o1iul6ls1b0eW5ge6ie-v6de6nL7it&sott:i(mMhetotspnt:ta/a/mangapr’=.sm1A4t.q9gu2oa1vt/8iPc5oI7nr5tva8al4ss4/i1v6e6)8;S/aDpneodcctiueomsloePcnraotslgl/yWr-aleemdePdosrni/o-Wtrhieteiee-gdsrs(o_su2en0ed1A5ppNrpooejexnciodtsuixssAWu)c;ehsepdaeLscissietu.srveys
and removal that result in measurable control of AIS.
Who is Eligible: Nonprofits, city, county, or other local political subdivisions or Tribal
governments within the state. 
CmDoet.pngatoarvtcm/dt:ei vAnistdioodnfitisNo/ancataurlrdiandlf/oRreremssoaoutuirocrcnee-adsbeaovnuedtlotChpoemngesrneatr/nvataqptuiroaontgicr(aD-imnNvRacaCsin)vewb-eesbpfoseuictneiedasatothrtthtbpey:/cM/doonnnrtcata.cntiang
DNRC.
Please contact me with any questions or to assess eligibility of your project. 
Stephanie Hester, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
RDG Program Manager, MISAC Coordinator
P.O. Box 201601
Helena, MT 59620-1601
[email protected]

New AIS administrative rules in effect April 15

Thursday, April 13, 2017/Categories: Mussel Response News/Tags

Regulations aimed helping the fight against aquatic invasive species in Montana go into effect April 15.
These new regulations require that all watercraft coming into Montana be inspected prior to launching on any Montana
waterbody, mandatory inspections of watercraft traveling across the Continental Divide into the Columbia River Basin
within Montana, and a prohibition of transporting surface water – lake, pond and river water – in Montana.
The regulations take the form of administrative rules and were presented for public comment in February and March.
These rules amended existing regulations and were necessary in developing a response to the discovery of invasive
mussel larvae in Montana last fall.
Invasive mussel larvae were detected for the first time in Montana in October 2016 in Tiber Reservoir – and a suspect
detection turned up in Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
The discovery triggered a natural resource emergency in Montana and led to several recommended strategies to manage
the threat of invasive mussels spreading to other areas.
For more information on Montana’s mussel response, please look online at musselresponse.mt.gov.

8 MWCA

Sustaining Family Forests Initiative

A collaboration between the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Center for
Nonprofit Strategies

Call for Proposals: Tools for Engaging Landowners Effectively Workshop

The Sustaining Family Forests Initiative (SFFI) works to develop and promote landowner outreach tools and educational
programs for natural resource professionals. SFFI has recently been awarded funding from the U.S. Forest Service
to offer a new round of the Tools for Engaging Landowners Effectively (TELE) workshops. TELE is a research and
education program that enhances the ability of natural resource professionals to reach more family woodland owners
with effective messages, services, and programs. This is accomplished by using the principals of social marketing –
namely understanding the attitudes, values and preferences of landowners in order to tailor communication, services, and
programs.

Since 2010, SFFI has trained over 950 natural resource professionals in landowner outreach. These professionals work
in 25 states and represent over 330 organizations, primarily state natural resource agencies and their conservation and
stewardship partners.

With this new funding, we are able to conduct 12 TELE workshops in 2017-2018, to train individuals and organizations
on effective landowner outreach using social marketing techniques and landowner attitudinal data from the 2013 National
Woodland Owner Survey. We are looking for places where existing (can be newly formed) partnerships are working
toward a common goal in a particular area that involves woodland owner outreach and behavior change as part of the
strategy. We are particularly interested in working with the following:

• Partnerships consisting of both government and private organizations (e.g. state agencies and land trusts, watershed
associations, etc.).

• Partnerships with well-defined landscape or watershed-level projects geared toward landowner action, clear ideas
about what they want to accomplish together, and resources to carry them out.

If you are interested in hosting one of these workshops, please complete the below application and submit it to Katherine
Hollins ([email protected]) by Friday May 19, 2017. For more information about TELE, please go to sffi.yale.edu
or www.engaginglandowners.org.

MWCA 9

“

The 2017 Legislative Session

By Becky Kington
MWCA Executive Director

As I write this article, the session will likely end in the “
next day or two, so the lobbying and such is over, but
the watching and waiting continues as the legislature
and the governor hash things out in Helena. There were
1188 bills introduced this session and at last count, less
than 300 of them passed on to the governor. Here is a
recap of the bills we took action on and were watching
this session in Helena.

HB 126, Rep Ray Shaw (R) HB 410, Rep Ray Shaw (R)
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT GENERALLY REVISING A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT INCREASING CERTAIN
THE MONTANA PESTICIDES ACT; REVISING PESTICIDE VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES TO INCREASE FUNDS FOR
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS; REVISING CERTAIN NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL; CLARIFYING A DEFINITION; AND
DEFINITIONS, FEES, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL AMENDING SECTIONS 7-22-2101, 15-1-122, AND 61-3-321, MCA.”
APPLICATORS, COMMERCIAL OPERATORS, DEALERS, FARM
APPLICATORS, AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; PROVIDING FOR This bill included funding for that state noxious weed
ADDITIONAL FEES FOR CERTAIN CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING program, increased vehicle fees for noxious weeds and
PROGRAMS; PROVIDING THAT ONLY INDIVIDUALS MAY RECEIVE revised the IWM definition within the act. Funding would run
PESTICIDE DEALER LICENSES; CLARIFYING PESTICIDE DEALER through MDA and included a 12% admin fee for the program.
REQUIREMENTS; REVISING THE METHODS OF SAMPLING AND If passed at 2.4%, this bill would generate approximately
ANALYSIS; EXTENDING THE INTEGRATED PEST AND PESTICIDE 1 million to county weed districts/ $13,000 per county and
MANAGEMENT SAFETY PROGRAM TO OTHER FACILITIES; reservation.
EXTENDING RULEMAKING AUTHORITY; AMENDING SECTIONS
80-8-102, 80-8-107, 80-8-111, 80-8-201, 80-8-202, 80-8-203, 80-8-207, MWCA Position: Support
80-8-209, 80-8-213, 80-8-302, 80-8-303, 80-8-401, 80-8-404, AND 80- Bill brought forth by: Montana Association of Counties &
15-302, MCA; REPEALING SECTIONS 80-8-208 AND 80-8-214, MCA; MWCA
AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.” MWCA Resolution: Resolution 01
Action: The bill was tabled (i.e. failed)
This bill included permanent funding for the state weed
coordinator position and it also created funding and HB 434, Rep Kelly Flynn (R)
jurisdiction for the private pesticide program at MSU. In A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT CREATING THE
addition to this, this bill addressed MDA fees for pesticides MONTANA WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPROVEMENT ACT; ALLOWING
and potential EPA changes. THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO COMBAT NOXIOUS WEEDS
AND RESTORE WILDLIFE HABITAT; ESTABLISHING A WILDLIFE
MWCA Position: Support HABITAT IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL; PROVIDING
Bill brought forth by: Montana Department of Agriculture RULEMAKING AUTHORITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
MWCA Policy: Section 1, 2 AND A TERMINATION DATE.”
Action: This bill has passed both the House and the Senate
and is now waiting to be sent to the Governor. This bill would provide a grant program for wildlife habitat
improvement through use of the Pittman-Robertson Federal
grant funds. This would include noxious weed management.

MWCA Position: Support
Bill brought forth by: Representative Kelly Flynn

MWCA Policy: Section 1 & 2
Action: Bill passed both House and Senate and is on its
way to the Governor.

10 MWCA SB 232, Senator Pat Connell (R)
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR AN OFF-
HIGHWAY VEHICLE TRAIL PASS; REQUIRING A RESIDENT OWNER
OF AN OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE TO ANNUALLY PURCHASE AND
DISPLAY A TRAIL PASS IN ORDER TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE OFF
ROAD ON PUBLIC LANDS; IMPOSING A FEE FOR THE TRAIL PASS

AND REQUIRING MONEY COLLECTED TO BE USED FOR CERTAIN PROVIDING APPROPRIATIONS; PROVIDING RULEMAKING
PURPOSES; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DISPLAY AUTHORITY; AMENDING SECTIONS 80-7-1003, 80-7-1007, 80-7-
THE TRAIL PASS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.” 1008, 80-7-1011, 80-7-1014, AND 80-7-1015, MCA; AND PROVIDING
EFFECTIVE DATES AND A TERMINATION DATE.
This bill originally provided $.75 per decal for off road
vehicles to be used for noxious weed control within FWP. Replaced and established the Montana Invasive Species
Advisory Council.
MWCA Position: Support
Bill brought forth by: Senator Connell MWCA Position: Watching
MWCA Policy: Section 1 & 2 Bill Brought Forth by: Flathead Basin Commission
Action: The bill was tabled. Action: The bill passed and is on its way to the governor.

HB 444, Rep Ray Shaw (R) SB 363, Senator Chas Vincent (R)
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE USE A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT REVISING LAWS
OF STATE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR THE RELATED TO AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES; PROVIDING REVENUE
JEFFERSON SLOUGH BYPASS CHANNEL TO ALSO BE USED FOR SOURCES TO PREVENT AND CONTROL AQUATIC INVASIVE
EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL MITIGATION ON THE JEFFERSON SPECIES; ESTABLISHING THE NONRESIDENT AQUATIC INVASIVE
SLOUGH; AMENDING SECTION 11, CHAPTER 400, LAWS OF 2015; SPECIES DECAL; ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR BOAT VALIDATION
AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.” DECALS; ESTABLISHING THE AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
PREVENTION PASS; ESTABLISHING A HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY
MWCA Position: Watching FEE; ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR HYDROELECTRIC-DEPENDENT
Bill brought forth by: Jefferson County, Representative Ray UTILITIES; ESTABLISHING AN IRRIGATED FARMLAND FEE;
Shaw ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR CERTAIN BICYCLES; ESTABLISHING A
MWCA Policy: Section 1 & 2 BOTTLE WATER AP DEPOSIT FOR INVASIVE SPECIES PREVENTSIN;
Action: Bill passed the House and Senate and was signed ALLOCATING REVENUE; REVISING DEFINITIONS; DEFINING
by the Governor. “HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY”; EXTENDING RULEMAKING
AUTHORITY; REVISING THE INVASIVE SPECIES TRUST FUND;
HB 575, Rep Denley Loge (R) AMENDING SECTIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT REVISING LAWS EFFECTIVE DATES, APPLICABILITY DATES AN APPLICABILITY
RELATED TO THE USE OF FISHING ACCESS SITES AND WILDLIFE DATE, AND A TERMINATION DATE TERMINATION DATES.
MANAGEMENT AREAS; ESTABLISHING THE FISH AND WILDLIFE
RECREATION ACCESS PASS; ESTABLISHING FEES AND USES Provides funding for an Aquatic Invasive Species Bureau at
OF REVENUE; ESTABLISHING THE COUNTY REIMBURSEMENT FWP (program and staff) and pays for a MISAC coordinator
GRANT ACCOUNT; PROVIDING RULEMAKING AUTHORITY; and a grants coordinator. Revenue will be generated from
PROVIDING STATUTORY APPROPRIATIONS; PROVIDING an increase in fishing licenses and fees from hydroelectric
PENALTIES; AMENDING SECTION 17-7-502, MCA; AND PROVIDING facilities. Additional funding will likely come from FWP and
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.” DNRC budget requests.

Additional fees from fishing access passes would provide MWCA Position: Watching
funding for noxious weed management. Bill Brought forth by: Senator Vincent
Action: Bill is was sent to a free conference committee,
MWCA Position: Support passed both houses and is on its way to the Governor.
Bill brought forth by: Representative Loge
MWCA Policy: Section 1, 2 & 7
Action: The bill was tabled.

Several bills for invasive aquatic species were brought forth
and tabled in this session. Those left standing were the
following:

HB 622, Rep Mike Cuffe (R) Mel Shumway 11
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT REVISING LAWS Range and Pasture Specialist
RELATED TO INVASIVE SPECIES; ESTABLISHING THE INVASIVE Alligare, LLC
SPECIES COUNCIL; ESTABLISHING THE UPPER COLUMBIA (307) 248-8288
CONSERVATION COMMISSION; PROVIDING POWERS AND [email protected]
DUTIES; REQUIRING REPORTING; REVISING LOCATION AND
TIMING OF INSPECTIONS IN THE STATEWIDE INVASIVE SPECIES MWCA
MANAGEMENT AREA; AUTHORIZING COUNTY INVASIVE
SPECIES ORDINANCES; ESTABLISHING THE MISSOURI RIVER
CONAINMENT AND QUARANTINE PROGRAM; ESTABLISHING
THE PPER COLUMBIA PILOT PROGRAM; REVISING PENALTIES;

Sustainable Management of Non-Native Thistles on Colorado’s
Western Slope

by John Coyle* and Scott Nissen [Edited by Celestine Duncan; Photos by John Coyle]

Ranching and farming are key economic drivers on Colorado’s western slope. Protecting these natural resources from
invasive plants is a priority for ranchers to preserve their rural lifestyle and ranching heritage.

Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) are well established on the western slope and are a
concern to agricultural producers. Biological control agents have not provided effective musk thistle control in this area.
Both weeds are highly competitive, invading disturbed sites, pastures, rangeland and forestland.

A research project was initiated in 2014 on a 10,670-acre ranch near Cimmarron, Colorado
(Figure 1) to develop sustainable management strategies for musk and Canada thistle.
Objectives of the study were three-fold: 1) Investigate invasive thistle distribution through
geospatial analysis^; 2) determine effects of musk thistle management on forage quality and
native plant diversity; and 3) develop a sustainable invasive plant management plan for the
ranch.

Background Figure 1. Location of the research
project in southwestern Colorado.
The ranch is located in the foothills and mountains of the San Juan Mountain Range with
elevations ranging from 6,800 to more than 10,200 feet. About 30 miles of dirt roads and two-
track trails traverse the ranch, with Highway 50 bisecting the northern portion of the property.
Rainfall averages 13.8 inches with some local variation depending on elevation and aspect.
Western portions of the ranch and lower foothills are generally hotter and drier than eastern
portions and higher elevation ranges (Figure 2).

Permanent transects were established at 32 locations on the ranch to measure thistle abundance and density. Maps were
generated showing density, location, and invasion patterns of both musk and Canada thistle.

Herbicide trials were applied in September 2014 at two locations on the ranch (east and west). Individual treatments were
applied to the entire plot, and the same herbicide and rate reapplied on half the plot in 2015 to compare effects of single
and consecutive applications. Vegetative cover was measured in each plot, and above ground vegetation collected, dried
and weighed. Dried samples were subsequently analyzed for forage quality [See MATERIALS AND METHODS, right].

Figure 2. Rainfall varies on the ranch based on elevation and aspect, ranging from relatively Results
dry sagebrush dominated western foothills (left) to higher elevation mountains (right).
Results of the study suggest
that long-distance seed
dispersal of musk and Canada
thistle is primarily by wind,
livestock, and human and
livestock related disturbance.
Musk thistle is most abundant
on lower elevation foothills,
disturbed sites, and areas of
concentrated livestock use.
Higher elevation rangeland
has reduced thistle density
compared to lower elevation

12 MWCA Article courtesy of TechLine News, Celestine Duncan

Materials and Methods sites (Figure 3). However, Canada thistle is more
Thistle density was determined along 32 permanent transect. abundant on higher elevation rangeland and irrigated
Each transect was 0.5 to 1 kilometer (1,640 to 3,280 feet) long, pastures than musk thistle. The degree of livestock use
about 10 meters (33 feet) wide, and located perpendicular to and level of soil disturbance appear to be important
roads (Figure 8). Thistle data within each transect were recorded factors influencing invasive thistle abundance and density.
and data entered into ArcGIS. Inverse distance weighting (IDW) All herbicide treatments significantly reduced musk
was used to predict the location of invasive thistle on sites that thistle cover compared to non-treated plots across the
were not measured. More Information on http://pro.arcgis.com/en/ two locations (Figure 4 and 5). The application of two
consecutive treatments in 2015 and 2016 reduced musk
pro-app/help/analysis/geostatistical-analyst/how-inverse-distance- thistle cover more than a single application (Figure 6).
weighted-interpolation-works.htm.
Figure 3. Distribution of musk thistle (left) and Canada thistle (right)
IDW Herbicide within the ranch based on data collected from transects and prediction
trials were based on inverse distance weighting (IDW).
established in
September 2014
at two locations,
one on the east
portion of the
ranch (mesic
moisture regime)
and a second
Figure 8. Permanent vegetation transects site on the
were placed at 32 locations on the ranch to west portion
collect baseline vegetation data and allow for (xeric moisture
long-term monitoring. Transects were located regime).
perpendicular to roads with one end beginning Plots were
on the roadside. arranged in a

randomized complete block design with three replications per
treatment. Individual plot size was 20 by 100 feet. Milestone®
specialty herbicide at 3 or 7 fluid ounces per acre (fl oz/A), and
Tordon® 22K herbicide at 16 fl oz/A were applied with a research
sprayer in a total application volume of 20 gallons per acre.
A consecutive treatment of the same herbicide and rate was
applied to half the plot (10 by 100 feet) in September 2015.

Relative cover of musk thistle, forbs and grasses in treated plots
were compared to non-treated plots. Cover data were collected
using the Extended Daubenmire Method with six frames (0.5

meter squared
[m2]) per
replication in
2015 and 2016
(Figure 9).

Vegetative Figure 4. Percent musk thistle cover one and two years after a single
biomass was herbicide treatment (YAT) at the east study location. Herbicides shown
collected from in this figure are labeled for use on livestock grazed lands.
six 0.25 m2
subplots within Figure 5. Musk thistle is well established on disturbed sites such as
each treatment. this stock pond. Musk thistle prior to Milestone® application at 7 fl oz/A
Grasses were (left) and the same area one year following application (right)
combined from
Figure 9. An Extended Daubenmire Method

(0.5 meter squared) was used to collect cover each subplot,
data within herbicide treated plots and the non- and forbs were
treated control. separated by

species. Vegetation was bagged, dried and weighed. Dried
vegetation from each plot was sent to Ward Lab in Nebraska for
wet chemistry feed analysis (i.e. crude protein, acid detergent
fiber, neutral detergent fiber, total digestible nutrients, calcium,
phosphorous, potassium and magnesium). Individual forb
species were combined for the analysis with for a total of 30
grass samples and 26 forb samples across the two locations. All
data were compared by Analysis of Variance (p<0.1).

Article courtesy of TechLine News, Celestine Duncan MWCA 13

Figure 6. Percent musk thistle cover two years after a single Management Implications
herbicide application (YAT) and one year after two consecutive
herbicide applications at the west study location. Herbicides shown This study was undertaken exclusively for the benefit of a
in this figure are labeled for use on livestock grazed lands. private cattle ranch to determine the best course of action in
reducing the musk thistle problem. In concert with that goal is
Figure 7. Percent cover of native forbs one and two years after preservation of the productivity of the cattle operation while
a single herbicide treatment (YAT) at the east study location. at the same time maintaining the overall health and vigor
Herbicides shown in this figure are labeled for use on livestock of the native plant community. Management priorities on a
grazed lands. private cattle ranch are dictated by budgets and goals for the
ranch, rather than outside stakeholder influence common on
public lands. Operating without these constraints facilitates
management decisions.

This study successfully identified several different treatment
regimens that can accomplish many of the objectives of the
ranch by controlling invasive thistle and minimizing impact
on the overall forage and species diversity. Results from field
trials showed that regardless of herbicide choice, thistle can be
controlled while preserving forage quality and species richness.
This gives the weed manager greater flexibility in considering
cost, availability, and label restrictions when deciding on an
herbicide treatment.
_______________________
*John Coyle is a former graduate student at Colorado State University and currently
owner of Arc Valley Weed Management and Consulting in Cañon City, Colorado. He
can be reached at [email protected]. Scott Nissen is Professor of Weed Science,
Colorado State University.

^Geographic Information System (GIS) is the umbrella term for the system used to
collect, manage and present geographic data. Geospatial analysis is the application
of analytical techniques to the GIS data. It can be as simple as adding a buffer zone
around a ranch road or as complex as interpolating musk thistle data to form a ranch-
wide gradient of thistle densities.

Article courtesy of TechLine News, Celestine Duncan

Milestone® specialty herbicide at 3 fl oz/A provided similar People...Products...Knowledge©...
control as Milestone at 7 fl oz/A or Tordon® 22K herbicide
at 16 fl oz/A. Brooks Hammel Paul Olson
Cover of native forbs was significantly reduced by all herbicide Laurel: 628-8768 Conrad: 262-3737
treatments compared to non-treated plots. However, forb
cover increased the second growing season following a single Cell: 855-5855 Cell: 794-6601
application of Milestone at 3 or 7 fl oz/A at the east location [email protected] [email protected]
(Figure 7).
There was no significant difference in species richness in Willie Krueger Shane Ereth
herbicide treated compared to non-treated plots at the east Columbus Laurel: 628-8768
location one growing season following a single herbicide
application. However, species richness was reduced by all Cell: 855-1910 Cell: 794-6601
herbicide treatments at the west site and at both sites following [email protected] [email protected]
consecutive herbicide treatments.
There was no significant difference in total biomass of grasses LEGACY MEMBER
and forbs (excluding musk thistle) in herbicide treated
compared to non-treated plots. Forage quality was similar
between treated and non-treated plots.

14 MWCA

Monthly Weed Post 1

March 2017

Weed Suppressive Bacteria for Cheatgrass

The naturally occurring soil-borne bacteria Pseudomonas Noelle Orloff, MSU
fluorescens was observed several decades ago affecting

growth of winter wheat in eastern Washington. Since then,

Dr. Ann Kennedy, a research scientist with USDA-Agricultural

Research Service in Pullman, WA, has been isolating and

testing strains of P. fluorescens that target specific weedy

grasses. Three strains are being developed as bio-herbicides

for cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): D7, ACK55, and MB906.
All three strains are cold-loving organisms that are applied in

fall with cool temperatures, overcast skies, and rain. Strains

D7 and ACK55 stunt root growth and overall vigor of

cheatgrass by colonizing intercellular spaces in grass roots

and producing compounds that inhibit cellular growth in

seedlings. In addition to cheatgrass, the strains inhibit growth of medusahead C. Evans, U of IL, Bugwood.org

(Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica).

Pseudomonas fluorescens D7 was registered in 2014 as a bio-herbicide under the
trade name D7® by Verdesian Life Sciences, LLC, Cary, NC. D7 is registered for use on
wheat, barley, triticale, oats, and rangeland, and was recently registered in
Montana. D7 is a freeze-dried powder that is dissolved in water and applied as a
spray solution. Suggested application rate is 2 grams/acre, and it can be applied up
to four times in a 12 month period for a maximum application of 8 grams/acre. D7
has been shown to inhibit some native grasses, especially when plants are stressed
due to other environmental factors.

Pseudomonas fluorescens ACK55 was submitted to the EPA for review in 2015 and
remains under review. ACK55 has shown greater suppressive activity and grass
selectivity than D7. It is not on the market at this time and not readily available for widespread application.

Both D7 and ACK55 were initially tested and evaluated in the Pacific Northwest, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. To date,
there are no peer-reviewed publications demonstrating effectiveness nor lack thereof in field trials in the Northern
Rocky Mountain region. Montana State University is part of a statewide field study testing ACK55. ACK55 was applied at
seven sites (plus one site in Wyoming) in December 2014. Plots have been monitored for two years, and preliminary
data do not indicate any difference between treated and non-treated plots. Because bacteria suppress cheatgrass and
reduce the seed bank and seedling vigor over time, effects may not be realized until three to five years post-application.

The third strain of P. fluorescens is MB906, currently marketed as a liquid soil inoculant by BioWest Ag Solutions, Nampa,
ID. The label indicates that MB906 enhances soil biodiversity, and no herbicidal claims are made. It is labeled for
“agricultural use only.” Application of MB906 is typically made with the addition of a cheatgrass-appropriate herbicide
such as imazapic. Pseudomonas fluorescens MB906 is currently undergoing review by the EPA to be registered as a bio-
herbicide; it may be available as a bio-herbicide as early as fall 2017. It remains available on the market as a soil
inoculant. Similar to D7 and ACK55, no peer-reviewed field research in the Northern Rocky Mountain region has been
published on the effects of this soil inoculant.

Information provided by Dr. Jane Mangold of Montana State University MWCA 15

Don’t Plant Those “Bee-Friendly” for bees. And even though the seeds are problematic,
Wildflowers Cheerios Is Giving Away they’re not exactly shipping packets of ecological doom.
Heck, most of the seeds are probably going to languish in
Beth Skwarecki, 3/17/17 [email protected] a drawer, unplanted, or be dumped outside and neglected
by brown thumbs like me. But some of them, in the wrong
Staff Writer place, might well spark a new invasion or might contribute
to an already invasive population of nasty weeds.
Bee populations are in decline, and Cheerios wants to Here Are Some Far Better Ways to Help Bees
help. So far, so good. But they are sending free packets of
wildflower seeds to people all over the country—and some The idea is well intentioned, but you can’t expect one
of the flowers included are invasive species that, in some seed mix to be right for everybody’s backyard. What’s odd
areas, you should probably not plant. is that Cheerios partnered with Xerces, an organization
dedicated to supporting pollinators, but didn’t use their
Forget-me-not (listed above but, the seed packager told locally customized, ecologically friendly seed mixes. If
me on 3/21/2017, not included in the seed mix) is banned you’d like to plant a wildflower garden, maybe start with
as a noxious weed in Massachusetts and Connecticut, for those instead.
example. The California poppy is nice in California, but
listed as an “invasive exotic pest plant” in southeastern I looked up all the plants in Xerces’ Eastern Great Lakes
states. And many of the flowers on this list are not native Region mix (good for Indiana, Ohio, western Pennsylvania,
to anywhere in the US, so they are not necessarily good and western New York) and all are native to my region.
matches for our local bees. Many are endangered, so planting them in these areas
helps to restore their populations in areas where they may
I asked Kathryn Turner, an ecologist who specializes in be disappearing.
invasive plants and who was concerned about Cheerios’
approach, how it can be bad to plant a flower. “Context Xerces also publishes regional gardening guides to help
is important,” she said: No plant is inherently ‘bad’, but you figure out the best plants to buy if you prefer a DIY
many species can and have caused a great deal of approach. Meanwhile, if you want to check the status of a
damage when they are introduced into locations outside random plant you’ve brought home from a garden store,
of their native range. Invasive species can out-compete check out the USDA’s PLANTS database. If your state is
the natives they encounter, they can take up all the space green, that means the plant is native there. Click on the
and use up all the resources, they can spread disease, “legal status” tab to see if the plant is on any federal or
and cause other physical changes to their new homes, all state noxious weed lists.
of which can have detrimental effects on native species,
and on humans. It doesn’t happen with every plant and in But there’s more to creating a bee-friendly habitat than
every location, and scientists (like me!) are working now just planting flowers. If you spray pesticides on or near
to figure out why that is, how to predict what will cause a the flowers, the bees are once again in danger, so you
problem, how to manage or prevent invasions. need to be aware of what you (or your lawn service) is
spraying. Xerces would like you to sign a pollinator pledge
I don’t want to blow this out of proportion: alongside this swearing that you’ll lay off the insecticides, and that you’ll
giveaway, Cheerios is actually doing some good things grow plants that nourish bees and other pollinators (like

butterflies and their caterpillars) year-round.

Honeybees Aren’t the Type of Bees That
Are Most at Risk
When you’re setting up your bee-friendly
garden, make sure to leave space for the
bees to lay their eggs in and near the ground.
If this sounds a little weird, welcome to the
biggest myth you’ll have to confront as a
self-appointed savior to the bees: honeybees
that live in hives are not the ones we’re really
worried about.

A native bumble bee in South Dakota, feeding on purple prairie clover. Photo by USFWS So back away from that image of a sad
Mountain Prairie. beekeeper with boxes and boxes of honeybee
hives. Colony collapse disorder was
16 MWCA unfortunate but not devastating. Those bees
are employees in big agrobusiness, and they
have jobs and caretakers all around the world.
Entomologist Gwen Pearson points out that
honeybees are “not remotely threatened with

extinction” but thousands of lesser-known bee species are. Although, BuzzBee and his honey bee friends may not
You can see a list of our imperiled bees here; many are be in danger of extinction like some other pollinators, in
marked “PE” for “possibly extinct.” the interest of protecting our food supply, General Mills
is committed to helping all pollinators thrive through the
A lot of these native bees live on their own, not in colonies, planting of these habitats.
and they lay their eggs in little tunnels in the ground. The
mother gives each baby bee a loaf of “bee bread” made A similar wildflower planting effort is behind a campaign
of pollen and nectar. Since they don’t have a colony to by Burt’s Bees. Sure, they want you to buy their limited
protect, these bees don’t even sting. edition lip balms and post their hashtag on social media,
but behind the scenes they’re putting money into pollinator
So if you want to save the bees by planting flowers, these habitats for farms in their home state of North Carolina.
are the ones you should dedicate your garden to.
So, even though the wildflower seed giveaway is a little
Habitats Around Farmland Are Important—and misguided, the idea of planting a garden for pollinators is
Cheerios Is Planting Those Too an excellent idea whether you’re a farmer or just a person
Ironically, the oats that go into Cheerios are wind- with a scrap of land to contribute to the cause.
pollinated, no bees required. But farming of all kinds
can threaten bees. Crop fields are often sprayed with www.wilburellis.com
insecticides that can harm bees, and herbicides that kill
the weeds that bees depend on. Rick Anderson Joel Fields
Lead Salesman - Billings Office Technical Sales Representative
So, while the wildflower giveaway has gotten a lot of likes 7175 Trail Center Ave. 12001 E. Empire Ave.
and shares (because who doesn’t love free stuff?) the
more helpful thing the company is doing is to plant bee Billings, MT 59101 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
habitats around farmland. They’ve been doing this for a
while, actually. Here’s what General Mills says toward 406.248.1176 800.727.9186
the bottom of the press release about their marketing
campaign: C 406.670.4201 C 509.290.1704406.670.4201
[email protected] [email protected]
Last spring, Honey Nut Cheerios announced that by the
end of 2020, farms that grow oats for Cheerios will house LEGACY MEMBER 17
approximately 3,300 total acres of dedicated pollinator
habitat on 60,000 acres of land. Previous pollinator habitat MWCA
plantings on General Mills’ supplier farms indicate that
each pollinator habitat is expected to double the amount of
bees in the area.

Even though their public-facing website makes a bigger
deal about how much crops depend on honeybees, the
release faces facts. They point out that a major reason
native pollinators are threatened is because crop land
is taking away their habitat. And they acknowledge the
difference between the bees that are threatened and the
ones who have job security:

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES INFO @ mtweed.org

• May 17, 2017
2017 Western Area Council Combines Crew Training
Ronan Community Center
Ronan, MT 59759
Registration: MWCA Members: $30.00 per person; Non-members $40.00 (lunch included)
Register online @ www.mtweed.org

• May 25, 2017
2017 County Spray Crew Training
Chouteau County Fairgrounds 4-H Building
Ft. Benton, MT
Registration: $20 per person $25.00 after May 16
Registration form available online @ www.mtweed.org
Register with Liberty County Weed District - phone: 406-759-5673; email: [email protected];
fax: 406-759-5395

• May 30, 31 & June 1, 2017
2017 Southwestern Area Crew Training
Whitehall Community Center
Whitehall, MT 59759
Registration: $20.00 per person; $25.00 per person with First Aid Course
Registration online @ www.mtweed.org

• September 27 – 28, 2017
Level 3 Noxious Weed Management Certification Workshop
The Level 3 Noxious Weed Management Certification Workshop is the final installment in a series of courses focused on weed
biology, ecology, and management. This two day course is designed to benefit those new to weed management and experienced
professionals, and participants must first complete Levels 1 and 2 in the series. The Level 3 workshop is limited to 25 participants.
Registration: $200
Registration form online @ www.mtweed.org
Please contact: Stacy Davis at 406-994-6297 or [email protected]

• ONLINE
MT Noxious Weed Realtor Training
Course opens April 17, 2017. Once registered, participants will have six months (Oct. 17), to complete the course and
obtain four continuing education credits.
Please forward to your Professional Realtor friends and contacts  —
Course description: The course is intended to provide realtors with a broad understanding of noxious weeds in order to direct both
buyers and sellers to the appropriate resources to ensure that noxious weeds are managed appropriately and desired vegetation
can abound. It will offer research-based integrated weed management tools and promote the multitude of weed resources that are
available to potential clients and landowners in Montana.
Contact: Shantell-Frame Martin, MSU Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, (406) 444-9491 or shantell.
[email protected]

Change from print to eWeedTimes and get —
• eWeed Times weeks before the print version
• live hyperlinks
• access any where you are (PC, tablet, smartphone)
• vivid 4-color
Give a call or send an email to update your Weed Times to
eWeedTimes.

18 MWCA

MWCA CLASSIFIEDS @ mtweed.org

• Range Technician
Dillon, MT
The individuals (two positions available) will be employed between approximately June 1 and September 1.  This is seasonal
employment with the opportunity to expand seasons of future work up to nine months per year (April through December). 
Applicants: Apply with a cover letter, resume, and 3 recent employment references. List Job # 10271903 in application. To apply
on-line, go to: https://montanaworks.mt.gov Enter: Job # 10271903 and Area code 59725 Or, deliver to: Montana Job Service
Center, 730 N. Montana St, Dillon, MT 59725, (406) 683-4259.

• Stillwater County Weed District Coordinator
Stillwater County Montana
Submit County Application, resume, and references to Finance and Human Resources Office, Stillwater County Courthouse, PO
Box 795, Columbus, MT 59019. More information can be found at www.stillwatercountymt.gov or www.mtweed.org.

• USDA APHIS Plant Protection & Quarantine Aid/Technician
Billings or Helena, Montana
CONTACT OFFICE: Ryan Richter, USDA APHIS PPQ, 1220 Cole Ave., Helena MT 59601, (406) 449-5210, Fax: (406) 449-5212,
[email protected].

. APPLICATION INFO @ mtweed.org

• DNRC 2019 Biennium RRGL Grants • MT Noxious Weed Trust Fund Grants
May 16, 2017 January 6, 2018

• Noxious Weed Management Advisory Council • USDA Manager’s Tool Kit. Provides grants and funding
applications information for invasive species management. https://
May 19, 2017 www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/toolkit/grants.shtml

• Aquatic Invasive Species Grants
June 1, 2017

INVASIVE WEED MANAGEMENT RESOURCES INFO @ mtweed.org

• Call for Proposals: Tools for Engaging Landowners Effectively Workshop
May 12, 2017
We are particularly interested in working with partnerships consisting of both government and private organizations (e.g. state

agencies and land trusts, watershed associations, etc.). Please complete the application and submit it to Katherine Hollins
([email protected]) by Friday May 19, 2017. For more information about TELE, please go to sffi.yale.edu or www.
engaginglandowners.org.

Cell: (406) 360-0207 690 Eastfolk Rd.
E-mail: [email protected] Sula, MT 59871

MWCA 19

Watch out for Palmer amaranth in your Conservation Plantings

NEWS RELEASE: Natural Resources Conservation Service http://www.mt.nrcs.usda.gov

 

An invasive species is on the move and may be headed for Montana. Palmer

amaranth, a giant pigweed, is known to have spread to at least 28 states, including

Minnesota and South Dakota, but has not yet been reported in Montana. To prevent

its spread into Montana, landowners are encouraged to check their fields to ensure

the invasive weed is not present.

 

Palmer amaranth is spreading through contaminated seed, hay and feed purchases,

and custom combining or other mobile farm equipment. It is native to the desert

Southwest and northern Mexico and has spread throughout the southern, eastern

and midwestern parts of United States. It was recently found as a contaminant in

conservation plantings in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota and Ohio but is listed as

a noxious weed only in Delaware, Minnesota and Ohio.

 

It was a known contaminant in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) seed mixes

but pollinator, wildlife habitat and cover crop plantings may also been contaminated.

Producers with recent conservation plantings should check their fields to ensure this

invasive weed is not present.

A  female Palmer amaranth plant Identification Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) is one of number of
pigweeds that are problem weeds in crops throughout the United States. Pigweeds
found in a Dane County, Wis. farm are warm-season annuals, grow quickly and aggressively, compete well with
field. Photo courtesy of University of crops, reproduce by seed, are frost sensitive and have a high percentage of hard
Wisconsin─Extension.

seed. It has caused severe yield losses up to 91 percent in corn and 79 percent in

soybeans.

 

Palmer amaranth can grow to a height of 1 to 8 feet and has one reddish central

stem that is smooth, relatively hairless, with many lateral branches. In comparison,

redroot pigweed seedlings have pubescent or hairy stems and leaves. Palmer

amaranth leaves are alternate and grow symmetrically around the stem, giving

it a poinsettia appearance when viewed from above. Leaves are hairless, lance

to diamond-shaped, 2 to 8 inches long and one half to 2.5 inches wide, with a

prominent whitish vein on the leaf underside. The leaf petiole (stalk) is longer than

the leaf itself.

Comparison of a Palmer amaranth  
petiole (the stalk that joins a leaf Seed heads on female Palmer amaranth plants can reach 3 feet long and have
to a stem) length to the leaf blade stiff, sharp bracts, giving them a prickly feel. It is a prolific seed producer, producing
length. Photo courtesy of University of 100,000 to 500,000 small brown-black seeds that remain viable for up to five years.
Wisconsin─Extension.  

Impacts Palmer amaranth is aggressive, growing 2 to 3 inches per day, and has the

potential to become a major agronomic problem in western states. In the Midwest, it

emerges from May through September, forcing producers to manage it throughout

the year.  It can hybridize with other pigweeds, and its reproductive habits allows

it to readily adapt to new environments and develop resistance to herbicides. It is

already resistant to glyphosate and other commonly used crop herbicides.

 

Anyone who used seed that may have originated from the South or Midwest should

inspect and monitor plantings and destroy Palmer amaranth before seed set. This

is especially true if the planting will be grown to maturity for fall grazing, pollinator or

wildlife habitat enhancement.

 

Comparison of Palmer amaranth (left) to Montana Considerations Federal Seed Act law requires that all agricultural and
other similar species. Photo courtesy of vegetable seed sold in the United States has a label that includes: name and
University of Illinois. address of the seed labeler, lot number, germination rate and date, origin, percent of

each component, percent weed seed and percent noxious weeds.

 

However, seed labels list only those species that are considered noxious in the state where the seed is shipped from or

sold. Palmer amaranth is not on Montana’s noxious weed list, so it would not be listed on seed labels. Seed that contains

species on the Montana noxious weed list or seed that contains more than 2 percent weed seed cannot legally be sold

in Montana. The “Laboratory Report of Analysis” from a seed lab lists noxious weed seeds, other crops seeds and weed

20 MWCA

seeds by species and number of seeds per pound. It should be available from vendors and gives information on all
contaminant species in a mix.
 
Since Palmer amaranth seed is visually indistinguishable from other Amaranthus species, if any pigweed seed is found, it
will be listed only as Amaranth sp. A new DNA test recognized by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture differentiates
Palmer amaranth from other amaranth species but is currently only available on a limited basis. 
 
Options for Preventing Spread of Palmer Amaranth
Use seed from reliable and trusted sources; purchase certified seed if possible since it is field inspected for weeds and
other contaminates.

Read seed label carefully prior to purchase; check percent pure seed, inert matter, other crop, weed seed, test date,
germination, hard or dormant seed, pure live seed (PLS) and origin.

Ask for the “Laboratory Report of Analysis” for your mix, or all individual species in the mix. Check species and amount
(number of seeds/pound) of other crop seeds, weed seeds and noxious weed seeds.

If dealer won’t provide label or "Lab Report of Analysis,” consider other vendors or obtain analysis for all individual species
and mix seed yourself.

Sample the purchased seed prior to planting; send in a sample and request a "Noxious Weed Only Seed Analysis" that
includes amaranth species. Consult with the seed lab for the appropriate test, since prices vary based on noxious weed
species.

If Amaranth species are listed under weed seeds, consider using a different species or a different vendor.

If mixes have been or will be planted, walk fields to ensure Palmer amaranth or other noxious weeds are not present. Use
seedling and mature plant keys to identify species.

Since Palmer amaranth is resistant to many common herbicides, pulling the entire plant prior to seed set is effective.
Place the plant in a plastic bag while in the field, and then ferment, burn, or dispose of properly.

Scout fields for several years and use appropriate weed control to ensure Palmer amaranth or other noxious weeds are
not introduced into Montana.
 
NRCS Agronomy Technical Note 92 ‘Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson)’ has additional information,
pictures and references https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2017/palmer_
amaranth_nrcs_national_factsheet.pdf.

You may also contact your state or local Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office to obtain a copy.

FOUNDING MEMBER

MWCA 21

New technology for treating invasive plants
in inaccessible areas—Engineering firms
specializing in mobile robotic systems have
developed multirotor drones (Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle- UAV) complete with a lightweight
spray system that can be used for a variety of
agricultural applications.

Engineering firms specializing in mobile robotic systems system is also available and is capable of dispensing small
have developed multirotor drones (Unmanned Aerial metered amounts of liquid over a wide area. 
Vehicle- UAV) complete with a lightweight spray system that
can be used for a variety of agricultural applications. Most Drones and sprayer systems must be fully compliant
of the agricultural drones available on the market today with the regulations laid out under the Federal Aviation
were designed specifically to improve precision agriculture Administration Part 107, and allow operation by anyone
in row crops. However, some of these systems may possessing a small Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)
have application for managing invasive plants in natural operator certificate (similar to a driver’s license). 
areas. An example is the Vector R30, a carbon fiber and
aluminum constructed drone capable of autonomous flight Agricultural drones are available for purchase from the
in adverse condition. Flight time can be as long as 45 manufacturer, and most come with training sessions as well
minutes with a small stabilized camera payload, and up to as phone and email support. Some companies will contract
35 minutes with a 1 gallon sprayer payload.  the drone and spray system, along with an operator, to land
managers that want to measure the utility and effectiveness
Spray systems vary depending on the manufacturer, but of the system on their lands.
the Vector R30 uses pressurized gas to propel the liquid
out of the tank. A small solenoid valve controls the release NOTE: Reference to the Vector R30 does not imply the
of liquid product from the tank. The valve is controlled endorsement by Techline, but it is used as an example of
by a switch on the operator’s hand held controller, or technology that is available to invasive plant managers.
automatically by the autopilot system (such as flying GPS
waypoints). Advantages of this system are lighter weight LEARN MORE:
and increased reliability. With only one moving part (the • Vector R30 system (http://www.rmd-systems.com/vector-r30/)
solenoid spool) the tank system can be maintained in the • Agricultural Drones: An extensive Overview (http://www.
field with simple hand tools.
droneguru.net/agricultural-drones-an-extensive-overview/)

The tank system can be fitted YOUR VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS.
with a variety of nozzles,
depending on the application. www.VegetationMgmt.com Contact your Dow AgroSciences
For example, when using the www.RangeandPasture.com VM Specialist to learn more!
tank to spray specific targets, Trent Brusseau
a pencil nozzle can be fitted VM Specialist
that allows for a cohesive Phone: 208.318.8877
stream of liquid to be delivered
to the target plant. A small real ®Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company “Dow” or an affiliated company of Dow
time camera system fitted to Milestone and Opensight are not registered for sale or use in all states. Contact your state pesticide regulatory agency to determine if a product is registered for sale or use in your state. Always read and follow label directions. R38-000-050 (12/14) DAS 010-58451
the nozzle allows for exact
placement of the product on Article courtesy of TechLine News, Celestine Duncan
the intended target. Because
the nozzle is placed in the
center of the drone vehicle,
the rotor wash does not
affect the liquid stream, thus
minimizing drift. A boom spray

22 MWCA

Monthly Weed Post 1

April 2017

Invasive mustards: hoary alyssum, perennial pepperweed, and whitetop

Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of Connecticut,
Bugwood.org

Matt Lavin, MSU Matt Lavin, MSU

Growth/ Perennial pepperweed- Whitetop- Lepidium draba, L. Hoary alyssum-
reproduction Lepidium latifolium chalepense, and L. appelianum Berteroa incana

Rhizomatous/seeds and vegetative Rhizomatous/seeds and Slender taproot/seeds only
vegetative
Habitat Moist habitats. Alongside streams, Dry and disturbed areas.
rivers, irrigation canals, and sub- Moist habitats. Sub-irrigated Lawns, pastures, hayfields,
pastures, hay fields, rangelands,
irrigated pasture. vacant lots, and along
roadsides, and ditch banks. roadways.
Leaves Upper leaves do not clasp the Upper leaves clasp the stem.
Fruits stem. No lobes. Covered in tiny, star-shaped
Height Flattened silicles Lobed. (stellate) hairs.
Round or inflated silicles
Can reach heights of 6 feet and Generally not much taller than Round or inflated silicles
have woody stems at the base. knee-high (1-1.5 feet).
Usually less than 2.5 feet tall.

History and status: All of these plants are invasive mustards (Brassicaceae family) native to Europe and/or Asia.
Perennial pepperweed is a priority 2A noxious weed in Montana, while whitetop and hoary alyssum are priority 2B,
meaning they are more abundant and widespread. The three species in the whitetop complex were in the genus
Cardaria, but recent molecular-genetics data indicated that these species are actually within the Lepidium genus (same
genus as perennial pepperweed).
Identification: All three plants have small, white flowers with four petals. Key characteristics to differentiate these
species from each other include leaves, silicles (fruits), and height (Table, above). Hoary alyssum can be distinguished
from perennial pepperweed and whitetop by its tiny, stellate hairs that cover the leaves, notched flower petals, as well
as the fruits and stem. Whitetop has upper leaves that clasp the stem, whereas perennial pepperweed does not. Both
whitetop and hoary alyssum have round or inflated silicles, while perennial pepperweed has flattened silicles. Whitetop
and hoary alyssum are generally not much taller than 2.5 feet, while perennial pepperweed can reach heights of six feet,
especially in wetter areas. The three species of whitetop are closely related and can be difficult to distinguish without
silicles.
Management: Hoary alyssum reproduces by seed, therefore management should focus on preventing seed production
through hand-pulling, mowing, or herbicide applications. Whitetop and perennial pepperweed are rhizomatous, so
management is generally more difficult and control techniques must reduce seed production and stress roots. Hand-
pulling and mowing are not as effective on these two mustards. Herbicides that contain metsulfuron or chlorsulfuron are
effective on all three species, and application should occur rosette to bolting (hoary alyssum) or bud to bloom (whitetop,
perennial pepperweed). Grazing is not recommended as all three species exhibit some degree of toxicity to livestock. No
biological control agents are currently approved for these species, however agents are being developed for whitetop.
For more information see MSU-Extension publications for hoary alyssum, whitetop, and perennial pepperweed.

Information provided by Dr. Jane Mangold of Montana State University MWCA 23

Managing Sulfur Cinquefoil disperse only a short distance unless aided by an external
in Natural Areas vector as described above.

BY CELESTINE DUNCAN Sulfur cinquefoil has a high tannin content limiting its
palatability to most livestock and wildlife. Studies conducted
Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta L.) is a perennial forb in Montana indicated utilization by livestock and wildlife
native to Eurasia. It first appeared in North America before was less than 1 percent on 98 percent of sites sampled.
1900 in Ontario, Canada. By the 1950s it was widely Selection of plants other than sulfur cinquefoil by grazing
established in eastern Canada, the Pacific Northwest, animals may have a long-term impact by reducing bio-
northeastern United States and the Great Lakes region. In diversity. Sulfur cinquefoil reduces grass production by
2017 sulfur cinquefoil was reported in the 48 contiguous about 60 percent as a result of direct plant competition.
states in the United States (Figure 1), and southern
MANAGEMENT 
Canadian provinces.  Herbicides
Field studies conducted on sulfur cinquefoil in the United
BIOLOGY States and Canada show that Milestone® specialty
Sulfur cinquefoil is a herbicide at 4 to 7 fluid ounces per acre (fl oz/A) provided
good to excellent control (90 to 100%) one year following
long-lived perennial application. The addition of 2,4-D to Milestone did not
improve control over Milestone applied alone (Figure 5).  
(30 years or more)
The optimum time to apply Milestone to control sulfur
with a woody taproot. cinquefoil and stop seed production is at rosette to early
bolt stage in spring.  Sulfur cinquefoil is often difficult to
New shoots grow from locate until the plant blooms; thus, the higher application
rate will be more effective on mature plants treated later in
the root perimeter; the summer.

however, plants do Physical Removal
Hand pulling, grubbing, or hoeing may be used to control
not have rhizomes. small populations of sulfur cinquefoil. These methods can
cause significant disturbance and sites should be seeded
Each plant has one to with desirable species to reduce reinvasion by sulfur
cinquefoil germinating from seed. The caudex (basal stem
several erect stems structure) must be removed to effectively control the plant.
Follow-up treatment will be needed if plants have produced
Figure 1. Sulfur cinquefoil distribution in about 1 to 2 feet in seed.

the United States and Canada. (USDA height. Leaves have 5 Mechanical Methods
Plants Database and EDDMapS) Mowing prior to bloom will reduce flowering and seed
to 7 leaflets arranged production but will not reduce plant populations. Sulfur
cinquefoil is not usually a problem in cultivated cropland;
in a palmate pattern however, tillage will control sulfur cinquefoil on cropland.
Follow-up management using herbicides may be needed to
(Figure 2) and are basal until the plant sends up flowering control re-generating plants. Mowing and tillage equipment
must be cleaned of soil that may contain seed or plant root
stalks in spring. Numerous leaves are attached along the crowns to prevent spread to non-infested sites.

length of the stem with fewer leaves near the base. Stems Prescribed Burning
Prescribed fire alone will not control sulfur cinquefoil
and leafstalks are covered with hairs that are ¼ inch in and may increase cinquefoil populations unless control

length and project outward at right angles (Figure 3). 

Flowering begins in late May (Figure 4) and may continue
throughout the summer if growing conditions are favorable.
Sulfur cinquefoil reproduces only by seed with a single plant
capable of producing up to 1,650 seeds per year. 

SPREAD AND IMPACTS
Sulfur cinquefoil is adapted to a wide range of
environmental conditions. The plant is found in grasslands,
shrub and open forest habitat types, and disturbed areas.
Seeds are likely spread by humans, vehicles, and animals
including wildlife and domestic livestock. Movement
of contaminated equipment for agricultural purposes,
construction, and fire suppression activities hasten seed
spread. Seeds that fall directly from the parent plant

Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4.
Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
cinquefoil cinquefoil cinquefoil
leaves are stems and has pale
compound leafstalks yellow
with 5 to are covered flowers with
7 leaflets with hairs five petals.
arranged in that are ¼
a palmate inch in length
pattern. and project
outward at
right angles.

24 MWCA Article courtesy of TechLine News, Celestine Duncan

REFERENCES
Dow AgroSciences Internal Data. Accessed
September, 2016.

Dwire KA, KG Parks, ML McInnis, BJ Naylor.
2006. Seed production and dispersal of sulfur
cinquefoil in northeast Oregon. Rangeland
Ecology and Management. 59: 63-72.

EDDMapS. 2016. Early Detection & Distribution
Mapping System. The University of Georgia
- Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem
Health. Available online at http://www.eddmaps.
org/; last accessed December 21, 2016.

Lesica P and B Martin. 2003. Effects of
prescribed fire and season of burn on
recruitment of the invasive exotic plant,
Potentilla recta, in a semiarid grassland.
Restoration Ecology. 11: 516-523.

Mitch LW. Intriguing world of weeds: Cinquefoils
(Potentilla spp.) - five finger weeds. 1995. Weed
Technology. 9: 857-861.

Naylor BJ, BA Endress, CG Parks. 2005.
Multi-scale detection of sulfur cinquefoil using
aerial photography. Rangeland Ecology and
Management. 58: 447-451.

Figure 5. Percent sulfur cinquefoil control with various herbicides and combinations the season of Perkins DL, CG Parks, KA Dwire, BA Endress,
treatment and one year after treatment. (DAA=Days After Application)* *Milestone and 2,4-D data are KL Johnson. 2006. Age structure and age-
summarized across six field trials in the US and Canada; only one study included Escort related performance of sulfur cinquefoil
(Potentilla recta). Weed Science, 54: 87-93.

Rice PM 1999. Sulfur cinquefoil In: Sheley RL
and JK Petroff (eds.). Biology and Management
of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State
Press. Pages 350-361.

measures such as herbicide treatments are applied post- Rice PM. INVADERS Database System (http://invader.dbs.umt.edu).
burn. Field studies in Montana indicate spring and fall Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT
prescribed fires did not change sulfur cinquefoil population 59812-4824. Accessed September 12, 2016.

densities five years post-burn compared to infestations that Story JM. Sulfur cinquefoil. In: Coombs EM, JK Clark, GL Piper, AF
were not burned. Fires on infested sites that do not have Cofrancesco, Jr. (eds). Biological control of invasive plants in the
United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. p. 450

competitive plants may increase the invasiveness of sulfur Werner PA and JD Soule. 1976. The biology of Canadian weeds. 18.
cinquefoil. Potentilla recta L. P. norvegica L., and P. argentea L. Canadian J. of
Plant Sci. 56:591-603.

Livestock Grazing United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Res. Conservation
Most livestock avoid grazing sulfur cinquefoil due to the Service. 2007. Invasive Species Technical Note No. MT-17.

high tannin content. Confining sheep or goats on an USDA, NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 21
infestation may reduce seed production. Proper grazing December 2016). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-
management is essential to maintain the health and 4901 USA.
competitiveness of desirable pasture and rangeland plant
_____________________

communities. This will help slow invasion and increase ®Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) or an affiliated
effectiveness of other control treatments. company of Dow.

Biological Control Milestone is not registered for sale or use in all states. Contact your state
There are no biological control agents currently available for pesticide regulatory agency to determine if a product is registered for
management of sulfur cinquefoil. The probability of agents sale or use in your state. Label precautions apply to forage treated with
becoming available in the near future is not likely because Milestone and to manure from animals that have consumed treated forage
of the many native and agricultural plants that are close within the last three days. Consult the label for full details. Always read
taxonomic relatives. A rust fungus (Phragmidium ivesiae) and follow label directions.
Active ingredients for herbicide products mentioned in this article:
Milestone (aminopyralid); Escort (metsulfuron methyl).

infects sulfur cinquefoil in the northern Rocky Mountain

region; however, its effectiveness is limited.

Revegetation
Long-term effective management of sulfur cinquefoil
is unlikely in areas where desirable plant species are
absent, such as disturbed areas or those dominated
by annual grasses. Restoring desirable plant species
and communities that resist weed invasion should be
considered an integral component of the management
program. Recommendations for desirable species
adapted to a specific area can be obtained from state
universities, cooperative extension service, Natural
Resource Conservation Service, and private conservation
organizations such as Pheasants Forever.

Article courtesy of TechLine News, Celestine Duncan MWCA 25

Opinion

Invasion Biology: Specific Problems and Trends
Possible Solutions Global analyses and recent
syntheses confirm what the
Franck Courchamp,1,* Alice Fournier,1 Céline Bellard,2 scientific community has claimed
Cleo Bertelsmeier,3 Elsa Bonnaud,1 Jonathan M. Jeschke,4,5,6 for decades: biological invasions
and James C. Russell1,7 cause major impacts and are a
major cause of biodiversity loss
Biological invasions have been unambiguously shown to be one of the major global worldwide.
causes of biodiversity loss. Despite the magnitude of this threat and recent scientific
advances, this field remains a regular target of criticism – from outright deniers of Despite increasing evidence,
the threat to scientists questioning the utility of the discipline. This unique situation, the importance of biological
combining internal strife and an unaware society, greatly hinders the progress of invasions is not generally
invasion biology. It is crucial to identify the specificities of this discipline that lead acknowledged by the public, is
to such difficulties. We outline here 24 specificities and problems of this discipline not fully accepted by decision
and categorize them into four groups: understanding, alerting, supporting, and makers, and has even recently
implementing the issues associated with invasive alien species, and we offer been increasingly disputed by
solutions to tackle these problems and push the field forward. some scientists.

Invasion Biology in Turmoil The mismatch between the
Despite some recent strife [1], invasion biology is generally regarded as an important urgency to deal with a major
and useful scientific endeavor at the crossroads of ecology and conservation biology environmental issue and the little
[2]. It has a strong management component because it is just like conservation concern it receives from several
biology – both a field of research and a field of action. Support from society is key components of society
therefore essential for this discipline – from the policy makers that decide the focus of needs to be recognized and the
research programs to the citizens that can help to implement management actions. underlying reasons identified
However, there is a marked tendency to negate the benefits and even the necessity and addressed.
of invasion biology, with increasingly frequent articles in newspapers and popular
science books, as well as scientific opinion articles. Many reasons for this mismatch
are not shared with other
More generally, it appears that, other than a few countries such as New Zealand global change aspects and are
and Australia, citizens and organizations of the world very seldom feel concerned specific to invasion biology;
with – or are even simply aware of – the impacts caused by invasive alien species in particular, these include
(e.g.,[4,5]). This is especially true for the ecological impacts of biological invasions, difficulties in raising awareness
which generally go disregarded by most. The sympathetic respondents are generally and understanding as well as
few, and can sometimes be overcome by an active, hostile minority who may weaken in obtaining support for the
or even jeopardize the efforts of both scientists and managers. Understanding this implementation of con-servation
lack of support is therefore crucial given that other major causes of biodiversity programs.
loss such as habitat loss, overexploitation, or pollution do not suffer from the same
societal resistance. It is only once we have made explicit which difficulties are faced 1Ecologie Systématique Evolution,Univ.
by invasion biology that we can propose adequate solutions (Figure 1). Paris-Sud, CNRS, AgroParisTech,
Université Paris-Saclay, 91400 Orsay,
Specific Difficulties Related to Invasion Biology France 2Department of Genetics,
We identify here 24 specific difficulties and problems of invasion biology that we, Evolution, and Environment, Centre for
as scientists, need to act upon. We classify these problems into four distinct types Biodiversity and Environment Research,
of difficulties: understanding, alerting, supporting, and Darwin Building, University College
implementing issues stemming from invasion biology. London (UCL), Gower Street, London
WC1E 6BT, UK
Understanding
The concept of invasive alien species (IAS) is generally
poorly understood by society. First and foremost, this is
because invasion biology resides in ecology, a science with
complexity as its essence [6]. Understanding the concept
of IAS and the problems generated in invaded ecosystems
requires a general understanding of ecology and evolution,
and in particular of interspecific relationships, population
dynamics, co-evolutionary processes, and so forth. Those
without an ecological background often hold the candid

26 MWCA

view that species can simply be added into ecosystems vary according to the scientific field concerned – ecology,
without consequences. Conversely, the harms related to economics, philosophy, law, ethics, sociology, management,
removing species, such as cutting large areas of forest etc. – and the actors and objectives targeted [18] (Figure
or destroying fish stocks, are more straightforward to 2). In addition, the status of ‘invasive’ is dynamic in space
understand. and time (Box 1). For all the aforementioned reasons, the
scientific messages themselves may be multiple, even
Another difficulty is that the outlines of the key notions of contradictory, and therefore unclear. Thus, standard and
biological invasions are ambiguously delineated [6]. For clear definitions would make understanding on invasive
example, some authors wish to include native species into species more efficient.
the concept of invasion (e.g., [7,8], but see also [9,10]). The
concept of an invasive species is also shifting because of Moreover, the complexity of the processes in action
climate change: species naturally colonizing new adjacent in biological invasions often prevents specialists from
areas because of the geographic expansion of their suitable issuing scenarios with simple, quantitative alternatives
climatic niche are considered invasive by some, but not by and uncertainty measures [6]. Because invasions depend
others [11]. The necessity to invoke a human cause in the on the combination of dynamic interspecific relationships,
process of invasion is also a point of discussion [12]. The abiotic effects, and anthropogenic influences, it is extremely
understanding of biological invasions by the general public complicated to obtain reliable predictions of spread and
would benefit from greater rigor and consistency within the impacts. Contrary to the effects of other global threats on
scientific community [13,14]. biodiversity, such as climate change (e.g., [19]), global
scenarios for biological invasions are seldom proposed by
Although some definitions (e.g., [15]) and unified experts because of the aforementioned complexities of the
frameworks [16,17] have been proposed, terminology systems. This lack of scenarios hinders political credibility
issues persist. The terms alien, allochthonous, and public acceptance, and maintains the lack of a sound
domesticated, exotic, foreign, introduced, invasive, basis for decision makers to work from.
naturalized, non-indigenous, non-native, or pest can all be
found in the literature, sometimes used interchangeably continued on page 28
but also sometimes with different meanings. Definitions

Figure 1. Difficulties and Proposed Solutions for Advancing Invasion Biology, According to the Four MWCA 27
Categories of Issues Identified. The alternation of text colors in the boxes is purely for ease of reading.

INVASION BIOLOGY continued from damaging IAS [21]. Defining an ecological impact is
different and even more complex [17,22,23]. The metric
Because of a lack of consensus within the scientific of the impact, the threshold above which a process is
community and the inherent complexity of biological considered problematic, the amplitude and duration of such
invasions, the public is much less aware of this global threat effects, and the markers of consequences all need to be
than of most other drivers of biodiversity loss. However, defined, measured, and distinguished from the background
increasing understanding about IAS alone is not sufficient. noise of normal ecological variation. A recent study showed
The public also needs to be alerted and convinced (not that environmental impacts were demonstrated for only
necessarily by scientists) that IAS need close attention. 30% of alien bird species, while data are lacking for the
remaining species [24].
Alerting
The main difficulty in alerting the public to the need to pay Two dimensions make it difficult to demonstrate the
closer attention to IAS lies in the ongoing challenge to significant impact of IAS: time and spatial scales [25].
demonstrate the impact of IAS. Although some scientists Several decades generally separate introduction from
would prefer impacts not to be part of the definition of IAS invasion [26,27], the changes are usually gradual, tending
[20], the ecological and socioeconomic damage these to pass unnoticed, and the impacts are context-, region-,
species cause is often the ultimate reason for studying and and species-dependent. Second, showing that the observed
counteracting them [17]. changes are a consequence of the invasion generally
requires complex experimental approaches. This represents
Economic impacts can be relatively straightforward to a heavy burden of proof for the invasion biologist, especially
estimate but, even so, recent studies show how little is
known about the economic impacts of even the most

Box 1. What Time-Frames and Impact Thresholds Define an IAS?
There is no commonly agreed time-frame or scale of impact after introduction that define a species as invasive. Each species has its own specific
timespan before it comes into stasis with the local ecosystem, and even that is also species-and context-specific. For example, the European
honey bee Apis mellifera, introduced worldwide as a pollinator centuries ago, is now rarely presented as invasive, its negative impact on local
pollinators being generally overlooked. By contrast, the Asian Megachile sculpturalis, recently detected in Europe, is suspected to be invasive,
based on a single record of nest eviction of a native pollinator in the USA, and its potential for pollination has been ignored. To objectively
prioritize for management, it is necessary to consider both the ecological and economic impacts, as well as the time since introduction, of the
species in question. Furthermore, impacts of invasive species can take decades to occur, a scale at which awareness of change is harder. Even
if impacts are not detected since introduction, potential synergies with climate change could generate novel impacts that did not occur before,
challenging further the concept of invasive species (see main text). This further illustrates the lack of any rigorous time-frame characterization of
the key definitions. This overall paucity of clear delineation of the concepts adds further confusion to the general lack of understanding of invasion
sciences among citizens.

Figure 2. Different Types of
Stakeholders with which Invasion
Biologists interact. Their Position
regarding biological invasions
isnotn always in consensus and
can be contet specitic.

28 MWCA

for taxonomic groups that are less well studied, known, or cats can be difficult, and often inefficient actions such as
appealing to the public (Box 2). live trapping, transporting, sheltering, and neutering are
regulated [37]. The case of the grey squirrel in Italy is also
The history of invasion biology has shown that the generally a good illustration of the difficulties invasion biologists can
poor understanding of the intricacies of invaded trophic encounter because of the public empathy for IAS [38,39].
webs, communities, and ecological networks has regularly
made it impossible to accurately predict the outcome of Similarly, there are strong ethical implications of basing
invasions, or the outcome of the removal of invaders. conservation programs on killing, even if it is to protect
Unexpected indirect effects, also called surprise effects, other species. There is a general reluctance to support
have generated undesired outcomes [28–30]. Such conservation programs that are only indirectly positive,
mishaps are damaging the credibility of invasion biologists but remain directly negative for life in the short term. This
and the messages they attempt to deliver. leads to a lack of support from animal rights proponents.
It remains arduous to justify killing some individuals, even
The lack of a universal theoretical context and general if it is for the benefits of entire populations or species [40],
rules is a further impediment to raising awareness on the because animal ethics does not put species conservation
magnitude of this threat. Even the ecological traits that above individual suffering. Although lethal removal can
characterize IAS (or communities sensitive to invasion) are sometimes be the only sustainable solution [41], this
generally lacking [31–33], although there are exceptions is not readily accepted by many. For all other drivers
[34]. Historically, conservation biologists have dealt with key of biodiversity loss, the actions are directly positive: for
new invasions on a case-by-case basis, without theoretical example, planting trees, refraining from buying wildlife
methodologies or conceptual frameworks. No general rules products, or cleaning up polluted beaches. Killing species
for prevention and response actions are highlighted, which to protect the environment can be seen as too indirectly
further weakens the perception that IAS are a crucial threat. positive, at best.
Of course, actions to mitigate biological invasions are not
An additional issue that makes alerting difficult is that limited to eradicating or controlling IAS, and the general
invasive species are a multi-faceted threat. Owing to the public can be advised to act appropriately, or more often, to
tremendously high number of IAS and species that may refrain from particular activities. Asking them not to release
potentially become invasive, it is challenging to ‘put a plants or animals in locations outside their native range, for
face’ on the problem of biological invasions, which is not instance, can be viewed as a constraint to their liberty and
the case with deforestation, pollution, climate change, is therefore not implemented willingly, even if the underlying
or overexploitation. It is also arduous to view a species rationale is understood. Recommendations are also often
as problematic when the species is damaging in one counterintuitive; for example, people can consider releasing
place, but not so (or even sometimes endangered) in its animals into wild habitats as a righteous action.
native habitat. In that case, one must grasp that it is not Another source of the lack of support comes from the
the (many) species that are a potential problem, but the confusion between naturalized alien species of economic
species–environment interaction. The myriad of studies on value (e.g., cultivated plants) and harmful invasive species.
IAS generally focus on one or a few species, diluting the The messages that invasion biologists strive to put
recognition of each. As a result, communication on IAS is forward is that management actions are limited to species
often local, and related to specific cases, either of which that have important negative impacts on ecosystems or
misses most of the global audience, or addresses them with socioeconomies, and are not directed at species that have
foreign issues generally irrelevant to the global audience. It no or positive impacts [2].
presents invasions as a gathering of multiple cases varying continued on page 30
in time and space rather than as a general issue, with a
global cause, upon which we can act. MWCA 29

Supporting
One major impediment to the support of studies and actions
in biological invasions is the huge sympathy capital for
many IAS. Some have been introduced because they are
beautiful (e.g., ornamental flowers, aquarium fish, exotic
pets), cute and/or domestic (e.g., cats, grey squirrels),
or useful (e.g., game, fur mammals). Strong conflicts of
interest may also arise that prevent support for IAS removal
[35]. In addition, even when people recogize the need for
invasive species management, they may not support early
eradications or preventive measures when threats are
less apparent [36]. A related argument is that, because
invasive species have been introduced by humans, it is
neither fair nor ethical to kill them, suggesting that their
eradication may be considered akin to a punishment
following a fault that was not their own. Cats are a strong
illustration of this sympathy capital: eradicating invasive

INVASION BIOLOGY continued from page 29 Implementing
When implementing actions against biological invasions,
Likewise, the recurrent reproaches that invasion biologists the first challenge is that their success is never
are xenophobic because their models of study are alien definitive: years of management can be negated by
species are as unfounded as they are unreasonable. a single biosecurity breach. Conservation programs
Refraining from using war-like vocabulary is one step face the challenge to predict IAS distributions, prevent
towards this. It is noteworthy that no one seems shocked introductions, intercept and monitor IAS, and, where
that conservationists ‘fight’ against deforestation or possible, perform eradication measures; all these steps
poaching, but ‘fighting’ against invasive species has are extremely challenging, especially in the final phases
negative connotations because it is directed against other when the remaining individuals are at low density and
living organisms. eradication seems complete. Because the success of
management actions cannot be guaranteed, most funders
While the species responsible for invasions are too and decision makers are hesitant to support invasion
numerous to assign a clear face to the problem, invasion biology programs.
biologists also lack iconic victims that need to be saved.
Climate change is personified by the polar bear, poaching More than in many other struggles for biodiversity, there
shows rhinos and elephants, deforestation is illustrated, for are legal difficulties associated with IAS. First, where does
example, by orangutans, overexploitation campaigns show the burden of responsibility lie: when an alien species is
whales, and marine pollution is associated with seabirds released into the wild, is it the responsibility of the trader
trapped in oil spills and sea turtles tangled in plastic. By
contrast, invasion biology has no global face to focus
salvation efforts on.

Box 2. Complexities in Demonstrating the Impact of IAS
Proving and measuring the impact of IAS on invaded ecosystems is extremely difficult. A typical example is the introduction of rats on
islands [59]. Rats have been unambiguously observed to prey upon eggs, chicks, and adult birds. Even so, these repeated observations
are insufficient to prove that they have an impact at the population level and endanger entire bird populations. Although well documented
and recognized by the scientific community, demonstrating and quantifying to what extent they affect local communities requires population
dynamics studies, which are intensive. This is one example of an IAS that is undoubtedly known to have a consistent impact on the
invaded ecosystems, but scientists must still collect evidence to support their warnings and management recommendations.
An additional difficulty in alerting the public about the threat that IAS represent arises from the fact that a majority of IAS are unknown or
unfamiliar to most people. For example, many invasive invertebrates and microorganisms can have dramatic impacts. Not only are these
taxa less studied by researchers but also, if impacts are ultimately proven, the results are deemed harder to communicate to the public
as compared to research on charismatic mammals, birds, and plants. For some invasions, such as earthworms in deglaciated parts of
North America where the impacts on soil communities are wide-ranging both in scale and in type, there is very little public awareness, and
therefore interest is not stimulated. These examples illustrate two types of obstacle that make it complicated to voice concerns about the
threat that IAS represent.

Figure 3. Deficit and Dialogue Models of Science Communication.

30 MWCA

(e.g., pet store), of the user (e.g., pet owners), or of the have no economic incentive to do so. Many other types of
releaser (often unknown)? Most countries such as in examples exist, from the human cost of herbicide use to
Europe still use black lists (species proved to be invasive remove alien plants to interests from different stakeholders
are intercepted; this approach is also used by the new EU in horticulture, forestry, or sport-fishing industries [48-51].
regulation on IAS [42] to regulate the entry of [82] alien
species, while from an ecological perspective it would be As illustrated here, invasion biology is characterized by a
advisable to use white lists (only species known to have a wicked combination of multiple difficulties, many of which
very low invasion potential are to be allowed in). Moreover, are idiosyncratic to this discipline. Consequently, we need
species are considered to be non-native only if they come to clearly delineate them and find specific solutions to
from distinct political borders, not geographical ones. This address them (Figure 1).
is obviously problematic in the case of overseas territories:
in France, any invasive species can legally be imported Towards Possible Solutions
from French Guyana or New Caledonia, even when they Scientific Progress
cause important damage there. Although increasing Although invasion biology has grown enormously in the
numbers of countries have adopted legislation to address past decades, a new level must now be reached to face
the issues of IAS [43,44], very few are adequate, even the current challenges of this field both from within and
fewer are satisfyingly implemented, and none are enforced outside. As suggested above, improving the theoretical
across geopolitical frontiers. For instance, it is only corpus and developing new predictive tools, both at
illegal to farm invasive American mink in some European the level of ecosystem trajectories and at larger scales
countries; other European countries continue to breed (scenarios for global invasions in the coming decades),
them, and the fur industry constitutes an important and would benefit the discipline not only regarding the issue
continuous source of invasive American mink in Europe of understanding but also well beyond, into alerting
[45]. Moreover, legislation for and the implementation and supporting. Qualitative progress in deciphering the
of conservation programs across geopolitical frontiers processes of invasions, the traits leading to invasiveness
are complicated because restrictions on goods flow and or invasibility, and the dynamics of introduced species
quarantine measures tend to clash with the economic can now benefit from the latest quantitative developments
goals of global free trade. A review on social conflicts of modern data science and advanced statistics. Better
in invasive species management found that they arose incorporation of economics and social sciences into
based largely on differences in value systems and on risk ecological studies, especially regarding impacts, is also
perceptions of stakeholders and decision makers [46], now crucial. Lastly, in parallel to better defining and
something that now needs to be taken into account in quantifying ecological impacts, scientists should focus on
management strategies. further advancing solution-based approaches that also
imply a more integrated collaboration with political and
Finally, the ‘tragedy of the commons’ [47] applies social scientists.
maliciously to biological invasions because short-term
individual or economic interests may be greater than the Standardization
common good; but, unlike climate change for example, the Another important category of solutions common to many
loss is rarely shared by all. Some can benefit from actions of the specific difficulties mentioned above will come
that will lead to biological invasions, while not directly from standardization efforts. Consensual definitions have
suffering from the resulting damage (losses to biodiversity recently been proposed [15,16]. Although it is unrealistic
are often economic externalities and damage can be to propose that everyone uses exactly the same set of
localized). Typical examples are the substantial economic definitions, we recommend that people are explicit and
costs caused by invasive insects transported accidentally clear about the definitions they use[9]. For instance, one
by international trade. These introductions could be should be clear whether the term IAS is only used to refer
avoided, but only at a high cost for the importers, who to species that cause negative impacts. Efforts should be

continued on page 32

For all your weed control needs!
Dale Strouf * 538-2115 *366-1497

I have over 25 years of experience in the weed control industry.

MWCA 31

INVASION BIOLOGY continued from page 31 will attract the attention of people other than scientists,
who may then become more receptive to the growing
made to improve general conceptual frameworks and tools ecological problems and perhaps shift the stance and
to characterize and measure the progress and impacts the relationships of some stakeholders with our discipline
of IAS [17]. These must then be adopted by the scientific (Figure 3).
community [6] to better understand, measure, and predict
the outcomes of invasions, to be more persuasive, To close, there is an imperative need and considerable
and to obtain more solid support. The management potential to advance invasion biology, standardize its
of IAS, including the different levels of involvement of methods, and improve its communication strategy. We
various stakeholders, also needs to benefit from more believe that it is only by acknowledging the idiosyncrasies
standardized processes so as to optimize outcomes of our scientific field, and by adapting our actions and
[50]. Standardization should also be aimed at legislation messages to these peculiarities, compared to other drivers
[52]. Although some progress has been achieved [42], of biodiversity loss, that we will acquire the necessary
inadequacies or lack of enforcement have been reported support to advance this discipline.
for many legislative frameworks (e.g., [52-54]). Across
borders, laws and economic incentives to compel Acknowledgments.
importers to prevent the flow of species may help to resist We thank Christoph Kueffer for helpful discussions and Marcel Rejmánek for useful
the ‘tragedy of the commons’ scenario. suggestions. This work was carried out in the context of the BiodivERsA European
Research Area (ERA)-Net grant. Agence Nationale de la Recharche/ANR) and BNP
Communication Paribas grant InvaCost and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaff (DFG) grands JE
Many issues related to the acceptance and support of 288/8-1, JE 288/9-1.
invasion biology by society arise from inappropriate
communication, possibly because scientists rely on an Box 3. Shifting Our Science Communication Paradigm
out-dated model. Scientific communication must be Part of the lack of broader support from society is because some
transformed in its form and content. First, by taking full of the main principles of invasion biology diverge from personal
advantage of modern tools of communication [55] and interests, and even sometimes with the core values of individuals.
citizen science. Second, by adapting our messages and
our communication model [56,57] to our various audiences Invasion biology is indeed a clear example where scientific
[55], including stakeholders with various perceptions [36] understanding can conflict with central beliefs of members of the
or opposing interests [49,50,58]. It is time to move from a public, creating a tension between scientists and society. In such
one-way, top-down model where science aims to deliver cases, scientists, who frequently attribute public disagreement to
knowledge and truth, to an authentic dialogue with the ignorance or mis-understanding, must realize that more genuine
public, permitting mutual understanding and resolution for interactions between experts and citizens depend upon a shift of
both parties (Box 3). Third, scientific concepts related to science communication and upon recognition of different values
biological invasions need to be translated into simple and and motivations. We now need to shift from the one-way model
intelligible messages for the general public. It is urgent based on the belief that more knowledge is needed to convince the
to clarify the ecological notions necessary to understand public, to a new communication paradigm that accepts that public
why IAS are a threat to biodiversity, and perhaps to focus resistance may not be due to lack of information alone.
on fewer threatened iconic species rather than on multiple
IAS. This way, biological invasions might be identified This shift should help to alleviate the effects of the recent
as a global threat and general phenomenon against multiplication of both the transmitters and the receivers of the
which action can be taken, rather than a patchwork of scientific message [57]. On the one hand, science communicators
locally specific and distinct issues that are impossible are no longer limited to a small group of prestigious experts; the
to rally support against. Scientific findings and existing already complex scientific message broadens, multiplies, and
global scenarios should be converted into explicit and sometimes becomes contradictory, thus losing focus and impact. In
useful guidelines for decision makers and managers, and parallel, the citizen sphere receiving this information is divided into
disseminated more widely. Our communication strategy many interest groups, including specialists, hobbyists, lobbyists,
must recognize and incorporate differences in knowledge, funding institutions, policy makers, and politicians, all having
values, perspectives, and motivations [56]. Both the different dialogues on the issues.
process of biological invasions and the identity of invasive
species should be made clearer to the public, as should The ‘deficit model’ of science communication (Figure I) stipulates
be the species potentially affected by them (e.g., find an that an increase in the transfer of information from experts to the
‘iconic victim’). The vocabulary employed should neither be public will convince the latter about the accuracy and reliability of
war-like nor centered on killing, nor be authoritarian, if we the discipline [56]. In this model it is assumed that knowledge is the
aim to obtain support from society for developing research, only factor guiding how individuals reach judgments, even though
legislation, management, and prevention programs. social identity, ideology, and trust often have stronger impacts [55].
It is purely one-way communication: experts decide and determine
Finally, increased awareness of IAS impacts may come the best strategy to adopt, and then communicate their solutions to
through highlighting the economic costs of IAS. This policy makers. This model is now considered to be inefficient and
outdated.
32 MWCA
By contrast, the ‘dialogue model’ or ‘public engagement model’
(Figure I) is based on a genuine interchange with the public that
recognizes and incorporates differences in knowledge, values,
perspectives, and interests. It is a two- or multi-way discussion
with public stakeholders on benefits, drawbacks, and costs, based
on deliberative public engagement techniques. Invasion biologists
must be trained in these techniques to become better able to
engage with the public.

Supplemental Information. conservation. Conserv. Biol. 30, 670–672
42. Genovesi, P. et al. (2015) EU adopts innovative legislation on invasive species: a step towards a
Supplemental information associated with this article can be found in the online version, at global response to biological invasions? Biol. Invasions 17, 1307–1311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.11.001. 43. Leadley, P.W. et al. (2013) Progress Towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: An Assessment
of Biodiversity Trends, Policy Scenarios and Key Actions, Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 (GBO-4)
References Technical Report, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
1. Richardson, D.M. and Ricciardi, A. (2013) Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field guide. 44. McGeoch, M.A. et al. (2012) Uncertainty in invasive alien species listing. Ecol. Appl. 22, 959–971
Divers. Distrib. 19, 1461–1467 45. Zalewski, A. et al. (2010) Multiple introductions determine the genetic structure of an invasive
2. Simberloff, D. et al. (2013) Impacts of biological invasions: what's what and the way forward. Trends species population: American mink Neovison vison in Poland. Biol. Conserv. 143, 1355–1363
Ecol. Evol. 28, 58–66 46. Estévez, R.A. et al. (2015) Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid
3. Russell, J.C. and Blackburn, T.C. (2017) The rise of invasive species denialism. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, social conflicts in invasive species management. Conserv. Biol. 29, 19–30
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.012 47. Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248
4. TNS Political and Social Network (2013) Flash Eurobarometer 379: Attitudes Towards Biodiversity, 48. Van Wilgen, B.W. and Richardson, D.M. (2012) Three centuries of managing introduced conifers
European Commission in South Africa: Benefits, impacts, changing perceptions and conflict resolution. J. Environ. Manage.
5. Andreu, J. et al. (2009) An assessment of stakeholder perceptions and management of noxious alien 106, 56–68
plants in Spain. Environ. Man- age. 43, 1244–1255 49. Ellender, B.R. et al. (2014) Managing conflicts arising from fisheries enhancements based on non-
6. Heger, T. et al. (2013) Conceptual frameworks and methods for advancing invasion ecology. Ambio 42, native fishes in southern Africa. J. Fish Biol. 85, 1890–1906
527–540 50. Novoa, A. et al. (2016) Resolving a prickly situation: involving stakeholders in invasive cactus
7. Valéry, L. et al. (2013) Another call for the end of invasion biology. Oikos 122, 1143–1146 management in South Africa. Environ. Manage. 57, 1–11
8. Valéry, L. et al. (2009) Invasive species can also be native. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 585 51. Norgaard, K.M. (2007) The politics of invasive weed management: gender, race, and risk
9. Wilson, J.R.U. et al. (2009) Biogeographic concepts define inva- sion biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, perception in rural California. Rural Sociol. 72, 450–477
586-586 52. García-de-Lomas, J. and Vilà, M. (2015) Lists of harmful alien organisms: are the national
10. Blondel, J. et al. (2013) The end of invasion biology: intellectual debate does not equate to regulations adapted to the global world? Biol. Invasions 17, 3081–3091
nonsensical science. Biol. Invasions 16, 977–979 53. Morgan, E.H. and Richardson, C.A. (2012) Capricious bioinva- sions versus uncoordinated
11.Webber, B.L. and Scott, J.K. (2012) Rapid global change: impli- cations for defining natives and aliens. management strategies: how the most unlikely invaders can prosper under the current UK legislation
Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 305–311 framework. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22, 87–103
12.Hoffmann, B.D. and Courchamp, F. (2016) Biological invasions and natural colonisations: are they that 54. Smith, A.L. et al. (2014) Are legislative frameworks in Canada and Ontario up to the task of
different? NeoBiota 29, 1–14 addressing invasive alien species? Biol. Invasions 16, 1325–1344
13. Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. and Galil, B.S. (2004) A uniform terminol- ogy on bioinvasions: a chimera or an 55. Groffman, P.M. et al. (2010) Restarting the conversation: chal- lenges at the interface between
operative tool? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 49, 688–694 ecology and society. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 284–291
14. Colautti, R.I. and Richardson, D.M. (2008) Subjectivity and flexibility in invasion terminology: Too much 56. Nisbet, M.C. and Scheufele, D.A. (2009) What's next for science communication? Promising
of a good thing? Biol. Invasions 11, 1225–1229 directions and lingering distractions. Am. J. Bot. 96, 1767–1778
15. Richardson, D.M.D. et al. (2011) A compendium of essential concepts and terminology in invasion 57. Classen, M. (2005) Communicating European Research, Springer
ecology. In Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The Legacy of Charles Elton Blackwell (Richard- son, D.M., 58. Liu, S. et al. (2011) Incorporating uncertainty and social values in managing invasive alien species:
ed.), pp. 409–420, Blackwell a deliberative multi-criteria eval- uation approach. Biol. Invasions 13, 2323–2337
16. Blackburn, T.M. et al. (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 59. Towns, D.R. et al. (2006) Have the harmful effects of introduced rats on islands been exaggerated?
26, 333–339 Biol. Invasions 8, 863–891
17. Blackburn, T.M. et al. (2014) A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their
environmental impacts. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001850 MWCA 33
18. Humair, F. et al. (2014) Understanding misunderstandings in inva- sion science: why experts
don’t agree on common concepts and risk assessments. NeoBiota 20, 1–30
19. Pereira, H.M. et al. (2010) Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330,
1496–1501
20. Rejmánek, M. et al. (2002) Biological invasions: politics and the discontinuity of ecological
terminology. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 83, 131–133
21. Bradshaw, C.J.A. et al. (2016) Massive yet grossly underestimated global costs of invasive
insects. Nat. Commun. 7, 12986
22. Jeschke, J.M. et al. (2014) Defining the impact of non-native species. Conserv. Biol. 28,
1188–1194
23. Parker, I.M. et al. (1999) Impact: toward a framework for under- standing the ecological
effects of invaders. Biol. Invasions 1, 3–19
24. Evans, T. et al. (2016) Application of the environmental impact classification for alien taxa
(EICAT) to a global assessment of alien bird impacts. Divers. Distrib. 22, 919–931
25. Thomaz, S.M. et al. (2012) Using space-for-time substitution and time sequence approaches
in invasion ecology. Freshw. Biol. 57, 2401–2410
26. Kowarik, I. (1995) Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of
alien species. In Plant Invasions: General Aspects and Special Problems (Pysěk, P. et al., eds),
pp. 15–38, SPB Academic
27. Essl, F. et al. (2011) Socioeconomic legacy yields an invasion debt.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 203–207
28. Caut, S. et al. (2009) Avoiding surprise effects on Surprise Island: alien species control in a
multitrophic level perspective. Biol. Inva- sions 11, 1689–1703
29. Roemer, G.W. et al. (2002) Golden eagles, feral pigs, and insular carnivores: how exotic
species turn native predators into prey. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 791–796
30. Zavaleta, E.S. et al. (2001) Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 454–459
31. Hayes, K.R. and Barry, S.C. (2008) Are there any consistent predictors of invasion success?
Biol. Invasions 10, 483–506
32. Kolar, C.S. and Lodge, D.M. (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 16, 199–204
33. van Kleunen, M. et al. (2010) Are invaders different?. A conceptual framework of comparative
approaches for assessing determi- nants of invasiveness. Ecol. Lett. 13, 947–958
34. Hamilton, M.A. et al. (2005) Life-history correlates of plant invasive- ness at regional and
continental scales. Ecol. Lett. 8, 1066–1074
35. Dickie, I.A. et al. (2014) Conflicting values: ecosystem services and invasive tree
management. Biol. Invasions 16, 705–719
36. Verbrugge, L.N.H. et al. (2013) Exploring public perception of non- native species from a
visions of nature perspective. Environ. Man- age. 52, 1562–1573
37. Nogales, M. et al. (2013) Feral cats and biodiversity conservation.Bioscience 63, 804–810
38. Bertolino, S. and Genovesi, P. (2003) Spread and attempted eradication of the grey squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy, and consequences for the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in Eurasia.
Biol. Conserv. 109, 351–358
39. Bertolino, S. et al. (2013) A grey future for Europe: Sciurus car- olinensis is replacing native
red squirrels in Italy. Biol. Invasions 16, 53–62
40. Jones, H.P. et al. (2016) Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial
conservation gains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 4033–4038
41. Russell, J.C. et al. (2016) Importance of lethal control of invasive predators for island





April 5, 2017

To: All Interested Parties

From: Director Ben Thomas

Re: Montana Department of Agriculture Advisory Councils

The Montana Department of Agriculture administers advisory councils that are appointed by the
Department Director to provide advice to the Department concerning administration of Noxious Weed
Programs. The Department is currently recruiting for open positions on the Noxious Weed Management
Advisory Council.

Members of the Council provide guidance to the Noxious Weed Trust Fund grant program, which assists
counties, local communities, tribes, researchers and educators in efforts to combat noxious weed problems
in Montana. Council members dedicate many hours to reviewing Noxious Weed Trust Fund grant
applications and attending the five-day grant hearings held annually in March. Following the hearings,
funding recommendations are made by the Council and presented to the Director for approval. The
Council also meets for one day in January and June of each year.

The following council terms expire June 30, 2017:

 Agriculture Crop Production
 Herbicide Dealer or Applicator
 Biological Research and Control Interests
 Western County Representative
 Livestock Production

If you are interested in service on the Noxious Weed Management Advisory Council, or would like to
nominate a Montanan to serve on the Council, please submit a letter of interest to [email protected] or
Montana Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 200201, Helena, MT 59620. In your letter please indicate
the council position you are interested in filling, and describe the qualifications and expertise that you or
your nominee will bring to the Council. If you are making a nomination, please be sure that your nomiee
is interested in serving on the Council. Nominations may be made by members of the group that will be
represented and should be submitted by May 19, 2017. For additional information please contact Dave
Burch at [email protected] or 444-3140.

36 MWCA

Montana Noxious Weed
Management Advisory
Council Meeting

February 27 – March 2, 2017

Review of minutes: approved with changes

Budget Review: $1,608,735.00 estimated
funds available for 2017 grant hearings

Application Updates/ WebGrants
Hearing Review: Clarification on one
grant being listed new then a returning

grant, also pesticide rates and total

amounts were changed on a few grants.

NWTF Statute and Administration Amber Burch, MWCA president and Jill Allen, vice president take break at the MWCA booth during the
Rule Review: It was moved to approve MNWMAC Meeting.
the addition of the use of EDDMaps into
Administrative Rules as a requirement for
grant applications or that the applicant
supplies their data to be added to
EDDMaps. It was approved unanimously

It was ask if the evaluation criteria had been updated to match the council evaluation form that is now in use. It has been
updated

Also was discussed whether a granted had ever been submitted for a weed that wasn’t a high priority in a county that the
grant was located in. It was decided not that it was known of and the Grantee needs to explain why it’s a high priority to
that project.

Legislative update

Other Business: Council considered moving the deadline for grant submittal to January 6th and it passed unanimously
also discussion on Grant hearing being moved mid-March.

Dave noted that five council members are up for re-appointment and ask that they send letter to him as to whether they
would like to re-apply for anotherMontanaWeedTime.ai 1 3/13/2013 9:36:37 AM term.

100% Active, Non-Ionic Surfactant, Defoamer Testimony started on 74
grants.
LIBERATE® may be used in a variety of non-crop sites
including Industrial (storage areas, plant sites, and Deliberation on funding
other similar areas including governmental and or not funded started on
private lands), Grasslands (including pastures, Thursday morning the
rangeland and fence rows), Rights-of-ways roadsides council recommended
and Aquatic use. funding at some level on
70 grant and no funding
C on 4.

M

Y • Contains Leci-Tech® chemistry
CM • Drift Reduction
MY More product to the target plant

CY

CMY • Droplet Retention
K More product stays on the leaf surface

• Penetration
Quicker more complete product performance

• Neutral pH
Versatility allows use with many different chemistries

Always read and follow label directions. MWCA 37

FOR MORE PRODUCT INFORMATION CALL (406) 855-6292

© 2013, Loveland Products, Inc. Leci-Tech & Liberate are registered trademarks of Loveland Products, Inc.

The Robbins Report

By Kaaren Robbins, MWCA Program Assistant

Organizations that are succeeding in the digital world are questioning key management
assumptions. MWCA continues to add digital assets, in particular, member benefits—
to increase awareness, simplify accessibility and to enhance engagement. Is your
organization harnessing the power of digital technology?

To embrace digital opportunities, organizations need to question assumptions about what
is valuable about their strategic assets. For MWCA, let’s look at one area of strategic
assets - member benefits.

In a world where digital technology is radically shifting the management landscape, one of the biggest challenges for
associations is rethinking what benefits of their organization will continue to be valuable and what positive changes will
digital technology unfold.

Some organizations are “digital masters”—they “see digital not as a technology challenge but as a transformation
opportunity.” This mindset does not always come easy for many. But it’s critical for moving forward. “Many assumptions
about what is possible and impossible, based on experience with last century’s technologies, are no longer valid in the
digital world,” Digital technology is breaking barriers and freeing communications, both incoming and outgoing.

Let’s look at MWCA member benefits from a digital management perspective–

MWCA continually questions assumptions about what is valuable about member benefits.
MWCA does not assume that the member benefits that brought it success in the physical (print) world will continue to
be valuable in the digital environment. Digital offers many opportunities to touch members and potential members with
valuable information such as emails, our website, Facebook posts, and YouTube videos. We continue to move more to
the digital realm for enhanced member services.

MWCA continues to leverage our member benefit and association assets.
MWCA has many opportunities to help its members engage in digital capabilities such as event listings with online
registration; online directory of county weed districts and tribal areas, state/federal agencies and member businesses;
resources library of ‘how to’ articles and videos, research papers and informational guides. A question you may ask your
own organization, “Could we accomplish positive change with digital technology?”

MWCA continues to use our assets to establish and grow a digital advantage.
By leveraging existing data and providing new digital tools, MWCA has the opportunity to pull its membership into the
digital landscape and hopefully, help members to bring digital management tools to their own organizations.

For some organizations, what’s really called for is creative modification of business models. “Transitioning to the new
digital world does not necessarily require you to completely discard the old in favor of the new, but examining your
strategic assets through
a digital lens can help
you identify which FOUNDING MEMBER
assets will keep their
value, which ones won’t
and which ones you
may be able to use in
new ways.”

How are you moving AgroSciences
beyond your current
mindsets to find Trent Brusseau
opportunities that digital
technology can enable? Sales Representative
At MWCA we continue 208.318.8877
to push outward and [email protected]
forward—I hope you
evaluate your digital
technology to manage
positive change and
grow your organization’s
strategic assets.

38 MWCA

WEED TIMES MWCA BASIC
RATE CARD BUSINESS MEMBERS

The Weed Times is the official membership publication of the Support our Business Members at every opportunity.
Montana Weed Control Association. Weed Times readers are Share their information at every opportunity.
county weed coordinators, state and federal agency weed
managers, producers, rural and urban residents, professionals, 406 Weed Control
business owners, outfitters and guides, students, researchers, Manhattan, MT | Mark Nichols 406-640-2232
scientists, visitors and young people. Our members are the people
who care about protecting Montana’s environment against the 5D Weed and Seed Services
impacts of invasive noxious weeds. Stevensville, MT | Edward Duggan 406-369-3140

Ag West Distributing
Great Falls, MT | Rick Kueffler 406-453-0010

ADVERTISING RATES & SPECIFICATIONS: All American Weed Service, LLC
Full page $300 7 1/2 x 10 inches Bozeman, MT | Glenn Colcloug 406-570-2133
Half page $175 7 1/2 x 4 3/4 inches
Quarter page $105 3 1/2 x 4 3/4 inches Basic Biological Services, LLC
Dillon, MT | Linda Walent, John Whittingham 406-683-4198
DEADLINES:
ISSUE SPACE RESERVATION MATERIALS DUE CHS Mountain West Co-op
Spring February 15 March 15 Kalispell, MT | Linda Andersen | Burr Anders 406-755-7427
Summer May 15 June 15
Fall Aug 15 Sept 15 Gateway Land & Cattle
Winter Nov 15 Dec 15 Gateway Gallatin, MT | Frederick King 406-763-4327

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Golden Triangle Property Services, LLC
• Must be able to open files from Windows PC platform. Conrad, MT | Joel Farkell 406-581-6243
• The ad must be submitted in the actual size of the space.
• All ads must have a resolution of at least 300 dpi. JHS, Inc. Helena, MT | John Semple 406-443-7487
• We can accept zipped files via e-mail or zip drive.
• Our publication is black and white. All ads should be Northern Rockies Invasive Plant Council
grayscale. We will not guarantee the reproduction quality of Moscow, ID | Marijka Haverhals 208-301-1216
ads submitted in color.
• All fonts must be embedded. Pugsley Cattle, Inc.
• No bleed or crop marks. Chester, MT | Kent Matkin 406-456-3314
• Ads must be submitted as press-quality PDF, High
resolution tiff, JPG or PNG.

OBLIGATIONS & TERMS: Road & Range Spraying, LLC
• Charges for ads requiring alterations will be billed at $55 per Lima, MT | Pete Brown 406-276-3333
hour.
• We reserve the right to refuse or edit any advertisement Rocky Mountain Super Vac, Inc.
for any reason we deem necessary. The advertiser will be Kalispell, MT | Jim Weddle 406-257-4639
responsible for any loss or expense to the MWCA arising
out of publication of such advertisement including those Southwest Weed Control, LLC
resulting from claims for libel, violation of rights or privacy, Alder, MT | Klint Todd 406-842-7222
plagiarism and copy ad trademark infringement.
• All accounts must be paid within 30 days. TERRANOVA
• Cancellation must be received at the MWCA office before Dillon, MT | Jon Ashcraft 406-596-3475
the artwork due date.
• Ad costs are subject to change at any time. Turner Ranch Properties
• All advertisers must be members of the MWCA. Helena, MT | Jeffrey Tart 406-276-3662

CONTACT: Warne Chemical & Equipment
MONTANA WEED CONTROL ASSOCIATION Rapid City, SD | Timm Johannesen 800-658-5457
Becky Kington, Executive Director
Phone: 406-684-5590 West River Land Management, LLC
E-mail: [email protected] Helena, MT | Nigel Davis 406-431-5085

MWCA 39

Non Profit Org
US Postage
PAID

Bozeman, MT
Permit #106

P.O. Box 315
Twin Bridges, MT 59754

Do we have your current email? If not,
you can send it ti us an email becky@
mtweed.org or [email protected] or
give us call 406-684-5590 or 406-425-
3852.
Don’t miss out on member info-get
connected with MWCA.

GOT YOUR MONTANA WEED CONTROL ASSOCIATION PLATE?

This specialty license plate is available at your county license bureau. Well, not this one H8WEDZ.
Thanks Jack Eddie for sharing your new plate. Get yours today!

MWCA SPECIALTY LICENSE PLATE - HELP FIGHT NOXIOUS WEEDS.

For more information visit our website www.mtweed.org.
Thanks for your support!

Keep Watch. Take Action. Make Change.