[APWG] ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT Re: Human sacrifice and ecosystem function

Mon Sep 17 12:57:26 CDT 2012

Human sacrifice and ecosystem functionAPWG:

For what it may be worth, I've inserted a few comments within the texts of the thread below [[in double-brackets WT]]. I reformatted. I am leaving for an extended trip to the boondocks, mainly in CA, but possibly OR, and other western states. Will be back around Oct. 10, but no email after today or tomorrow, so I will have to wait to respond to any responses. 

WT

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Joe Franke 

To: Gena Fleming 

Cc: native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org ; apwg at lists.plantconservation.org 

Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 8:00 PM

Subject: [APWG] Human sacrifice and ecosystem function

Gena, 

Very well stated. 

I tried to bring about a little of that contextual shift that you mention by writing "The Invasive Species Cookbook", which will be in its second edition within the year. At the risk of this sounding like and advert for the book, I'd welcome any new recipes that people would like to contribute. The book was met with a certain amount of derision when reviewed in Ecology and Ecological Restoration, mostly because there was a widespread misunderstanding of the books's purpose by the reviewers in that they thought that I was advocating human consumption as a means of species control. In reality the central purpose of the book is to help people to think a bit differently about invasives, both plant and animal. Parenthetically, it was suggested several times by readers of the first edition of the book that I include recipes for humans, our species being the most "invasive" and destructive of the world's biota, but I've elected not to for several reasons, commercial and ethical. I'm not quite ready for that broad a contextual change!

[[Unfortunately, there are some out there who have no sense of humor. It's another "law" that people who resort to derision are insecure. WT]]

Even if such a contextual shift isn't immediately possible, I think that the discussion about how we might get there is one worthy of discussion now. How we view the world's biota,  to what degree we value fully functioning ecosystems and how much we're willing to sacrifice in order to get them to get to the point where we have sufficient tools at our disposal to really bring them back, rather than just treating symptoms of the disease (e.g. Tamarisk and Phragmites) are things that we should be talking about, even while we chop and poison with fingers crossed in hope that we're doing some good...which is sometimes not the case. I've seen plenty around here that would indicate that we're actually doing more damage than good. 

[[HOORAY! The truth is finally leaking out. But watch out, my friend, I would have been burned at the stake had some folks had their way . . .  As it was I was widely slandered. Now I'm retired, so FMDIDGAD!  WT]]

Some invasive plants seem to thrive on abuse, take Russian olive for example. [[I repeat: "Organisms do what they can, when they can, where they can!" WT]]

How to induce the necessary cultural change in thinking that will allow for more water in the river...that's the rub.

[[Right ON! At least we need some periodic flooding of the riparian alluvium, but that's gonna be a hard sell to the "thirsty" cities downstream that are gonna keep on landscaping and irrigating 'till it's all gone! I have a scheme to do this in net effect (not as good as releasing flood-flows from the dams, mind you, but at least to provide a mixed riparian woodland that reduces the tamarisk fraction. WT]]

 Environmental education as it has existed since the '70s is largely a failure because it has done little to change "nature's" place in the values hierarchy. But without this essential set of changes we as a species are doomed, and the sneaking suspicion that what we're doing in restoration work is largely a proverbial finger in the dike. 

[[. . . and sometimes an auger. WT]]

JF

On 9/5/12 8:20 PM, "Gena Fleming" <genafleming at gmail.com> wrote:

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. 

[[Right ON! WT]]

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. 

[[I'm a big invasive plant-eater (mustard, goosefoot [oops, native "weed"], nettle, etc.], but I doubt that eating them will have much effect on populations. For that, one has to allow (or help) the indigenous ecosystem to re-invade. WT]]

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. 

[[Well, as Einstein said (I paraphrase, and perhaps distort), "The definition of stupidity is continuing to repeat an action that produces undesirable consequences." WT]]

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 have been preaching this for years, apparently to zero effect. Hope you're a better salesman that I. WT]]

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 

[[Can somebody send me/us a copy by email? It's called a reprint request. WT]]

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. [[Right ON! WT]]

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. 

[[Glad to hear that someone still active in restoration is catching on to this. We should do a demonstration project somewhere. The Colorado River south of Green River? I have developed some relatively cheap mechanics . . . but then you probably have too. WT]]

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?    

[[Good points-but are they listening? WT]]

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. 

[["Controlling poison ivy/oak is a fool's errand that continues to be repeated. Herbicide "drift" can kill other existing and emerging plants, but the practice continues. WT]]

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.. A native can most definitely be an invasive.  Teal and Mark's comments elucidate that issue well. 
  b.. 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.  

[[For example, the last time I looked, California had several native species listed as "noxious," including a meadow iris, and other species that are not palatable or are considered poisonous to cattle. Anybody smell and oxymoron? WT]]

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 "undesirable" at any density? . Poison ivy can overrun entire areas but I have never seen it listed as invasive.  

[[Some Oregonians believe that junipers have become "invasive" in the last hundred or so years, and the BLM even has a demonstration project on Steens mountain illustrating various "control" methods. They have been cutting down far older junipers in the process. Even they seem to admit that the "invasion" was a response to human activity. Well, yes, overgrazed, cow-burnt areas commonly are "invaded" by "undesirable" species, such as mesquite in Texas and beyond. Pinyons and junipers have been expensively (taxpayers pay for the benefit of "ranchers") chained and poisoned for decades "to improve grass forage," and has backfired.  The list goes on. I don't consider this process as "invasive;" I consider it to be the response of organisms to change. WT]]

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 "dense" concentrations, but as of yet we don't know why. 

[[I know relatively little about Phragmites, but I encountered a mystery that was neatly solved by G. L. Stebbins in the 1950's. It took me about a month of old-fashioned literature research to find a couple of key papers by Stebbins and someone else whose name I have forgotten. This had to do with hybrids that developed, apparently in response to human disturbance, of the genus Elymus/Leymus. Fred Sproul wrote a paper about the gross morphology of the hybrids and the "pure" species. Stebbins found that the hybrids were essentially sterile, but they had hybrid vigor, and were thus able to dominate just about everything. Sproul and I found very large clones of the hybrids in which nothing else grew. This phenomenon was found by Stebbins to match the geographic areas where E./L. triticoides was overlapped by E./L. condensatus and/or E./L. glaucus.  This gets complexer and complexer, so I'll stop here. WT]]

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>  <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.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 <tel:505-515-8736> 
Sapogordoeco at comcast.net

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20120917/eb2fc276/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 73 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20120917/eb2fc276/attachment.gif>