complex of plant communities. Given this conceptual progression through Levels of 

 Integration, our task of research-summarizing is simplified because few workers have 

 studied vegetation as defined in this way. Academic "thorn-thickets" arise because 

 observers perceive vegetation differently, are equipped with different methods, and 

 proceed under different philosophies. The very nature of vegetation (and more so the 

 biocommunity), the loosely-integrated aggregations of symbiotic species and species- 

 associations, makes it a most difficult subject matter to comprehend. Perhaps 

 managers are justified in snubbing the academics of this field. It is no secret that 

 ROW brush can be well managed by simply killing single-stemmed target plants 

 (trees) while leaving unharmed the desirable multi-stemmed ones (shrubs). It is so 

 simple that one cynical vegetation scientist recommends hiring the mentally impaired 

 to do the labor. 



ROW vegetation management research is predominantly an eastern phenomenon 

 (more in the north than in the south). The leading activists are Frank Egler,' William 

 Bramble, '5 William Niering,^* and Kenneth Carvell.-^ Their work clearly distin- 

 guishes between (1) the effects of selective (stem-specific) removal, and (2) broadcast 

 spraying of entire plant communities. This latter method, once heavily favored by 

 industry for its expediency, often eliminates the desirable elements (shrubs and forbs) 

 along with undesirable elements (trees). Often too, the trees grow back or reinvade 

 faster than the low-growing populations, thereby creating a community of herbicide- 

 resistant plants (e.g., ash, gray birch, pine, aspen, and Andropogon) that require 

 cyclic respraying over the life of the line. Interestingly, our knowledge of such 

 relationships comes mainly from extensive, general, qualitative, on-and-off ROW 

 observations by these researchers; it is not supportable by the quantitative data in the 

 meager literature. Is it, then, w/7scientific? 



Sound vegetation management principles are now being applied by utility foresters 

 in many states. Their efforts are often confounded by "practical problems:*' 

 inadequate budgets, intransigent engineers, and unskilled labor. There is a variety of 

 techniques and materials available from which they must select to best fit the variable 

 site conditions of a heterogeneous ROW landscape. The benefits and costs of these 

 options in relationship to multi-goal management are only now beginning to be 

 addressed. It will be two decades, at best, before the science and art can be anything 

 near the ideals upon which we should insist. 



Avian Conflicts 



It seems that what the semi-arid western states lack in tall vegetation they make up 

 for in large birds: hawks, eagles, ravens, vultures, and waterfowl. ROW biologists 

 have responded accordingly. Enough observations on large-bird mortality associ- 

 ated with wires and electric poles have accumulated to stimulate scientific inquiry. 

 Unfortunately, we can do no more than salute these efforts, and in passing cite two 

 publications that admirably summarize the state of knowledge and the scope of 

 concern.-**'-'''^ 



CONCLUSION 



We have seen that transmission lines, so long ignored, were swept up in the ecology 

 explosion of the 1970s. Penetrating into the field were methodologies, concepts and 

 theories emanating from academia. Early in this article we recalled the effects of 

 Clementsianism on ROW vegetation management and how this now largely 

 discredited theory of relay succession was once regarded as ecological wisdom. 



'^The Journal of Wikllife Management did publish a major article^" reporting that with respect to waterfowl, 

 only 0.1 percent of non-hunting mortality ( 1930-1965) was due to collisions. Of these collisions, utility line 

 strikes were predominant. However, many new lines have been built since 1965, and productive waterfowl 

 habitat has shrunk. 



216 



