[APWG] FW: Science or unfounded rumor?

[Robert Layton Beyfuss]

________________________________
From: Robert Layton Beyfuss
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:58 AM
To: Wayne Tyson
Subject: RE: [APWG] Science or unfounded rumor?

This exchange illustrates my issue with "invasion biology" It is fundamentally based entirely on xenophobia and not science. It does not matter if the plant is performing ecological services as well as or even better than native plants, in this case providing food for hummingbirds, what matters is the country of origin. It also does not matter whether or not the plant is even invasive or exhibiting weed like characteristics, once again it is only the plant's origin that makes it guilty. Its mere presence is its guilt. Is it possible that other factors may be contributing to the observed decline of the native species?  It is much easier to blame the new arrivals. Where I live in NY there are native plant communities that exist in the warmer valleys but are absent from the Mountain tops where it is colder. As temperatures rise some of these lowland plants may begin to survive at the higher elevations. Indeed this is happening already as has been commonly observed and cited as evidence of global climate change. Some of these new arrivals may displace existing native plants, some may become weedy but they will never be considered invasive because they are native to this general area. This is xenophobia, clear and simple. No one has ever been able to explain or define "native" in a way that makes scientific sense. Using the current country of origin is meaningless when you consider that countries share borders. Are wildflowers from California ie. the California poppy,  native to the east coast where they can become weeds? Should wildflowers from the mid west be planted in the medians of highways in NY because they are native while exotic plants from Europe are banned because they are exotic? How exotic is exotic? Are plants native to the River valley native to the mountaintop five miles away?  Invasion biology has its roots in the science of colonization. This is how species come to occupy certain areas. There is some very good science here in discovering the dynamics of population expansion and decline.  Unfortunately  it has morphed into a witch hunt of all things foreign.  I certainly believe in weed science but until invasion biology allows for so called native plants to be considered invasive, it carries no scientific validity as a science unto itself. "unnatural plant communities?" Indeed. I consider people sitting around in offices in Washington or Albany or Portland creating lists of acceptable and unacceptable plants, mandating impossible eradication lists and making regulations that fly in the face of reality while ignoring what is actually occurring in nature as "unnatural".
________________________________
From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson [landrest at cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 5:39 PM
To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: [APWG] Science or unfounded rumor?

"An interesting phenomenon associated with  foreign plant communities is the virtually complete absence of native hummingbird-pollinated plants in the areas long dominated by tree tobacco.  Such common natives as purple sage Salvia leucophylla, and pitcher sage S. spathacea, California fuchsia Zauschneria californica, heartleaved penstemon Keckiella cordifolius, and other penstemons are virtually absent from large areas populated by tree tobacco in the south coastal valleys and canyons.  Evidently the ubiquitous tobacco, with its year round production of yellow flower tubes supplying nectar, weans away many of the local hummingbirds from the seasonal flowers of native species.  Perhaps other plant species "designed" to attract the hummingbird simply do not receive sufficient pollination to maintain a local population.  Where tree tobacco is still relatively scarce in side canyons, any or all of the normal wild hummingbird plant species usually can be found.  (No author listed, "Control of the Aliens, Unnatural Plant Communities in the Santa Monica Mountains"  FREMONTIA, A Journal of the Native Plant Society  July 1989 22-24).  http://nathistoc.bio.uci.edu/Plants%20of%20Upper%20Newport%20Bay%20%28Robert%20De%20Ruff%29/Solanaceae/Nicotiana%20glauca.htm"

APWG: The preceding statement is specific in its assertions. Is it based on evidence or rumor? Where can I find the evidence? In the absence of evidence, should I conclude that this statement is solely based upon the opinion of the unnamed author, or what? Is conjecture a satisfactory foundation for action? Are such unequivocal statements acceptable in journals which purport to adhere to scientific standards of publication? Should such "information" be propagated through the scientific literature if it lacks solid evidence? How does this affect the credibility of the issue of alien species in general?

WT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20100729/4795f6b7/attachment.html>