Competing vegetation is an obstacle in this unit. Only 14.5 of 476 plots would regenerate without some treatment. 87% of the plots were affected by competing factors and would require some treatment to ensure regeneration in the event of a disturbance, even with low deer numbers

ORIGINAL: retired guy

     No Doc- not saying that at all--- Here in Ct, by the way, Mountain Laurel is our State flower. Therefore protected and very abundant.
  The Deer thrive in it and the Oaks and Beech tower over it dropping huge amounts of nuts. Rule #1 if you got Laurel- you got deer.
  There are folks out there who say those Snakeheads are bout the best tasting fish around and they dont mind seeing them at all. ---Different strokes.
  The quick fixes that folks have tried with 'invasivs" in the past  have resulted in more invasivs- like those Aisian grass eating carp they stocked all over the freakin place to control pond weeds and the lousy 'cats' they stocked  all over the place to eradicate Porkies.
   Now the Carp eradicate nesting areas of baitfish leading to No fish at all -cept Carp- and those darn Cats eat all the rabbits and nesting birds instead and wont look at a Porky till everything else is gone.
And how bout the bugs they brought in to control other bugs that now kill evergreens.
   My point is that the CURE has often been worse than the initial infection and I'm gettin tired of it.  STOP-- and learn to live with what we are stuck with.....might not be a pretty sight but PLEASE dont try to fix it anymore.
  It aint EVER gonna be what it was before the Pilgrims got here and IMHO on the average thats OK - but STOP cherry picking "invasives" to 'eradicate' cause I dont believe they have EVER managed to do so without making matters worse. NOT just PA but all over.
  Where would we be if somebody back when decided to get rid of 'invasives' like horses, cows, pigs, chickens, brown trout and pheasants..Each and every one of which cut in on something that was here originally.
  Its all in how you look at it.

That all happened because we had way too many deer for way too long. Now if we are ever going to once again have even moderate deer numbers in some of those areas we have to do something to eliminate the invasive species and hopefully give the native species a chance to get reestablished.

DISCUSSION
The results of these two studies have documented some significant regeneration challenges that exist across
Pennsylvania's forested landscape. The advance regeneration study focused on stands where stocking levels would
suggest that advance regeneration should be abundant. The most optimistic measure of advance regeneration
adequacy was satisfied at only 40% of the sample locations. Fern and grass competition was significant at 54% of the
sample locations. The impact of deer was not measured directly in the study, but Pennsylvania's deer herd has been a
significant factor affecting understory conditions (Tilghman 1989). Other factors include soil and site characteristics,
drought, stresses from diseases and insects, and other herbivores. The study of regeneration following heavy
disturbance of mixed-oak stands found that regeneration was abundant, but species composition had changed due to
poor regeneration of oak. The oak regeneration component was found to be inadequate in all but 16% of the sample
locations. These findings are similar to those of Allen and Bowersox (1990).
It is interesting to compare the results of these two studies of regeneration adequacy even though they were conducted
independently. The basic message of the advance tree-seedling study was that very few stands in Pennsylvania
contained enough advance regeneration to adequately regenerate following harvest. The study of mixed-oak stands
found that most stands had regenerated, but the composition tended to contain a new suite of species. The new stands
typically contained light-seeded intolerant species such as black cherry and sweet birch. Black cherry and sweet ****
are not preferred food sources for deer. The other prevalent species was red maple, which is very common
throughout Pennsylvania and is a prolific producer of wind disseminated seed. Although not observed as part of this
study, these invader species were likely not part of the advance seedling component of the sampled stands. This
suggests that we need to know more about how well advance regeneration stocking guides predict future stand-level
stocking and how forest composition changes as stands evolve over time.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

Background
Multiflora rose was introduced to the eastern United States in 1866 as rootstock for ornamental roses. Beginning in the 1930s, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service promoted it for use in erosion control and as “living fences” to confine livestock. State conservation departments recommended multiflora rose as cover for wildlife. More recently, it has been planted in highway median strips to serve as crash barriers and reduce automobile headlight glare. Its tenacious growth habit was eventually recognized as a problem on pastures and unplowed lands, where it disrupted cattle grazing, and, more recently, as a pest of natural ecosystems. It is designated a noxious weed in several states, including Iowa, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

This plant was introduced to PA by the PA dept of agriculture, who, in their infinite "wisdom" thought it would be a great way of controlling erosion on stream banks.

This plant, however, is spread rapidly by birds, and when it moves into an area, it will choke out native shrubs, perennials and any other plants it can push out. I've even seen a large clump of these climbing roses kill a TREE!! The only plants I've seen that can successfully compete with this menace (without killing natives) are bamboo (which, due to it rapid and tall shoot growth can actually penetrate a mass of this bush and ultimately shade it out), and our native trumpet vines (which are just about as good at climbing, rapid growth and spreading by suckers as this foreign invader is).

Thanks Doc, always thought it was one of the PGC's blunders.

That is some real nasty stuff to deal with...

While the PGC wasn't responsible for introducing the stuff to the U.S. they sure did plant a lot of it

so I guess it proves the wildlife experts

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

From Penn State ==

Insects. Most insect pests associated with multiflora rose
cause only minor injury to the plant. Three insects do have
the potential to reduce multiflora rose populations in the
Northeast, however. They are the tortricid hip borer, which
consumes parts of the flower; the rose seed chalcid, which
destroys the seeds; and the raspberry cane borer, which kills
the stems. The larvae in each case are responsible for the
injury. In most circumstances, however, these three insects
are not present in sufficient quantity to eliminate a multiflora
rose infestation.

I have also read that goats and some sheep love the stuff.. maybe the PGC should stock wild goats and sheep on the SGLs... in a few years that could have goat and sheep seasons and sell tickets for a lottery type drawing for tags to harvest them ????

Do you have to make everything you post about the PGC ???

quote:

While the PGC wasn't responsible for introducing the stuff to the U.S. they sure did plant a lot of it