[APWG] ecological services of weeds?

Wed Apr 28 12:23:04 CDT 2010

Hi Megan,

I have to say I truly concur with Wayne Tyson in his usual articulate and
thoughtful response.  I am also very curious as to where you hope to land
with additional info on this topic.  Do you have a hypothesis that weeds may
supply at least some "ecological services" and then are you interested in
seeing if the hypothesis is valid or perhaps not?  And yes, the difficult
issue is how myopic are we as observers being in a quest to answer the
inquiry and how would the info pertaining to our inquiry look if we
broadened our investigations? Would our initial answers change? Such as,
what species have declined while mourning doves have flourished and is that
an acceptable ecological consequence even though mourning doves have been
given additional "ecological services"?  While we can perhaps extricate them
out of their particular ecosystem in our thought processes, as we as humans
do, what about all the other birds, mammals, insects, soil flora and fauna,
invertebrates, etc. that have suffered within the same system because they
have in fact lost "ecological services"? Shouldn't we mention that in the
same breath? 

My thought is always that we as humans looking at the pain and suffering and
loss we have created in the natural world while taking care of ourselves,
have some defense mechanisms that are bound to kick in to handle the pain
and guilt and overwhelming enormity and inability to fix what we have done.
I feel like one of those defense responses is to try and dig for anything
positive that just might come out of our otherwise harmful activities or the
consequences of our activities.  I certainly understand any of us going in
this direction.  But there is always the difficulty of people ending up with
partial answers.  Someone could latch on to the fact the willow flycatcher
has managed to nest in tamarisk, while ignoring the rest of the tamarisk
story, one I need not repeat here.  I guess I have a problem with that
somehow. Oh, I think this question you have is a tough one and would and
should take a great deal of time to investigate!  Good luck!

Lisa Tasker

Principal Ecologist

E.M. Ecological, LLC

Carbondale, CO 81623

  _____  

From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:53 AM
To: Bowes, Megan; APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [APWG] ecological services of weeds?

Dear Megan:

The "ecological services of weeds" issue comes up now and then, and it
commonly begins and ends with confusion, or worse, presumptions about
"facts" that lead to "conclusions" that are rarely, if ever, the whole
story. So it is a challenge to answer your question responsibly. 

One can cherry-pick cases like one you cite with respect to many "weed"
species and come up with "answers" that spotlight a "fact" that is as
impressive as it is misleading. 

"Ecology" is about the whole story, not just part of it, so the fact that
the Southwest willow flycatcher, for example, "uses" tamarisk, does not
necessarily mean that the bird is better off as a result of the tamarisk
than it was before its original habitat was displaced by the tamarisk. If,
say, a group of humans lost their homes, they would gravitate to the best
alternative they could find, even if it was nothing but a bunch of drain
pipes or improvised lean-to shelters. 

So the flycatchers may appear to be receiving "ecological services" from
tamarisk to us, but the "ecological question" is not whether they have
adapted to an altered habitat, but what that means in comparison to the
alternative of the habitat under which it evolved and prospered. And it says
nothing about how countless other species have been affected by the change. 

Some indigenous species have "prospered" because of shifts toward alien
"weeds." The mourning dove, for example, has "enjoyed" a population
explosion because of alien plant introductions, including "crops" and
"weeds." But this says nothing about  the tradeoffs, the sacrifices that
other species have had to make to produce the population boom in dove
populations. 

While "weeds" do perform "ecological" functions as a matter of "fact,"
whether or not one can truthfully term them "services" may be another
matter. 

WT

PS: I would be interesting to know where you're going with this. 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Bowes, <mailto:BowesM at bouldercolorado.gov>  Megan 

To: 'APWG at lists.plantconservation.org' 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:14 PM

Subject: [APWG] ecological services of weeds?

I'd like to inquire if anyone out there has experience with the "ecological
services of weeds".  The Southwest willow flycatcher and tamarisk is a
classic example.  We'd like to hear from researchers and land managers
alike, and would especially like any information about examples with other
taxonomic groups (herps, mammals, etc.).  Thanks for any help with this.

Megan Bowes

City of Boulder

Open Space and Mountain Parks Department

66 South Cherryvale Road,  Boulder, Colorado  80303

720.564.2084 (voice) 720.564.2072 (fax)

bowesm at bouldercolorado.gov

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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. 

  _____  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2836 - Release Date: 04/26/10
06:31:00

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2840 - Release Date: 04/28/10
06:27:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20100428/a9b90e00/attachment.html>