<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>APWG:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Since I have received more than one off-list
comment along these lines, I am posting herewith, the relevant text of my
response to one of them for your critical review:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>' . . . the truth be known, I do recognize that
some "weeds" do provide "ecological services." For example, I confess that
I once got <EM>Nicotiana glauca</EM> removed from a major agency's "hit list" on
a riparian restoration project because it was (in that context) non-invasive
(merely "ruderal") and served as a fast-growing vertical element, a perching
site (vector facilitation), and a temporary surrogate for missing hummingbird
plants--and it allowed scarce resources to be allocated to higher-priority
issues. While I didn't advocate actually seeding or planting it, I might hold
open even that possibility under other circumstances. I have used other alien
"fast-faders" to "stand in" for missing or scarce indigenous species, provide
temporary habitat modification, etc., but admit that it can be a risky
procedure. Usually such species are those whose metabolic requirements, for
example, are present on the site only temporarily. In other cases, I have used
sterile individuals for similar purposes. I do not recommend this practice, but
IF one is very careful to understand things like the physiological ecology and
environmental dynamics of restoration sites in all their diversity and range,
one can <EM>theoretically</EM> "use" a problem species as an asset. I emphasize
that there's a TREMENDOUS amount of knowledge and synthesis that has yet to be
developed, however, and that, AT MINIMUM, each potential application must at
least pass muster on an theoretical level--and by "theoretical" I mean
constructed from solid, proven scientific theory, not just wild guesses or even
SWAGs.'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PS: I should have added that there are very few
"weeds" which should be considered for these reasons--unless it is indisputably
clear that considerable value can be derived and zero penalties suffered.
</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>