[PCA] USFS Draft "Native Plant Materials" Policy; Concerns about definition of "native plant"

Larry Morse larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
Thu Aug 10 20:07:31 CDT 2006


A clear, practical, objective, self-contained, and scientifically accurate definition of "native plant" (including issues of local nativeness or not) is essential to a policy such as the USFS "Native Plant Materials" draft. The definition of "native plant" in the draft policy document is:
    "all indigenous terrestrial and aquatic plant species that evolved naturally in an ecosystem"
This draft definition has raised numerous concerns among Washington-area botanists and plant conservationists, and many others participating in e-mail discussions, because of such issues as:
(1) The apparently circular citation of "indigenous" as part of a definition of "native."
(2) Omitting plants that are neither terrestrial nor aquatic (e.g., epiphytic, estuarine, subterranean [yes, at least one cave lichen], etc.).
(3) Referring to "plant" without stating actual taxonomic/phylogenetic scope (e.g., needs clarification on applicability (or not) to fungi, algae, lichens, bacteria, and other phyla not traditionally treated as animals).
(4) Referring to "species" without clarifying applicability of definition when some infraspecific taxa and/or cultivars of a species are locally native and some are not.
(5) Omitting consideration of hybrids, whether naturally occurring or produced artificially, including hybrids having one or more, but not all, parental taxa demonstrably non-native.
(6) Requiring that native plant species have "evolved," which to some might require omission of plants that are products of relatively sudden speciation events, infraspecific divergence, hybridization, polyploidization, etc., that have not, or not yet, demonstrably succeeded in a Darwinian sense.
(7) Invoking the term "natural" as part of a definition of "native."
(8) Requiring  that the evolution of a native plant occurred in an "ecosystem," rather than any other setting.
(9) Requiring that the evolution of a native plant have occurred in exactly one ecosystem (and not, for example, an ecotone).
(10) Making no mention of geographic scope -- would a plant meeting these definitional requirements in Japan have to be considered a "native plant" in West Virginia?
I'm drafting a fresh definition for formal submission (drawing on the National Park Service's "without direct or indirect human intervention" guideline), and encourage others familiar with the considerations involved to do the same.

Larry

Larry Morse
Washington, D.C.
larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
(larry.e.morse at LEM-Natural-Diversity.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20060810/9415b142/attachment.html>


More information about the native-plants mailing list