"I like to believe that each person can decide for themselves whether or not a plant in a given situation is threatened to a point that it would be more beneficial to move it than to leave it where it stands, whether it is in a park or on a roadside or any public property. " A roadside is not punblic property. I think it would be of interest that in many cases when only a single individual of a plant species exists that plant is left as undisturbed as possible and is propegated instead of moved, because even then moving the plant is not more beneficial (indeed, probably worse) to leavin it. Those singular individual plants in question are not, however ignored. By looking at that example, NO plant is 'threatened to a point that it would be more beneficial to move it than to leave it where it stands' unless imminent destruction in the near future is likely due to human activites. Therefore in almost any surcumstances leaving the plants is definatly the better option, but some site care such as checking and removing all weeds in the vicinity of the plants is vastly better than moving them. Also, if you cant do that site maitence (for example, not on your land)your probably not supposed to be moving plants from there anyway. Unless you have premission of course, preferably permission to maintain the site. A roadside planting is most likely secure, and with the wildflowers and garlic mustard, perirodic weeding in the imidiate vicinity of the plant population may be all that is required for the long-term presistance of that population. It is interesting to note that in certain curcumstances (for example, native wild plants transplanted to a neatly kept garden) the population of transplanted plants are unlikely to survive in the long-term because they may not reproduce. While the individual transplanted plants may survive, the establishment and long-term presistance of a self-supporting population in in doubt, altough it can and does happen, it might just as easily not because of many subtle variables affecting the growing site means establishment of said transplanted plants might be in unlikely. Without long-term presistance of a self-supporting population, it, in my mind atleast, not a resce in the sence that these plants have been removed from a population that probably needs all the individuals it it can get, and presistance in the wild is far more important, ecologicly speaking, than presistance in cultivation. Note: the terms Establishment and self-supporting population does not just mean that the species sometimes reseeds itself, altough that is a important factor in the process. In the case of this garlic mustard weeding within the viicinity of the plants on a regular basis would probably ensure theri survival in the short term, altough their long-term survival may be in doubt because, lets face it, you wont be there forever to weed. WHat might work is if you suceed in reducing garlic mustards population density in the area.

OK, I think I get it froggy. I haven't read 'Miracle Under the Oaks' yet but i kind of get your drift. I think I see signs of it in our back field that is only bushhogged once a year. The last picture from my original post was taken in that field. There I see butterflyweed and partridge pea and mountain mint and other possible original remnants of what was once there. I know that the "Cedar Glades" and the "Big Barrens" are part of this area where I live and there are all sorts of prairie remnants in clearings between forested areas. Knowing the history has sparked my interest in restoring some of these areas in my small way. So let me ask you, how would you manage the area I'm asking about, the sinkhole area that has been so abused and disturbed. It is not forested, though it may have been at one time, and it was probably never plowed, given the steepness of the hillsides and the fact that a sinkhole lies at the bottom of those hillsides. Historically sinkholes were left alone, or used as dumps. Our underground streams cause many sinkholes to just give way, and as farmers here know now as they did then, they can swallow up livestock. In fact there was a newspaper article last year about a horse that had to be rescued from someone's field when a sinkhole just opened up one day and the unlucky horse ended up at the bottom of it! So I'm thinking that there may in fact be native grasses and forbs that like our calcareous soils and are associated with sinkhole areas. I think Mammoth Cave has some info on that but I have not checked it out. I've also never been there, caves kind of creep me out! Anyway, do you think our method of cutting and burning will help? One or the other? What about using Roundup in the early spring to get rid of the blackberry and poke? I did read an article about using Roundup early enough in the season to kill the cool season grasses yet not disturb the warm season grasses. I think timing was crucial in their findings. Their emphasis was on pastures but some info is still relevant. If you'd like, check out the link below. Here is a link that might be useful: converting pastures to tall grass prairies

I think cardboard and or newspaper, then peastraw, then bark mulch like pine it naturally suppresses weeds, also this mainly suppresses the old weeds, some will naturally pop up in the mulch as it breaks down from any seeds or new running weeds from lawns or fence lines etc. I'm creating a brand new cutting flower bed in our orchard, trying to spray the woody weeds (different ones here in our country) and then a general spray possibly a few times a few weeks apart, then layering cardboard on the stubborn areas, thick newspaper on the others, then using some cut up branches from tree pruning, then peastraw, then compost, then rinsed off fresh kelp seaweed from our local beach, then bark mulch, leave it to break down over our mostly wet winter here. Then come spring after the last frost I'll begin planting out seedling started in trays. I'll have to maintain the weeding as we get a lot of wind, may try spot treatment dab on weed killers but see how we go. Because of our compacted clay soil the lasagne gardening style seems to work well. One think I found was running weeds tried to creep into the mulch so wil try to cut out large gutters and weed spray these. Then mostly I just dig blood and bone into the planting holes. Using leaf mulch around plant bases can work too. Lots of different methods I think it can depend on what you need. I found the weed suppressant mat wasn't permeable enough for water, in a heavy rain the mulch washed off areas since the water wasn't absorbed fast enough into the soil, and then weeds actually grew on top of it anyway from seed so a waste of money in my opinion. Try libraries for newspaper, and maybe a big white ware or electronics store for cardboard.

I agree with what you say. For species with only one known population to be grown in other locations to protect them from fire and other threats is highly desirable. However, the species specific focus of this is problematic, what we need to preserve is the interactions that allowed that species to evolve and exist in the first place, and furthermore to allow for its continued evolution. We can't continue on this planet thinking that we are exclusive of the rules of nature, that by somehow merely ensuring that a species still exists somewhere - anywhere - that we are acting responsibly and with good care...I call it the Noah's Ark mentality, or the museum approach to conservation. Do we simply value it as an icon of something past, a remnant of someplace no longer in existence? And what of all of the species that were dependant on that one, did we collect there seed, spores, DNA etc when we collected the seed of our one rare specimen? Is there room in the museum or the arc for all those little bugs, insects and micororganisms, that are just as unique but just didn't grab the imagination of the one species that has such power to determine their fate. Yes, if something happens to the Wollemi Pine we could reintroduce it to its wild habitat, but what of all the other rare and endangered plants and animals and organisms, what threatens them today will still be a threat tomorrow if we don't have a massive rethink on the values and virtues of wild places, because one of the things that threatens them more than wildfire is the ever encroaching spread of 'humanity', and it really doesnt matter to the thousands of organisms that are being displaced in the process whether the gardens those humans create are tropical, mediteranean or native. regards, mudlark