[APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough
Bob Beyfuss
rlb14 at cornell.edu
Wed Mar 5 13:29:56 CST 2008
This is an interesting topic for discussion and it seems to have awakened
many readers on this listserve. I do think that language matters in
discussions and I think that thoughtful discussions may prevent rash
actions that end up doing more harm than good.
The term ecosystem was coined in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/1930>1930 by
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Roy_Clapham>Roy Clapham, to denote the
physical and biological components of an environment considered in relation
to each other as a unit. British ecologist
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/Arthur_Tansley>Arthur Tansley later
refined the term, describing it as the interactive system established
between biocoenosis (a group of living creatures) and their biotope (the
environment in which they live).
It certainly is possible to "destroy" an ecosystem by bulldozing and paving
it over, thus removing the living components. When a Utility company blows
the top off a mountain in West Virginia to mine coal, I would say that the
Mt top ecosystem has been destroyed. If left alone, i.e. not paved over, a
new ecosystem will arise. That new ecosystem may consist mostly of exotic
plants. I don't think any ecosystem is destroyed when living organism such
as plants are introduced. I also believe that humans are integral parts of
ecosystems. The ecosystem is changed or altered when exotic plants are
introduced but ecosystems are never static to begin with and are constantly
changing. Environmental changes (man made or not) dictate that different
life forms will be favored at the expense of others.
Efforts and resources aimed at eradicating plants that alter ecosystems
detract from efforts and resources that might be focused on activities that
actually do "destroy" ecosystems. There is an important distinction here.
We can only fight so many battles at one time, the tricky part is deciding
where to fight and how much one is willing to spend on the fight.
Please see my comments below following Phillips accurately quoted
definitions of "destroy".
*1. to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or
remains...(I contend that no plant can render an ecosystem as useless.
Useless to who? to what? Many of the most hated invasive, exotic plants
such as Tatarian honeysuckle, Autumn olive, multiflora rose, etc provide
profound ecological benefits to native wildlife. The 50+ species of
wildlife that feed on these and other invasive plants would not consider it
useless at all.) As for fragmentation, we build roads into pristine
environments literally "destroying" parts of that ecosystem with blacktop,
truthfully fragmenting those ecosystems into pieces that needed to stay
connected to function as they once did and when the roadsides are colonized
by exotic plants we blame them for the ecological damage?
2. to put an end to; extinguish (since ecosystems are comprised of living
organisms integrating with the environment, unless the living things are
all killed by paving, the ecosystem can never be extinguished by invasive
plants)
3. to kill; slay (invasive plants don't kill all the existing plants, some
allelopathic invasive plants may actually kill some species of existing
plants but never will they kill the entire living components of any
ecosystem)
4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate ( see
definition # 1)
5. to defeat completely ( I do not see how an ecosystem, can be defeated as
one might defeat an opponent in a football game, i.e. we destroyed those
guys!)
6. to engage in destroying things
The value judgments implied by language that concern me are when someone
decides that a plant is good or bad based entirely on the origin of the
plant and then tries to impose those values on me!
People who are allergic to poison ivy or oak may very well hate the plant.
They have the right to eradicate it if they want on their property but
those people who are not allergic and who appreciate the value of poison
ivy as food for wildlife or its pretty fall color have a right not to have
someone else come onto their property to eradicate it.
Although seemingly unrelated, a couple of recent posts to this listserve
are really relevant to this discussion. It is highly likely that Thomas
Jefferson would be appalled to see the current efforts to eradicate
periwinkle from his estate in Monticello simply because it is exotic.
Hating anything because of its ancestry is not something I condone.
Especially when "nativeness" is so arbitrarily defined as "prior to 1750".
The plant resulting from a bird flying north from Mexico depositing a seed
in California in 1749 is "native' but if that same bird deposited the same
seed in 1750 or 1760 , what results is an "exotic" plant? The
"definitions" of "native" and "exotic" imposed by the Clinton
administration in the 1990's are so arbitrary as to render them completely
indefensible.
Language affects tactics. Our culture in America today teaches us to hate
our enemies . We engage in a war on "terror" as if terror were some sort of
specific entity. Now we are encouraged to engage in a war on
"alien, invasive exotic plants" Emotional language elicits emotional
responses. It is hard not to hate "exotic, invasive aliens that are
destroying our ecosystems". The natural response is to kill them off but we
have no idea what will follow when we have killed all the bad guys. We do
know that killing off the bad guys is expensive in terms of resources used
and does not necessarily result in the outcome we desire.
I show students a slide of a patch of the invasive, exotic, garlic mustard
growing on the edge of a forest I walk in. I ask the students what they
would do when seeing this on their property. Some say, just spray it with
herbicide to get rid of it. I then show them a slide of the same patch of
garlic mustard where I have pushed the foliage aside with a stick to reveal
the rare trilliums growing beneath it. The herbicide spray would surely
have dripped down and killed of the native perennial trillium forever since
this plant rarely reproduces by seeds but the biennial garlic mustard would
come back even more vigorously due to its huge soil seed bank. In this case
the garlic mustard is actually protecting the trillium from the ravages of
the oversized local deer population which have eaten all the other trillium
in this forest that are not protected by the weeds the deer do not eat.
This issue was also touched on by a recent post regarding the periwinkle
extermination in Monticello urging caution when eradicating anything.
At 02:55 AM 3/5/2008, Philip Thomas (www.HEAR.org) wrote:
>If we're going to talk semantics, let's be sure and get it right. See
>below* for my Webster's definitions for "destroy."
>
>Not one of the definitions states or implies anything about anything being
>"bad."
>
>However, definition 2 is certainly applicable, with respect to the native
>ecosystems (if the native ecosystem is "replaced," as you suggest).
>
>Definitions 2 and 4 also apply, if "use(fulness)" includes the sustenance
>of native species or systems.
>
>pt at hear.org
>
>
>*1. to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains...
>
>2. to put an end to; extinguish
>
>3. to kill; slay
>
>4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate
>
>5. to defeat completely
>
>6. to engage in destroying things
>
>Now
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu>
>>To: Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company <Craig at astreet.com>;
>>apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
>>Sent: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 4:22 pm
>>Subject: Re: [APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough
>>Hi Craig and all,
>>Replaced is the correct term.
>>Destroying implies a value judgment that the invasive plants are "bad" and
>>the plants that they are replacing are "good". In science there are no
>>"good" or "bad" plants as there are no "good" or "bad" ecosystems. Nature
>>lovers may not like or may not find attractive the ecosystems that occur,
>>for example, in a vacant lot in an inner city but that does not make those
>>ecosystems "bad'. There are particular ecosystems that humans want to
>>protect for many reasons and that is fine but these are human value
>>judgements. If a scientist studying any particular ecosystem did not know
>>ahead of time that it was dominated by invasive, exotic plants, it would be
>>impossible for he or she to determine if the plants present on site were
>>native or exotic based on the biology of the plants and their
>>interactions. Let me cite a real life example to make my point. A few
>>weeks ago a client called me looking for information on how to eradicate
>>invasive, Asiatic bittersweet that she had found on her property. I asked
>>her if she was certain that it was the Asiatic variety and not the native
>>bittersweet. She replied that she no idea how to distinguish them. I asked
>>her if it turned out that the bittersweet on her property were the native
>>variety, would she still want to eradicate it? Her answer was "of course
>>not". Her only criteria for wanting to eradicate the plant was the
>>supposition that it was exotic. In my mind that is not a good reason to
>>eradicate anything, especaill\y when there are no guarantees that the
>>plants eradicated will not be replaced by something even less desirable.
>>When science is reduced to name calling to provoke an emotional response,
>>it is not science.
>>Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>At 03:13 PM 3/4/2008, Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company wrote:
>>
>>>Dear All,
>>
>>
>>>I am very surpised to read the discussions on the semantics, of what to
>>
>>>call exotic plants and their impacts on local native ecosystems.
>>
>>
>>>I can only speak from the California perspective, where 99% of the
>>
>>>understory of our native ecosystems between 2 and 2,000 feet elevation,
>>
>>>have been replaced by over 1,000 species of exotic plants.
>>
>>
>>>What do you call that effect, using words that express such a complete
>>
>>>extermination of native ecosystems, within only 150 years or less?
>>
>>
>>>Ecosystem genocide? Permanent native vegetation extinction, continuing
>>
>>>through geologic time?
>>
>>
>>>Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333
>>
>>
>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>>PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
>>
>>>APWG at lists.plantconservation.org <mailto:APWG at lists.plantconservation.org>
>>
>>>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>>
>>
>>>Disclaimer
>>
>>>Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
>>
>>>opinion of the individual posting the message.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
>>APWG at lists.plantconservation.org <mailto:APWG at lists.plantconservation.org>
>>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>>
>>Disclaimer
>>Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
>>opinion of
>>the individual posting the message.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar
>><http://download.aim.com/client/aimtoolbar?NCID=aolcmp00300000002586> for
>>your browser.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
>>APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>>Disclaimer
>>Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
>>opinion of the individual posting the message.
>
>--
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Philip Thomas Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk project (HEAR)
> pt at hear.org P.O. Box 1272, Puunene, Hawaii 96784 USA
> http://www.hear.org/
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20080305/69d82718/attachment.html>
More information about the APWG
mailing list