[MPWG] Electronic Public Discussion: Evaluating the Invasive Potential of Imported Plants

Wed Dec 20 11:30:47 CST 2006

No matter how "aggressive," plants cannot "invade" an intact  
ecosystem that's in balance.  Any experienced organic farmer knows  
the resilience of a neglected hay meadow, for example, and has to  
plant successive cover crops in order to break the cycles of the  
existing species before planting his/her preferred crop.  It's no  
coincidence that "invasives" line the roadways, railways, cover the  
South where the nutrients were mined out of the soil for cotton and  
tobacco, and infest wetlands, rivers and creeksides where the nitrate  
fertilizers used in conventional agriculture are accumulating.   
Naturally, dumping more chemicals on these plants just aggravates the  
imbalance.

Biologists of my acquaintance were horrified to see "invasives"  
covering the area where a mountaintop had been blown off for coal  
mining.  Well, thank Mother Earth that something was growing over  
such an atrocity!  She knows how to heal herself.  Also -- hello  
there -- she's sending us a message:  stop polluting the earth!

Can we please, please get over the germ theory of disease?  It's so  
19th century!

Happy Solstice,
Jean

On Dec 19, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Melinda Mohrman wrote:

> When plants are transported to areas outside of their native habitat,
> they are exposed to areas where they may not have any natural  
> population
> control.  If they reproduce more aggressively than the native species,
> they are invasive.  Many exotic plants are not considered invasive
> because they do not react this way to their new environments.  Banning
> invasive plants is not a "knee jerk" reaction, this is something that
> only happens after a plant has proven itself to be detrimental to its
> new environment.  It is not bureaucrats who are making these  
> decisions,
> it is the plant science professionals who are urging them to take
> action.  You mentioned groups which save native plants so that  
> highways
> can be installed and exotic plants used on the roadsides- one of the
> reasons this legislation matters is because it does not allow exotic
> plants to be used in these ways.  In an effort to correct past  
> mistakes,
> many states are enacting programs to establish native plants along
> roadsides in order to stop the spread of these invasive plants.  I'm
> dismayed at the thought that their might be people out there who are
> fighting for invasive plants, when so many of us are fighting against
> them.
>
>>>> Bob Beyfuss <rlb14 at cornell.edu> 12/19/2006 4:40 PM >>>
> The concept of plants in themselves being capable of being "invasive"
> is
> silly. It is attributing human qualities (implying malice in this  
> case)
> to
> unthinking organisms. Plants live, grow, reproduce (some are very
> efficient
> at this) and die. New or different plants do not displace established
> existing plants in healthy, undisturbed  ecosystems. Plants do not
> appear
> anywhere due to "spontaneous generation". They are brought in by  
> humans
> or
> animals. They may colonize or become naturalized in (neither colonize
> nor
> naturalize  imply malice) areas less suited to so called "native"
> species
> because human activity has allowed this to happen.
>
> I am offended at the concept that "exotic" plants are somehow inferior
> to
> "native" plants. Especially since 90% of my diet and that of most  
> of us
> is
> derived from"exotic" plants. Demonizing "exotic" plants as "invasive
> exotic" is inherently offensive .  Which term is less offensive to you
>
> "Invasive exotic" or "opportunistic colonizer"? Now try to answer that
>
> question if you happen to be from the Middle east (maybe Iraq),  
> Asia or
>
> Africa or Europe and you hear or read an American talking about
> "invasive
> exotic species". I am sure the people in the middle east or anywhere
> else
> in the world must enjoy reading about our efforts to "combat" (another
>
> wonderful term)  "invasive, exotic species".
>
> Personally I like the term "noxious weed" in which a weed is  
> defined as
> "an
> unwanted plant". By this definition a "volunteer" (i.e. unplanted)
> soybean
> plant growing in a corn field is a weed.  A "noxious weed" is a
> particularly undesirable weed. Why do we have to invent new terms that
> are
> as offensive as "exotic invasive" or even worse "alien, invasive"?
>
> What I find even more troubling is the knee jerk reaction to their
> presence. Lets just kill all the bad plants we don't like anymore and
> everything will be fine. First we gather all their names up and put
> them on
> a list. Target these for extermination. Next we will make up more  
> lists
> of
> plants that "might" be "invasive" in the future and ban them too. Here
> in
> NY State we already have county executives issuing "executive decrees"
>
> banning the use of any but "native" species in any future plantings on
>
> county property. How dare they do this? Yet, this is a logical
> extension of
> the current polices we are formulating. Why should we be denied
> daffodils,
> daylillies, tulips or apple trees or Kentucky bluegrass (another  
> exotic
>
> import) because someone has decided that they are evil?
>
> In the long run, and I must emphasize looking at the long run or the
> big
> picture, every single environment on this planet will ultimately
> determine
> what plant and animal species survives there, not some bureaucrat in
> Washington with a pen making up lists of good versus bad plants based
> on
> his or her opinion. This process is called natural selection and it is
>
> constant. Black locust is OK in PA because it is "native" but bad  
> in NY
>
> because it is exotic? This is crazy. The same species of Magnolias
> growing
> in China are identical to some of those growing here. At one time  
> there
> was
> one continent so what exactly is "native" and why are "native" plants
> superior to Non native? Are "native people, i.e. blue blooded  
> Americans
>
> inherently superior to immigrants because they were born here? How  
> long
>
> must one be here to be considered a "native"?
>
> Global warming will have a far more profound effect on plant species
> and
> their distribution than some group of people spraying herbicides on
> plants
> they don't like.
>
> An interesting research project along that line might be to study
> exactly
> how plants are distributed and become established within any given
> community.  While highly paid administrators are forming invasive  
> plant
>
> councils, attending countless meetings and making regulations, the
> local
> highway department employee (@ $10 per hour) is transplanting garlic
> mustard and Japanese knotweed every time they move the Grade-all
> machine
> from one place to another. The people picking up garbage along the
> highway
> are also picking up weed seeds and moving them down the road. All the
> campers, mountain bikers, hikers, 4 wheelers, skiers, and other  
> outdoor
>
> recreationist constantly introduce exotic stuff into the environment.
> Should we pass regulations banning these activities? No, it is much
> easier
> to blame the plants for the problems and spray them with  
> herbicides. Or
> is it?
>
> I recently spoke with the local Executive Director of the Nature
> Conservancy for the Catskill Mountain region and he estimated that he
> could
> easily spend 90% or more of their total annual operating budget trying
> to
> eradicate only garlic mustard and only from roadsides in this region
> and
> the net result would be that it would be required to do this every  
> year
>
> indefinitely with no chance of eradication at all. Is this a good use
> of
> our limited resources? Good organizations like Ohio's Rural Action
> Network
> are forced to rescue plants from proposed new highways which soon will
> have
> their shoulders colonized by "exotic, invasive plants". So, should we
> ban
> the building of new highways or prohibit logging or timber harvest
> because
> of the inevitable consequences? Maybe we should ban all imports of all
>
> exotic plants or better yet prohibit cultivation of all but native
> plants!
> Or do we proceed as carefully as possible with these projects and
> realize
> that there will surely be unwanted consequences as a result?.
>
> Most of the plants now considered as evil, invasive exotic species  
> were
>
> introduced for some very good reasons and many of them are still great
>
> choices for many situations. If not for Norway maple there would be no
>
> street trees in some stressed locations. Like the soybean plant in the
>
> cornfield, one situation's weed is another situations wildflower.
> Black
> locust is a wonderful alternative to CCA pressure treated wood, many,
> many
> species of songbirds feast on the berries of the exotic honeysuckles,
> Autumn and Russian olive, bittersweet, barberry, multiflora rose, and
> on
> and on.
>
> I don't like the idea of banning books, banning plants or banning
> anything
> because it is politically correct. All this talk about "combating
> invasive
> exotics"  and the connotations of this language makes me very nervous.
> We
> are already engaged in far too many wars for our own good and for the
> good
> of our planet.
>
> Thanks for reading.
> Bob Beyfuss
>
> At 11:20 AM 12/13/2006, Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov wrote:
>
>> Excuse the cross-postings but it looks like there is something in  
>> this
> for
>> everyone!
>>
>> This discussion is already underway!  A summary of the purpose and  
>> how
> you
>> can participate is below.  To see the full notice, see:
>> http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/ 
>> edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-18768.htm
>
>>
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - -
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>> SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health
>> Inspection Service (APHIS) is hosting an electronic public discussion
>> on methods that can be used to evaluate the potential of imported
>> plants to become invasive species if they are introduced into the
>> United States. Any interested person can register for the electronic
>> discussion, which will allow participants to upload files and
> interact
>> with other participants and with APHIS staff.
>>
>> DATES: The electronic public discussion will be held from November
> 27,
>> 2006 to January 26, 2007.
>>
>> FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Polly Lehtonen, Senior Staff
>> Officer, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
>> River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8758.
>>
>> QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: We would like participants in the
>> electronic discussion to specifically address the following six
> questions,
>> although general comments on the issue of evaluating invasiveness
> will
>> be accepted as well.
>>    1. What criteria, other than whether the plant has a history of
>> invasiveness elsewhere, are most useful to determine the invasiveness
>> of a plant introduced into the United States for the first time?
>>    2. When there is little or no existing scientific literature or
>> other information describing the invasiveness of a plant species, how
>> much should we extrapolate from information on congeners (other
> species
>> within the same genus)?
>>    3. What specific scientific experiments should be conducted to
> best
>> evaluate a plant's invasive potential? Should these experiments be
>> conducted in a foreign area, in the United States, or both?
>>    4. How should the results of such experiments be interpreted?
>> Specifically, what results should be interpreted as providing
>> conclusive information for a regulatory decision?
>>    5. If field trials are necessary to determine the invasive
>> potential of a plant, under what conditions should the research be
>> conducted to prevent the escape of the plant into the environment?
>>    6. What models or techniques are being used by the nursery
>> industry, weed scientists, seed companies, botanical gardens, and
>> others to screen plants that have not yet been widely introduced into
>> the United States for invasiveness? What species have been rejected
> by
>> these evaluators as a result of the use of these evaluation methods?
>>
>> ACCESSING THE ELECTRONIC DISCUSSION:
>>    While anyone can access the discussion and read the comments,
>> registration is required in order to participate in the discussion.
> You
>> will be asked to register at the time you post your comment.
> Participants
>> will be required to enter their name and e-mail address. Affiliation
> and
>> mailing address are optional. Only the participant names will be
> publicly
>> displayed.
>>
>> The discussion will be accessible through a link on Plant Protection
> and
>> Quarantine's Web page for the nursery stock revision,
>> <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi? 
>> from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ 
>> Q37/revision.html>http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/Q37/revision.html.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PCA's Medicinal Plant Working Group mailing list
>> MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>> mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to
> MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org
>> with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>>
>> Disclaimer
>> Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc.
>> reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message.  
>> The
>
>> information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a
>> substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific
>> medical condition or question. All medical and other healthcare
>> information that is discussed on this list should be carefully
> reviewed by
>> the individual reader and their qualified healthcare professional.
> Posts
>> do not reflect any official opinions or positions of the Plant
>> Conservation Alliance.
>
> ***************************************************************
> This email should be considered "unofficial communication"
> and does not necessarily reflect the official position of
> the City of Chesterfield. An "official position" of the
> City shall only be communicated in letter form, using
> City letterhead.
> ***************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCA's Medicinal Plant Working Group mailing list
> MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to MPWG- 
> request at lists.plantconservation.org with the word "unsubscribe" in  
> the subject line.
>
> Disclaimer
> Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments  
> etc. reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the  
> message. The information contained in posts is not intended nor  
> implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice relative  
> to your specific medical condition or question. All medical and  
> other healthcare information that is discussed on this list should  
> be carefully reviewed by the individual reader and their qualified  
> healthcare professional. Posts do not reflect any official opinions  
> or positions of the Plant Conservation Alliance.
>

Jean Giblette, Director
HIGH FALLS GARDENS
Box 125 Philmont NY 12565 USA
518-672-7365
hfg at capital.net
www.highfallsgardens.net