<!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>Re: "<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Wayne,
your text quotes from an observation in the CA Native Plant Society
newsletter. Nothing more. Next step would be designing a study,
yes? Maybe someone did in the last 21 years." </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My point was that the author (not given) made some
unequivocal statements, implying that there was a sound foundation to support
them. That would imply that a study had been done at that time. I agree that
(additional) studies would be in order to confirm or refute the conclusions
mentioned. I would even be willing to provisionally accept such statements if
they were based on casual observations and the author cited that as a foundation
for the conclusions. The text was not my observation, it was a direct
quote. That's not "nothing more," it's misleading to others (some will
believe it; others will reject it as hearsay, but that is what journals are
supposed to avoid) reading the statement and reflects upon the credibility
of the journal. If CNPS made an error in publishing such profound
pronouncements, I would hope that they would acknowledge it and print a
correction along with the original as part of their responsibility to minimize
disinformation propagation from invading and persisting on the Internet. When
authors' names are not given, especially for such absolute statements, I can
only presume that the editor of the journal is responsible. If there have
been studies done, I would like to know about them--hence the post. I'm looking
to APWG to resolve the question, not to bury it. I am making no judgment on the
content of the quote because no conclusion is possible without knowing the basis
for the statements. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PS: The University of California's "Weed
Identification Handbook" lists several plants native to the state as "noxious
weeds" because they "invade" croplands and "rangelands," and other "managed"
lands. In "unmanaged" lands they are part of an integrated system of organisms
that evolved without management. </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=scott.lenharth@gmail.com href="mailto:scott.lenharth@gmail.com">Scott
Lenharth</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=apwg@lists.plantconservation.org
href="mailto:apwg@lists.plantconservation.org">apwg@lists.plantconservation.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:39
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APWG] FW: Science or
unfounded rumor?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>On the contrary, native plants are labeled and managed as invasives when
their colonization disrupts a given ecosystem. Examples include the
various species of juniper here in the midwest and south. At the same
time, many human-introduced plants are routinely ignored in land management
since they pose no threat to the target habitat. Certain species of
Daucus fit this.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is a very real economic threat posed by invasives, especially in
the rangelands and farms of the western two-thirds of the country.
We're busy killing sericea (Lespedeza cuneata) this week NOT because we're
xenophobes or blindly following some imposed order from Albany, but
because it readily invades prairies and pastures - decreasing native species
and rendering the fields unfit for grazing.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And yes, there are many factors involved in the changing plant
composition in world ecoregions. Is that news to anyone?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(Wayne, your text quotes from an observation in the CA Native Plant
Society newsletter. Nothing more. Next step would be designing a
study, yes? Maybe someone did in the last 21 years.)</DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PCA's Alien
Plant Working Group mailing
list<BR>APWG@lists.plantconservation.org<BR>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org<BR><BR>Disclaimer<BR>Any
requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of
the individual posting the message.
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3039 - Release
Date: 07/30/10 13:13:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>