<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Steve makes a good point about the dangers
of generalizing and I think we all fall into that trap every so often.
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Clearly, if we appraoch an issue with
the pre-conceived notion that the only (or primary) mode of "invasion"
is ecological perturbations, important dynamics will be overlooked (and
come up to bite us in the end?) and it would introduce bias into any scientific
experiment or investigation. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Perhaps the upside to a focus on the
"ecological perturbation" aspect would be that humans are a primary
culprit of perturbations and by focusing on that, perhaps human behavior
can be modified? </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.<br>
Botanist, Division of Scientific Authority-US Fish & Wildlife Service-International
Affairs<br>
Chair, Medicinal Plant Working Group-Plant Conservation Alliance<br>
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 110<br>
Arlington, VA 22203<br>
703-358-1708 x1753<br>
FAX: 703-358-2276<br>
<br>
Promoting sustainable use and conservation of our native medicinal plants.
<br>
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal><br>
<br>
Follow International Affairs<br>
> on Twitter </font><a href=http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl><font size=2 face="sans-serif">http://twitter.com/USFWSInternatl<br>
> on Facebook </font><a href=http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs><font size=2 face="sans-serif">http://www.facebook.com/USFWS_InternationalAffairs</font></a></a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Shelly, Steve -FS"
<sshelly@fs.fed.us></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: native-plants-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">09/06/2012 08:48 PM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Gena Fleming <genafleming@gmail.com>,
Joe Franke <sapogordoeco@comcast.net></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org"
<native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org>, "apwg@lists.plantconservation.org"
<apwg@lists.plantconservation.org>, "Manning, Mary E -FS"
<mmanning@fs.fed.us></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [PCA] [APWG] Native Phragmites
Data</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri">I would certainly agree that addressing
ecological perturbations is a critical need if we are to have any chance
dealing with many invasive species. But I’m hanging up on the notion
that their spread and persistence is always triggered by such perturbations.
There are definitely lots of examples of that (the cheatgrass/fire
cycle is another classic case). But as with most ecological phenomena
(and politics?), generalization is tempting but risky. There are
also lots of cases here in the northern Rockies where invasive plants are
colonizing sites with little or no recent disturbance. A specific
example is yellow toadflax (<i>Linaria vulgaris</i>). While this
species is certainly invading a number of highly disturbed sites (from
roadsides to severely burned natural areas), it is also showing a remarkable
capacity to invade undisturbed backcountry areas in an unprovoked manner
(presumably being dispersed by wind, wildlife, and/or recreationists).
Another situation is with rush skeletonweed (<i>Chondrilla juncea</i>),
a wind-dispersed species that is common in Idaho, but is making its way
into western Montana, also often in remote areas with little or no direct
habitat disturbance preceding its appearance. In my view these are
the most problematic species – because there are no “ecological perturbations”
that we can ameliorate to deal with them. Their life histories and
dispersal modes just predispose them to being highly invasive. See
a paper by Steve Sutherland (2004. What makes a weed a weed: life
history traits of native and exotic plants in the USA. Oecologia
141:24-39) for further discussion. Where we can change our problematic
“perturbation behaviors” we should. But in other cases, diligent
inventory and strategic control will have to do.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"><b><i>Steve Shelly</i></b></font>
<br><font size=2 color=#424200 face="Calibri"><b>Botany/Invasive Species/Research
Natural Areas</b></font>
<br><font size=2 color=#424200 face="Calibri"><b>U.S. Forest Service, Region
1</b></font>
<br><font size=2 color=#424200 face="Calibri"><b>(406) 329-3041</b></font>
<br><font size=2 color=#424200 face="Calibri"><b>sshelly@fs.fed.us</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="Calibri"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> native-plants-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org
[mailto:native-plants-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Gena Fleming<b><br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 05, 2012 8:20 PM<b><br>
To:</b> Joe Franke<b><br>
Cc:</b> native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org; apwg@lists.plantconservation.org<b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: [PCA] [APWG] Native Phragmites Data</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">In fact, maybe that's why they
are invasive ---- they're an underutilized resource.</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">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.</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">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? </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Gena Fleming</font>
<br>
<p>