<!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 and Scott:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"Classical" philosophy may indeed seem separated
from science, but principles that seem broad, even fuzzy, can function to focus
and maintain discipline in the pursuit of truth that should be science--and
"philosophy." But we can all have our own "philosophies." Philosophies, like
physical laws and other statements of principle upon which quests for truth are
based, are, by their nature, subject to reexamination, to testing, to challenge.
My central driving "philosophy," for example has been unchanged since I was
fifteen: "To reconcile the needs and works of humankind with those of the earth
and its life." It keeps standing up to challenge, but remain open to challenge.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"Nature," for example, may or may not actually
"solve problems," in the sense we are capable of understanding, but in an
objective sense, science and scientists should not, cannot, if it/they is/are
honest, fail to see the totality of relevant factors within our view.
Accordingly, we should not fail to observe and consider the actual effects of,
say, a studied organism in all its complexity and relationships. Certainly,
then, we cannot remain honest if we select only those aspects related to an
organism, a community, an ecosystem that are consistent with some selected
"spin" on the facts. To the specific example at hand, "nature's" natural
response to change is to match "her" organisms to it. That is, if purple
loosestrife happens to be available, and if the conditions of habitat (a given
change) happen to match the loosestrife's needs and capabilities, the organism
will respond by "doing its thing." Both of these phenomena can be objectively
considered; that they may have not is beside the point--that indicates only the
limitations of the observer/scientist, not that a conclusion based on
fragmentary data is the final, or even an accurate "word" on the subject.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The operative adjective in my statement about
"invasive in ecosystems" is <EM>"apparent."</EM> If, for example, recruitment of
an alien organism is dependent upon some "anomalous" condition in a given
"closed" ecosystem, the issue becomes whether or not that organism can continue
to survive and thrive, expand, reproduce, and "compete," not to mention displace
other indigenous organisms to their ultimate detriment, reduction of population,
or extinction. "Continue" deserves more attention too. If, for example, the
anomalous condition that enables the alien species to colonize is reduced or
ceases, the alien species in question must possess other strategies to persist
in any of the aforementioned terms. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Such objective information can be used by
restoration ecologists and others to reduce or eliminate anomalous conditions
that enable colonization by the alien species. Mere "bashing" that does not
remove the anomalous conditions can be quite limited in its effectiveness, and
in some forms (e.g. pulling, digging, spraying etc.) can be counterproductive,
increasing rather than reducing or eliminating the aliens. The science of
"integrated pest control" has some notable successes, but is not without its own
set of problems. While the concept of co-evolved pathogens and predators has
intuitive appeal, I'm not sure how much evidence actually validates it, and how
much of it is conjecture. Perhaps Lenharth can enlighten us further. We might
also consider just how much advantage indigenous species have, and how
"disadvantaged" they are in their own native context; evidence is similarly
lacking that indigenous, co-evolved species are "controlled" by indigenous
pathogens and predators. In addition to predation, an objective look into a
species' needs and how well those needs are satisfied by the environment,
"natural" or "unnatural" in which they find themselves at any given time or
cycle. For example, I was convinced for years that mouse plagues were the result
of eradication of their predators, but I now question that hypothesis and wonder
how much "good times," either provide by nature or human activities in or near
their habitat is perhaps a more important factor. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>With respect to urban parks and open spaces, I have
long advocated the preservation and/or restoration and modification of
indigenous ecosystems as a first consideration through a process of "project
requirements" statements and feasibility, but these realms remain in the domain
of whim and desire or "preference." I have also advocated integrating cultural
features like "edibility" with ecosystems, but have never been successful. Good
luck to all who do. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I hope that Toby's essay will be discussed point by
point, as it contains many that are excellent take-off points for learning more
about how we deal with anthropogenic land-scraping, its actual consequences, and
the relative values of those consequences and ecosystems. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WT</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
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> Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:27
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APWG] Fw: Ideas for
thought.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This essay is about philosophy, so it's difficult to respond to from the
perspective of invasive biology or restoration ecology. Statements
such as "purple loosestrife is...nature's way of solving a problem" can't be
objectively considered.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wayne, you touched on a good point - some introduced plants become
invasive in ecosystems that have experienced no apparent human
"disturbance". The essay ignores this critical point: plants and
animals, moved somewhere else, may be biologically released from their
co-evolved pathogens, predators, etc. And that provides the competitive
advantage.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think the author does illustrate the contrary positions people
take regarding urban lands - parks, preserves, green spaces. Should
these be restored into something resembling the historic (pre-settlement)
ecosystem? Or become hybrid "edible landscapes"? Or just
serve as recreation areas with no effort to manage the flora?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>>On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Wayne Tyson <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:landrest@cox.net">landrest@cox.net</A>></SPAN> wrote:</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: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11<BR>Internal Virus Database is out
of date.</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>