[APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough

Thu Mar 6 16:32:31 CST 2008

When the judge ruled against USDA in the genetic bentgrass case major
opposition to the GMO had come from stewards of nature removing
mono-cultures of non-native invasive plants with glyphosate.  It was applied
with back pack sprayers carefully targeted to avoid the native plants. They
did not want to have to remove the invasive bentgrass with a more risky or
difficult herbicide. Cheers. Marc

Engineered grass found growing in wild

By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press WriterWed Aug 16, 9:15 PM ET

Grass that was genetically engineered for golf courses is growing in the
wild, posing one of the first threats of agricultural biotechnology escaping
from the farm in the United States, a new study says.

Creeping bentgrass was engineered to resist the popular herbicide Roundup to
allow more efficient weed control on golf courses. But the modified grass
could spread that resistance to the wild, becoming a nuisance itself,
scientists say.

"This is not a killer tomato, this is not the asparagus that ate Cleveland,"
said Norman Ellstrand, a geneticist and plant expert at the University of
California, Riverside, referring to science fiction satire about mutant
plants.

But Ellstrand noted the engineered bentgrass has the potential to affect
more than a dozen other plant species that could also acquire resistance to
Roundup, or glyphosate, which he considers a relatively benign herbicide.

Such resistance could force land managers and government agencies like the
U.S. Forest Service, which relies heavily on Roundup, to switch to "nastier"
herbicides to control grasses and weeds, Ellstrand said.

The bentgrass variety is being developed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. in
cooperation with Roundup's manufacturer, Monsanto Co.

Spokesmen for both companies said they had been expecting the results of the
study, to be published in the journal Molecular Ecology.

"We've been working to mitigate it," said Jim King, spokesman for Ohio-based
Scotts. "Now we're down to maybe a couple dozen plants."

King said seed from a test plot escaped several years ago while it was
drying following harvest in the Willamette Valley, home to most of the U.S.
grass seed industry and the world's largest producer of commercial grass
varieties.

The main question now, King says, is whether the government will allow
commercial use of the experimental bentgrass for golf courses.

"Eradicating it has not been a difficult issue," King said. "The only
difference between the turf seed we're working to produce and naturally
occurring varieties is that it has a gene resistant to this specific
herbicide (Roundup)."

The engineered bentgrass is under review by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, which published a "white paper" in June that assessed the
threat but did not reach any conclusions - leaving that for an environmental
impact statement being prepared by the department's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.

But the USDA review paper noted that glyphosate is "the most extensively
used herbicide worldwide," and that creeping bentgrass and several of the
species that can form hybrids with it "can be weedy or invasive in some
situations."

In 2003, the International Center for Technology Assessment in Washington,
D.C., filed a federal lawsuit seeking to halt development of genetically
engineered bentgrass. The suit is still pending, a USDA spokeswoman said.

The latest study was done by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists
based at Oregon State University.

Jay Reichman, an EPA ecologist and lead author, was not available Wednesday.
But he has said there is a possibility the engineered strain could persist
in the wild.

"There could be consequences," said Steven Strauss, who heads the
biotechnology issues analysis program at Oregon State.

"But they're not catastrophic because there are Roundup resistant species
out there - I have them in my back yard right now," Strauss added.

He noted that scientists have been dealing with genetically engineered corn
and soybeans for years, but those crops do not pose the airborne seed
problems faced by commercial grass seed growers.

Ultimately, Strauss said, development of the engineered grass may be an
economic question rather than a biological issue - whether it could affect
the cost of agriculture and weed control.

"And that's very difficult because this is in a gray zone," Strauss said.

-----Original Message-----
From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Gena Fleming
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:34 PM
To: Karen Adair
Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough

Hi All:

First of all, Karen, I appreciate your thoughtful contribution.

I think we are not really disagreeing with each other as much as it
appears on the surface.  The problem is that ideas are being presented
incompletely, a limitation of email discussion.  This format does have
the potential, however, to favor dialogue, which is also important.

I doubt there is anyone on this list that is not genuinely disturbed
about the changes taking place that have modified habitats of native
flora and fauna.  I appreciate the dedication to preservation of
native wildlife and recognize the love of nature behind all these
efforts.  As far as I can tell, we have the same values.    I don't
like seeing commercialized species taking over either.  Far from it.

I will try to speak more directly and to the point.  I'm concerned
about genetic engineering.  I don't understand why so many people
dedicated to the eradication of non-native species are turning their
heads the other way.  Some appear downright opposed to discussing it.

If you recognize how easy it is for a habitate to become invaded, why
aren't you concerned about the introduction of trees genetically
engineered for low lignin production and herbicide resistance? (See:
http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/trees.asp).    Herbicides are not
going to work against these plants.  The same company that makes the
herbicide you use to fight invasives, is "making" the genetically
modified plants.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_GM_Trees_And_Grasses

Chinese tallow has potential for biodiesel production.  Its
invasiveness may be a problem, but if it were harvested en masse, the
problem might go away, and we would have an additional fuel source.
Similarly, many other invasives have medicinal properties and other
uses. Trying to figure out how to reorganize our economies and
institutions to support research and business development in these
arenas would be tricky but, in my opinion, highly worth pursuing.

Genetically engineered trees and other plants and organisms, on the
other hand, present real risks for irreversibly damaging the genetic
integrity of all kinds of plants.  So does the herbicide resistance
that is being programmed into so many plants.  This is destroying the
micro-organisms, affecting soil fertility  and endangering
pollinators.   Cornell University researches have found that nearly
half of the Monarch cateripillars that ate milkweed leaves dusted with
GE corn pollen died within four days.  Iowa State University
scientists found plants growing in and near cornfields were being
dusted wtih enough GE pollenm to kill Monarch butterflies that feed on
them.

Damage has already taken place, and is continuing at an accelerated
pace, due to the economic incentives of patenting and the economic
efficiencies these engineered plants offer to the multinational
corporations.

If there are people on this list that simply do not know much about
this but are interested, I would be happy to provide additional
information and links.  I'm not an expert, I'm just trying to spread
awareness.

If the consensus is that this list just doesn't care about this topic,
if you consider it irrelevant and annoying that I'm trying to discuss
it, I will respectfully bow out and go elsewhere.

There are no easy answers to any of this and time is of the essence.

best regards,

Gena Fleming

These plants are all being engineered by the same company that sells
you the herbicide to destroy your invasive plantsI.  You can rest
assured that it is not going to destroy the GM plants ---- they are
"round-up  ready".

On 05/03/2008, Karen Adair <kadair at tnc.org> wrote:
> I write from the perspective of a land steward who is working on the
ground in these ecosystems and fighting these invasives "with my bare hands"
every day. I have agreed with points that people from both sides of the
"roundup can" have made and wanted to comment on a few of the recent
statements.
>
> .."Environmental changes (man made or not) dictate that different life
forms will be favored at the expense of others." Invasive exotics are not
favored - they have nothing to stop them. Entirely different. Their
invasiveness does not come from an ecosystem promoting them, but rather that
it has none of the weapons that the natives (which have co-existed and
co-evolved over the centuries) have to maintain "balance."
>
> I think it is important to use caution when suggesting that a native
living among an invasive population is benefiting or thriving. While there
may be instances when that's true (none that I've experienced), I suspect
that most managers would say that's the exception rather than the rule. If
you maintain the thinking that focusing on a few plants is not the way to go
and focusing on the overall integrity of the ecosystem is, then I would
suggest those rare incidences should not be given such weight in the
invasives aren't bad debate. What is usually missing from those opinions is
time. People decide that something is benefiting from the sheer fact that it
is present at the point of their one observation. I would be interested to
know if it is doing so well in 5, 10, or 20 years. 2) Studies regarding
exotic shrubs as resources for birds (as one example) have shown that the
lipid content in the fruit of the exotic shrubs studied was less than that
in the fruit of native shrubs!
. So while these birds are consuming the same quantity, the quality is not
the same. This has profound effects when you consider the caloric needs of
birds in migration. Additionally, the study showed that nest placement was
different in exotic shrubs due to their structure and consequently nest
predation was higher when compared to nests in natives. You might find a
nest in every multiflora rose you see, but whether birds actually hatched
and survived is the important factor. I have yet to hear of a study that
shows invasives provide even equal benefits to wildlife.
>
> The topic of herbicides being bad relates directly to whether you think
invasives are bad. The effects of an infestation allowed to thrive and
spread for decades is far worse than a couple applications of one of the
common and low toxicity herbicides that most managers use. In keeping with
this mindset, a handful of natives that are inadvertently killed by
over-spray is insignificant when the entire landscape is considered and when
considering the long-term benefits of eradicating the infestation. Those who
apply herbicide know that over-spray can easily be avoided or minimized by
adhering to the label and best management practices.
>
> I thought this point that Gena made was excellent among others: The path
of objectivity is not to deny our value-laden beliefs:  it is to declare
them openly and thereby make them open to scrutiny, discussion, and
refinement. I would suggest that's the derivation of the stance that the
plants present pre-European settlement are native and anything after is not.
Scientists noticed what they perceived to be a problem and had to come up
with a starting point. Part of these emails have been about discussing and
scrutinizing that pre-European settlement judgment.
>
> I'll end with this - it's important to remember than nobody can impose
their value judgment on you. We each have the power to listen or not. Agree
or not. We have the power to not let other peoples' opinions affect us if we
so choose. I think those of us who think invasive exotics are bad should
always be open to the opposing opinion and always question if what we are
doing is what's best; I think the folks with the invasives aren't bad
opinion should know that you are going up against a far greater number of
people who do not share your view. It will take good scientific support to
change such a widely accepted opinion. If you can prove something different
than what I see out there every day, I'll put down my roundup.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Karen Adair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org on behalf of Gena Fleming
> Sent: Wed 3/5/2008 5:32 PM
> To: Bob Beyfuss
> Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> Subject: Re: [APWG] Altering is too kind, destroy not strong enough
>
>
>
> Hi:
>
> I really appreciate this contribution from Bob.  He said it all so
> well, but  I would like to add some comments too, all in the
> affirmative.    In the sake of brevity, I'm summarizing his points,
> not always exact quotes.  Hope that's o.k. (his full text is below).
>
> a) Re: ecosystem = interactive system:.  Yes, it is.  And that's why
> ecosystems are constantly changing.  That's part of their resilience.
> It is the integrity of the ecosystem itself that we should be
> safeguarding, not just select plants.
>
> b)  Re:  It's possible to destroy an ecosystem by bulldozing, etc.
> Yes.  But genetic engineering involves the actual invasion and
> deconstruction of DNA code.  This is a type of compromise to the
> integrity of the ecosystem that can hybridize, mutate, interact with
> pollinators, soil fertility, in all kinds of unpredictable ways.
> These plants don't look different from other plants, so aerial photos
> are going to be no help at all in detecting them.  This is
> deconstruction of ancestral heritage.  What's at risk is the integrity
> of the entire system, not just a habitat.
>
> c)  Re:  definition of "destroy" = "to reduce (an object) to useless
> fragments, a useless form or remains" .  Yes, and relevant to this,
> genetic engineering is cutting and pasting the DNA code between genera
> and kingdoms.  That's destruction through fragmentation and introduces
> chaos, undermining the very organizational foundations of life.
>
> d) Re:  many of the most hated exotics provide profound ecological
> benefits...:  Yes, they do.  That's why they're there.  A living
> system is an intelligent system and it tries to self heal.  In fact,
> iff we were more botanically literate, we would understand that many
> of these plants are also incredibly useful to us in other ways--- in
> terms of animal feed, medicine, etc.  We would be harvesting them and
> worried about running them into extinction.  However, since we rely so
> heavily on established industries, petrochemicals for fuel, drugs,
> etc., we are doing little to harvest these valuable plants for our own
> benefit.
>
> e) RE: "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."    Yes!  Herbicides
> and even the introduction of biologic predators  are quite harmful.
> And we are being distracted from bigger threats.  Genetic engineering
> is posing a real threat, not to just certain plants, but to the
> integrity of the ecosystem itself.   I believe our concern about
> invasive species would be better placed here.
>
> f) RE;  "language affects tactics" "Our culture in America teaches to
> hate our enemies" etc.  Yes! Yes! Yes!  The war paradigm is everywhere
> in everything.  It is in the video games, in the movies, in our
> strategies, in our rules for effective composition, in our rules for
> intelligent "debate", in our sports, in our "problem solving"
> strategies,  etc. etc.
>
> Why are we worried about TAKS scores when our children all over our
> country (and now other countries too) are walking into school armed to
> the gills, and shooting one another and then themselves.  These are
> the problem-solving tactics we have taught them.   And they are taking
> it literally.  The subconscious mind tends to do that.
>
>
> So, if we can just put down that Round-up can for a moment.... that's
> right..... just back up slowly now.... easy. . .  nobody needs to get
> hurt here . . .
>
> : )
>
> best regards,
>
> Gena Fleming
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/03/2008, Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu> wrote:
> >
> > 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 1930 by Roy Clapham, to denote the
physical and biological components of an environment considered in relation
to each other as a unit. British ecologist 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".
> >
> > tto 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 Mo!
!
>  nticello 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.plantconserva
tion.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.plantconserva
tion.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.plantconserva
tion.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/
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
> > APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> >
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva
tion.org
> >
> > Disclaimer
> > Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
opinion of the individual posting the message.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gena Fleming, MS, LAc
> www.plantbyplant.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva
tion.org
>
> Disclaimer
> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
opinion of the individual posting the message.
>
>
>

-- 
Gena Fleming, MS, LAc
www.plantbyplant.com

_______________________________________________
PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva
tion.org

Disclaimer                                                                
Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
opinion of the individual posting the message.