[PCA] TV: David Mizejewski on the Today Show

[Dan and Sarah Segal]

Sara,

The whole idea that European settlers have basically damned the botanical purity of North America is kind of a bummer at least, and also grossly hyperbolic in my opinion.  Think of all the breathtaking natural places you have visited, where our flora thrives.

However, I consider myself a purist regarding issues of native plants, and I also consider the population the most significant unit, moreso than the species in some ways.  In other words, I am no apologist for those who try to downplay the importance of the issues you are tackling.  

So, how do I reconcile those two seemingly divergent sensibilities?  

The definition of a native plant is simply one that has evolved in situ, here.   Yes, someone could go semantically wild and consider even recent adventive Eurasian weeds as having evolved in situ, since all species are constantly adapting and evolving--so from the day they arrive they begin to adapt, and continue to evolve.  One still might be tempted to put a temporal minimum on the extent of evolution in situ to be counted as native.  But evolution doesn't happen at equal rates for all species, so again the real issue is the species' own history--where it spent its formative years, so to speak.  But most of all, defining a 'native plant' ecologically, rather than socially or culturally, is probably more tangible, scientific, accurate, and useful.  

The other issue is whether or not it is naive to exclude our own actions from what we call natural evolution.  Aren't we part of that?  Didn't we evolve from something?  Some people will suggest that native Americans moving plants was natural, but that movement of plants by Europeans was not.  I guess the idea is that moving natives within the continent is ok, but from one continent to another is not.  I might accept that, but I think the assumption being made with the above goes deeper--that native Americans were holier, so their movement of plants is more acceptable spiritually, regardless of geography.

I do think we are part of evolution.  Our movement of species in the last few hundred years, like all our other functions, seems to be happening at a rate that is exponentially faster than before.   I think most people would accept that as a rationale for why more recent movement of plant species is not acceptable--that it is happening too much too fast, at rates unprecedented in history.  But then again, if we're doing it, and we're organisms, then you can't say it's happening outside the bounds of evolution unless you are prepared to say that we are basically outside the bounds of evolution.

Either way, whatever one wants to conclude about people, I think taking an ecological definition of native plants--that they evolve(d) here--clarifies things more than taking a sociocultural approach.

Good luck, thanks for putting it out there.


Dan Segal
Pinelands Nursery & Supply

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20040929/26fa7662/attachment.html>