[APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed

Thu Jul 21 16:09:53 CDT 2011

Gino, Gena, and Honorable Forum:

I don't know, but I suspect that the authors might have found that they had already packed so much dynamite into their short, short paper that they had to triage . . .

They might have wanted to stimulate discussion and leave room for others to come up with other ideas. 

WT
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Graziano, Gino A (DNR) 
  To: Gena Fleming ; Wayne Tyson 
  Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org 
  Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 1:51 PM
  Subject: RE: [APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed

  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-biographies/.   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
  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 

    To: 'Randall, John L' ; Wayne Tyson ; Wayne Vanderploeg ; Katie Fite ; 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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 

      To: Maze, Dominic ; Katie Fite ; 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3778 - Release Date: 07/21/11
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20110721/f2073ba5/attachment.html>