Study: Tanks coexisting well with endangered species(Military Bases Good!)

Stars and Stripes ^ | 11/28/05 | Terry Boyd

[GreenFreeper]

BAUMHOLDER, Germany – If you want to increase biodiversity and protect endangered species, bring in tanks and soldiers.

Not to shoot hunters and poachers, but simply to maneuver and train.

That’s the finding of a new environmental study done for U.S. Army Installation Management Agency—Europe (IMA-E) by researchers at the Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands (CEMML) at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colo.

Those researchers reached a surprising conclusion — certain threatened and endangered species fare far better in the huge Grafenwöhr and Hohenfels military training areas in Bavaria, where thousands of troops train, firing tanks and other heavy weapons, than in nearby German national parks and nature preserves.

Simply put, tanks and roving soldiers disturbing the land keep grasslands at training areas from growing up into forests, which have limited biodiversity, said Steve Warren, CEMML associate director and the lead researcher for the project.

Grasslands are the most endangered biotope, or environmental category, in Germany, according to Warren. Grasslands, swamps and wetlands are home to the most diverse groups of organisms, including endangered plants and animals. And nowhere in Germany has more grasslands than the U.S. training areas, he said.

Fire, soldiers bivouacking, vehicles driving around and munitions landing all help ensure a “mosaic” of different terrains, most importantly grasslands not found on public lands. American training areas contain every biotope from severely disturbed land to pristine forests “and everything in between,” Warren said.

That training areas are rich in endangered species seems counterintuitive, but the findings have been borne out over the years by his and others’ research, Warren said.

German hunters interviewed by Stars and Stripes said that the Baumholder training area, for example, has species of wild goats and other game long extinct in the rest of Germany. Part of the reason is that training areas remain unpaved and undeveloped compared to cities and suburbs. The Army limits actual maneuvers to only 6 percent of the 90-square-mile Grafenwöhr training area, officials told Stars and Stripes last July.

“That’s only half the story,” Warren said.

Studies of former Soviet training areas converted to national parks showed endangered species “disappearing left and right,” Warren said. “Most people say, ‘Impossible!’ and the first impulse is to put fence around [reclaimed areas]. But that would eliminate disturbance, and many species are dependent on some form of disturbance.

“I wouldn’t have believed it 20 years ago when I started.”

Warren and Reiner Buettner of the Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology in Hemhofen, Germany, chose eight species they suspected were disturbance dependent, then designed studies for each one of them. Their study showed rare animals including the Natterjack and yellow-bellied toads, blue-winged grasshopper, as well as plants such as shepherd’s cress, mudwort and the fringed gentian, were present in far higher numbers on the training areas than in national parks and preserves.

The goal of the study was to obtain scientifically solid data showing this biodiversity on military training lands exists because of the training operations, and not in spite of them, said Kim Walz, IMA-E chief of public affairs.

The U.S. military uses three large training areas. Grafenwöhr and Hohenfels are U.S. Army training sites, while the German army operates most of Baumholder. The Army and German federal forestry officials manage natural resources jointly on U.S. controlled training areas.

This was the first study of its kind, though there may be follow-ups, Walz said.

The findings mesh with studies by other conservation groups. Almost 350 endangered and threatened species live on military bases across the United States, far more than on land managed by the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, according to documents from Karen Foerstel, communications manager for The Nature Conservancy. The nonprofit organization based in Arlington, Va., uses contributions to buy and preserve land.

Military bases are frequently located on intact, undeveloped land, according to Conservancy studies. As more habitat is lost to development, training areas often become the last natural habitat for endangered species.

The Army in Europe just happens to have some of the best habitats in the world, Warren said.

Though IMA-E paid for his study, Warren said, the Army had no influence on the outcome, nor did Army officials want him to prove training areas promote biodiversity.

“They wouldn’t get very far if they told me that,” he said, laughing. “I’d say, ‘No thank you, keep your money.’

“We find the answers to the questions even if truth hurts.”

[GreenFreeper]

The blue-winged grasshopper is one of the many endangered species that thrive in U.S. military training areas in Germany.

Without the disturbance of troops and equipment, training areas in Germany would revert to forests, which are not as biologically diverse as most people think, researchers found.

Research indicates the yellow-bellied toad, an endangered species, is found in far larger numbers at U.S. training areas in Bavaria than at nearby federal parks and preserves.

The Military has really ramped up efforts aimed at preservation. The DOD is one of the few agencies actually hiring additional biologists and ecologists!

[GreenFreeper]

ECO-PING

FReepmail me to be added or removed to the ECO-PING list!

[Gefreiter]

GF,
Had a couple run-ins with boars at Hohenfels and at Graf. I once saw a whole tank platoon with support vehicles waiting to cross an intersection, while wheeled traffic lined up both ways on the hardball, to wait for a boar sow and a line of...boarlets?...to cross the road.

Anyone else remember boars at the CMTC, Graf, or Wildchicken?

[manwiththehands]

Stories like this must drive the anti-military environmentalists NUTS!

[GreenFreeper]

Stories like this must drive the anti-military environmentalists NUTS!

The main reason I posted the article. Nature isn't always best served behind glass and undisturbed.

[Talking_Mouse]

They disregard them as "propaganda".

[GreyFriar]

I remember the boars at Graf, but my closest contact came within the fenced in perimeter at the Miesaw Army Ammunition Depot near Ramstein. I got out of the jeep in the middle of the night (May, 1976) to pay rent on the coffee I'd been drinking and heard a noise and hopped back into the jeep. Here came 3 sows and about 30 baby boars followed by papa who was bigger than any champion boar I'd ever seen at the 4-H fair.

[Termite_Commander]

That's certainly an interesting relationship. Good post.

[proud_yank]

No use letting 'facts' get in the way of your socialist cause, right??!

[proud_yank]

“Most people say, ‘Impossible!’ and the first impulse is to put fence around [reclaimed areas]. But that would eliminate disturbance, and many species are dependent on some form of disturbance.

So is elk hunting going to be allowed in Rocky Mtn National Park anytime soon? LOL!

Seriously though. The only thing that would make me nervous about a study like this, is how much leverage does it give to the anti-military types to close a base down? For example, look at how hard it is to build or do anything near an eagle's nest in a tree? Get a team of GreenPeace or SierraClub lawyers to tie something like this up in court. Could be bad, regardless of whether or not military training and disturbances actually 'help' a species. Things like facts never stopped their cause.

[GreenFreeper]

The only thing that would make me nervous about a study like this, is how much leverage does it give to the anti-military types to close a base down?

It is a very interesting topic. Having helped out with some research on a few military bases, I always found it interesting how there was never any controversy on how the land was used but you can't pick up a stick at a National Park without the GPs and SCs interogating you. What's surprising is that they do a lot of good research on military bases even regarding endangered species. Not sure how slippery the slope is but it seems that they aren't too concerned.

[proud_yank]

Peoples' stances on land use, especially when it comes to National Parks, is always pretty interesting.

What is the positive effect that 'disturbance' would have on an ecosystem, compared to an area that is 'off-limits' to disturbances? Is it a selective process type of phenomenon? The thought of a military base holding far more endangered species than a park is good food for thought!

[GreenFreeper]

What is the positive effect that 'disturbance' would have on an ecosystem, compared to an area that is 'off-limits' to disturbances?

Well here is where data can be very misleading. Some species like disturbances, some are sensitive to them. Its important to keep in mind that nothing is good for everything. My opinion is that natural areas should be subject to various gradients of any variable (fire,disturbance, etc.) and should be managed in a variety of ways. There isn't much universality in ecosystem management.

Military bases seem to be refuges for many species because they often represent habitats at different stages of succession and have different disturbance regimes. For example, many species do not do well in closed-canopy forests nor open prairies. The usually require some kind of intermediate habitat (oak savanna around here). In order to maintain oak savannas you need periodic disturbances (usually fire) to keep the area from becoming too forested. So it is somewhat selective in that many of these species able to out-compete others under the right conditions. The military's periodic disturbances have in effect resisted the succession to a 'climax' community, whereas many other federal lands have been managed improperly and become over-forested.

[proud_yank]

Interesting. Thanks for the info!

[zot]

Thanks for the ping. Very interesting. This is certainly not what the anti-military greenies want to hear!