[APWG] Ecological perturbations - masking other invasive pathways?

[Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov]

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>