[APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed

Fri Jul 29 08:29:55 CDT 2011

I use non-native invasive. Marc

  _____  

From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 11:25 AM
To: Robert Layton Beyfuss; Graziano, Gino A (DNR); Gena Fleming
Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
Subject: Re: [APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed

Hi y'all,

I suspect that a lot of the "backlash" that occurs is the result of
excessive hyperbole and pure pig-headedness than healthy intellectual
intercourse. 

"Alien" is a loaded word because of its semantic alliances, different in
every malignant prong of undisciplined linguistic evolution; "lay" people
are sometimes surprisingly ignorant of even simpler distinctions (e.g. an
educated project manager who thought that chaparral was a single species),
but they are not unintelligent, the distinction simply had not yet proven
necessary in her life. One wonders how far off the beam the rest of the
"rabble" is. 

Thinking of others as rabble and giving up on them is all too common among
academics, even science-writers. Would dropping the term "alien" from the
scholarly literature and replacing it with a less-loaded term advance or
retard understanding? 

WT

"'Tis friction's brisk, rough rub that provides the vital spark!" --A. R.
Martin

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  <mailto:rlb14 at cornell.edu> Robert Layton Beyfuss 
To:  <mailto:gino.graziano at alaska.gov> Graziano, Gino A (DNR) ;
<mailto:genafleming at gmail.com> Gena Fleming ;  <mailto:landrest at cox.net>
Wayne Tyson 
Cc:  <mailto:apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
apwg at lists.plantconservation.org 
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:31 PM
Subject: RE: [APWG] Terminology still unresolved? Re: Jewelweed

Hi All

As long as the term  "invasive"  is restricted to place of origin as in the
Presidential E.O. definition "an alien species* whose introduction does or
is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health."
and requires an asterisk * to further define that cryptic term, many people
will equate exotic or alien with invasive and will make stupid decisions
based on that misunderstanding.  Here in NY state we have executive orders
on several levels of state government banning all "exotic" plants in
publicly funded projects, not invasive exotic plants, but ALL exotic plants.
Currently there is a  grant i.e. a publicly funded project underway in parts
of NY City to remove all exotic species in a particular area that includes
parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan, regardless of their reproductive status or
whether or not they are weeds and replace them with native plants. This is a
serious and needless waste of my tax dollars and an infringement on my
rights as a citizen to enjoy plants that cause no harm but are condemned
because of their country of origin. We have state funded swat teams
travelling around NY now spraying herbicide on Giant Hogweed at a cost of 1
million $ with zero chance of eradicating it or even seriously slowing its
spread. I would much rather see the money spent on studies that are trying
to understand why these plants are spreading but the money is there to kill
and not to understand why. 

I think most people on this list serve realize that the terms alien or
exotic mean from a different ecosystem than the one they are introduced into
and not just a different country but most laypeople will not. This is the
fundamental flaw of invasion biology as a science and what has provoked
backlash, as in the article in discussion.  

Bob

From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Graziano,
Gino A (DNR)
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 4:51 PM
To: Gena Fleming; Wayne Tyson
Cc: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
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-biographi
es/.   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
 <mailto:Gino..Graziano at Alaska.gov> 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:  <mailto:Dominic.Maze at portlandoregon.gov> Maze, Dominic 

To:  <mailto:jrandall at email.unc.edu> 'Randall, John L' ;
<mailto:landrest at cox.net> Wayne Tyson ;  <mailto:wvanderploeg at ameritech.net>
Wayne Vanderploeg ;  <mailto:katie at westernwatersheds.org> Katie Fite ;
<mailto:apwg at lists.plantconservation.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 <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,  <mailto:Dominic.Maze at portlandoregon.gov> Dominic ; 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

  _____  

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/l
ist.aspx>
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious-weeds/laws/li
st.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.plantconserva
tion.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.plantconserva
tion.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: 1518/3787 - Release Date: 07/25/11

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20110729/bdfcb0a4/attachment.html>