[BlueChip]

The Sound School Inter District Marine Education Program Newsletter
IMEP #18 - Part II
Habitat Information for Fishers, and Fishery Area Managers
Understanding Science through History

Invasive Phragmites Habitat War 1981 to the Present
The Early Soil Erosion Control Practices May Have Included Phragmites
Capstone Research Questions
Did A Soil Conservation Friend Turns Foe Along the Coast?
A Suggested Habitat History for Invasive Coastal Phragmites
EPA – DEEP Long Island Sound Study – Habitat Working Group
October 30, 2013
Tim Visel, HWG Member

This was once part of a single report made available to the EPA – DEEP Habitat Working Group and now listed as part II of a larger report. It is the viewpoint of Tim Visel and not the Long Island Sound Study, no consensus has been reached regarding the concept of detailing habitat histories.1 [This habitat history for the Introduction of Invasive Plant Species from China does not reflect the view or opinion of the EPA-DEEP Long Island Sound Study. This paper presents the viewpoint of Tim Visel, Habitat Working Group Member not the Long Island Sound Study – no consensus has been reached regarding the habitat history of Phragmites in Connecticut.]

It is thought that Phragmites was introduced accidentally into coastal areas it may be part of an attempt at first to raise hemp substitutes in Kentucky at the Agricultural Experiment Station. On page 302 Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture 1913 (GPO 1914) is found this section*. [Yearbook of the United States, Dept of Agriculture 1913 – 541 pages, Washington, DC GPO 1914.]

- Kentucky –

“Nearly all the hemp now grown in Kentucky is of Chinese origin. Small packets of seed are received from American missionaries in China. These seeds are carefully cultivated for two or three generations in order to secure a sufficient quantity for field cultivation…. {and problems of contamination mentioned} on page 303 “new supplies of seed are brought from China to review the stock owing to the confusion of names the seed received is not always of a desirable kind, and sometimes juke, China Juke, or ramie seeds are obtained.”

Many plants were introduced here by The Department of Agriculture for commercial investigations. It is now thought from some Soil Stabilization Bureau and the Bureau of Land Reclamation reports that some imported plants were evaluated for soil holding abilities. One of which a Chinese reed we know as Phragmites around 1913. This experiment and program was detailed in an article titled, “Economic Waste from Soil Erosion” by R. O. E. Davis, Scientist in laboratory investigations. Bureau of Soils pg 207 Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture in 1913 and indicates performance trials were well underway for plants and soil control ability. “Seed of this strain down at the experiment station a Lexington Kentucky in 1910 and 1911 produced plants more uniform. A small supply of this seed grown by the Department of Agriculture at Washington D. C. in 1912 was distributed to Kentucky hemp – seed growers in 1913.” Pg 304.

Within a few years (1918) Phragmites apparently “escaped” from the Kentucky Agriculture Experiment Station as the station started issuing bulletins on how to control it. In addition USDA was introducing kaoliang from Manchuria – a type of sorghum and described one type that was used for fodder, fuel, leaves for mats, the stalks for brooms, baskets, mats – light bridges, fences, hedges, house building materials, kite frames, and many more – even the roots and peat cut out from underneath them and burned fuel (pg 223) and compared to the uses in Europe at the turn of this century for Phragmites and the uses in the 1912 report are remarkably the same. A field picture of “selected” Manchuria kaoliang looks remarkably to that of Phragmites. Often USDA mentioned that seeds not “desired” came in also lacking any import controls and on occasion smuggled into the US. Phragmites had been mentioned in several reports and hemp a critical war material was in short supply. Although Phragmites apparently failed its “hemp” replacement test but certainly soon left an impression to those in which exhibited on its soil holding capacity, or to anyone who cultured and purified its seed stock.

It would have been hard to miss how well this plant species could hold loose soil. In times of dry conditions “dry“ agriculture failure already had happened 1883-1889 and programs that used plants to restore “forest soils” were already underway by 1913-1914. This was especially true following forest fires of 1910 in Idaho and Montana which on August 20 to 21, burned nearly three million acres in one day. All sorts of field trials and plant experiments were underway looking at soil erosion, low moisture crops and “cover planting.”

But I think we already got a look at some future erosion control practices in this 1913 USDA Report. At the height of the Great Heat (1880-1920)– dry and forest fire resultant erosion conditions had already alarmed USDA officials and the paper by R.O.E. Davis on page 207 of the same report as a paper titled “Economic Waste from Soil Erosion” Scientist in laboratory Investigations – Bureau of Soils and describes devastating erosion of agriculture soils – especially on cleared slopes suggesting on pg 220 “A protective wall maybe the only remedy, through often willows or other quick growing plants may afford protection against erosion.” The use of plants as a “cover” to protect exposed forest soils soon became restoration policy.

The opportunity to explore opportunistic plants with soil erosion mitigating characteristics was already well established by the 1920s and could in fact explain the selecting of Phragmites as an erosion control plant. Extensive plant cover evaluations were well underway on use open steep highway cuts – Journal of Forestry, Vol. 30, pages 328-335, 1932. When the genetic code of our Phragmites australis is reviewed I feel it will have a Mongolian or Manchurian link.

Although many journal and research articles have correctly linked the occurrence of Phragmites (invasive species) in New England, to rail line expansion or highway construction few have mentioned its use as an erosion control effort, or plant cover. The answer to that question may be found in Regional Soil Conservation Service nurseries once staffed by the CCC Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s.

According to Douglas Helms (Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (March-April 1985) CCC nurseries then produced hundreds of thousands of pounds of grass seed each year for soil erosion uses. This seed was apparently made available to farmers and civic groups.

It is difficult to imagine how Phragmites appeared immediately after Route 95 on inland grade cuts and slopes adjacent to the highway without some sort of planting. The use of Phragmites as a cover or intermediate planting does explain the vector spread of seeds spreading from bridges over tidal areas in Connecticut as Route 95 construction proceeded east (1942 to 1964).

And not all Phragmites strains are the same and early agricultural researches may have introduced Mongolian-Manchurian strains here that had developed an abbreviated “habitat clock” in other words, the Mongolian-Manchurian grasslands has quicker habitat reversals than (weather extremes) others and therefore over time had developed a strain(s) that must quickly mature, spread and develop faster here, we call that habitat aggressive in our environment. The specific functional traits of the common reed of Northern China are being reviewed (Liping Li, et al plos one – ODI 10.1371 2199 2014) now and we may have soon more information soon from these studies. The strain we currently battle, might be one of the more habitat responsive types and with a much faster “habitat clock” than our native strain.

It may be both more responsive to environmental change and inhabit a broader range of habitat conditions than native Phragmites. As overall habitat dominance in this case our native strain will lose, its habitat space (niche) will be lost to the more habitat aggressive strain. From the reports to date, that has occurred and continues to reduce native Phragmites stands.

United States Imports Various Seeds from China - 1906

The commercial value of plants drove some of the first importation – such as hemp a key war supply, the use of ropes for rigging made it worthy of national defense status. Other species were imported for food, lumber and ornamental purposes. A century before many nations had commercial export bans of native plant root stock or seeds, some with severe consequences. Reports however were circulated as to the commercial value of certain plants and that included Phragmites. Reports continued to come out of China of various plants and uses that had commercial value. Often importation of non native plants had undesired consequences such as diseases and plant pests. At first these negative aspects were seen as controllable as plant seed purified before field experiments. Few such experiments considered what might happen “beyond the fields.”

One account found in “Manchuria It’s People, Resources and Recent History” by Sir Alexander Hosie, in 1910 Manchuria China, Page 84, Volume 14 details Phragmites and the current uses about the same time it is suspected it was undergoing cultivation evaluation in Washington, D.C.

“The stems of the reed called Phragmites communis, Trining which grows, wild in many parts of Southern Manchuria. They are cut up into different finenesses, according to the quality of the mats to be manufactured. They are also woven whole into very large mats for covering the rafters of houses before the tiles are put on. The great centre for the manufactured of these reed mats is the district of Kai-ping to the south and east of the port of Newchuwang.”

Reports such as this prompted USDA officials to bring hundreds of plant species and those thought to be drought resistant as despite dry conditions, agriculture interests clamored for more cultivation of semiarid Midwestern regions.

Early Soil Scientists Urged Great Caution –Dry farming also used non-native plants. An article titled,
Dry Farming by Elwood Mead – A Great Semi-arid Strip USDA Yearbook 1905 pg 423, issued one of the first warnings of the dangers of “Dry Farming”.

“Early failure and its lessons” starts off the section of “Dry Farming.” Here is described some of the first attempts at “dry farming” and the three hundred million acres now being settled for agriculture. The demand of a growing nation clamored for acreage to be farmed. ” From all classes come the questions! What methods will make the most of these lands,” as Mead then chief of mitigation and drainage investigations gives a brief description of this “Great Semiarid Strip” and the danger associated with “a variety of causes tempting men to plow up the native sod.” With a habitat history of a mini dust bowl of 1883 to 1893 the warning of “early failure and its lessons” in Kansas and Nebraska on pages 423 to 429 - (The 1905 Yearbook of Agriculture.) largely were ignored.

“A few wet years, in which fine crops were grown, were followed by a succession of dry seasons. On millions of acres crops shriveled and died, men lost hope and energy through repeated failures, and women and children endured dreary years of poverty and hardship” and mentioned the dry wind of the plains – “The winds are like a blast from a furnace so hot and dry that they change green fields of corn into dry and ratting stalks in twenty four hours.”

These same winds would drive devastating prairie fires in 1910. Mr. Mead’s warning under public pressure largely went unheeded resulting in a larger dust bowl which created a national consensus about soil erosion. Certain plants were selected decades later for such attributes to hold loose or badly eroded soils. One plant that exhibited soil erosion control characteristics was Phragmites. People obtained seed and planted it as soil stability agents in New Jersey (Hadlee 1945).The habitat history of Phragmites and The Dust Bowl were now linked. After the 1930s the Dust Bowl and New England salt marshes would share an unusual habitat connection.*[ This event would later add to the Dust Bowl of the 1920s and 1930s as French farm fields destroyed by the conflict would cause a shortage of grains. Mid western US farmers were encouraged to plant low moisture soils with loans and equipment leases to supply needed world food demands. This would of course be devastating as habitat capacity of these low moisture soils failed when droughts came resulting in the Dust Bowl of the 1920s and 1930s. The warnings of key USDA soil scientists’ decades before largely went unheeded.]

Plant Quarantines for Diseases and Pests

During the Dust Bowl of course a natural consensus was obtained about the serious consequences of soil erosion. Many of the USDA regional agricultural experiments stations by 1915 already had begun experiments on imported plants prompting the first Interstate Plant Quarantine Conference held at Riverside, California on May 26-27, 1919. Concerns were raised by California on the introduction of plants and plant pests, 12 states attended the conference at which during the introduction and welcome give by G.H. Hecke on pg 438.

“Many states have come to realize the necessity of protecting their plant industries by preventing the introduction of plant pests which would be liable to increase within their borders the cost of crop production and we find that horticultural quarantines are coming into practical use in a great many states of the union. The costly experience of Florida with the citrus ranker and of Texas with the pink bollworm of cotton has greatly emphasized the possibilities of this type of insurance.”

The concern at the conference was not so much non native habitat parameters, such habitat successive, or terminal plantings but that such imported plants are disease and pest free. Many plants and grasses were evaluated for holding “forest soils” devastated by forest fires, but much earlier fruit, and ornamental plants had already arrived. The impacts of aggressive plants overwhelming native species was not a concern, pests and disease was the issue then.`

The opening remarks by CI Morlatt Chairman, Federal Horticultural Board of Washington DC went directly to the heart of the matter regarding the Federal Plant Quarantine Act of 1918 and that it took Congress a full decade to approve it. “In 1908 and 1909 the plant import situation became very serious on account of the sudden increase of infestation of nursery stock received from Europe and Japan by gipsy (gypsy) and brown tail moths. This was about 8 years after the original attempt to get a federal plant quarantine law. The failure up to that time to get Congress to act had rather dispelled the enthusiasm of most of the US and the passage of any satisfactory law through Congress was generally looked upon as being practically impossible.” The Federal Plant Quarantine act of 1912 was finally passed in August 1918.

On pages 440 and 441 C L. Morlatt recalls that the oriental fruit or peach moth was brought to the District of Columbia on a shipment of ornamental cherry trees as a gift of to the City of Tokyo, Japan to the City of Washington. The first shipment of mature trees was “so seriously infested with various insects that these trees were burned and a second shipment of younger trees in a fairly healthy condition were planted” and these are the trees that signals the arrival of spring in Washington DC. It is suspected that they harbored the Japanese beetle but was a gift from the Emperor.

The conference was very concerned with “flag smut” or “take all” an Australian fungus imported into the US in the summer 1917. It was imported to California as part of the war effort was ground into flour and reshipped to France*. Although Australian Plant pathologists had warned the US against shipments (several times) it was shipped and bran and milling by products fed to US livestock. “Take all” fungus soon appeared in adjacent cereal crop fields.”

The conference was dealing with a wide array of plant pest insects and diseases. Some of which were never seen before and some mention of warmth and lack of snow as a concern. The dramatic drop in fruit tree planting (pg 593) and later reports details a huge decrease in fruit production –as fruit diseases multiplied tremendously between 1910-1920, extremely hot in the mid west and New England regions. I think it reflected a choice to switch to vegetable crops as the investment in tree stock was then so high. The investment in time and culture expenses only to see such investment succumb to diseases and the appearance of “new” old world pests.” At the time diseased fruit trees were burned without compensation to growers. A vegetable crop only represents a one year investment so the decrease in fruit tree plantings was somewhat explainable without crop insurance.

It seems that Phragmites failed early commercial fiber attributes but its soil holding capacity did not. That certainly was noticeable. Cover plants used as soil control (early efforts included soil stabilization after forest fires) were well documented. Later selected plants were applied to steep grades. It was from my review in the 1980s I first suspected its use by rail causeways and later roads.

Was Phragmites Planted Along Roads?

If isolated stands of Phragmites can be attributed to incidental seed dispersal than such patches would be found along other roadways. However that does not appear to be the case. On a trip north on Route 9 built from Essex nearly all the portions of the inland Phragmites occur on road beds with elevated slopes or when slopes connect drainage functions. The Phragmites stands continue today but do not seem to be spreading – no new growth of smaller shoots appear and the only thick stands appear on slopes that have drainage areas or that lead to wet recharge areas. One explanation for the close association of non-native Phragmites to road construction was that disturbed grades did not help it spread instead it was planted in an effort to hold such elevated grades.

The usual observations of grades noted in Table #1 Visual Observations of Phragmites Stands Route 9 North to Route 91 North Springfield Massachusetts is evidence that such populations do not appear to be random, The existence of Phragmites relic populations almost always appear on new (post 1940) road bed slopes. Table contains description of 50 stands of Phragmites all planted in or near slopes adjacent to the highway. These populations do not occur along older roadways – not containing built up road bases or highways*. [The term “highway” is a term given roads that are higher – originally high road grade elevated roads that rainwater would wash away avoid the mud that accumulated on “low roads” in colonial times. As these newer roads were often on road “beds” and termed highways after “cause” way a reference to caused ways created for transportation and so “caused ways” are those that are manmade but also terms – rights of way. Pentway, Cartway, Pathway are directives of the same passage or movement.] Some reports mention direct soil erosion use of Phragmites in the New Jersey Meadow Lands by the 1940s. It was not considered a concern beyond a soil stabilization plant cover in at least one other state.

The observations instead both point to a specific time period and activity the use of aggressive successional grasses (some listed as nonnative today) for erosion control. The largest construction projects post 1935 in Connecticut that required erosion control measures were road and rail bed construction.

After World War II major road building initiatives were instituted Route 95 and 91 for example and by 1945 the Soil Conservation Service had a program of soil erosion controls that included vegetation plantings –and states to be consistent with federal regulations incorporated recommended soil erosion prevention practices into state contracts. It appears however that federal road projects would have had direct federal agency connection and that included the USDA Soil Conservation Service and agency “sign off” recommendations. Did I really believe the spokesman from Connecticut DOT in the 1980s when I was told that no erosion control plantings were used during the construction of Route 95 – no, I did not. I think at the time the context of the conversation included how this “planting” had impacted salt and brackish water marshes and wanted perhaps to deflect blame or responsibility. Regardless of the intent records and reports of soil erosion control processes utilized during the construction project should now be made public. The controversy and mystery of how Phragmites came to our state should now be quieted.

Connecticut Case Histories

Route 95 Soil Erosion Control Practices – Interview with
Mr. Joseph Vaiuso, Branford CT

In one of the most descriptive invasive accounts comes from a 1980s interview I had with Mr. Joseph Vaiuso of Vaiuso farms in Branford, CT. I had noticed dense stands of Phragmites near his farm while participating on the state DEP Open Water Marsh Management committee as Phragmites was discussed at one meeting. They were introduced to me to be patches along steep grades along Route 91 and 95. Several reasons were discussed as to the condition and habitat history of these areas including such as picking random samples for dried flower arrangements and then discarded while traveling (weak I thought at the time) as these plantings seem to appear only at steep portions, and did not spread beyond them. I did not see such patches along Route 1? I mentioned my high school experience at Beebe Marine in Madison with Mr. Beebe’s account that it was planted along Route 95 as soil erosion control measures. That it was in the mid 1950s that dense stands of “elephant grass” soon appeared in the Madison/Guilford area. No one else it seemed was familiar with the soil erosion control aspect. At one of my Cooperative Extension meetings (University of Connecticut) I was introduced to Mr. Joseph Vaiuso and a few weeks later I stopped in to speak with him (1983-84). He did support the planting concept as he also attributed it to the Route 95 erosion control, he told me that “we had none of it before the highway” and the highway had split his farm – bisecting it. I think my later conversations with DOT after the Mr. Vaiuso meeting I did say that the plant erosion control practice was having unintended consequences. Do I believe that soil holding plant species were used here just as they were down south, yes I do. I think my phone conversations to DOT at this time were perhaps alarming that attention could be directed at the agency or fault/blame for the massive negative aspect of the suggested introduction. That was not my intention.

One of the features is today those inland patches are dry – non damp or swamps habitats which is what Mr. Charlie Beebe of Madison noticed the seeds must fall into the water to become viable. These patches today along Route 95 and 91 look as though they never expanded beyond the first soil control plantings, they are still there. You can see them on a drive any day between New Haven and Hartford along Route 91. As for the Vaiuso Farm, it is on soil rich in organic matter and very often wet- the conditions that this strain of Phragmites prefers. The Phragmites growths are still visible today but largely landlocked.

The plants that grew along the water however-- it was a very different story here: seeds had access to water and part of tidal marshes at bridges for example to direct tidal movement. The plant biology is highly reactive - after floods and recently distributed or moved soils and therefore part of its interest in soil erosion resistant qualities – it likes disturbed soils along rivers and flood plains. This tendency to move into loose disturbed soils was the ideal application for road bases subject to erosion – Phragmites does that very well, the choice of the plant material was a good one, the consequences of that choice however will last for centuries.

Habitat Mitigation – Future Dredging Projects

So if Phragmites is here to stay and despite our control interventions (cutting burning chemical treatments) perhaps we should try a different approach – changing the habitat profile – itself by removing it entirely, dredging it out. A couple of experiments – closely monitored in the tidal areas, we could see if these mitigated salt ponds could hold blue crab Megalops (along with other fish and shellfish larval forms). I suspect that these created “salt ponds” will attract a variety of wildlife – even mosquito ditches when cleaned contained Atlantic ribbed mussels, fiddler crabs, killifish and silversides. All species that can support shore wading birds. We should at least give it a try – my opinion. Other aspects need to be considered as well Connecticut as other states has seen a huge influx in kayakers, small craft that need only a few inches of water for navigation. Although much as been spent in promoting land trails for joggers what a about a marine trail for boaters? It was once a part of the State General Statutes under boating. A reduced fire hazard, more fish, more birds something to think about anyway. A couple of test sites limited in scale could be foundation of some Capstone projects.

Boating - Source C.G.S. Section 22a – 92(b) (1) (H) as in 1985

a. To encourage increased recreational boating use of coastal waters, where feasible, by (i) providing additional berthing space in existing harbors, (ii) limiting nonwater dependent land uses that preclude boating support facilities, (iii) increasing state owned launching facilities, and (iv) providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas AND IN AREAS DREDGED FROM DRY LAND.



Beebe Marine, Madison, CT 1970-74 – A Personal Experience

In one of my first observations of the impact of rock salt to Phragmites occurred while I was in high school. [The application of natural rock salt (no chemical additives) has not to my knowledge an approved Phragmites control method, no consensus has been reached by the Long Island Sound Study or the Habitat Work Group regarding natural salt treatments. To my knowledge no experimental habitat trials of natural rock salt control have been established. These accounts are provided for informational/discussion use only – Tim Visel.] A part time job at a local marina Beebe Marine (Beebe Marine is located just above Route 1 Madison) on the bank of the East River. Mr. Charles Beebe owner and proprietor also operated a lobster business and as such held to a bait salting practice of the last century before refrigeration and ice. A local bait fish (menhaden) also known as bunker was a favorite lobster bait especially in winter and early spring when the local lobster bait supply was low. To prepare for such spring bait supplies wooden barrels were buried into the top border of salt marshes, the cold moist environment – not submerged allowed layers of rock salt and layers of menhaden and salt to cure over the winter without rotting into a firm hard “salt bait” a favorite to lobster fishers. In the early 1970s Phragmites invaded the area in which the bait barrels were kept, making access difficult. It is at this time I learned of its planting along Route 95 from Mr. Beebe himself as he had watched it spread into the marshes*. [Mr. Beebe’s account includes Aerial broadcasting of seed by Helicopters along new road grades during the construction of Route 95 when he questioned workers he was told not to worry it was just seeds of an Asian plant to control erosion (Phragmites?)] He said it was deliberately planted to control washouts on the new highway. Seeds he felt fell into the East River and have now spread throughout his property. The usual fish salting activity had a 100 pound bag of rock salt from a local business (Clinton Grain) and menhaden fish dry salted in these barrels alternating layers of fish and rock salt (about five bushels of fish). One afternoon in July after a great night gillnetting I prepared to salt up two metal 55 gallon drums closed (the wood barrels had disappeared from use so metal barrels were now used) each with a metal lid and section of old carpet to keep out raccoons and skunks who seemed to like bunker as much as winter and spring lobsters.

On a wheelbarrow trip the tire hit a bump and a 100 pound bag of salt spilled out and split dumping most of the salt onto the Phragmites by the bait barrels (my error). Although disappointment was a topic then, 12 months later my status improved slightly and by next spring the Phragmites by the bait barrels was almost gone and the year later it was all gone. What Rome had done to Carthage, Mr. Beebe had done to Phragmites by the bait barrels and to our amazement Spartina patterns returned below the tidal line. [Rome after repeated invasions by Carthage in the first to third centuries it is reported the only way to eliminate this periodic foe was to “salt” its agricultural fields.] “It can’t take the salt” Mr. Beebe grinned telling me as I recall although I spilled a amount of salt the spring before I had by accident rediscovered an old scorched earth practice that in Europe persisted into the middle ages the burning of enemy crops (plants) or salting fields.* One of the reasons potato farming would soar, the cultivation of the potato could survive burning above the ground. In semi dry and arid regions however salting the earth that could last for decades or perhaps centuries. It is though that the “salting” attributed that was not what one would think today as ground broadcasting of surface salt but rather small bags of salt buried at intervals became perhaps the first minefield and would much persist longer than surface crystals. That was the case with rock salt, it persisted for many months and slowly killed the Phragmites by changing its habitat quality. The accidental spill had now over time become a good event to Mr. Beebe.

Additionally, Mr. Beebe also noticed that Phragmites spread out into the marsh but not the other way upland at least not that quickly. He surmised that the seeds must be wet or soak in water for a period of time before they became viable. This observation does hold up. Even today isolated stands of Phragmites along Route 91 between Hartford and Springfield did not move much beyond suspected erosion control planted slopes of the observed patches of Phragmites in October 2013 between Essex route 9 to route 91 exit 49 (over 50) concept of water induced germination has profound long term policy decisions regarding chemical herbicide treatments. Although marsh areas impacted by Phragmites growth may at first be controlled by herbicide use – a fresh supply of germinating seed stock will soon find its way back onto the controlled sites. This raises the question of the practically of such chemical use long term. Can we really win this habitat war?

* The Kentucky Experiment Station was a leader in soil erosion practices which started in 1926 but suspended in 1942 – see 1897 Bureau College Kentucky, Dept of Forestry – soil erosion practices. Much of the efforts were to find plants that would prevent the erosion of “forest soils” after horrific forest fires – hold exposed soils in place and thus giving time for the trees to reestablish themselves. Therefore the first soil erosion plant material efforts were not in response to dry conditions (Dust Bowl) but to the erosion of soils after devastating forest fires. With the interstate highway construction program of the 1950s it is now suspected that plants (some today considered invasive) were used as soil control agents.

* During the Depression era the Soil Conservation Service promoted virulent successive plant species to control erosion: Kudzu for southern climates and Phragmites perhaps for northern areas. It is possible (although not confirmed that Phragmites cultivars and seed stock were initially made available by the US Dept of Agriculture Bureau of Soils post 1913 and the Soil Stabilization Service in the 1920s. It is suspected that the Kentucky Experiment Station was involved in this soil erosion research which was then utilized by the Soil Conservation Service by before by the Bureau of Land Reclamation. Regional nurseries of the Soil Conservation Service staff by the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) offered drought resistant and soil erosion cover plants to the public and agencies. CCC Nurseries were charged with producing sufficient seed quantities (mostly grasses) for use in soil erosion control projects in the US. Records from these regional nurseries may provide the links to seed production for Phragmites.


Capstone Areas for Investigation - How Did Phragmites Come to Connecticut?

Other Capstone research areas could include other possible vectors for inland upland dispersal,

• Contaminated wild bird seed
• Packing material from Europe (possible use in shipping containers)
• Planting to enhance duck hunting habitats or blinds (several references mention this possibility or report its use).
• Army Corps of Engineers Studies In Dredge Spoil (material) erosion control plant covers.
• Contaminated Erosion Control Seed – several reed or cane grasses were and planted for erosion control including Arundo donax (giant reed) Reed Canary grass phalais arundinacea – (Other name “ribbon grass”) mixtures of seed were often developed and could have contained Phragmites.
• Early uses may have references to its common name of Roseau cane or yellow cane.
• Use in mosquito control projects (New Jersey 1945) to stabilize banks or dry up rainwater.

Although many references mention bilge or ballast water as a potential vector – the presence of organized inland plantings in areas of highway (table 1 in appendix visual observation of Phragmites Stands) that do not seem to be spreading - linking it to direct planting for erosion control. It is suspected that these habitats today reflect non reproductive capacity (lack of water). Seed planted and made wet could live but winters may have reduced seed viability greatly reducing expansion potential. The plantings in table 1 described above appear to be highly organized, i.e. possible erosion control plantings over a half century ago.

Always welcome comments, suggestions, email me at tim.visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us

A complete Capstone Catalog of research proposals is available from The Sound School.

For information about The Sound School website, publications, and / or alumni contacts, please contact Taylor Samuels at taylor.samuels@new-haven.k12.ct.us
The Sound School is a Regional High School Agriculture Science and Technology Center enrolling students from 23 participating Connecticut communities.

Program reports are available upon request. For more information about New Haven Environmental Monitoring Initiative for IMEP reports, please contact Susan Weber, The Sound School Adult Education and Outreach Program Coordinator, at susan.weber@nhboe.net





Connecticut Magazine – reprinted with permission for the Sound School




Out, Out, Damn Phragmites




"Marshes: Disappearing Edens" [September] brought back some great and some not­ so-great memories. Like author William Burt, I grew up watching the salt marshes and witnessed phragmites battle with Spartina in several areas. The marsh and its features were often lost to this tall reed. And unfortunately, we often helped it win.
When Connecticut changed its mosquito­ control plan, it frequently let perimeter marsh ditches naturally fill with leaves and other organic matter. These perimeter ditches, when filled with salt water, had acted like a medieval "moat" to phragmites roots, which cannot take salt. When the ditches were abandoned in the mid-1980s, phragmites marched right across them. Not all marshes were the same, and some were overly ditched, but these perimeter ones provided that lethal saltwater wedge.
As for the hardiness of "our" strain of phragmites, it doesn't surprise me. I talked to many residents in coastal towns who gave similar reports to me of the aerial spraying of phragmites seed to control erosion along U.S. Route 95 (the Connecticut Turnpike) during its construction in the 1950s. Strands of phragmites appeared along the coast shortly after that. One Madison report described it as "seeds of an Asian plant that can control erosion."
Restoring tidal flow (salt) and cutting the marsh level down can kill phragmites. It takes time, but it works. The Connecticut DEP is catching on to this fact. Both it and Paul Capotosto deserve much of .the credit here.
Timothy C. Visel
Ivoryton

6 CONNECTICUT October 2005





Visual Observations of Phragmites Stands Along Highways Built Post 1945

Table #1

Route 9 North Bound From Essex, CT – October 19, 2013

Tim Visel Observations




Description Slope / Grade Details Locations
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Exit 9
2 Patches Yes Double Side Median Between
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Between
1 Large Planting Yes Double Median Before Exit 10
1 Patch Yes Slope on Roadbed Exit 10
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Exit 10 (Right)
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Between
3 Patches Yes Roadbed Exit 12
2 Patches Yes Roadbed Between
2 Patches Yes Roadbed to Grade Exit 19
3 Patches Yes Roadbeds Between
2 Very Large Plantings Yes Roadbed Exit 20
4 Patches Yes Roadbeds Both Sides Between
1 Large Planting Yes Center Median Exit 23
2 Patches Yes Roadbed Between
1 Patch Yes Slope to Wetland Between
Description Slope / Grade Details Locations
1 Patch Yes Along Roadbed Between
1 Large Planting Yes Roadbed Before Exit 24
3 Patches (Large) Yes Median and Right At Exit 24
2 Patches Yes Center Median Exit 24
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Before Exit 26
1 Patch Yes Roadbed At Exit 26
1 Patch Very Steep Slope High Roadbed Exit 27
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Exit 29-A
1 Long Planting Yes High Roadbed Exit 34
2 Patches Yes Roadbed Exit 34 Ramp
1 Patch Yes Bank and Road Exit 36
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Exit 38
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Exit 39
1 Patch Slope / Sliding Roadbed to Drainage Exit 42
1 Patch Very Steep Roadbed Exit 44
1 Large Area Long Slope Roadbed / Drainage Exit 45
1 Large Patch Yes Roadbed to Wet Area Exit 46
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Between
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Between
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Between
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Exit 47
Description Slope / Grade Details Locations
1 Patch Slope to Drain Roadbed Exit 47-S
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Exit 47
1 Patch Yes Roadbed / Drainage Exit 49
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Between
1 Patch Yes Center Median Past Exit
1 Large Patch Yes Roadbed Past Exit
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Past Exit
1 Patch Yes Roadbed Past Exit