[PCA] TV: David Mizejewski on the Today Show

[Steve Erickson]

Fine. very philosophical.
Can I send you 100 tons of biomass of Epilobium hirsutum colonizing a 
major estuary near me? It wasn't there 15 years ago. Or a few 
thousand tons of Spartina introduced at various times and places in 
Washington since the 1890's? It changes the energy dynamics of low 
salt marshes, leading to accretion. The eventual result is the loss 
of nearshore eelgrass beds that functioned as nurseries for (e.g.) 
salmon. Or would you like some Gorse (Ulex europaeus), wihch forms 
highly flammable thickets totally excluding all other plant species 
over tens of thousands of acres on the coasts of California, Oregon, 
and Washington. Or Scot's Broom (Cytisus scoparius) which is a major 
invasive in prairies in western Oregon and Washington? Maybe season 
the mix with some of the knapweeds in the intermountain west, which 
are allelopathic to species predating the European invasion? A little 
cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) perhaps, the little invasive annual 
which has changed the fire regime over tens of thousands of acres in 
arid west with resultant negative impacts to pre-European invasion 
species that didn't evolve under that regime?
Most of the "the breathtaking natural places" that I visit are under 
assault by these and other not-so-well-known recent arrivals from 
Eurasia. I don't even waste time anymore philosophing about what is 
and isn't native. I just do triage.
-Steve
Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration
NW Washington
=======================================================
At 9:48 PM -0400 9/29/04, Dan and Sarah Segal wrote:
>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>native-plants mailing list
>native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lis 
>ts.plantconservation.org

------------------------------------------
Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration
Box 53, Langley, WA 98260
(360) 579-2332
wean at whidbey.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 4884 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20040930/e5283345/attachment.bin>