<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17095" name=GENERATOR><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
.shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.avgcert, li.avgcert, div.avgcert
{mso-style-name:avgcert;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=white>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I agree with what Bob and Wayne are saying about
the ecology of invasive species and the opportunistic characteristics of some
exotics in occupying "natural" disturbances in intact communities such as gopher
or badger mounds. I suspect we all could identify and classify the newer
bad actors in our respective areas which are truely invasive in fairly
undisturbed biotic communities. For the Northern Utah area where I live,
Dalmatian Toadflax, Yellow Star Thistle, Dyer's Woad, Canada Thistle, and Ox Eye
Daisy come to mind. I suspect all of these require some sort of modest
disturbance to allow "ecesis" in the Clementsian sense of introduced species
entering and establishing in an intact community (see for definition of
ecesis : <A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession</A>).
I'm sure there is a continuum between ruderals and invasives and it would be
nice to have this list for our various U.S. bioregions. Ty
Harrison</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rlb14@cornell.edu href="mailto:rlb14@cornell.edu">Robert Layton
Beyfuss</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=landrest@cox.net
href="mailto:landrest@cox.net">Wayne Tyson</A> ; <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> Monday, March 14, 2011 9:06
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive
Species Widespread, but Not More Than at Home</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Hi
Wayne<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">I
agree with your comments. Some people consider most exotic plants as invasive
in all situations regardless of where they occur. This includes many roadside
weeds that survive in a hostile, manmade environment that many native plants
cannot tolerate but these plants are only rarely found 100 yards away from the
highway. At least that has been my observation here in upstate NY where I
often wander off the road to see how far the invasive plants that dominate the
roadside may be found. I read here that Portland, Oregon has an ordinance
requiring the extermination of certain exotic plants, seemingly because they
present a threat to the native ecosystem of the city of Portland?
I am all in favor of protecting undisturbed ecosystems and other
places of native biodiversity from exotic weeds but I wonder how many truly
“undisturbed ecosystems” still exist in most of the US. I have been pleased to
note on this list serve that the tone of the posts is moving more towards
learning and understanding the processes that lead to weed invasions and then
designing a carefully calculated approach to dealing with them as some of the
posters here have done. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Bob<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">
apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Wayne
Tyson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 11, 2011 5:08 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
apwg@lists.plantconservation.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive
Species Widespread, but Not More Than at
Home<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Yes, it
would be interesting. For some reason, many people in the alien bashing
business seem reluctant to discuss the difference between "invasive" plants
that are largely restricted to disturbed sites and which do not "spread"
significantly into or within undisturbed ecosystems (and when they do,
attempting to understand that in those cases that the presence of the alien or
other colonizing species within "undisturbed" ecosystems is possibly due to
small areas of disturbance [e.g., gopher mounds] within them, or other
relatively short-term phenomena that shift localized habitat factors in favor
of the alien/colonizing species) and those which progressively invade
undisturbed ecosystems. It appears that Sahara mustard belongs in the latter
group, but disturbance magnifies the effect, particularly to the casual
observer. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">I also
would be interesting to know (I haven't read the paper; no doubt it provides
this information) in which of these general categories (I am calling
them "obligate ruderals" and "true invasives," but am willing to consider
other, better terms) those included in the study fall. Some alien species fall
into both categories, still others might be considered mere waifs.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">All species
are likely to perform best (be most successful) where conditions favoring
their requirements are all present at the right times, and will be less
successful in more marginal habitats. </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">I have
recently suggested that disturbances connected with control measures such as
pulling and trampling, not the mention the use of vehicles, tend to favor many
colonizing species, so won't repeat those remarks here.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">I look
forward to all comments, especially those revealing my errors.
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">WT</SPAN><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: black 1.5pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">----- Original
Message ----- <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4"><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> <A
title=ialm@erols.com href="mailto:ialm@erols.com">Marc Imlay</A>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> <A
title=apwg@lists.plantconservation.org
href="mailto:apwg@lists.plantconservation.org">apwg@lists.plantconservation.org</A>
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> Friday, March
11, 2011 2:41 AM<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> Re: [APWG] NEWS:
Invasive Species Widespread,but Not More Than at
Home<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<P><STRONG><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">It would be
interesting to know if the only 2.5 sites per species in home ranges were
natural sites or unnatural disturbed sites without competition from native
species. Native Switch Grass has been found invasive in America in unnatural
habitats but not in natural habitats and is a new invasive in Europe.
</SPAN></STRONG><o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><STRONG><SPAN
style="COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> </SPAN></STRONG><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></STRONG></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy">Marc Imlay, PhD,</SPAN></B><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy">Conservation biologist, Park Ranger
Office</SPAN><o:p></o:p></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy">(301) 442-5657 cell</SPAN><o:p></o:p></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy"><A
title="blocked::blocked::mailto:Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com
blocked::mailto:Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com
mailto:Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com"
href="blocked::mailto:Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com" target=_blank><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy">Marc.Imlay@pgparks.com</SPAN></A> <A
title=blocked::mailto:ialm@erols.com
href="mailto:ialm@erols.com">ialm@erols.com</A></SPAN><o:p></o:p></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy">Natural and Historical Resources
Division</SPAN><o:p></o:p></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy">The Maryland-National Capital Park and
Planning Commission</SPAN><o:p></o:p></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy"><A title=blocked::http://www.pgparks.com/
href="http://www.pgparks.com/">www.pgparks.com</A></SPAN><o:p></o:p></B></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><BR><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">-----Original
Message-----</SPAN></STRONG><B><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">From:
apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org [</SPAN></STRONG></B></SPAN><A
href="mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org"><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org</SPAN></STRONG></A><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">] On Behalf Of Reinhart,
Kurt</SPAN></STRONG><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011
11:59 AM</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">To:
apwg@lists.plantconservation.org</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Subject: Re: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive
Species Widespread,but Not More Than at
Home</SPAN></STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Okay, I'll bite & also do some
shameless self promotion.</SPAN></STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">A contrary view to Firn et al. is
provided using a single species (a prominent invasive tree species) that was
carried out across 40 total populations with slightly more than half in its
native range and nearly half in its non-native range in Reinhart et al.
(2010, New Phytologist </SPAN></STRONG></SPAN></B><A
href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03159.x/abst"><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03159.x/abst</SPAN></STRONG></A><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">ract). This study concluded
that measures of local relative abundance were considerably greater in the
non-native than native ranges. This study may not seem like a direct
comparison because the main topic relates to Enemy release but comparable
data are in the supplement (which apparently hasn't been read by
many). Others have made similar observations though often without
quantitative evidence for species like spotted knapweed, garlic mustard,
etc.</SPAN></STRONG><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><BR><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Firn et al's ELE study's main
advantage over Reinhart et al.'s is their use of considerably more species
(26 species, 12 grass and 14 forb</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">species) at 39 sites. They
concluded species have similar levels of abundance in native vs. non-native
ranges. A conclusion from their paper is that many of the grasses were
common at home and away while many of the forbs were rare at home and
away. However based on information in their supplement, I calculated
that on average they have measurements for only 2.5 sites per species in
home ranges and 7.6 sites per species in exotic ranges. Sampling more
species per region is valued because many species have incredibly large
distributions and local abundances are variable throughout. Sampling
broadly is necessary to avoid forms of regional sampling bias though
researchers have to balance logistics (also see Adams et al. 2009 as an
example of an extensive sampling network</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">(</SPAN></STRONG></SPAN></B><A
href="http://www.plantecology.org/Full%20text%20papers%20and%20abstracts/2009"><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">http://www.plantecology.org/Full%20text%20papers%20and%20abstracts/2009</SPAN></STRONG></A><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">%20papers/Adams%20Bioinvasions%202009.pdf).
Firn et al. help avoid this limitation by looking at numerous species though
more than half represent relatively minor invasions.</SPAN></STRONG><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><BR><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">I think what we would mostly like
to know is what traits/processes/interactions can we attribute to the
success of the most invasive species and whether their abundances, effects
of enemies, etc. differ at biogeographical scales. Following the rule
of 10s, these species represent the most improbable invasion
scenarios. So we shouldn't be too surprised if such rare events can
never be predicted without the benefit of hindsight. However, I
wouldn't be surprised if further studies, focusing on highly invasive
species which are the exceptions, reveal that most/many are cases where the
species attain greater levels of local abundance/dominance in their
non-native than native ranges. My 2 cents. You
decide.</SPAN></STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Kurt
Reinhart</SPAN></STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> 31. NEWS: Invasive Species
Widespread, but Not More Than
at</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Home</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">
Range (Olivia Kwong)</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Message:
31</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 08:27:30
-0600 (CST)</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">From: Olivia Kwong
<plant@plantconservation.org></SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">To:
apwg@lists.plantconservation.org</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Subject: [APWG] NEWS: Invasive
Species Widespread, but Not
More</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Than</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">
at Home Range</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Message-ID:</SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">
<Pine.LNX.4.64.1103030826390.1121@cpanel1-bb.epconline.net></SPAN></STRONG><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN;
charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed</SPAN></STRONG><BR><BR></SPAN></B><A
href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110301111459.htm"><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110301111459.htm</SPAN></STRONG></A><BR><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Invasive Species Widespread, but
Not More Than at Home Range</SPAN></STRONG><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><BR><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">ScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2011) --
Invasive plant species have long had a reputation as being bad for a new
ecosystem when they are introduced.</SPAN></STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Stan Harpole, assistant professor
of ecology, evolution and organismal biology at Iowa State University, is
founding organizer of a team of more than 70 researchers working at 65 sites
worldwide that tested that assumption.</SPAN></STRONG><BR><BR><STRONG><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">See the link above for the full
article
text.</SPAN></STRONG><BR><BR></SPAN><STRONG><o:p></o:p></STRONG></B></P>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center>
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</DIV>
<P
class=MsoNormal><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. <o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center>
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</DIV>
<P class=avgcert>No virus found in this message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus
Database: 1435/3487 - Release Date: 03/07/11<o:p></o:p></P></BLOCKQUOTE></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>
<P class=avgcert align=left color="#000000">No virus found in this
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus
Database: 1435/3505 - Release Date: 03/13/11</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>