[APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed

[Gena Fleming]

Hi All:

Re: "I presume that everyone has actually read the recent Davis, et al
paper?"

I don't think a link has been posted..... just in case, this will take you
to it:
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/news/pdf/061411_deltredici_nature.pdf

I'm really enjoying this discussion.  There is a lot of disinformation that
can hide behind outdated terminology.  New terminology is a good idea.  But
even still, one needs to stay on top of whatever terminology one is are
using, and think about what is really happening in any given context.

I can already hear promoters of biotechnology grabbing the "Don't judge
species on their origins" mantra to defend genetically engineered species.
This would be unfortunate, because the preoccupation with "non-native"
exotics, I feel, is partially to blame for genetically egineered species
being, for the most part,  ignored by conservationists.  We have all these
databases cropping up that employ citizen scientists to report location of
"non-native" exotics.  Meanwhile, genetically engineered organisms are
granted secret locations, and it is even claimed that insertion of foreign
DNA from a different genus doesn't really change the species.....

This is also related to microbiology being replaced by molecular
biology..... and biology being diverted by biotechnology.

I hope we can soon end this war agains nature and find a new consciousness
to guide our observation and interactions.  As has already been said, this
is going to take good critical thinking skills because, of course, any
organism living in nature is transforming that environment, "manipulating"
it to a certain extent.  But there needs to be a more qualitative and
nuanced understanding of what kind of transformation we should be engaged in
with our environment, one that is mutually beneficial.  That understanding
will benefit from terminology, but it will also need to be an ongoing
exploratory process, subject to open dialogue, criticism and review.  Words,
like organisms, can mean one thing in one context, and quite another in a
new context.

As for the current definition of "invasive", I do not think any term should
lump ecologic impact with economic impact as a qualifying criteria.  That's
just bad juju.

It's late.  Not sure how convoluted this sounds, but that's my stream of
consciousness for now.

Anyway, I'm enjoying reading the discussion ---- thanks
best,
Gena

On 19 July 2011 18:14, Wayne Tyson <landrest at cox.net> wrote:

> **************************************
>
> Dominic Maze, friends, and APWG:
>
>
>
> Dominic, I mostly agree with your observations, but here is what I was
> stimulated to write (it's more than colloquial; it's a
> stream-of-consciousness first draft, far from acceptable for publication).
>
>
>
> I do not think that ecology is a "soft" doctrine as opposed to a *science,
> *as I consider the heart of science to be the asking of questions about
> Nature or "reality." I do think those who call themselves "ecologists" worry
> too much about "standing" and not enough about just getting on with the work
> and damn the torpedoes, the slings and arrows of outrageous petulance by the
> egocentric. While I might agree with His Pre-eminence’s (Rutherford's)
> comment about botany as taxonomy to some degree (to the extent that some
> "botanists" DO seem to limit themselves to pursuing taxonomic glory more
> than understanding of Nature), but have no use for sniffy remarks like his
> in all contexts (I don't know in what context he made the remark, but it
> seems needlessly rude).
>
> ** **
>
> My private position is "Screw the posturers!" Ignore such stuff. If one is
> intimidated by physics, join the club (Einstein, Feynman). But courage often
> consists of ignoring posturing (and Lordy knows we are surrounded by such
> dick-heads.) Academia is drowning in Greek letters, algorithms, and prissy,
> ill-founded jargon; what it needs, especially ecology, is to drop the
> pretenses and the insecurities that give rise to them, and get on with the
> work of understanding what makes Nature tick. Botany is a helluva lot more
> than taxonomy. Arguing from authority is a not-well-enough-known logical
> fallacy, and too much discussion is colored with such divergent
> manipulation.
>
>
>
> I didn't even know what "ecology" meant when I started college in 1956, but
> I had the good fortune to have Lee Haines as a professor; Haines was a true
> man for all disciplines, and he taught botany and ecology together, along
> with other disciplines as needed. I still use his first lesson every day--he
> placed two Petri dishes before us, one with some muck and a planarian, the
> other with agar and a bacterial culture, some pipettes, saline solution, and
> some pennicilium mold. He taught is how to key out plants, yes, but he also
> taught us life zones, succession, and other useful knowledge. But most of
> all, he taught us how to think (now known as "critical thinking"). We camped
> out a lot, and sang around the campfire. Later professors had a high
> standard to live up to, as did we students.
>
> ** **
>
> I did turn to the Executive Order on Invasive Species, and I thought it to
> be more political bunk than science. It specifically excluded humans and
> their livestock and crops. Science requires honesty and that is simply
> dishonesty. There would be no “invasive species” problem if it weren’t for
> those exclusions. That’s an outrage. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I quite agree with Maze that terms like “ruderal” and “healthy” need to be
> clarified or eliminated, but someone has to come up with something better,
> preferably a family of related terms that do not contradict each other. I’m
> not so confident that “new terms will inevitably arise.” I fear that the
> confusion will multiply as egocentricity continues to reign, covering its
> doubtful tracks with obfuscation and pseudo-intellectual fog. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I wasn’t referring to *Impatiens capensis*; I meant to call for clarity of
> communication, however, far beyond “peers.” (I do, however, thank
> Vanderploeg for stimulating my question.) A major problem with the
> anti-science, anti-intellectual fever in this country can be laid at the
> feet of the academic “peerage.” Recent analysis of the Declaration of
> Independence has revealed that **Jefferson** erased “subjects” and wrote
> over it “citizens.” Unless there’s a good reason to do so, terminology
> should not be reduced to academic jargon—it drives away the curious, the
> amateur, yes, even the dilettante. These should be embraced, not shunned.
> Just what do truly superior intellects have to fear from the rabble--that
> they will climb up the ivy? And they should know what the hell we’re talking
> about in “colloquial” terms if possible, presuming clarity. But at
> least "we" should know, eh?
>
>
>
> I look forward to the definition of terms that can be widely accepted as
> the standard for both colloquial (maybe a glossary?) and scientifically
> acceptable terms. (And oh, while you're about it, how about a new term for
> "brush?") ****
>
> ** **
>
> WT
>
>
>
> PS: I presume that everyone has actually read the recent Davis, et al
> paper?
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> “I have sworn eternal vigilance over every form of tyranny over the mind of
> man.” –Thomas Jefferson****
>
> ** **
>
> “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.” –Albert
> Einstein****
>
> ** **
>
> “The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual
> discipline.” –Raymond Gilmore****
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Maze, Dominic <Dominic.Maze at portlandoregon.gov>
> *To:* 'Randall, John L' <jrandall at email.unc.edu> ; Wayne Tyson<landrest at cox.net>; Wayne
> Vanderploeg <wvanderploeg at ameritech.net> ; Katie Fite<katie at westernwatersheds.org>;
> apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:11 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed
>
>  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 <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 <wvanderploeg at ameritech.net> ****
>
> *To:* Maze, Dominic <Dominic.Maze at portlandoregon.gov> ; Katie Fite<katie at westernwatersheds.org>;
> 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****
>  ------------------------------
>
> *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
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3774 - Release Date: 07/19/11***
> *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3774 - Release Date: 07/19/11
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20110720/e522a8c3/attachment.html>