[APWG] Ecological perturbations - masking other invasive pathways?
Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
Fri Sep 7 08:28:56 CDT 2012
Steve makes a good point about the dangers of generalizing and I think we
all fall into that trap every so often.
Clearly, if we appraoch an issue with the pre-conceived notion that the
only (or primary) mode of "invasion" is ecological perturbations,
important dynamics will be overlooked (and come up to bite us in the end?)
and it would introduce bias into any scientific experiment or
investigation.
Perhaps the upside to a focus on the "ecological perturbation" aspect
would be that humans are a primary culprit of perturbations and by
focusing on that, perhaps human behavior can be modified?
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
FAX: 703-358-2276
Promoting sustainable use and conservation of our native medicinal plants.
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>
Follow International Affairs
> on Twitter http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl
> on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs
"Shelly, Steve -FS" <sshelly at fs.fed.us>
Sent by: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
09/06/2012 08:48 PM
To
Gena Fleming <genafleming at gmail.com>, Joe Franke
<sapogordoeco at comcast.net>
cc
"native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org"
<native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org>,
"apwg at lists.plantconservation.org" <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>,
"Manning, Mary E -FS" <mmanning at fs.fed.us>
Subject
Re: [PCA] [APWG] Native Phragmites Data
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 I?m 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 ?ecological perturbations? 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 ?perturbation behaviors? 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20120907/e0bdfb9a/attachment.html>
More information about the APWG
mailing list