[APWG] [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
Gena Fleming
genafleming at gmail.com
Wed Sep 5 21:20:11 CDT 2012
Joe, I really think the point you are bringing up is essential. An
academic discussion may be where we start; at least the topic is being
broached. Focussing on invasive plants instead of the "ecological
perturbations" is exactly what's allowing these ecological perturbations to
continue.
The problems we are facing are going to require an essential shift of
context. This need for contextual shifting (or perhaps I should say for a
conceptual shift towards contextual thinking) is not unique to invasive
plant discussions; it applies to just about every problem we are facing
right now ---- including education, medicine, economics, etc. Imagine
every discipline mirroring the same conceptual flaw in a hologram.
I think that's why it's so hard to change our thinking. Letting go of the
invasive plant focus doesn't make sense within the existing socioeconomic
context. But if we lived in a society where we were eating invasive
plants, making medicine out of invasive plants, making paper out of
invasive plants, and using invasive plants for bioremediation, well pretty
soon the situation might resolve itself.
In fact, maybe that's why they are invasive ---- they're an underutilized
resource.
We keep trying to tweek things with efforts to mitigate the symptoms we are
creating, only to allow us to continue pursuing business as usual. I
realize we can't change the game overnight, but at least we can start
having these conversations.
Anyway, I appreciate your contribution. Also, If you are the author of the
"Invasive Species Cookbook," will you please tell me where I can get a
copy?
Gena Fleming
On 5 September 2012 20:40, Joe Franke <sapogordoeco at comcast.net> wrote:
> Well, so far it’s only an academic discussion. When you point out these
> problems to funders of restoration projects, they don’t want to hear about
> it. It’s a little like American politics in that it’s easier to “other” a
> politician than to look at the social conditions that brought them to power
> and do something about the “root” problems.
>
> It’s been horrifying to see how much money has been wasted here on the
> unsuccessful attempted “control” of tamarisk, Russian olive and Siberian
> elm in cottonwood Bosque along the Rio Grande.
>
> I would recommend that people look at some of Mathew Chew’s work,
> including: *Chew*, M.K. 2009. The Monstering of *Tamarisk*: How
> scientists made a plant into a problem. Journal of the History of Biology
> 42:231-266
>
> He has some more technical articles out as well that I have yet to read,
> but will do so shortly. I think that there is a lot to discuss here, and
> I’d be very interested to hear what other people have to say about the
> general topic of focusing on specific invasive species and not the
> ecological perturbations that allow them to dominate entire ecosystems.
>
> Joe Franke
>
>
>
> On 9/5/12 7:14 PM, "Gena Fleming" <genafleming at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think you are having the most relevant discussion out West. It's time
> to start focussing on the real problem.
>
> On 5 September 2012 15:18, Joe Franke <sapogordoeco at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> There is a perhaps different but related discussion that’s going on out
> here in the West concerning Tamarisk. To many of us attempting to do
> restoration work we’ve realized that the spread and extreme “weediness” of
> plant is more of a symptom of poor water management than an evil unto
> itself, and becomes a convenient shill that distracts (mostly federal) land
> managers from the real problem: not enough water on the land, and disrupted
> flood cycles. We can blame tamarisk all we want, but the real problem lies
> in our species’ wasteful use and mismanagement of the water resource.
>
>
> On 9/4/12 7:35 PM, "Robert Layton Beyfuss" <rlb14 at cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks to all who have responded and elaborated on my original query. I
> think the general consensus is that native plants cannot be “officially”
> invasive but they surely can be problematic! I have a colleague at Cornell
> who refers to native weeds that behave like invasives as “interfering”
> vegetation. No one has ever satisfactorily defined “exotic” in my opinion
> and I consider Clinton’s executive order as a political gaffe that has
> mostly served to make ecologists fight over semantics as the exchanges here
> seem to verify. I am not so sure how much science has advanced due to
> executive orders. It has also generated a backlash that causes people to
> hate plants from Europe or Asia in general and to create black lists and
> white lists of plants which I find very disturbing. Vastly different
> ecosystems exist even within a given state or region. I consider it
> impossible to say that a plant which is native to Canada is exotic anywhere
> in n North America but it surely does not exist in many American
> ecosystems.. So where does one draw the border line? Black locust, as one
> poster mentioned is a classic example of a plant that grew satisfactorily
> in one particular place, but now seems to be a problem in other places not
> very far away. Some states consider it as exotic. Plants don’t recognize
> borders and neither should we in trying to tell “good” plants from “bad”
> plants based on their lack of green cards. Ecosystems are highly dynamic as
> succession creates profound changes in species composition. Almost all
> plants have their merits and demerits in ecosystems and many exotic plants
> have served us very well indeed. Poison ivy may provide food for 60 or 70
> bird species but so do Autumn olive and multiflora rose without being toxic
> to touch. Introduced species are now hybridizing with related native ones
> as is the case with Phragmites and probably others. How will we classify
> their offspring? If they originate in the US, are they not native? If the
> hybrids become even more invasive does that fact become moot because they
> originated here?
>
>
>
> *From:* Claudia Thompson-Deahl [mailto:CLAUDIA at reston.org]<CLAUDIA at reston.org]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:34 PM
> *To:* Marc Imlay; Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov; Robert Layton Beyfuss
> *Cc:* native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org;
> apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; 'Katy Cummings'
> *Subject:* RE: [APWG] [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
>
> I would be surprised if Poison Ivy is on the National Park Service Exotic
> Plant Management Teams list as I have heard about 70 species of birds eat
> the berries and it is a native.
>
> Claudia Thompson-Deahl
>
>
> *
> Environmental Resource Manager
> ISA Certified Arborist # MA-5203A
> 12250 Sunset Hills Road
> Reston, VA 20190
> 703.435.6547 <tel:703.435.6547>
> claudia at reston.org* <mailto:claudia at reston.org> <claudia at reston.org>
> *Reston Association Employees Make the Difference: **Caring for, Serving
> & Enhancing the Reston Community.
> *
> *RA Vision: *Leading the model community where all can live, work, play,
> and get involved.
> *RA Mission:* To preserve and enhance the Reston Community through
> outstanding leadership, service, and stewardship of our resources.
> *RA Core Values:* Service~Collaboration~Stewardship~ Innovation~Leadership
>
> *NOTICE:* *The contents of this email and any attachments to it may
> contain privileged and confidential information from the Reston
> Association. This information is only for the viewing or use of the
> intended recipient.
> *
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [
> mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org]<apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org]>
> *On Behalf Of *Marc Imlay
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:02 AM
> *To:* Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov; 'Robert Layton Beyfuss'
> *Cc:* native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org;
> apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; 'Katy Cummings'
> *Subject:* Re: [APWG] [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
>
> *I show my volunteers how Poison ivy is dominant in eary succession
> habitats after an unnatural disturbance but becomes a minor species in
> fully recovered woodlands. The same for sweetgum.
> *
> *Marc Imlay, PhD,
> Conservation biologist, Park Ranger Office
> *
> *(301) 442-5657 <tel:%28301%29%20442-5657> cell
> *
>
> *ialm at erols.com
> *
> *Natural and Historical Resources Division
> *
> *The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
> *
> *www.pgparks.com <http://www.pgparks.com/> <http://www.pgparks.com/> **
> <http://www.pgparks.com/> <http://www.pgparks.com/>
> *
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> *From:* apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [
> mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org]<apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org]>
> *On Behalf Of *Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
> *Sent:* Monday, August 27, 2012 10:25 AM
> *To:* Robert Layton Beyfuss
> *Cc:* native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org;
> apwg at lists.plantconservation.org; Katy Cummings
> *Subject:* Re: [APWG] [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
>
> Cheers, Bob!
>
> My two cents:
>
> - A native can most definitely be an invasive. Teal and Mark's
> comments elucidate that issue well.
> - I'm not sure what list you might be referring to, but from what I
> understand of the Federal Noxious Weed list, I believe that plants that are
> either naturalized or have completely overrun the US will not end up on
> that list. I believe that list tends to include species that are in the
> earlier stages of invasion where prevention of further influxes can still
> make a difference for slowing the spread. I also doubt it would be on any
> state list - those often tend to be geared to non-natives and ornamental
> plants - of which poison ivy is neither.
>
>
> It seems like poison ivy falls into a strange no-man's land - as a native,
> it doesn't seem to fit on the PCA ALien Plant WOrking Group listserve - yet
> the expertise on that list may be more appropriate (versus this general
> native plant listserve) because they are the folks with specific insight on
> invasive species biology.
>
> I wonder if any of the National Park Service Exotic Plant Management Teams
> have identified it as among their top ten target taxa in any of their
> regions?
>
> -Patricia
>
> Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
> Botanist, Division of Scientific Authority-US Fish & Wildlife
> Service-International Affairs
> Chair, Medicinal Plant Working Group-Plant Conservation Alliance
> 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 110
> Arlington, VA 22203
> 703-358-1708 x1753 <tel:703-358-1708%20x1753>
> FAX: 703-358-2276 <tel:703-358-2276>
>
> Promoting sustainable use and conservation of our native medicinal plants.
> <www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal <http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal><http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>
> <http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal><http://www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>>
>
>
> Follow International Affairs
> > on Twitter http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl
> > on Facebook
> <http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl> <http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl>
> http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs
> <http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs><http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs>
> *Robert Layton Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu>*
> Sent by: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org 08/27/2012
> 09:45 AM
> To Katy Cummings <katy.e.cummings at gmail.com>, "
> native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org" <
> native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org>
> cc
> Subject Re: [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi All
> I am a bit confused and hope you can enlighten me. I thought that the
> basic definition of an invasive plant was that it had to be exotic. There
> are many native plants that create almost solid monocultures such as common
> goldenrod yet can it be “undesirable” at any density? . Poison ivy can
> overrun entire areas but I have never seen it listed as invasive.
> Bob
>
> *From:* native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [
> mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org]<native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org]>
> *On Behalf Of *Katy Cummings
> *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2012 9:28 PM
> *To:* native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
> *Subject:* [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
>
> Fellow Conservationists-
>
> I work for The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Door County, WI. My main
> project this summer has been mapping exotic and native stands of Phragmites
> (*Phragmites australis* and *Phragmites australis americanus*) throughout
> TNC properties in Door County. I have some questions and experiences to
> share with you as our organization tries to learn more about the
> native/exotic Phragmites issue.
>
> We all know what havoc the exotic Phragmites subspecies can wreak on an
> ecosystem, but do we know anything about the native subspecies? *Is
> there any research out there showing that the native Phragmites can behave
> as aggressively as the exotic? *In Door County, the native usually grows
> in scattered to moderate densities along with other wetland plants, with a
> few patches showing denser concentrations. There are a few areas where the
> native has reached undesirable “dense” concentrations, but as of yet we
> don’t know why.
>
> *What other plants are associated with the native Phragmites?* TNC will
> be setting up monitoring plots soon on some of our native patches, and when
> we get that data I’ll send it to any interested people from this list. The
> only list I’ve been able to find is from a chapter by Laura Meyerson et al.
> in “Invasions in North American Salt Marshes” entitled “Phragmites
> australis in Eastern North America: A Historical and Ecological
> Perspective”. Does anyone know of other lists from different regions of
> the U.S.?
>
> *Are there any patterns to where native Phragmites is found? *During my
> mapping of the plant in Door County, I’ve generally found native Phragmites
> set back from the edge of waterways and growing in more marshy areas.
>
> *What have you all seen as far as size of patches, number of patches,
> location, rate of spread, etc. of the native Phragmites in your area? *Most
> of the wetlands in Door County are fed by alkaline ground water discharge
> as a result of movement through the underlying dolomitic bedrock. I assume
> that because of these alkaline conditions we have a higher population of
> native Phragmites than perhaps other regions of the Midwest. Is this true?
>
>
> To help answer these questions, The Nature Conservancy’s Door Peninsula
> office has temporarily halted eradication measures of native lineages of *
> Phragmites*. We are in the process of developing long-term monitoring
> plots in native *Phragmites *stands throughout Nature Conservancy
> holdings in Door County, WI. The goals of this monitoring project will be
> to assess the following questions:
> *1.** *Under what conditions do native stands become aggressive?
>
> *2.** *At what threshold is a native stand damaging to the
> community?
>
> *3.** *What plants are commonly associated with native *Phragmites *in
> the Great Lakes region?
> If you are interested, I can send you a more detailed methodology for our
> monitoring project, including what parameters we will be sampling.
>
> As an additional note, I’d encourage people to mention there is a native
> variety of Phragmites and differentiate between the two strains in any
> publications or documents.
>
> I look forward to your input!
>
>
> Thanks again,
> Katy Cummings
> katy.e.cummings at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Joe Franke
> Sapo Gordo Ecological Restoration Services
> Chile Dog Designs, Inc.
> 1228 Lafayette Dr. NE
> Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA
> ph: 505-515-8736 <tel:505-515-8736>
> Sapogordoeco at comcast.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Joe Franke
> Sapo Gordo Ecological Restoration Services
> Chile Dog Designs, Inc.
> 1228 Lafayette Dr. NE
> Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA
> ph: 505-515-8736
> Sapogordoeco at comcast.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20120905/73b01fde/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 56083 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20120905/73b01fde/attachment.jpg>
More information about the APWG
mailing list