[APWG] [PCA] Native Phragmites Data
Joe Franke
sapogordoeco at comcast.net
Thu Sep 6 17:15:49 CDT 2012
Certainly didn¹t mean to imply that dealing with water issues and other
sorts of perturbation problems was the key to dealing with ALL invasives.
I¹m only using our situation out here in the Rio Grande corridor as an
example of how it is POSSIBLE to lay blame on a single species, and not deal
with the underlying ecological issues that are allowing it¹s spread. It
seems simple on the face of it, but in reality we are dealing with a lie
covering up the truth, and this sort of situation needs to be realized and
understood if and when it occurs. Other problems require other solutions.
Joe Franke
On 9/6/12 3:03 PM, "Shelly, Steve -FS" <sshelly at fs.fed.us> wrote:
> I would certainly agree that addressing ecological perturbations is a critical
> need if we are to have any chance dealing with many invasive species. But I¹m
> hanging up on the notion that their spread and persistence is always triggered
> by such perturbations. There are definitely lots of examples of that (the
> cheatgrass/fire cycle is another classic case). But as with most ecological
> phenomena (and politics?), generalization is tempting but risky. There are
> also lots of cases here in the northern Rockies where invasive plants are
> colonizing sites with little or no recent disturbance. A specific example is
> yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris). While this species is certainly invading
> a number of highly disturbed sites (from roadsides to severely burned natural
> areas), it is also showing a remarkable capacity to invade undisturbed
> backcountry areas in an unprovoked manner (presumably being dispersed by wind,
> wildlife, and/or recreationists). Another situation is with rush skeletonweed
> (Chondrilla juncea), a wind-dispersed species that is common in Idaho, but is
> making its way into western Montana, also often in remote areas with little or
> no direct habitat disturbance preceding its appearance. In my view these are
> the most problematic species because there are no ³ecological perturbations²
> that we can ameliorate to deal with them. Their life histories and dispersal
> modes just predispose them to being highly invasive. See a paper by Steve
> Sutherland (2004. What makes a weed a weed: life history traits of native
> and exotic plants in the USA. Oecologia 141:24-39) for further discussion.
> Where we can change our problematic ³perturbation behaviors² we should. But
> in other cases, diligent inventory and strategic control will have to do.
>
> Steve Shelly
> Botany/Invasive Species/Research Natural Areas
> U.S. Forest Service, Region 1
> (406) 329-3041
> sshelly at fs.fed.us
>
> From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
> [mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Gena
> Fleming
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 8:20 PM
> To: Joe Franke
> Cc: native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org;
> apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> Subject: Re: [PCA] [APWG] Native Phragmites Data
>
>
> 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 it¹s only an academic discussion. When you point out these
> problems to funders of restoration projects, they don¹t want to hear about it.
> It¹s a little like American politics in that it¹s easier to ³other² a
> politician than to look at the social conditions that brought them to power
> and do something about the ³root² problems.
>
> It¹s been horrifying to see how much money has been wasted here on the
> unsuccessful attempted ³control² of tamarisk, Russian olive and Siberian elm
> in cottonwood Bosque along the Rio Grande.
>
> I would recommend that people look at some of Mathew Chew¹s 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 I¹d 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 that¹s going on out here
>>> in the West concerning Tamarisk. To many of us attempting to do restoration
>>> work we¹ve realized that the spread and extreme ³weediness² 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 species¹
>>> 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 ³officially²
>>>> invasive but they surely can be problematic! I have a colleague at Cornell
>>>> who refers to native weeds that behave like invasives as ³interfering²
>>>> vegetation. No one has ever satisfactorily defined ³exotic² in my opinion
>>>> and I consider Clinton¹s 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 don¹t recognize
>>>> borders and neither should we in trying to tell ³good² plants from ³bad²
>>>> 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]
>>>> 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> <tel:703.435.6547 <tel:703.435.6547> >
>>>> claudia at reston.org <mailto: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] 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> <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/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
>>>> [mailto: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> <tel:703-358-1708%20x1753>
>>>> FAX: 703-358-2276 <tel:703-358-2276> <tel: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> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Follow International Affairs
>>>>> > on Twitter http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl
>>>>> > on Facebook
>>>> <http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl>
>>>> 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 ³undesirable² 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] 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 ³dense² concentrations, but as of yet we
>>>> don¹t 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 I¹ll send it to any interested people from this list. The
>>>> only list I¹ve been able to find is from a chapter by Laura Meyerson et al.
>>>> in ³Invasions in North American Salt Marshes² entitled ³Phragmites
>>>> australis in Eastern North America: A Historical and Ecological
>>>> Perspective². 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, I¹ve 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 Conservancy¹s 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, I¹d 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> <tel: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.plantconserva
>>> tion.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 <tel:505-515-8736>
> Sapogordoeco at comcast.net
>
>
>
>
>
> This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for
> the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the
> use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and
> subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email
> immediately.
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/20120906/987a05fd/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/20120906/987a05fd/attachment.jpg>
-------------- 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/20120906/987a05fd/attachment-0001.jpg>
More information about the APWG
mailing list