[APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed

Tue Jul 19 16:11:49 CDT 2011

I couldn't agree more, Mr. Tyson, on the importance of using proper (and well-defined) terminology in any sub-discipline of ecology. After all, ecology itself has often been considered the "soft" doctrine of the biological sciences, and any clarification and standardization of terminology is welcome and necessary to furthering effective research, communication, and "conservation" (and increasing the relative standing of ecology as a discipline). When considering ecology's standing as a science, I am often reminded of the pre-eminent physicist, Sir Ernest Rutherford's dismissive comment of turn of the (last)-century botany (and I paraphrase), "Botany is fine; it is about as difficult a science as stamp-collecting." [ouch!]
     I too, turn to the definition of invasive species posted below and often point out that a species which escapes at a constricted scale and doesn't persist in the environment (displays low population fitness) is not (to me) "invasive" (and I am reluctant to use term even though it is part of my job title!). However, at what temporal and spatial scales do we arbitrarily choose to demarcate as a threshold for "invasive" or not?  Defining populations as "r" or "K" were once valuable in the budding discipline of population biology and ecology; and while still taught in Universities, these have similar limitations; just as the once useful definitions "apex" or "healthy" (or even trying to fit population dynamics to a Lotka-Voltera" model) do.  These limitations create problems such as your (common) distinction between "ruderal" and "healthy" (does this mean that all "ruderal" systems are "unhealthy"?).  As a result, these terms and approaches fall from favor and the supporting concepts evolve to better describe the wide range of dynamics we observe and record.  New terms will inevitably arise.

As to Impatiens capensis:  I'm not sure if your last two sentences, "It appears that some believe there is no distinction. I would appreciate any correction, definitions, or suggestions that will bring discipline to communication about these subjects." refers to the present discussion about this species.  If it does, I would suggest reading the excellent Zika papers below.  If it doesn't, and speaks to the larger issue of communication among peers, then perhaps the lack of distinction stems from colloquial discussions such as this one. Either way, your point is a very important one that bears consideration and we would all be wise to retain it.
Cheers,

Dominic Maze | Invasive Species Coordinator
City of Portland Environmental Services
1120 SW 5th Avenue, Room 1000
Portland, Oregon 97204
p:  (503) 823-4899
f:   (503) 823-5344
dominic.maze at portlandoregon.gov<mailto:dominic.maze at portlandoregon.gov>
________________________________
From: Randall, John L [mailto:jrandall at email.unc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:22 PM
To: Wayne Tyson; Wayne Vanderploeg; Maze, Dominic; Katie Fite; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: RE: [APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed

I always turn to the Executive Order on Invasive Species for my "invasive species" definition, which is: "an alien species* whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." As for those plant species that occur/specialize in disturbed areas - I generally call these either native or alien weeds.

(*"Alien species" means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem.)

Johnny Randall

From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:37 PM
To: Wayne Vanderploeg; Maze, Dominic; Katie Fite; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: [APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed

Hello all,

Is there anyone who acknowledges (or would it be simpler to say "does not acknowledge") that there is at least a phenomenological difference between "alien" species that are largely restricted to disturbed sites and those which "invade" healthy ecosystems?

I realize that some of the terminology used here is debatable too, and such discussion are worth having, but it would appear, if "invasion ecology" is to be taken seriously as a sub-discipline of ecology, that clarity of terminology is vital to clear communication. Time was, colonization referred to any movement of an organism into a "new" location, plants (what about animals?) that were restricted to disturbed areas were termed "ruderal," and "alien" organisms that colonized healthy/undisturbed ecosystems were called "invasive."

It appears that some believe there is no distinction. I would appreciate any correction, definitions, or suggestions that will bring discipline to communication about these subjects.

WT

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Vanderploeg<mailto:wvanderploeg at ameritech.net>
To: Maze, Dominic<mailto:Dominic.Maze at portlandoregon.gov> ; Katie Fite<mailto:katie at westernwatersheds.org> ; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org<mailto:apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [APWG] Jewelweed

Hello All,

I don't usually make comment to this group....I generally browse this list to see what new issues are popping up.  As a biologist/ecologist/naturalist/land manager for 31 years in the Chicago area with the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, I have seen this plant come and go.  Deer do browse it heavily and tend to prefer it over most other plants.  It does well in disturbed areas where the soil is rich, moist and semi shaded.  I have always viewed it as sensitive plant that is easily displaced by weeds and never thought of it as a problem plant in the Chicago area.  The fact that it is spreading prolifically in other areas where it typically does not occur could be a symptom of a bigger problem.  I would expect it to disappear when those problems are discovered and solved.

Wayne Vanderploeg

________________________________
From: "Maze, Dominic" <Dominic.Maze at portlandoregon.gov>
To: Katie Fite <katie at westernwatersheds.org>; "apwg at lists.plantconservation.org" <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
Sent: Tue, July 19, 2011 11:42:18 AM
Subject: Re: [APWG] Jewelweed
Hi Katie et alia,
   Impatiens capensis is, in my experience, a problematic species here west of the Cascade Range in the Pacific NW.  The densities of this sp. are pretty amazing with the understory of riparian corridors often dominated by it.  I've been seeing more and more of it in the Willamette Valley and surrounding ranges here in Oregon with seemingly little attention paid to it.
   Interestingly, some land managers still consider this species native here on the West Coast, probably due to confusion with our native, I. ecalcarata in some older floras and field guides.  Ed Alverson of TNC wrote a short comment in reply to a posting on I. capensis at the Botany Photo of the Day website:

"Impatiens capensis is an introduced and invasive species in the Pacific Northwest , west of the Cascades. Peter Zika addressed this issue in a 2006 paper, "The status of Impatiens capensis (Balsaminaceae) on the
Pacific Northwest coast", published in the Journal of the Torrey Botanical Club, vol. 133 pp. 593-600. In fact, I. capensis is spreading into the habitats of the uncommon native I. ecalcarata west of the Cascades, and the two species are hybridizing. This has created a situation where the native species is potentially being out-competed by both the introduced species and by their hybrids. Zika has published another paper on the hybrid, which he has named Impatiens x pacifica , see "Impatiens x pacifica (Balsaminaceae), a New Hybrid jewelweed from the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America", Novon vol. 16, pp. 443-448, 2006."

Add this spp. to I. glandulifera (a big problem) and I. balfourii (an escaping species which may be a problem in the future), and we've got our hands full out here with the touch-me-nots.

Dominic Maze | Invasive Species Coordinator
City of Portland Environmental Services
1120 SW 5th Avenue, Room 1000
Portland, Oregon 97204
p:  (503) 823-4899
f:   (503) 823-5344
dominic.maze at portlandoregon.gov<mailto:dominic.maze at portlandoregon.gov>
________________________________
From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Katie Fite
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 5:46 PM
To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: [APWG] Jewelweed

Has anyone had any experience with jewelweed (Impatiens) native to the eastern U. S. becoming weedy in valley marsh habitats in the intermountain West?

I see that jewelweed Impatiens capensis (orange jewelweed) is listed as a King County  (WA) "Weed of Concern".

This species is shown as having a yellow flowered form, which is what we are seeing.

http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious-weeds/laws/list.aspx

Katie Fite
Western Watersheds Project
katie at westernwatersheds.org

________________________________

_______________________________________________
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.
________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3774 - Release Date: 07/19/11
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20110719/b1a7fda7/attachment.html>