[PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?
Larry Morse
larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
Wed Jun 28 15:10:07 CDT 2006
Agree with Craig. The origin status ("nativity") of Rosa rugosa isn't a
bit debatable within the North American floristics community, being a
deliberate post-Columbian intercontinental introduction.
Last I heard, the NPS policy and definition for native plants focuses on
origin (whether or not direct or indirect human intervention was involved)
and not on degree of establishment or duration of presence. These latter
factors are usually contributing evidence for consideration as
"naturalized" but that is still a subset of non-native (exotic,
nonindigenous, etc.). While Rosa rugosa may be naturalized on Northeastern
U.S. beaches (and I know the plant and the landscape well myself), that
does not make it native there. Science, not public sentiment, needs to be
the deciding factor in these cases.
Debates on origin (native/non-native status) are commonest for places not
far from the range boundary of regionally native plants, such as the status
of black locust in the D.C. region. That Appalachian species is
unquestionably native further up the Potomac, in the Harpers Ferry area of
the Blue Ridge, and has been widely planted in the Piedmont and Coastal
Plain of our region, from which escapes have become established and
naturalized. Yet, given the flood dynamics of the Potomac, and the long
list of Appalachian or Midwestern species that follow the river downstream
to the Fall Line if not beyond (such as the white trout lily), it seems
reasonable that the intrinsically rather weedy black locust would have
likewise been easily dispersed as seeds, fragments, and even whole
re-rootable trees downstream from Appalachia in the numerous floods over
past ages. In this view of mine, stands of black locust near the Potomac
are likely native downstream to the Fall Line (DC/Arlington) and probably
somewhat beyond (e.g., Potomac shore in Charles Co., Md.). However, the
origin of upland trees in the D.C. region is more likely to involve past
human intervention, making them non-native. The parallel case of natural
spread of black locust along the Ohio River downstream of Appalachia into
the Central Lowlands (e.g., Cincinnati area) is much better documented in
pioneer literature, as summarized by Lucy Braun in 'Woody Plants of Ohio.'
and William B. Werthner in 'Some American Trees.' Might be a good research
topic for someone comfortable with genetic tracers or 'fingerprinting,'
especially if the cultivated plants were originally derived from relatively
narrow initial samplings.
Pre-Columbian human interventions are also generally a more difficult case.
Nobody seems to consider corn to be "native" to New England just because
the Native Americans grew it there well before European contact, but many
other plants may also have been deliberately or accidentally moved around
by the pre-Columbian human inhabitants of our landscapes, which would make
them non-native in some of their pre-Columbian range by the
human-intervention guideline for nativeness. The floristic status of the
coconut in Hawaii is one such case -- it was probably brought there by
Polynesian settlers, but may have arrived earlier by sea currents as well.
Larry
Larry Morse
Washington, D.C.
larry.morse.dc at earthlink.net
(larry.e.morse at LEM-Natural-Diversity.com)
> [Original Message]
> From: Craig Tufts <TUFTS at nwf.org>
> To: <craig at ecoseeds.com>; <native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org>;
<Christopher.Brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil>; <emilyr at plantsocieties.org>
> Date: 6/28/2006 12:11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?
>
> Chris:
>
> I am somewhat surprised that anyone considers the first two species
> listed as native. A number of jurisdictions label Rugosa Rose an
> invasive and it certainly isn't native. It might be that some NPS staff
> think it a native, but I have trouble believing that the agency
> considers it so.
>
> There has been a lot of discussion about Phragmites, native
> genotypes/species vs. hybrid swarms and Eur species. I think most people
> who study the plant generally know which is the native and how the
> invasive form acts.
>
> Coconut is a little different. In addition to being transported all
> over much of the tropics and subtropics by people for thousands of
> years, it is a drift-dispersed species and can easily island hop by
> itself.
>
> Craig Tufts
>
>
>
> >>> "Brown, Christopher MVN" <Christopher.Brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil>
> 6/28/2006 11:36 AM >>>
> The line between "native" and "invasive" can sometimes get blurry. As
> one
> example, consider Rosa rugosa Thunb. It is native to Japan, and was
> imported
> into New England as an exotic garden plant about 150 years ago. Since
> then,
> it has escaped from cultivation and established itself so thoroughly
> along
> beaches in New England that it is considered by most people to be part
> of the
> native flora, since no one living today has any memory of a time when
> it
> wasn't present in abundance. The National Park Service even considers
> it
> native and warns people not to disturb it, because it is part of the
> "native"
> flora! How long ago does a plant need to have arrived to be
> considered
> "native"?
>
>
> Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud., (Syn.: Phragmites
> communes
> Trin.; Phragmites vulgaris B.S.P.) is so widely distributed that it
> is
> difficult to discern to what region it may be "native".
>
>
> Cocos nucifera L. is probably native to the Indian Ocean region, but
> now so
> widely distributed that the term "native" has little meaning.
>
>
>
> These are just three examples, among many others possible to cite, of
> how
> tricky it can be to say what is "native". In the case of recent
> arrivals the
> question is not difficult, but when introductions have occurred
> hundreds or
> thousands of years ago the answers are usually not so clear.
>
>
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
>
>
> CB
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. J. Christopher Brown, Botanist
>
> US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District
>
> USACE-MVN-PM-RP, Room 363
>
> P.O. Box 60267
>
> New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
>
> Voice phone: 504-862-2508
>
> Fax: 504-862-2088
>
>
>
> email: christopher.brown at mvn02.usace.army.mil
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
> [mailto:native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of
> Emily
> Roberson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:58 PM
> To: 'Craig Dremann'; native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
> Subject: Re: [PCA] "Native plant" definitions ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Native Plant Conservation Campaign folks and others:
>
>
>
> This is very important right now because the Forest Service has a
> draft
>
> policy on revegetation with native plants out for comment right now.
>
>
>
> The proposed definition of "genetically appropriate" plants for
> revegetation
>
> and restoration projects is somewhat problematic or at least could use
> some
>
> refining. Their definition of "native" also needs review.
>
>
>
> Any comments or definitions of "native", "local native" or anything
> related
>
> would be VERY helpful. I am interested not just in agency definition
> but
>
> also in scientific definitions, native plant organization definitions,
> etc.
>
>
>
> THANK YOU!
>
>
>
> ======================================
>
>
>
> Draft policy attached FYI. Comments are due by 7/25.
>
>
>
> Here are the definitions:
>
>
>
> Genetically appropriate.
>
> A plant adapted to target site conditions (e.g., has good
> establishment,
>
> vigor, and reproductive capabilities); sufficiently diverse to respond
> and
>
> adapt to changing climates and environment conditions; unlikely to
> cause
>
> genetic contamination and undermine
>
> local adaptations, community interactions, and function of resident
> native
>
> species within the
>
> ecosystem; unlikely to become (unnaturally or inappropriately) invasive
> and
>
> displace other
>
> native species; unlikely to be a source of non-native invasive
> pathogens;
>
> likely to maintain
>
> critical connections with pollinators.
>
>
>
> Native plant.
>
> All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved
>
> naturally in an
>
> ecosystem.
>
>
>
> Emily
>
> ____________________________
>
> Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D.
>
> Director
>
> Native Plant Conservation Campaign
>
> A Program of the Center for Biological Diversity
>
>
>
> PMB 151 (not p.o.b)
>
> 1459 18th St.
>
> San Francisco, CA 94107
>
> Phone: 415 970 0394
>
>
>
> Email: eroberson at biologicaldiversity.org
>
> Web: http://www.plantsocieties.org
>
> www.biologicaldiversity.org
>
>
>
> The mission of the NPCC is to promote appreciation and conservation of
>
> native plant species and communities through collaboration, education,
> law,
>
> policy, land use and management.
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org
>
> [mailto:apwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Craig
> Dremann
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:07 AM
>
> To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org
>
> Cc: rwg at lists.plantconservation.org
>
> Subject: [APWG] "Native plant" definitions of government agencies?
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Government land management agencies write manuals and definitions for
>
> the work they do.
>
>
>
> The US Forest Service manual has a definition for "native plants", to
>
> differentiate the native plants from the exotic plants.
>
>
>
> Andrew Kratz, a Forest Service Regional Botanist in Colorado and I
> were
>
> having a discussion about the Forest Service's current definition of
>
> "native plant", which follows:
>
>
>
> "All indigenous, terrestrial, and aquatic plant species that evolved
>
> naturally in an ecosystem." (FSM 2070.5)
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, at first glance, the sentence looks correct, but has
>
> numerous errors in it. We are suggesting a rewrite, as follows:
>
>
>
> "The indigenous plant species of a particular area, both aquatic and
>
> terrestrial, that are natural members of the local ecosystem."
>
>
>
> Are there any other government agency definitions of "native plant"
> out
>
> there?
>
>
>
> Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
>
> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>
>
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconserva
>
>
> tion.org
>
>
>
> Disclaimer
>
>
> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the
>
> opinion of the individual posting the message.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> native-plants mailing list
> native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
>
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plan
tconservation.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.
More information about the native-plants
mailing list