Summary: Removal is the dominant strategy advocated and implemented by management authorities when confronted by willows, the majority of which are Weeds of National Significance. There is much discussion and debate over possible effects of willow removal on stream ecosystems. In this paper I present research that demonstrates that a cleared reach has significantly worse ecosystem benefits than either a willow lined or mature native vegetation lined stream. The only benefit of removing willows, other than where vegetation of any type would be removed for infrastructure protection, is that native trees and shrubs are easily planted. This does not compensate for the potential negative consequences of clearing. In the streams we have studied, clearing will mobilise sediment, nutrients and organic matter, will make heterotrophic streams more autotrophic, will threaten habitat values for invertebrates and fish and will threaten pool-riffle sequences. There is a better way to manage willows; succession. Existing stands can be retained and native vegetation (or whichever species mix is preferred) can be planted alongside and under the willows. The shade intolerant willows will be out-competed over time. This strategy can be immediately implemented, as current funding and vegetation establishment techniques are suitable. The fact that a stream ecologist and a farmer (Peter Andrews, Natural Sequence Farming) have independently arrived at the same conclusion in relation to willows is noteworthy. A good understanding of the ecological values associated with retention of materials, energy and nutrients in streams would compliment hydrological studies in Natural Sequence Farming systems and help shift public policy and perceptions away from simplistic approaches to weeds. [Peter Hazell and Duane Norris (2006). Proceedings of the first Natural Sequence Farming Workshop, Natural Sequence Farming- Defining the Science and the Practice, held at Bungendore, NSW, Australia on the 31st October and 1st November 2006, SRCMA.]
