[PCA] Proposed definition for "Native Plant"

[Maryann Whitman]

I don't think that the European conception would be particularly useful in North America; we're starting at a discrete and definable point in our ecological history--something that was not feasible in the European scenario--at least not the way we can still do it.

I would be in favor of defining our point of 'ab initio' as European contact. It's a matter of stability of ecosystems--or *time* to regain dynamic balance. We could consider the effect of aboriginals as analogous to the effect of any other large fauna.

Even as I express this notion I can see problems. How do we classify plants that have been introduced, have naturalized, or have found a niche and are not presenting significant competition to natives: I have in mind plants like chicory (Cichorum intybus).

Maryann Whitman
Editor, Wild Ones Journal
www.for-wild.org 



-----Original Message-----
From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Steve Erickson
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:36 AM
To: larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
Cc: Native Plants (PCA) List; PCA Alien Plants Working Group List; NS Botany List; John Kartesz; MA-EPPC List
Subject: Re: [PCA] Proposed definition for "Native Plant"

I think the problematic part of this definition is that it completely excludes movement of plants by the aboriginal americans. For example, Garry Oak (Quercus garryana) was likely moved to various small islands extending its range north. Likewise, potatoes were rapidly adopted and began naturalizing (on the northern Olympic Penninsula and Whidbey Island [northern Puget lowlands, Washington State]) after they were obtained in trades with the Spaniards. Including a time element (e.g. post-european
contact)  would capture the first (the Garry Oak), but exclude the second (the potato).
People should try to keep in mind the conceptual bias that arises from the European concept of nature and people as completely separate entities.
-Steve Erickson
Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration
========================================
larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net (Larry Morse)8/25/0610:59 AM

>Y'all, I offer the following as a proposed general-purpose definition 
>of
the term 
>"native plant" as it is (in my experience) commonly used, and append
text of a 
>statement posted on the internet Thursday (24Aug06) providing
associated 
>discussion and subsidiary definitions.  The similarity to longstanding
usage of the 
>National Park Service, The Nature Conservancy, and John Kartesz is not
accidental.
>
>I'm planning to produce a revised version of this presentation in
November or so.  
>Suggested revisions, corrections, and other discussion are welcome, 
>sent
either 
>directly to me or offered openly on internet discussion lists.  (Note:
Please copy 
>me individually on any comments posted to a list for which you do not
personally 
>know that I am a member!)
>
>A native plant, within a specified geographical region of interest, is 
>a
plant species 
>(or other plant taxon) currently or historically present there without
direct or 
>indirect human intervention.
>
>The appended document, including this definition, is also available on
the internet 
>at:  http://www.lem-natural-diversity.com/id1.html and was also
provided 
>yesterday by e-mail to the U.S. Forest Service as a formal comment on
their 
>proposed text for FSM 2070 (Native Plant Materials), with receipt by 
>the
Forest 
>Service already acknowledged.
>
>Larry
>
>Larry E. Morse, Ph.D.
>L.E.M. Natural Diversity
>Washington, D.C.
>larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
>(larry.e.morse at LEM-Natural-Diversity.com)
>
>
>
>Definition of a "Native Plant" -- 24 August 2006 Version
>
>Larry E. Morse
>
>L.E.M. Natural Diversity
>P.O. Box. 77157
>Washington, D.C. 20013
>(202)-543-2488
>
>Larry.E.Morse at LEM-Natural-Diversity.com
>
>
>A general-purpose definition for the commonly used term "native plant"
is offered 
>here for consideration for use in floristics and biogeography,
conservation and 
>habitat management, horticulture, environmental education, legal and
regulatory 
>documents, and other purposes.  This presentation draws not only on my
decades 
>of personal floristic and biogeographical research experience 
>(beginning
in the 
>1950's), but also on definitions and practices of numerous other
researchers, 
>organizations, land-management agencies, and other parties, as well as 
>numerous personal and internet discussions, and consultation of
published and 
>shared unpublished works, all far too many to attempt to list here.
However, it is 
>no mere coincidence that the definition and discussion offered here
correspond 
>closely to longstanding usage of the U.S. National Park Service, The
Nature 
>Conservancy, and Dr. John T. Kartesz.
>
>Terminology.  The term "native plant" has become quite firmly
established in the 
>realms of botany, horticulture, conservation, and law, as well as in
general-public 
>environmental education and natural-diversity awareness.  Furthermore,
dozens 
>of state-based U.S. organizations have named themselves as a "native
plant 
>society," or otherwise note their interest in and concern for "native
plants" in their 
>mission statements.
>
>However, as has been noted by others from time to time, both words in
the "native 
>plant" term have their problems.  "Native" in some other contexts 
>implies
birth or 
>origin in a specified place or area, with the frequently used 
>alternative
term 
>"indigenous" also having a similar alternative meaning.  Also, the word
"plant" is 
>quite widely and commonly used to refer to an individual organism,
probably 
>moreso than its use here to refer to a species or other entire taxon.
>
>As has occasionally been noted elsewhere, if these original literal 
>views
of "native" 
>and "plant" are followed, then a "native plant" would be any individual
plant, of any 
>species whatsoever, that germinated or otherwise established itself in
exactly the 
>spot where now found, .  For example, if these views are followed, the 
>now-mature Asiatic-origin mimosa tree (Albizia julibrissin)  that
sprouted about 
>20 years ago from dispersed seed in my back yard on Capitol Hill in
Washington, 
>D.C., would be considered native to my back yard, and hence native to
the District 
>of Columbia, to the United States, and to North America, much as I am
personally 
>considered a native to Dayton, Ohio (where I was born), and hence 
>native
to Ohio, 
>to the U.S.A. and to North America.  While leading to some interesting
thoughts 
>and consequences, this strange concept of botanical nativeness is
useless in most 
>scientific, conservation, legal, and other conventional contexts, and 
>is
not pursued 
>further here.
>
>One might think that the term "native plant species" would be an
improvement on 
>the term "native plant" for present purposes.  This replacement term
works well if 
>only species-level taxa are being commonly considered in a particular
context, for 
>example in some instances in environmental education or when labelling
nursery 
>material, when rare exceptions can be addressed if encountered.
However, more 
>generally, especially in scientific, conservation, and legal contexts, 
>the
distinction 
>between native and non-native is usefully applied at any taxonomic
level, not just 
>the species, for example in the often important separate consideration
of native 
>or non-native subspecies or varieties of a particular species.
>
>Taking a step further, one might then consider "native plant taxon" to 
>be
the more 
>appropriate general term, but  that involves a quite specialized 
>technical
word 
>virtually unknown to the general public, including many native plant
enthusiasts.  
>Furthermore, the word "taxon" has the additional complication of
following Greek 
>rather than English conventions in generating its plural ("taxa"), a
phenomenon 
>with few if any parallels in familiar everyday American English.  I
therefore 
>consider it totally unrealistic to expect or encourage widespread
substitution of 
>the technically better phrase "native plant taxon" for the solidly
established but 
>admittedly doubly questionable term "native plant"  -- is anyone ready
for an 
>"Oregon Native Plant Taxa Society"?  "Native plants" it will continue to be!
>
>The related term "naturalized" also needs brief mention.  Naturalized
plants are 
>non-native plants that have become thoroughly established within one
or more 
>non-managed ("wild") habitats or ecosystems in one or more places
within an a 
>region of interest.  While descendants of a nation's naturalized 
>citizens
may in 
>turn be natives to that nation, under the definition of "native plant"
offered here, 
>the same is not true of a nation's (or other area's) naturalized plants
(despite some 
>published claims to the contrary), since descendants of non-native
plants still have 
>direct or indirect human intervention somewhere in their history.  Mere
passage 
>of time does not turn a non-native into a native in the botanical world.
>
>Geographical scoping.  In all cases when considering whether a
particular plant 
>taxon is native or non-native, or in any other discussion of "native
plants," the 
>geographical region being considered must always be explicitly or
implicitly 
>stated.  For example, some U.S. government policies consider "native
plants" to be 
>those plant taxa considered native in at least one place anywhere in 
>the
United 
>States.  Under this nationwide geographical scoping, the yellowwood
(Cladrastis 
>kentukea)  that I planted a decade ago in my front yard would be a
"native plant," 
>since it is native elsewhere in the United States (although not in the
mid-Atlantic 
>region), while my backyard mimosa, despite its spontaneous appearance
from 
>alleyway seed, would (appropriately, in my view) not be considered a
(nationally) 
>native plant. When the geographical scale is tightened to the District 
>of
Columbia, 
>then my  yellowwood becomes non-native to my local state-level
jurisdiction, 
>while such recurrent yard-invaders as black walnut (Juglans nigra)  or
willow oak 
>(Quercus phellos), which represent locally native species, are rightly
called "native 
>plants" in D.C.  If no geographical limitation is provided, then the 
>"native
plant" 
>term could be applied to any plant from anywhere on our planet, with
the 
>traditional Aztec view of corn or maize (Zea mays)  as a "Gift from the
Gods" being 
>a possible exception.
>
>Limitations in floristic knowledge.  Note that the tighter the
geographical scoping, 
>the more difficult it generally is to determine whether or not a 
>particular regionally native plant species (or other plant taxon) 
>should be
considered native 
>to the particular area of interest.  Early observations or collections 
>of a
species 
>demonstrably from within the actual area of interest of course answer
the 
>question quickly, but for most localized places, such knowledge is thin
or 
>nonexistent.  Known current or historical presence as a native nearby
(within 
>routine dispersal range), coupled with presence of appropriate native
habitat 
>within the area of interest, is also persuasive evidence (but not 
>proof)
that the 
>species is native within that area.  If the area of interest is located 
>well
within the 
>presumed native range of a widespread and readily dispersed species,
and 
>appropriate habitat is furthermore naturally present within the area,
then 
>nativeness in that area can generally be assumed (but again not 
>proven),
in lack of 
>evidence to the contrary.  Floristic information provides the baseline 
>of geographical distributions and habitat preferences necessary to such
lines of 
>reasoning.
>
>In the United States, the presence of nationally native trees, 
>wildflowers,
and other 
>vascular plant species is documented with accuracy approaching 99% at
the state 
>level, providing a firm national foundation for presenting 
>state-by-state distribution lists and maps.  Distribution data for 
>vascular plants is
dramatically 
>less well known at the county (or equivalent) level, varying 
>substantially
from state 
>to state, with this knowledge disappointingly weak in Georgia, 
>Maryland,
and a few 
>other places.  On the other hand, county-level plant records are
surprisingly 
>complete for state-native vascular plant species for hundreds of
particular 
>individual counties across the nation, generally those with 
>universities,
major 
>museums, scenic attractions, field stations, regionally unusual
topography, 
>substrates, or habitats, or otherwise now or at some time of high
personal 
>interest to one or more field botanists.  
>
>The state and the county have long been the geographical units
customarily 
>recorded for the great proportion of botanical specimens and locality
reports.  
>Discovery of a new state record for a species usually leads to
publication.  Newly 
>documented county records for a species are also frequently published,
or 
>nowadays submitted instead to editors of state-based or national
county-level 
>distribution atlases or databases for inclusion in these works with
appropriate 
>attribution or acknowledgement.
>
>On the other hand, for a variety of reasons, physiographic provinces,
ecological 
>regions, major watersheds, or similar tessellations of the landscape 
>are
rarely 
>recorded in consistent form (if at all) with individual specimens or 
>other documented observations.  Distribution summaries by such 
>tessellations
are 
>accordingly rarely produced directly from site-based primary
documentation.  
>However, such distribution presentations can now be readily
approximated (on a 
>yes/maybe/no scale) from distribution data for the pertinent fully and
partially 
>included counties.  Further resolution of 'maybe' cases can then be 
>made
through 
>herbarium and literature review as well as focused field research.  On 
>the
other 
>hand, floristic documentation at localized, within-county levels 
>requires
the 
>luxury of intensive field study, generally involving samplings in 
>various
seasons 
>for more than a single year.
>
>Not all regionally native plants are locally native everywhere in their
regions.  
>Nativeness at scales smaller than states is rarely addressed
systematically, 
>although presumed native ranges have been worked out for a fair
number of 
>continentally native U.S. species that have been introduced into areas
beyond their 
>original distributions, or that have become established in places 
>within
their 
>natural dispersal ranges that lacked appropriate habitats or substrates
before 
>modern human activity provided niches for them (such as limestone
ferns on old 
>mortar, aquatic plants in farm ponds, or saline-habitat plants along
heavily salted 
>highways).
>
>Challenges in determining native ranges of certain species.  Many
mysteries 
>remain regarding the locally native status of some of our most familiar
and 
>otherwise well-known plants.  As one dramatic example, the black locust
(Robinia 
>pseudoacacia),  a tree native to the Appalachians, was widely planted 
>in
the 
>Atlantic states, the Midwest, and various other areas where it soon
became 
>established and often naturalized.
>
>In the mid-Atlantic region around Washington, D.C., there is no 
>question
that 
>black locust is native in the mountainous region from the Blue Ridge
westward.  
>Within the Piedmont and Coastal Plain areas near Washington, this
abundant 
>species is generally considered non-native, although obviously often at
least well 
>naturalized.  Black locusts along and near the Potomac River, however,
pose a 
>further question of nativeness, still unresolved.  Most of the 
>Potomac's
headwater 
>streams arise deep in Appalachia, in the region where black locust is 
>unquestionably native.  The Potomac watershed regularly experiences
tropical 
>storms or hurricanes as well as occasional quickly melting deep
snowfalls, with the 
>river readily flooding grandly following such broad-scale 
>meteorological
events.
>
>Given the quantity of plant material, including whole trees, dispersed
downriver by 
>these major Potomac floods, it would be expected that seeds, seed pods,
and 
>viable roots of the black locust would be frequently flood-dispersed 
>and
deposited 
>in numerous places on the river's floodplain or riparian shore as far
downriver as 
>the Coastal Plain well southeast of Washington.  Trees arising from 
>these dispersed propagules would be expected to flower and fruit and 
>spread
locally in 
>this riparian habitat, and perhaps eventually disperse naturally 
>further
from the 
>river corridor.  My current personal view is that many (but not
necessarily all) of 
>the black locusts near the Potomac are native, at least as far 
>downstream
as 
>Charles Co., Maryland, and King George Co., Virginia.  What if any
upland 
>mid-Atlantic black locusts away from the Potomac are also native
remains a 
>mystery.
>
>Note that the black locust question posed here is not where the species
currently 
>occurs -- that is quickly determined as needed -- but in which places 
>the
species' 
>presence is not due solely to direct or indirect human activity.   Since
black locust 
>trees are conspicuous and distinctive in flower, historical accounts 
>may
prove 
>useful here (as has been the case in documenting the presettlement
distribution 
>of black locust near the Ohio River), making this a true question of
"natural 
>history" and not merely natural science.  On the other hand, high-tech
modern 
>science (such as biochemical comparisons) might instead be applied to
try to 
>resolve the affinities of the black locusts in various places in the
Potomac 
>watershed.
>
>Toward an improved definition.  Given the lively discussion stimulated 
>by
most 
>attempts to define "native plants" or related terms, I hope and expect
that this 
>presentation will before too long need significant revision, perhaps by
November.  
>Questions, suggested revisions or corrections, and any other comments
are all 
>quite welcome.  In particular, the current rather detailed 
>consideration
of various 
>kinds of direct and indirect human intervention is clearly quite
preliminary, and 
>deserves substantial further attention before the next version can be
considered 
>ready.
>
>*  *  *
>
>Definition:
>A native plant, within a specified geographical region of interest, is 
>a
plant species 
>(or other plant taxon) currently or historically present there without
direct or 
>indirect human intervention.
>
>
>For purposes of this definition:
>
>1. A plant is any living organism that is:
> (a)  A member of one of the following major formal or informal
taxonomic groups 
>(as commonly and traditionally treated):  Flowering plants, gymnosperms
(conifers 
>and relatives), pteridophytes (ferns and fern allies), bryophytes 
>(mosses, liverworts, and hornworts), algae (including the Cyanobacteria 
>or
blue-green 
>algae), fungi (including lichens [lichenized fungi];  or
>
>(b)  A member of any other smaller taxonomic group traditionally
considered a 
>plant (rather than an animal, a bacterium, or a virus), for example the
water molds 
>(such as the sudden oak death pathogen) or the various slime molds.
>
>2. A geographical region of interest is an unambiguous, bounded,
contiguous or 
>non-contiguous geographical area specified by a legal or other
commonly 
>recognized name and/or by a precise description, for example:  
>West Virginia
>Montgomery and Greene Counties, Ohio
>The schoolyard of Horace Mann Elementary School, Dayton, Ohio Coastal 
>Plain of Alabama and Mississippi Yellowstone National Park Chesapeake 
>Bay Watershed U.S. Caribbean Territories and Possessions Ridge and 
>Valley Region of Virginia and West Virginia as bounded by the
center 
>lines of highways U.S. 50, W.Va. 28, U.S. 250, and U.S. 220 Note that a 
>map, or a comparable representation within a geographical information 
>system, can be helpful in visualizing the extent and
boundaries of a 
>geographical area, but does not substitute for a written name or
description.
>
>
>3. A taxon (plural, taxa) is a taxonomic group of any rank (such as a
kingdom, 
>phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, subspecies, or botanical
variety) as 
>recognized in a particular scientific classification.  While most taxa 
>have Latin-form scientific names, unnamed taxa are occasionally 
>recognized,
for 
>example some interspecific hybrids that are identified by formulas
rather than by 
>names. or newly discovered species not yet formally named.
>
>Note that hybrids between two or more taxa may themselves be
considered taxa.
>
>Note also that a named plant cultivar is not itself a taxon, but is 
>instead
a member 
>of a botanical species or other botanical taxon.
>
>
>4. A plant taxon is considered present within a geographical region at 
>a
specified 
>time if it is known to occur in at least one place there then as a 
>rooted or otherwise established living individual (and not, for 
>example, occurring
within the 
>region solely as dispersed seeds, spores, pollen, or other
non-established 
>propagules, or as dispersed nonviable or dead material such as flood
deposits, 
>tornado debris, or beach drift).
>
>
>5. Historical presence of a plant taxon within a geographical region is
here taken 
>to include presence in at least one place there at any time since the
advent of 
>modern traditional biological classifications (hence approximately the
year 1500 
>A.D. onward), but  here excludes presence within the region only in
earlier times, 
>as for example indicated by historical, archaeological, or 
>paleontological evidence.
>
>For example, the dawn redwood [Metasequoia glyptostroboides, and/or
related 
>species] occurred widely in the United States and Canada many millions
of years 
>ago, as shown by numerous fossils, but that fact does not make the
genus 
>Metasequoia  native to North America for present purposes;  all modern
North 
>American Metasequoia  plants are instead direct introductions from its
modern 
>native range in China, or descendants of such introduced plants, even
when 
>established here outside cultivation.
>
>
>6. Human intervention (direct or indirect) includes:
>(a)  Deliberate or accidental transport of previously absent plants 
>into
the region 
>of interest from elsewhere by humans or by human activity, including
transport by 
>domesticated animals, livestock, pack animals, or pets, as well as
transport by wild 
>animals (whether managed or not) that are themselves non-native to the
region of 
>interest.
>
>(b)  Subsequent spread or dispersal of plants into that region from
individuals 
>elsewhere that at any point in their ancestry had been deliberately or
accidentally 
>transported by humans or by human activity;
>
>(c)  Presence of a plant taxon within that region solely as a result of
recent or 
>historical provision by humans, directly or indirectly, of additional,
clearly distinct 
>and different habitats, substrates, microclimates, or other 
>environmental
settings 
>otherwise absent anywhere in the region of interest, for example:
>Roadsides, alleyways, walkways, railroad embankments, fencerows,
powerline or 
>pipeline corridors, and other regularly managed rights-of-way 
>Agricultural, silvicultural, or other regularly maintained lands Lawns, 
>yards, gardens, parking lots, rooftops, and other similar settings
or 
>substrates
>Urban, suburban, industrial, and other substantially altered developed
areas
>Mortar, cement, concrete, and other calcareous building materials 
>Lakes, ponds, pools, ditches, canals, impoundments, or other
hydrographic 
>features
>Water diversions
>Warm-water or cool-water discharges, such as those below power plants
or high 
>dams
>Breakwaters, jetties, retaining walls, riprap, dams, dikes, spillways, 
>or
other 
>shore-stabilization or water-management features Point-source or 
>localized habitat-altering pollution or other
environmental 
>alteration
>Intensive localized habitat management, such as for timber-species
promotion, 
>enhanced production of favored fish, wildlife, or wildflower species, 
>or
control of 
>pests, diseases, or invasive species
>Mines, quarries, gravel or sand pits, landfills, tunnel portals, cuts 
>or fills,
and 
>other settings involving removal or burial of original soil or 
>substrate
>(d)  Changes to water chemistry, for example acid-mine drainage or
deliberate 
>liming of streams for sportfish promotion.
>Note that widespread, diffuse environmental changes due or apparently
due to 
>cumulative effects of diverse human activities are generally ignored in 
>determining the local nativeness of various plant taxa, including for
example any 
>that may be due to such factors as:
>regional or widespread air, water, or soil pollution or contamination 
>regional or large-scale hydrological changes due to dams,
channelizations, 
>diversions, deliberate water releases, drainage, groundwater 
>withdrawal,
or 
>similar causes
>changes in frequency or intensity of floods or other hydrological 
>events
due to 
>regional land-use change such as agricultural clearing or substantial
introduction 
>of impervious surfaces
>long-term changes in upper-atmosphere gas proportions Note also that a 
>plant taxon resulting from artificial or naturally
occurring 
>hybridization between a plant taxon native to a region of interest, and
another 
>plant taxon not native there, must be considered non-native because all
of its 
>individuals include genes having direct or indirect human intervention 
>in
their 
>ancestries.  Furthermore, all descendants of such hybrids, including 
>any backcrosses, polyploids, or other derived taxa, are correspondingly 
>also non-native to the region of interest.
>
>On the other hand, since the taxon and not the individual or population
is the 
>entity of assessment under this definition, the determination of
nativeness of a 
>taxon to a specified geographical region applies to that taxon in its
entirety.  For a 
>particular taxon that is considered native to the region of interest, 
>plants
of the 
>same taxon from elsewhere that are brought into the region of interest,
or 
>otherwise become present there, are also considered native in that
region (at the 
>level of the specified taxon, even if not as individuals populations, 
>or
genotypes), 
>and their presence there does not affect the native status of other
members of 
>that species there, even if some or all of these plants interbreed or
otherwise 
>co-mingle.  However the nature and characteristics of individual plants
or 
>propagating stock of a native species that originate from outside the
region of 
>interest may nevertheless be a legitimate consideration when planning 
>restorations, reintroductions, or other habitat-management needs, or
when 
>obtaining material of a native species for landscaping or educational
displays.
>
>
>Any questions, comments, or suggested revisions or clarifications may
be directed 
>to the author.
>
>*  *  *
>Copyright (C) 2006 L.E.M. Natural Diversity
>
>Permission is hereby granted to reproduce or further distribute this
work, 
>provided that it is presented in its entirety (without any alterations,
deletions, 
>revisions, or significant changes to flow or formatting), including 
>this
concluding 
>notice regarding copyright, permissions, and suggested citation. 
>
>Suggested citation:  
>
>Morse, Larry E.  2006.  Definition of a "Native Plant" -- 24 August 
>2006
Version. 
>L.E.M. Natural Diversity, Washington, D.C.
>-----
>_______________________________________________
>native-plants mailing list
>native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.
>plantconservation.org
>
>Disclaimer
>Posts on this list reflect only the opinion of the individual who is 
>posting
the 
>message; they are not official opinions or positions of the Plant
Conservation 
>Alliance.
---------------------------------------------
Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration
“Helping Nature Heal”
Box 53
Langley, WA  98260
=======================================

_______________________________________________
native-plants mailing list
native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org

Disclaimer
Posts on this list reflect only the opinion of the individual who is posting the message; they are not official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation Alliance.