[APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed
Graziano, Gino A (DNR)
gino.graziano at alaska.gov
Thu Jul 21 15:51:03 CDT 2011
Re: "I presume that everyone has actually read the recent Davis, et al
paper?"
I read the article, heard him talk on Science Friday, and read the
transcript of the program. I found the article and interview to be
timely, however largely and disturbingly an incomplete account of how
invasive species managers are making decisions. First though, I will
commend the efforts of the authors because there are many individuals
and land managers that do not take the time to critically evaluate the
best available information and manage "invasive" species based on
nativity instead of real threat to resources. I also agree that a lot
of the language used to describe invasive species lends to public and
land manager bias to non-native species in general. Both of these
issues are real and are counterproductive to natural resource
management.
As a state coordinator of invasive species management in Alaska, I
regularly discuss the need to focus on those few species that are really
problematic and not just any species based on nativity alone. The
concept of only a few problematic species is not new and was brought up
by Williams in his 1996 book "Biological Invasions" where he presented
the "Tens rule" (you all know that though). Focus on true problems, is
increasingly becoming the norm as many regions of the world are
developing invasiveness ranking systems that seek to clarify which
species are ecosystem changers and which are simply persistent in
habitats that we (humans) develop (e.g. roadsides, gravel pits, air
strips etc.). The ranking system Alaska uses is found at
http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/akepic/non-native-plant-species-biogr
aphies/. No ranking alone is the guiding decision tool and the authors
of Alaska's acknowledge that management/regulatory action still requires
more insight into economic, social and environmental interactions a
species has in an area.
So, I ask why are ranking systems not brought up in the Davis article?
If they don't work, Davis and others should let us all know. Why are
ABC lists and their creation by boards with review by the public not
discussed? The comment paper, is an opinion that needs to be fleshed
out into a real peer reviewed, complete and unbiased article that
evaluates invasive species management, how species are prioritized for
management, and what efforts are a success, failure or waste of time.
All this should be in the context of the human as well as environmental
need to adapt to a changing world.
I believe we still have a long way to go in achieving the best
management strategies across the board. With all due respect, to
criticize management efforts while ignoring attempts to improve
management is at best incompetent.
This is an important discussion that should continue well beyond this
listserve.
Gino Graziano, NRS
Invasive Weeds and Agricultural Pest Coordinator
DNR, Division of Agriculture
Plant Materials Center
5310 S. Bodenburg Spur Road
Palmer, AK 99645
907-745-8127
Gino.Graziano at Alaska.gov <mailto:Gino.Graziano at Alaska.gov>
http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/ag/ag_pmc.htm
From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Gena
Fleming
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 7:07 PM
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed
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 <mailto:Dominic.Maze at portlandoregon.gov>
To: 'Randall, John L' <mailto:jrandall at email.unc.edu> ; Wayne
Tyson <mailto:landrest at cox.net> ; Wayne Vanderploeg
<mailto:wvanderploeg at ameritech.net> ; Katie Fite
<mailto:katie at westernwatersheds.org> ; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
<mailto: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
<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
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/law
s/list.aspx
<http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious-weeds/la
ws/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.plantcons
ervation.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
________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantcons
ervation.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/20110721/c127f3a6/attachment.html>
More information about the APWG
mailing list