Tuesday, December 19, 2006

BARC-National Agricultural Research Center Alliance NARAB

Henry A. Wallace Beltsville National Agricultural Research Center continues to need our support. This just in from a local newspaper. The members of the new Alliance hope to gather in January 2007 for a formal organizational meeting and follow that with a congressional delegation tour and get-together. If you have comments that you want to address to me personally please write me at chairman@behnkes.net or respond to this post.

Gazette Newspapers

County residents, scientists push for research center

Thursday, Dec. 14, 2006
by Dennis Carter
Staff Writer
A collection of Prince George’s County residents and former scientists is looking to grab the ear of local and national decision makers as the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) continues to face budgetary struggles.
BARC, which is hailed as the largest and most diverse agricultural research facility in the world, has been forced to make staff cuts in recent years to compensate for small budget increases that have not kept up with the rate of inflation and pension plans, among other costs.
BARC is offering buyouts and early retirements to 160 employees after the 2007 federal budget included $9 million in cuts, including the closure of the fruit and phytonutrients lab, which searches for compounds in fruits and vegetables that could protect against heart disease and cancer. BARC employs about 1,300 people.
BARC’s current budget is about $130 million, said director Phyllis Johnson, who has headed the facility for a decade.
Johnson said the buyouts would allow BARC to focus funding for the facility’s most vital programs in coming years.
‘‘We have to live within our means,” she said. ‘‘We will deal with the resources we’ve been given.”
Last fall, longtime Beltsville residents such as Jim Butcher and Karen Coakley, president of the Beltsville Citizens Association, joined former scientists and Prince George’s business owners to form the National Agricultural Research Alliance — Beltsville (NARAB).
While group members said the alliance is in its early stages, they hope to lobby county, state and national politicians to ensure BARC is a viable, functioning research center.
‘‘We need to talk with decision makers so we can get BARC back up to speed again,” said Butcher, a Beltsville resident for more than 40 years.
Butcher said he would serve as a liaison between NARAB and Friends for Agricultural Research Beltsville, a group of local residents concerned about the state of BARC.
John Peter Thompson, chairman of Behnkes nurseries who grew up in Beltsville, said NARAB would ‘‘educate” power brokers to inform them of the importance of BARC research.
With a budget that grows at about 2.7 percent annually, Thompson said BARC has not been able to keep up with rising costs in many areas since the mid-1990s.
‘‘It’s a slow withering of the vine,” said Thompson, adding that no political party should take the blame for BARC’s struggles, since both parties have occupied the White House over the last 10 years. ‘‘This isn’t how you run things. [BARC] is something that should not be allowed to wither.”
Having a national research center on the outskirts of one of the country’s largest metropolitan areas, Thompson said, is critical for scientists who come to Beltsville to work.
‘‘There are world class scientists and world class universities all around [the area],” he said, pointing out that a rich population of researchers can promote ‘‘interdisciplinary conversation.”
‘‘When [a scientist] needs a piece of equipment, it can found in this area,” he said.
Wanda Plumer, a NARAB member and director of business development retention and expansion for the Prince George’s Development Corporation, said BARC’s impact on the local economy — bringing college-educated people to the area — should not be overlooked by county residents.
Attracting broader attention would be a key in growing the alliance, Plumer said.
‘‘Because of BARC’s national significance, we’d like to see membership go beyond just local members.”
E-mail Dennis Carter at dcarter@gazette.net.
Copyright © 2006 The Gazette - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Privacy Statement

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Invasive Assateague Horses?

The horses of Assateague are in the news (Wash. Post 16 Dec 06). Too many horses that must eat whatever grows on the island are laying waste to the vegetation. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and sea-beach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), native to the barrier islands, are among the many animals and plants that are threatened by mass over consumption by the horses. They are part of a complex system which ultimately provides the food source for the “wild” horses. The horses, of course, are the reason there is interest among the general public, who most likely are unaware of the native plants. The horses are part of American culture, and are not part of the pre-colonial ecosystem. They are, dare I write this, an invasive species.

No one within the National Park Service is suggesting removing the horses, but they are attempting to control the population pressure. The control of population is a cost to society, which because of the iconic nature of the horses, we shall find a way to bear. The Park Service will have to either weed out some horses or initiate an integrated pest management strategy balancing the need to continue the tradition while maintaining the ecosystem. If the horse population is allowed to grow unchecked, the island will soon be unable to supply the food needs of the animals, and we will be left with a herd of “wild” horse which we would have to feed and water, living on a barren desert isle.

If the horses were not present on the island, the land managers would be fighting a host of other potential exotic invaders, which would have a smaller feature on the science page of the newspaper. The exotic non native is the reason for the destruction on the island and the reason for the information to appear on the front page, rather than buried, if lucky, in the back hinterlands of the local paper.

But there is one further twist that presents itself: Deer, specifically, eastern white-tailed deer. We in suburbia, who attempt to garden understand the feeding habits of deer. First plants to go are five hundred dollar hostas, followed by almost all natives, followed pretty much by everything else. After they have eliminated all edible flora except for truly hardy and prolific invasives such as English ivy, the family car’s bumper is on the dinner schedule. Deer lovers, of course, react to gun-toting gardeners with suspicion and outrage, without considering the effect on the woodlands if gardeners stopped continuously refurbishing and replenishing the beloved deer herds’ supplemental food supply.

The deer, which are native, and the horses, which are not, together outline starkly the problem; too many or too much of something, out of control and out of balance, may result in the destruction of all, as we know it at the time. The process of life will compensate, as will be seen, if the deer are not checked, or the horses managed, for at some point, we will be unable or unwilling to pay the price or the piper to feed the animals and the herd will starve until such time as it is either reduced in number or eliminated.

It must be noted that by casual acquaintance to the federal definition, deer are not invasive, but rather a nuisance and I suppose that the horses at this point are technically invasive, but that is another essay.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Invasives Attack Prince George's County

Maryland has the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), here in my county of Prince George’s. As a county, we were on the border of the discovery of the northern snakehead (Channa argus) in Maryland, and see signs of the advance guard of fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) and the onslaught of kudzu (Pueraria montana var.lobata). In unintentional commemoration as a portal for invasive species, we celebrate as our county tree, the Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford').

Now, we face the elimination of every ash tree within 12,000 acres of our county in a desperate hope that we can throw back the invader. At risk are some six million ash trees in the Baltimore metropolitan area, a statistic not including Washington and Northern Virginia. So now the county is quarantined. How did this happen?

“The insect was first detected in Maryland in 2003 after a Michigan nurseryman broke quarantine in that state and shipped infested trees into a Prince George’s County nursery. After 3 years of work, officials believed the insect was eradicated from Maryland. In August 2006, the same experts found evidence that the emerald ash borer is still in the county. The quarantine is in place because of the recent detection.” is part of the answer, supplied by the Maryland Department of Agriculture.

Agencies of the State of Maryland walk through the woods and neighborhoods and spray death marks onto any and all ash trees they can find in a rush against the life cycle of the pest. And of course dazed citizens wake to find that thir trees will be cut down at no direct cost to them whether they want it or not, in order that the few may sacrifice to protect the greater good.

In addition, the following goods are included in the quarantine: “…, all hardwood firewood (non-coniferous)• ash (Fraxinus spp.) products including nursery stock, green lumber, and other ash material living, dead, cut, or fallen, including logs, stumps, roots, branches.• uncomposted ash chips and bark larger than one inch in diameter in two dimensions”, and of course all stages of the borer itself.

A positive side of life in Prince George’s County is that we are home to BARC and its systematics programs. “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Systematic Entomology Laboratory in Beltsville, MD confirmed the identification of the emerald ash borer.

An invasive species, exotic and non-native is currently destroying the forests of the mid- west, and Maryland is creating a fire break of sorts to contain and throw back the invader before it cause economic and environmental harm. I have heard some say that what does it matter that we loose one species of a tree, for there are plenty more. But already we have lost the native elm and chestnut, and the native dogwood is under attack from a foreign invader. Because the damage is so large, and fits better in a long term valuation horizon, the public has a hard time understanding the decision that is perceived to be a wanton arbitrary destruction of nature or personal property in their neighborhood. This is a subset of the infamous “not-in-my-backyard thinking.

The tireless defenders of Maryland’s agriculture and natural areas work on to stave off the approaching destruction. A suggestion from the public to use weapons of mass destruction (pesticides) is a non starter given the extent of the problem and the life cycle of the pest. So tree eradication is the best defense. The movement of firewood from campsites to home fires is suspected of being a major contributor to the problem, and checking every car seems highly improbable, so education is the major tool.

Getting the word out early, and responding quickly; these are the new watch-words for invasive species control.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Invasive and Native Challenging Definitions

November 29, 2006-11-29

Invasive and native; two words, whose meanings shift in a shimmer of lexical imprecision, and lead, therefore, towards conflict and disagreement. The nature of language to change and adapt, and meaning to creatively evolve. For example, the English word “shall” had an original sense in Germanic languages of guilt, owing and obligation, which eventual began to be understood to include futurity.

So we note today that in conversation about species adaptation and change that we are pushing collectively a change in the meaning of certain key words. This happens when we attempt or are pushed to define precisely what we mean, even though we think we know it when we see it, to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart. Thus the word invasive, which is derived from the verb invade, and ultimately from the Latin, invadere, to attack, go into, fall upon, invade, from “in” meaning in and “vadere” meaning to go, travel, wander. This level of meaning would not allow a native to be invasive by definition for something which is already present can not “move in”. Natives can become pests and nuisances and even detrimental and harmful, but it is hard to call them invaders. At some level, an organism or entity can not invade itself.

However, words change meaning, and invasive has come to carry inferences which would allow popular redefinitions of the word, such as are caused by the use of the word in phrases such as “invasive procedures” and “invasive questioning”. Accordingly, we find ourselves on the glittering sharp edge of conflicting definitions used to advance one cause or another. “And not only have deer become invasive but the few plants they don't eat have gotten out of control, too, like Kalmia, or the hay scented fern that grows in great sheets in the woods (both locally native, like the deer themselves). “[Garden Rant.com].

The federal definition would exclude deer from being defined as invasive within their own current historic range. On the other hand, having destroyed or redeployed much of the natural habitat, one can see how deer in suburbia could be defined as invasive. Quickly, adept debaters will note my use of “historic” ranges, and question my popular use, not clearly defined, of the word historic. This demonstrates how fast we can get off track.

A larger challenge arises out of this simple definition exercise. Given current deer populations, what is the effect on native species of partially removing known invasives from their range? If the deer are spreading the non-natives, should the native deer be reduced in number to control the spread of the invasives or eliminated? Given the tendency for native deer to eat native species first, should planting strategies which might include non natives species, such as, Malus and Euonymus, which deer will eat first, be included in the management strategy, even if the species planted are not native? Control of a native species must be included with and invasive species management plan it would seem. This sequence easily leads users to think of native deer as invasive.

The other word with definition troubles is native. Quoting from the Online Etymological Dictionary in full:
native (adj.) c.1374, from O.Fr. natif (fem. native), from L. nativus "innate, produced by birth," from natus, pp. of nasci, gnasci "be born," related to gignere "beget," from PIE base *gen-/*gn- "produce" (see genus). The noun is c.1450, originally meaning "person born in bondage," later (1535) "person who has always lived in a place." Applied from 1652 to original inhabitants of non-European nations where Europeans hold political power; hence, used contemptuously of "the locals" from 1800. Nativism as a U.S. anti-immigrant movement is from 1845.”
The political fall out from exacting a precise definition is akin to a semantic weapon of mass destruction. Since there are at least four dimensions to understanding a species evolvement which include not only space but time, our abilities to hang on to all the variables when forming ideas for debate and discussion rapidly reduces to a bare minimum. When we in a public sense use the word native, we are thinking of those things familiar in both place and time to us today here and now. There is arbitrariness to our assigning a random date in time based upon our current politically correct views. Native becomes any species which was here before: the American Indians, the Vikings, the Italo-Hispanic, the English, industrialization, and or modern high speed travel.

The frequent underlying shift in perception and definition can tangle and derail discussions about natural area land management mostly because they are not discussed a priori, leading inexorably to disagreement. Invasive species and natural area land management is an issue of gardening on a large scale which includes species choice decisions, weeding, cultivation practices, seasonal clean up and landscape design and use. When we use horticultural terms broadly, we can almost begin to see the chores needed for success. I shall be revisiting the topic of defintion as for me it goes to the heart of getting agreement.
Invasive definitions: native and exotic
Fuzzy Invasive Defintions

Monday, November 27, 2006

New Invasive; Early Detection; Rapid Response

Wavy-leaf basket grass, a great marketing name, is the common name for Oplismenus hirtellus subsp undulatifolius. Dr. Marc Imlay and his team of volunteers working to remove invasive species from a park in Maryland near Washington, DC., think they have an excellent case for early detection and rapid response. Today, I walked into the park with Dr. Imlay and say for my self the almost three acres of infested area.
Of course I should have walked over the hill to the USDA National Library through the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, but instead I turned to easy to use if not always trusty web search engines to learn more about this grass. I can see the demons of conflicting schools of thought before I even read through the pages of information on line, including the basic claim of native to where, along with the infamous Hedera-helix- spp-are-not-invasive discussion.

Dr. Imlay has well planted sources which reported to him that: “Paul Peterson at the Natural History museum identified the grass as Oplismenus hirtellus subsp undulatifolius. He published a note on this grass in 1999 along with Charlie Davis, Ed Uebel and Rob Soreng, when it was found to be a new record for North America. Ed Uebel discovered it in Patapsco Valley State Park, (MD) and another site several miles north of the park, occurring in small to medium sized patches. It is native to southern Europe and southeastern Asia. It certainly sounds like it has the potential to be another invasive since it is stoloniferous, has seeds that stick to clothing, and appeared to be spreading according to Ed Uebel.”

The first site that I found was courtesy of Isabel Johnson, KwaZulu-Natal National Botanical Garden:
Description This is a creeping or rambling perennial grass, which roots and branches freely from the nodes. The broad, deep green, lancet-shaped leaves are held horizontally and create a woven effect when viewed from above. The flowers, which appear from December to June, are borne on longitudinal racemes branching out from the culm or flowering stalk, which extends about 200 mm above the leaves. The purple awns are sticky, especially when fresh.
Distribution A typical constituent of the forest undergrowth, tolerating dense shade, basket grass is widespread in the eastern regions of southern Africa . It occurs in the summer rainfall areas and is not usually exposed to frost as it grows underneath trees.
Derivation of name and historical aspects This is a small genus of three or four species widespread in the subtropical regions of the world, and related to Panicum grass). O. hirtellus is similar in appearance to O. undulatifolius , which occurs in the same habitat, but the latter has clumped, not longitudinal, spikelets.
Ecology The sticky seeds attach to visiting animals and birds, which carry them to new areas. Most grasses are wind- or self-pollinated, but little is known of the pollination of shade grass.
Uses and cultural aspects This grass is used horticulturally, especially in the USA , where a variegated pink, white and green form is popular in hanging baskets.
Growing Oplismenus hirtellus A good groundcover for difficult shady areas, this grass deserves to be used much more extensively. Basket grass is ideal to plant between stepping-stones along shady paths. It can be lightly mowed, but this is best done infrequently and with the lawnmower at the highest setting. As with all shade grasses, a large leaf area is essential to receive enough light for photosynthesis, so it will not survive if kept short. It will also tolerate some sun, and can be planted in less shady areas. This grass is easy to grow in a mixture of loam, leaf mould, and sand. It may be propagated by runners, or from seed, which is freely produced and germinates readily.”

Astute readers will note the reference to horticultural use above. As a plantsman, I am immediately intrigued. The WeedUS Database lists the species as an invader in Hawaii. Wilcox Nursery in Florida lists the species as native – to Florida – I assume. I must note hear that a check with the staff at my own place of business, Behnke Nurseries, reveals that we did indeed try to sell this plant a few years ago. And this from the park’s neighbors, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Area, Germplasm Resources Information Network :
Distributional range
AFRICA
Northeast Tropical Africa: Eritrea; Ethiopia, East Tropical Africa: Kenya; Tanzania; Uganda, West-Central Tropical Africa: Cameroon; Equatorial Guinea – Bioko, West Tropical Africa: Cote D'Ivoire; Ghana; Liberia; Mali; Nigeria; Senegal; Sierra Leone; Togo, South Tropical Africa: Malawi; Zambia; Zimbabwe, Southern Africa: Botswana; South Africa - Cape Province [e.], Natal, Transvaal; Swaziland
ASIA-TEMPERATE Arabian Peninsula: Yemen
NORTHERN AMERICA
Southeastern U.S.A.: United States - Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland [n.-c.], Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South-Central U.S.A.: United States - Texas
PACIFIC
South-Central Pacific: French Polynesia, Southwestern Pacific: Fiji ,
SOUTHERN AMERICA
Mesoamerica: Belize; Costa Rica; El Salvador; Guatemala; Honduras; Nicaragua; Panama, Caribbean: Antigua and Barbuda - Antigua; Bahamas; Cuba; Dominica; Grenada; Guadeloupe; Hispaniola; Jamaica; Martinique; Netherlands Antilles; Puerto Rico; St. Kitts and Nevis - St. Kitts; St. Lucia; St. Vincent and Grenadines, Northern South America: French Guiana; Guyana; Suriname; Venezuela, Brazil: Brazil, Western South America: Bolivia; Colombia; Ecuador; Peru, Southern South America: Argentina; Paraguay; Uruguay

The crux of the matter is that we are at a decision point. We could do nothing and see what happens; or we could eliminate this plant from natural areas and reconsider its propagation and distribution before it becomes a commodity both for homeowners and for land managers. Early detection and rapid response is an attempt to prevent the spread of pests such as the emerald ash borer, also here in my home county of Prince George’s, and northern snakeheads; yes, also in my county. Waiting to see what happens can lead to kudzu and fire ants, too little too late and now, we collectively pay the price for inaction.

New invader; early detection, rapid response

Wavy-leaf basket grass, a great marketing name, is the common name for Oplismenus hirtellus subsp undulatifolius. Dr. Marc Imlay and his team of volunteers working to remove invasive species from a park in Maryland near Washington, DC., think they have an excellent case for early detection and rapid response. Today, I walked into the park with Dr. Imlay and say for my self the almost three acres of infested area.

Of course I should have walked over the hill to the USDA National Library through the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, but instead I turned to easy to use if not always trusty web search engines to learn more about this grass. I can see the demons of conflicting schools of thought before I even read through the pages of information on line, including the basic claim of native to where, along with the infamous Hedera-helix- spp-are-not-invasive discussion.

Dr. Imlay has well planted sources which reported to him that: “Paul Peterson at the Natural History museum identified the grass as Oplismenus hirtellus subsp undulatifolius. He published a note on this grass in 1999 along with Charlie Davis, Ed Uebel and Rob Soreng, when it was found to be a new record for North America. Ed Uebel discovered it in Patapsco Valley State Park, (MD) and another site several miles north of the park, occurring in small to medium sized patches. It is native to southern Europe and southeastern Asia. It certainly sounds like it has the potential to be another invasive since it is stoloniferous, has seeds that stick to clothing, and appeared to be spreading according to Ed Uebel.”

The first site that I found was courtesy of Isabel Johnson, KwaZulu-Natal National Botanical Garden:
Description This is a creeping or rambling perennial grass, which roots and branches freely from the nodes. The broad, deep green, lancet-shaped leaves are held horizontally and create a woven effect when viewed from above. The flowers, which appear from December to June, are borne on longitudinal racemes branching out from the culm or flowering stalk, which extends about 200 mm above the leaves. The purple awns are sticky, especially when fresh.
Distribution A typical constituent of the forest undergrowth, tolerating dense shade, basket grass is widespread in the eastern regions of southern Africa . It occurs in the summer rainfall areas and is not usually exposed to frost as it grows underneath trees.
Derivation of name and historical aspects This is a small genus of three or four species widespread in the subtropical regions of the world, and related to Panicum grass). O. hirtellus is similar in appearance to O. undulatifolius , which occurs in the same habitat, but the latter has clumped, not longitudinal, spikelets.
Ecology The sticky seeds attach to visiting animals and birds, which carry them to new areas. Most grasses are wind- or self-pollinated, but little is known of the pollination of shade grass.
Uses and cultural aspects This grass is used horticulturally, especially in the USA , where a variegated pink, white and green form is popular in hanging baskets.
Growing Oplismenus hirtellus A good groundcover for difficult shady areas, this grass deserves to be used much more extensively. Basket grass is ideal to plant between stepping-stones along shady paths. It can be lightly mowed, but this is best done infrequently and with the lawnmower at the highest setting. As with all shade grasses, a large leaf area is essential to receive enough light for photosynthesis, so it will not survive if kept short. It will also tolerate some sun, and can be planted in less shady areas. This grass is easy to grow in a mixture of loam, leaf mould, and sand. It may be propagated by runners, or from seed, which is freely produced and germinates readily.”

Astute readers will note the reference to horticultural use above. As a plantsman, I am immediately intrigued. The WeedUS Database lists the species as an invader in Hawaii. Wilcox Nursery in Florida lists the species as native – to Florida – I assume. I must note hear that a check with the staff at my own place of business, Behnke Nurseries, reveals that we did indeed try to sell this plant a few years ago. And this from the park’s neighbors, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Area, Germplasm Resources Information Network :
Distributional range
AFRICA
Northeast Tropical Africa: Eritrea; Ethiopia, East Tropical Africa: Kenya; Tanzania; Uganda, West-Central Tropical Africa: Cameroon; Equatorial Guinea – Bioko, West Tropical Africa: Cote D'Ivoire; Ghana; Liberia; Mali; Nigeria; Senegal; Sierra Leone; Togo, South Tropical Africa: Malawi; Zambia; Zimbabwe, Southern Africa: Botswana; South Africa - Cape Province [e.], Natal, Transvaal; Swaziland
ASIA-TEMPERATE Arabian Peninsula: Yemen
NORTHERN AMERICA
Southeastern U.S.A.: United States - Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland [n.-c.], Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South-Central U.S.A.: United States - Texas
PACIFIC
South-Central Pacific: French Polynesia, Southwestern Pacific: Fiji ,
SOUTHERN AMERICA
Mesoamerica: Belize; Costa Rica; El Salvador; Guatemala; Honduras; Nicaragua; Panama, Caribbean: Antigua and Barbuda - Antigua; Bahamas; Cuba; Dominica; Grenada; Guadeloupe; Hispaniola; Jamaica; Martinique; Netherlands Antilles; Puerto Rico; St. Kitts and Nevis - St. Kitts; St. Lucia; St. Vincent and Grenadines, Northern South America: French Guiana; Guyana; Suriname; Venezuela, Brazil: Brazil, Western South America: Bolivia; Colombia; Ecuador; Peru, Southern South America: Argentina; Paraguay; Uruguay

The crux of the matter is that we are at a decision point. We could do nothing and see what happens; or we could eliminate this plant from natural areas and reconsider its propagation and distribution before it becomes a commodity both for homeowners and for land managers. Early detection and rapid response is an attempt to prevent the spread of pests such as the emerald ash borer, also here in my home county of Prince George’s, and northern snakeheads; yes, also in my county. Waiting to see what happens can lead to kudzu and fire ants, too little too late and now, we collectively pay the price for inaction.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Paulownia: aka Kiri Tree aka Princess Tree: Heritage and the Future

Invasive Species Weblog, Thursday, November 23, 2006, on Paulownia tomentosa presents land managers and naturalists with a seemingly horrifying scenario: intentional replanting of a known invasive. The references to this plant’s potential to destroy natural areas are extensive. The Plant Conservation Alliance, Alien Plant Working Group notes that (underlining is mine): “Princess tree can be found along roadsides, stream-banks, and forest edges. It tolerates infertile and acid soils and drought conditions. It easily adapts to disturbed habitats, including previously burned areas, forests defoliated by pests (such as the gypsy moth) and landslides and can colonize rocky cliffs and scoured riparian zones where it may compete with rare plants in these marginal habitats. Its ability to sprout prolifically from adventitious buds on stems and roots allows it to survive fire, cutting, and even bulldozing in construction areas.” The adaptability of the species is the threat to native plants which it can out-compete.

Other people would see the species with a different filter, identifying the above stated qualities as positive for short term human endeavors including fodder for livestock, furniture, musical instruments, and quick erosion control, as well as being attractive under current landscape norms. The World Agroforestry Centre posts the following: “Products: Fodder: Leaves make good fodder for pigs, sheep and rabbits. Fibre: Its rapid early growth has attracted the interest of the paper industry. Timber: This species is not grown for its biomass alone, but also for its use as a quality furniture wood, veneer, carving and musical instruments. Services: Shade or shelter: It plays an important service role as a windbreak wherever it grows. Reclamation: In the USA, for instance, it seems well adapted to harsh micro-climates on surface mines and may aid in the reclamation of such sites. Ornamental: its rapid growth, attractive flower, and excellent wood quality make it a genus that needs to be considered for further use in the United States. Intercropping: The roots occupy a different layer than most annual crops and this suggests its potential for intercropping. However when propagated by cutting, the tree forms an extensive lateral root system and loses its deep rooting characteristics.” © ICRAF Copyright

In addition, we find from Invasive species fact sheet prepared by:
Ann F. Rhoads and Timothy A. Block. Morris Arboretum of the University of Pennsylvania, 100 Northwestern Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19118
April 2002: (underlining is mine) “EFFECTS OF INVASION Empress-tree appears to be limited to edges or openings; however, it is occasionally found on steep rocky slopes or along stream banks. It is tolerant of dry, infertile soils and can be quite invasive in rocky areas with a naturally open canopy. Most of the documented occurrences are in southeastern Pennsylvania and the Pittsburgh vicinity, however empress-tree probably occurs elsewhere in the state also; its northern spread is limited by the vulnerability of the flower buds to winter injury.”

So, current cultural practices are propelled by a market for the wood of this species, by historic associations with culture and heritage, by older reforestation practices, and, by traditional reforestation practices. Of course, science marches on, and whereas at one time states as diverse as Vermont, Kentucky, and Virginia may have recommended the planting of the princess tree, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence today affirms the danger to natural areas. Yet there is the short term market place which provides a demand which encourages industry to provide economically competitive sources of the wood. Also, the tendencies to reclaim severely challenged environmental sites with inexpensive solutions, sets the two sides of the discussion at logger-heads.

The historic nature of a planting ("The landscaping accentuates the central position of the Swann Fountain. Ever since Logan Circle opened in the 1920s, its princess trees (Paulownia tomentosa have been local favorites. Their clusters of purplish flowers appear in early spring, creating a mist of delicate colors. The surrounding beds of flowers and shrubs were originally designed in a formal French pattern, but have since been changed to a looser, more Romantic English style. Masses of tulips, dahlias, grape hyacinths, and azaleas bloom in season" seems to fall within a corner of invasive species issues which perhaps also includes arboretum and universities. As long as human collect things, there will be collections of exotica. Anyone currently suggesting that an arboretum grow only native would be faced with a public display of indignation. The issue perhaps is one of the good neighbor policy. Planting of known invasives should demonstrate a special need, perhaps such as historic accuracy. Care would be taken to assess the likelihood of escape and introduction to natural areas when deciding to plant. Management plans perhaps might be required.

In the end we return to the need for public education and involvement. Are we willing to pay more for long term benefits? Is it better to burn fossil fuels to bring the wood to North America, or should we grow it here to lower transportation costs?

1. Plant Conservation Alliance, Alien Plant Working Group
2. The Bugwood Network, USDA Forest Service and USDA APHIS PPQ.The University of Georgia - Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources andCollege of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences - Dept. of Entomo
3. USDA-NRCS
4. Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant Manual
5. The Global Invasive Species Database


1. Plants For A Future
2. Paulownia.org
3. The American Paulownia Association, Inc.
4. Australian Paulownia Trees and Plantations
5. PRODUCTION FORESTRY INTO THE 21 ST CENTURY; A WORLD VIEW;
R. C. Kellison

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Fuzzy Invasive Defintions

From the excellent article, ”Global Warming: Life as We’ll Know It”, by Matt Chew, a Ph.D. candidate at Arizona State University in the School of Life Sciences the following idea is offered:

“Humans desire and facilitate changes in the environment that seem likely to be advantageous. But purely fortuitous change is uncomfortable, even alarming. Surprised by the arrival of new species in familiar landscapes, we speak of “invasions” or “infestations.” But invasion is in the eye of the beholder. Few people are inclined to describe the occupation of vast areas of North America by maize, wheat, soybeans and other field crops as “infestation,” even though it occurred at the expense of the prairies and woodlands formerly in residence. And hardly anyone worries about transoceanic invasions by tigers, even though there are apparently now more tigers in the United States than in all of Asia. What about zebra mussels in the Great Lakes? That was nobody’s plan. It’s an invasion.”

At a certain level of understanding, this statement resonates with me; however, I am compelled to refer back the premise and promises of definition, which I discussed in my essay, “Invasive property rights”. Depending on how one defines invasive will color the possibility of agreement with Mr. Chew. As the federal defintion is currently written, agricultural crops are, by definition, not invasive. What Mr. Chew is playing on is a (the?) popular, broadly-defined defintion, which is closely related, at least in horticulture to the word weed.

What I read in Mr. Chew’s essay and reply to in “Invasive Border Wars”, is a matter of temporal horizons. In the short run, the current invasive species discussions may be described as an attempt to create a snapshot of a particular time and place in the natural succession, which is a short and narrow term horizon. In other words, at some level, we seem to be trying to create gardens of self sustaining ecosystems, and using horticulural practices such as weeding, to maintain the garden outside the normal sequence of natural selection. What Mr. Chew is describing is a long or wide term horizon. Thus we get a collision of goals and expectations, a budding argument, built into a fuzzy, shifting definition.

And in deed he does describe the very same wilderness as garden of sorts towards the end of his essay:

“Glib schemes to farm ever higher latitudes tell only part of the story. If anthropogenic climate change accelerates habitat shifting to a pace that other “chories” cannot match, we might even find ourselves moving “wild’ plants and animals to new locations, getting them established, and tending them. Going beyond “restoration” and growing wilderness to order could become another branch of agriculture."

This imbalance of defintion and expectation, imbedded within the general and specific discussion creates opportunity for slippage in agreement. As Mr. Chew notes, and as I thought I was making clear, ulimate control of our environmental destinies is beyond our scientic grasp currently. I submit that the current lack of knowledge creates a sequence of best guesses, or variables which make future forecasts of environmental states inexact at best. However, lack of specific knowledge does not in itself mean that we need adopt an existential approach to this issue. Doing nothing to ameliorate the present condition, as currently defined, is at the heart of one side of the questions surrounding ecosystem health. Society can decide to make only short term day to day assessments, or it can adopt a blend of immediate self preseravtion with long term investment based on best scientific knowledge at hand, realizing that the assumptions may have to change radically as new information comes to light.

This is not to say that Mr. Chew does not understand these horozons and their associated heirarchies of understandings; for involved within the temporal issues are also economic issues.

So Mr. Chew writes (cf. “Land values: Environment and Development”)

“All this smacks of an economics lesson. And like many economics lessons today, it involves overseas outsourcing. The very commercial and transportation infrastructure that brings goods and materials in vast quantities from low-cost producers on one continent to consumers on another is also bearing disease organisms, fungi, seeds, eggs and spores, spiders and insects, rats and other small mammals, and sometimes reptiles and amphibians.”

In essence, I suspect that we agree on more issues than we disagree though the use of differing definitions, which shift internally within the present discussion, would seem to put us on a collision course at first reading.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Invasive Border Wars

How quickly we get our dander up when we perceive an assault on our personal rights. How fast we respond, when we think someone, somewhere, might be telling us what we can do to our castle or on our land, with our pets or for our plants. Like a flash of lightning, we see that some group is attempting to limit what we can plant, and we react without actually thoroughly considering the issues at hand. The fact that we have a tradition of the public commons and the public good; that we have local zoning ordinances in many urban areas which, for almost a century, recommends common practices that are best for domestic properties, falls to the ground as we pick up our banner of property rights and personal liberty.

Now comes the great misunderstanding that “someone” is trying to take away our ornamental plants, collected over the centuries from around the world, and limit us to native plants only. Flailing wildly, the newly informed decry the efforts of supposed elite to arbitrarily create “pristine” wilderness areas. Like its philosophical distant cousins, immigration reform, invasive species, which are the harmful subset of non-native species, are hard to understand with small bits of information presented without context. Information is presented as factual when, in actuality, it is made from urban legend or country myth. Kudzu, for example, was intentionally introduced in the 1870’s, not, as some articles have stated, accidentally. When we launch an attack on an idea, it is very important to get the facts right, as we soon will find that there is much grey area to debate when one is swimming in subjective opinion. This leads to great controversy where none need exist.

Imagine a long term gardener, who for ten years or more has tended and cultivated a plant collection with outstanding results. The garden is a brilliant reflection of the owner’s passion and dedication. One day, a new neighbor appears with a wheel-barrow in hand. The gardener is ecstatic for the neighbor is moving plants in pots to the conjoining property line. The gardener rushes up to see what marvelous plant choice has been made only to find that the new neighbor has chosen a type of bamboo known to spread aggressively beyond the confines of the garden, and is intending to plant this long-term eradication problem along side the gardener’s perennial border. The gardener’s reaction is the same as the reaction of land managers to some of the ornamental trade’s garden choices.

The economic harm of kudzu is evident now. The swiftly growing plant leaps from state to state. Tax dollars are needed for control. In Washington, D.C., English Ivy covers portions of Rock Creek Park; the trees loose their limbs and are dying; the “freedom for ivy” movement cries foul at any thought of limiting ivy propagation and sale. Proponents of ivy as the best landscaping solution for difficult areas point out that ivy is everywhere and therefore defies trade restrictions.

Into this volatile mix, we add the “all is in flux” group, which states that change is constant and, therefore, somehow not worth the effort to mitigate. Plants are going to spread and there is nothing we can do, so we should look forward and not back, and continue to add potential new species, some of which may be of risk to the mix. By this point we have left the realm of reasonable disagreement, and have entered our current high state of political discourse with blinders fully functional.

There are many non-native species which provide great health and wealth benefits to society while at the same time displacing natives and destroying diverse habitats. One need look no further than cattle and wheat, and turf grass. Society weighs the contribution of these species to the common good, and, decides that the negative impact is acceptable at this time. As stewards of the land, we choose the greater good with these species. At the same time, research has noted a steady decline in species diversity in natural areas. Land managers struggle to preserve self-sustaining ecological systems to the greatest extent possible. In some sense, they are gardening in a “Wilderness” style versus an “English Landscape” style.

At its highest level, gardening is an art form, and, thus contributes to the collective culture. This living art of gardening requires dedication and long-term maintenance; gardens are not self-sustaining. Certain plant choices, which make sense during the life of the gardener, such as Japanese wisteria, can be spectacularly irresponsible after the garden has changed hands. The wisteria, having no longer the steady controlling hand of the master gardener, may seek better living conditions elsewhere including parks and natural areas. Gardening practiced by property owners responding to local zoning and health ordinances is not art and can unintentionally lead to poor plant choices.

Aquatic features in a home garden are a delight, but water hyacinth in our canal system is a scourge costing hundreds of millions of dollars to control. And the casual pond owner, who puts a few clumps of this plant in his aquatic feature, soon learns an important lesson about gardening: the right plant in the right place with the right knowledge and information.

To add to this brief presentation, we must include the Roman saying: “Non est disputandum gustibus”; “i.e., There’s no accounting for taste”. Along with property rights, the definition of beauty strongly influences our particular view. Many of our cherished landscaping traditions rely on controlled diversity and self-imposed limitations on the selection of plant. We are culturally geared to thinking about the Garden of Eden: serene, peaceful, tranquil, predictable, and safe – therefore, good. And, as we look over the fence, we see the diversity of uncontrolled nature: wild, dangerous, unpredictable, chaotic and diverse - therefore, bad. We think the controlled selection and considered choice of horticultural species is beautiful, and, therefore, anything that seems to promise a limit on our palette of choices is perceived to be censorship. We enjoy the wild areas as long as they are far removed from our property. We even have regulations that force us to maintain a certain standard of similarity which results in limitations of potential biological diversity. We want to visit a natural area, and leave it there, somewhere, not in our backyard.

But we are the stewards of Earth, and, if we do not care now, we will pay later, for we have not yet shown the ability to master climate change; we have not found away to clean water economically, nor filter the air we breathe for free. Self-sustaining systems of life are a balancing act. The Earth can be thought of as a machine which constantly resets to a state of equilibrium. There will be a price to be paid by someone for reducing biological diversity. And, yet, this line of reasoning perhaps inspires others to point and say, “Look more self-serving elitism”. We are living in a time of instant gratification. We are encouraged to spend now, for we have been given dominion over the flora and the fauna. We are determined to push the envelope to find the limit.

The invasive species movement, which tries to solve the challenges of the great public spaces, has yet to fully engage the citizens of already disturbed urban/suburban areas. As noted above, going native only will also have a cost which we have not yet fully explored. In addition, weighing the risk of invasiveness against the market for new introductions continues to be a challenge for those who would seek to defend biological diversity.

To demonstrate how confused the issue of invasiveness can become, we need only look at the Chesapeake’s mute swan. Almost as fast as volunteers can plant native aquatic grasses to prop up the declining aquatic life, and, therefore, the viability of the Bay, the swans, beautiful invasive species, eat the grass. One group seeks to limit the invader to preserve the life of the Bay; another group seeks to preserve the life of the swan.

The gardener hears these claims and counter-arguments, perhaps even getting wind of an invasive earthworm problem, and becomes defensive. But gardeners have been waging war against invasive species all along. Even the horticultural industry looks to government to protect its ornamentals from invasive species through quarantines and strict entry inspections. The nursery industry on behalf of its customers, the gardeners, do not want any more Japanese beetles or assorted plant diseases to be allowed into our country that might impact or harm economically our cherished ornamentals.

At this point, new-comers to the controversy will be looking for week-end answers. Everyone awaits an easy-to-apply garden solution, so that he or she can be labeled an environmentalist. No one is against the environment, especially gardeners. They seek beauty and serenity in a chaotic, dangerous world. They take the empty lots of disturbed urban areas, or no longer used farms and create horticultural respites from abused landscapes. All that is heard is that, what they do in their gardens is bad. What should they do is what they ask. How can planting something beautiful be wrong?

And easy answers are hard to find. No simple lists of actions, but mountains of conflicting information await the unaware. As with many contentious issues we face today, the discussion surrounding invasive species provoke quick, emotional responses. The implications of the various societal choices are not discussed in depth. Conversation, which should consist of measured disagreement, seeking to find consensus and balance, is drowned in a flood of increasingly bitter attacks, some of which become “ad hominem” assaults and do not address, therefore, the problem. How we respond to changes in the environment now, will effect how our descendants will live with the environment later.

We should ask how important biological diversity is to the well-being of humanity. We need to decide how to measure the effects of change on self-sustaining ecosystems. We ought to review the changes human actions have brought to known severely damaged areas, such as Easter Island. We have to be aware of the political and social complexities inherent in environmental choices. We must recognize that each of us will be making individual life style choices which will affect the sustainability world as we know it.

Written March 21, 2006 as an answer to a New York Times editorial; this was never published by the times but has appeared in professional trade magazines.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Invasive property rights

I try to focus my thinking about invasive species on the challenges of definition. The reason can be found in the following article by Peyton Knight, Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, The National Center for Public Policy Research :” Beware of 'Invasive Species' Regulations” (Copyright 2006 The Washington Times). Here is a copy of the National Invasive Species Council’s definition: “The EO defines an invasive species as a species not native to the region or area whose introduction (by humans) causes or is likely to cause harm to the economy or the environment, or harms animal or human health. This definition encompasses all types of invasive species— plants, animals, and microorganisms. The definition makes a clear distinction between non-native (or alien) species and invasive species. Most introduced species are not harmful. In fact, many non-native species— which include most U.S. crops and domesticated animals—are extremely important sources of food, fiber, or recreation. Only a small percentage of non-native species are invasive. However, even a single invasive species can cause great harm.” (Executive Sunmmary Five-Year Review of EO 13112 on INVASIVE SPECIES). And here is the version extract and summarized in the article: “Invasive or "alien species" are defined in Mr. Clinton's order as "any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem." (Copyright 2006 The Washington Times).

Allow me to present the following clarification from the Invasive Species Advisory Committee: “Preamble: Executive Order 13112 – defines an invasive species as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” In the Executive Summary of the National Invasive Species Management Plan (NISMP) the term invasive species is further clarified and defined as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” To provide guidance for the development and implementation of the NISMP, the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) and the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) adopted a set of principles outlined in Appendix 6 of the NISMP. Guiding Principle #1 provides additional context for defining the term invasive species and states “many alien species are non-invasive and support human livelihoods or a preferred quality of life.” However, some alien species (non-native will be used in this white paper because it is more descriptive than alien), for example West Nile virus, are considered invasive and undesirable by virtually everyone. Other non-native species are not as easily characterized. For example, some non-native species are considered harmful, and therefore, invasive by some sectors of our society while others consider them beneficial. This discontinuity is reflective of the different value systems operating in our free society, and contributes to the complexity of defining the term invasive species. “

In my earlier post today, I presented an overview of the disconnect inherent in trying to establish a common ground for dialogue. By choosing parts of a definition which suit a position and not addressing the fundamental supporting concepts, the collision quickly descends into incompatible positions. I would venture to guess that the author is most likely not against current agricultural weed laws, because such laws directly benefit an immediate need, and under the short term valuation system are crucial to generating returns on investment.

“Such a sweeping mandate means that nearly every backyard, golf course, farm, lake and stream in America could be considered teeming with so-called invasive species, and thus subject to federal scrutiny and regulation” (Copyright 2006 The Washington Times). On the face of it this is true; every disturbed piece of land has a weed problem, and a long term or short term landscape solution.

“It is far more productive and scientifically sound to evaluate species on the basis of their known harm or benefit, as opposed to their historical origin. In fact, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is already tasked with identifying and controlling the spread of harmful plant and animal species. APHIS lists on its Web Site 30 "public laws and acts" already on the books that regulate noxious species and their movement.” (Copyright 2006 The Washington Times). In someway, the real question should be whether it makes sense to broaden the understanding of invasive species as they relate to economic harm or benefit, but the author is unwilling to consider this because the cultural mandate to dominate the landscape, supported by 12 month financial goals will not presently accommodate this widening of terms.

As I am not a scientist, I will leave it to professionals to respond to the assertion that the work they are doing is detrimental to science, and comment on the two penultimate paragraphs.

“Some are even promoting regulation of the virtually infinite pathways that certain non-indigenous species travel. This could open the door to endless regulation of human behavior, including that pertaining to private land use, public land access, and how and where Americans travel. Secure private property rights are essential to a free society. Any initiative that seeks to classify and regulate plant and animal species on the exceedingly arbitrary basis of when they originated in a certain environment is a serious threat to these rights.” (Copyright 2006 The Washington Times)

If the underlying valuation system of the best use of the land would change with a longer term horizon, the free market would correct the perception of loss now ascribed to anyone attempting to understand the invasive species issue. The biology of the environment will change and adapt; it will not remain the same for it is a living organism on a larger scale or organization than our current tools for thinking allow. We will find a blance or it will be imposed upon us, not by government, but by nature itself.

Land values: Environment and Development

Imbedded deeply with in the western European Judeo-Christian-Islamic cultural perspective is the idea of valuation of actions and things. When the linear concept of improvement over time towards an end goal of perfection is applied to the environment, the collision of ideas about valuation obscures the discussion about the environment. What exactly is the best use of the land around us?

Today’s, November 5, 2006, Washington Post back page editorial by Tiffin Shewmake sparks a fire which lights the controversy of best use. And the issue at the heart of best use is loaded with cultural minefields which include religion and economics, to major components of politics.

The questions then are: “What is the best use of a given parcel or parcels of land? What do we mean by best use? How will we frame the question; what term will be used to define best use?”

Working backwards through the list we start with definitions. We will include time, equity, aesthetics, spirituality, and human biology. What then will be the time frame used to define best use? Currently, we use anannual accounting calendar driven by quarterly and daily bottom line goals. Even though our financial objectives are rationally a continuation over time, for the most part most decisions are made within a 12 month frame of reference. So culturally our best use timeline is one year.

Within this one year timeframe, we invest either capital or equity. We seek returns within our time constraints. Because of the short horizon, these returns are measured in equity growth with minimal concern for resource depletion. Built into the equity or capital reporting statements is an assumption that basic resources are infinite; that energy ultimately from the sun is without end. Of course if one steps back from the brink of short term thinking this premise seems false. Every square meter removed from plant life is no longer involved in the photosynthesis process and accordingly is lower the amount of potential energy. There is the possibility of giant solar panels and a energy flow from space, but at some point this would simply block the ultimately finite amount of energy available from the sun.

The last sentence demonstrates the first challenge to assessing best use as the scale of time is usually not defined a priori in any given discussion. In other words, those with a long term view are guaranteed to collide with the current normal accepted decision making timeline.

Capital or equity presents its own challenges as we are compelled to use standard accepted definitions. Capital: “Cash or goods used to generate income either by investing in a business or a different income property; The net worth of a business; that is, the amount by which its assets exceed its liabilities. The money, property, and other valuables which collectively represent the wealth of an individual or business.” Equity: “In real estate, it is the difference between what a property is worth and what the owner owes against that property (i.e. the difference between the house value and the remaining mortgage or loan payments on a house). (Copyright©1997-2005 by WebFinance, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized duplication, in whole or in part, is strictly )prohibited). Sure hope I can use this definition here.

Notice that immediate problem with the definition of equity. There is no reference to an environmental valuation. The returns on investment in a piece of real estate are measured in asset increase or decrease without reference to long term environmental contributions ort loss. Even an aesthetic valuation will be calculated in increase or decrease to capital or equity. At least here in the standard accounting model’s balance statement there is a line called good-will, which can begin a reflect a tangential relationship to the aesthetics of the property, or more directly the recreational use as an aesthetic contribution..

Theological discussions of best use begin to bridge the timeline differences. In western religious thinking we find a mandate or command to be good stewards of the land coupled with the ever popular, “Go forth and dominate….” . This cultural imperative lies at the root of societal choices when it come to current land valuations. Land is toi be used for short term gain.

So now we come to human need, or biology. At some level, humanity needs to feed itself; the act of eating being a rather destructive event for the most part. The conundrum is that to live humans must destroy. But further thought shows that there must be a balance between short term nutrient needs and long term environmental constraints. In other words, we cannot simply slash and burn and move on. We must find a way to restore to a balance which found a organizational structure larger than humanity. So our very biology demands short term aggressive results and at the same time requires to recycle the energy expended on immediate survival in to some type of long term balance. In some way just as humanity needs to eat and drink and will do whatever is necessary to survive, so the earth’s environmental systems will find a way to survive with or without us.

In summation, our society currently looks at land in a natural state as an infinite resource from which value may be taken. As the land is put into production, its value goes up. Land left in a “natural” or unused state is low value latent with an expectation that development in some fashion is a good thing. The other side of the coin starts with the assumption that the best use of the land is a thriving self sustaining ecosystem, and that any event which threatens or ends the self contained system in a decrease in value. To me this is the root fo the political discussion surrounding all aspe3ct of environmentalism and development.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

New Directions for (Eco)development

Invasive species studies, which comprise work in the fields of biology, botany, anthropology, archeology, meteorology, climatology, agronomy, economics, history and politics, to name a few, can seem daunting and over arching to new comers. However, invasive species issues themselves are but a sub set of the larger field of ecology.

Many times I think we are so focused on our area of interest and expertise that we forget that in most cases our font of knowledge is part of a grander collections of specific detailed understandings. In some ways we get lost in our on small world and forget to link our studies to a broader sweep, a larger hierarchy of assembled facts and experiences. Sometimes we are so focused on mining for information downwards that we forget to look up to larger scales of comprehension.

We look work on the foundations of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology as areas of intense study in which experts spend a life time. We are comfortable with this pyramid of related areas of study each drilling down to a smaller focus of understanding. The comfort level is lost when we try to go in the other direction, linking our understandings to something bigger than humanity. We look back and down to the size of sub atomic particles and back to the edges of the beginning, but struggle to look forward and up above our on immediate organizational norms.

Here then is the problem of any theory which purports to explain the environment.. Quickly the fields of knowledge and the variability of fact which are required to generate any theory spin wildly out of the realm of normative comprehension. And therefore they become suspect. Meanwhile, there is a larger complexity to life and earth which I think no one denies and it responds to minute changes whether we try to understand or not.

When we plan our daily lives and our structures which support them, we tend to look at the immediate and the local and fail to account for the long term and the distant.
On Friday, November 3rd, 2006, I had the pleasure of attending the Chesapeake Conservation Landscape Council (CCLC) first all day conference. The work of the all volunteer board in bringing together almost 200 participants demonstrates the power that grass roots efforts can make in changing the world in which we live. As in many great conferences the CCLC ran concurrent session so I can only speak of the three sessions I attended, which were wonderfully informative. These sessions began to address the struggles which some have taken on to create a new dynamic, a new understanding, and a new thinking when it comes to humanity’s place on and in this world.

First was “The Art and Economics of Natural Building, John L Knott, Jr., the President and CEO of the Noisette Company. Green development is making its way in the mainstream with new design and building techniques that improve energy efficiency, restore and conserve natural landscapes, and build community cohesion. Developers and their consultants are finding that green development also benefits the bottom line by creating real estate value. This session will explore the green building and design movement by sharing real world project examples and the unique processes and innovative techniques used to move these projects forward. “
Following this, I listened to Conservation Design, Best Development Practices, Keith Bowers
Many of the world’s ecosystems have undergone significant degradation with negative impacts on biological diversity and peoples’ livelihoods. There is now a growing realization that we will not be able to conserve the earth’s biological diversity through the protection of critical areas alone.
This talk explains what is meant by the term "ecological restoration" and outlines the attributes and framework for enhancing biodiversity as well as improving human well-being in degraded landscapes. In this way ecological restoration becomes a fundamental element of ecosystem management. Given that many people now depend on what have become degraded ecosystems to sustain their livelihoods, landscape architects now have an opportunity to employ ecological restoration initiatives as a means to
-- Improve biodiversity conservation
-- Improve human livelihoods
-- Empower local people
-- Improve ecosystem productivity
Integrating conservation planning, ecological restoration and regenerative site design strategies into all facets of projects should be a primary component of conservation and ‘green’ development programs throughout the US.”
And to close out the day, “Designing and Planning Communities. Panel Discussion, John Knott, Keith Bowers, Richard Stanford, Tim Zastrow
New communities can be planned to reduce their impact on the natural environment by using innovative storm water management techniques, by saving trees and existing wildlife habitat, and by implementing alternative low impact designs. Each of the four panelists – a developer, a landscape architect, a civil engineer, and an arborist -- will bring a unique perspective to the challenges and opportunities they have had in developing green communities. Moderated by David O’Neill of the Chesapeake Bay Trust.
Slowly, the ideas of the past are changing, and with it, the old ways and understanding that said: Go forth and dominate the flora and the fauna. Now we seek to find ways to live with the same, and to be part of this world.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Invasive Miscanthus; the Challenge of Use and Definition

Miscanthus, landscape solution hero, or villain to natural area eco-systems? Trying to find an answer can help me demonstrate the problems inherent in the invasive species conversation. Just trying to get a handle on exactly how many areas of expertise will be involved in arriving at a knowledgeable position can be an interesting study in frustration.

I thought about presenting a simple dialogue between gardening and natural area preservation. I thought that this would be an elegant solution and would allow me to get a “buy” on understanding economic and development issues, import and export topics, quarantines, insect populations and bird life, non native earth worms and soil structure destruction, and pH consideration and agronomic considerations, as well as taxonomic discussions. Then of course I came across Miscanthus as a bio fuel source, and my plan fell apart.

Here is a tidbit to contemplate for a moment: “Using a computer simulator, Heaton predicted that if just 10 percent of Illinois land mass was devoted to Miscanthus, it could provide 50 percent of Illinois electricity needs. Using Miscanthus for energy would not necessarily reduce energy costs in the short term, Heaton said, but there would be significant savings in carbon dioxide production.” (source Molly McElroy, News Bureau) Other than wondering where the food to eat will come from, I was amazed to find that Europe is hot on Miscanthus production, and not too overly concerned about invasive tendencies.

Part of the problem can be found in trying to determine how, when, and where Miscanthus may be or is a problem and for whom it might or could be. There seems to be reasonable agreement that in sites where the plant is a problem it spreads by seed. Sterile varieties are recommended. Sterility itself, however, is an area of expertise I had failed to list above, and leads one down a new pathway of learning. Deciding which species of Miscanthus may be a problem continues the thinking process, and references to the evil ghost of “the species Miscanthus sinensis” which is the grandfather of all the escapees do nothing to clear up the confusion. Let me quote from the University of Minnesota: “Ornamental plantings of Miscanthus sinensis (the species, not a specific cultivar) are probably the source of the “wild type” Miscanthus sinensis that is now common in western NC; near Valley Forge, PA; and other areas in the Middle Atlantic States.” Of course we can add from HGTV’s site the following:

Given this level of complexity any hope of arriving at a definitive answer is fleeting.
I propose, therefore, if you are still with me, to outline the gardening values at work in making this plant a highly thought of solution for landscape and gardening challenges. Then, tack into the wind and explore a little of the harm the plant is causing in natural areas. If after that you are yet with me, I shall bring in the bio-fuel discussion and finish with a flourish announcing much and answering little.

So, let’s consider some information from a gardener’s perspective and examine the genus Miscanthus. This ornamental grass is comprised of several species all of which bring diversity to a landscape, variety on form, height and texture, and provide almost year around horticultural or visual interest. In addition to these attributes, this ornamental grass grows almost anywhere, especially in the mid Atlantic region. Growing almost anywhere is a significant factor in making a plant selection, and because it needs little help in getting established, minimal effort to maintain, looks good for ten months, and suffers fools gladly, it becomes a workhorse in the garden from a design perspective. Among the species commonly found in the trade are Miscanthus sinensis, transmorrisonensis, sacchariflorus, floridulus.

At Behnke Nurseries, we make an attempt to educate the consumer. Here is the buyer’s (Larry Hurley) abstract for information for the staff and his disclaimer:

(Personal reference notes by Larry Hurley taken from a variety of sources including books by John Greenlee and Rick Darke, various nursery catalogues, a lecture by John Hoffmann, the HGTV website, the Friends of the National Arboretum Newsletter, an article on research by Mary Meyers at the University of Minnesota in American Nurseryman, and so on. Not intended for publication, not proofed for publication....Suspect a lot of quotation marks missing): “Miscanthus and Invasiveness: Guidelines for Behnke Nurseries. Miscanthus is an invasive plant and has become a big problem in North Carolina and western Ohio, for example. According to Rick Darke, it forms dense stands in its native range, so it has great potential to damage wetlands in the US.

He says the keys are early season bloom, which give the seeds enough time to ripen, warm summers (which encourage earlier blooming) and wet locations. When these three aspects occur simultaneously, aggressive seeding can occur. One source also suggests planting only one cultivar to reduce the risk of cross pollination and seedlings reverting to a more aggressive “species form”.

Below is a list of species and cultivars that would seem to be okay, or at least low risk. Following is a list of “do not buys”. These lists comprise about half of what is available. For many, I don’t have enough information to render a decision, or, the cultivar isn’t commonly available at this time from our vendors.

Please encourage people to plant substitutes like Panicum, unless they are dead set on Miscanthus. Stick to the “okay to buy” list. Avoid cultivars that bloom in June, July and August. Okay to buy:
Autumn Light
Cabaret
Cosmopolitan
Dixieland
Gold Bar
Gracillimus
Hinjo aka Little Nicky ™
Kirk Alexander
Little Kitten
Little Zebra
Morning Light
Mysterious Maiden
November Sunset
oligstachyus (species)
Positano
Puenktchen (aka ‘Little Dot’)
Purpurescens (X)
Rigoletto
Sarabande
Silberpfeil (Silver Arrow)
Strictus
Super Stripe
Variegatus
Zebrinus
Giganteus
Do Not Buy:
Adagio
Graziella
Grosse Fontaine
Juli
Kaskade
Kleine Fontaine
Kleine Silberspinne (aka ‘Little Silver Spider’)
Malepartus
Nippon
Sacchariflorus (species)
Silberfeder (Silver Feather)
transmorrisonensis (species)

;“Conditions in the southeastern United States most closely approximate ideal conditions for miscanthus, and it is here, especially near moist, sunny bottomlands, that caution is warranted.”

From the longer and earlier, Encyclopedia of Ornamental Grasses by Darke;
“Antique cultivars, including ‘Gracillimus’, ‘Variegatus’ and ‘Zebrinus’ require very long, hot seasons if they are to flowers at all, and their seeds rarely mature in regions where they flower very late in autumn. Many modern cultivars, including some of the most beautiful, such as ‘Graziella’ and ‘Malepartus’ were developed and selected for their ability to flower is short seasons….Unfortunately, these selections bloom early enough to be prolific self-sowers in some warmer zones up into the mid-Atlantic states. They readily naturalize in and out of the garden, and can be a real nuisance in managed meadow gardens….Gardeners should use common sense when selecting miscanthus and considering its use in gardens adjacent to vulnerable native habitats.’; p 222
Moisture and heat are the key things required for spread; not a problem in California, for example (both Darke and Greenlee)

From FONA; in addition to the other data “In addition, the smaller variegated types of miscanthus were found to be “basically sterile”.”

HGTV Website; ”If you live in an area that’s conducive to Miscanthus spreading, avoid planting more than two cultivars. Research shows that cross pollination could mean that any progeny could revert to species.”

Twenty species, Asia to Africa. Clumpers and runners. African species sometimes broken out into a different genus.

Have skipped a few from the Encyclopedias that I, (Larry Hurley) deemed obscure,; e.g., ‘Mt. Washington’ , ‘Roland’, ‘Kleine Silberspinne’, etc.

Miscanthus floridulus is not grown in US, it is generally actually M. saccariflorus or hybrid M. ‘Giganteus’;
M. ‘Giganteus’; hybrid, Blooms very late summer, or not at all in short growing seasons. Generally does not self sow; loses lower leaves by midsummer
‘Little Big Man’; a seedling of ‘Giganteus’; similar in most respects but smaller
Hoffman talk: PPA 2007; leaves break off in winter and blow around, messy
M. oligostachyus: short; August bloom; generally does not self sow; open; smaller flowers.
M. ‘Purpurascens’; hybrid
“Because it rarely if ever self-sows, it is one of the best choices for gardens adjacent to natural areas in the eastern United States.”
‘Good version of Miscanthus”—HGTV Website, from Rick Darke
From John Greenlee: blooms July and August; best in zones 7 and 8
Blooms in July/August in warm climates; Darke; not at all in England; possibly an M. oligostachyus hybrid.
M. purpurascens ‘Autumn Sun’; Emerald Coast: Brilliant red-orange fall color
M. sacchariflorus: Silver Banner Grass; runner; August bloom; self sows. Aggressive in small gardens. A cv named ‘Interstate 95”! Loses lower leaves when dry.
Miscanthus sinensis in general (John Greenlee); clumping, prefers full sun and moist soil and usually tolerates standing or shallow water. Narrow-leaved types seem to better tolerate high heat and humidity
M. sinensis ‘Adagio’; August; Hoffman talk, PPA 2006; does not recommend for Asheville region due to invasive potential, only for the north
M. sinensis ‘Altwelbersommer’ (‘Indian Summer’); Bluemel catalog; blooms September and October.
M. sinensis ‘Andante’; Bluemel catalog says “the best Miscanthus on the market; strong mid-season bloomer; Hoffman talk, PPA: new cultivar, pink , late
M. sinensis ‘Arabesque’; Bluemel catalog says August bloomer; Emerald Coast says September
M.’ Autumn Light’, not in short Darke; zero germ Meyer; green, narrow leaves; blooms in September; Emerald Coast says September
M. sinensis ‘Bluetenwunder’; Emerald Coast; blue-gray foliage.
M. sinensis var condensatus ‘Cabaret’ Not in the short book; from HGTV website, quoting Darke; “The seed is sterile, so self sowing isn’t a problem”. Blooms in late September.
:Good version of Miscanthus”; HGTV website; from Rick Darke
Blooms in late September in warm areas.
Introduced from Japan by Skip March and John Creech.
M. sinensis var condensatus ‘Cosmopolitan’; flowers more freely and earlier than ‘Cabaret’; early September
Greenlee’ improved form of Variegatus
M. “Dixieland’: look at specs; zero germ in Meyer; not in short Darke; “similar to Variegatus but more compact”
Bluemel: dwarf form of Variegatus
Emerald Coast: pink-tinged blooms
M. sinensis ‘Ferner Osten’; Bluemel, September/October bloomer; Darke says mid to late summer; form of Variegatus.
M.sinensis ‘Flamingo’; Darke blooms late summer; Bluemel blooms September, October.
M. sinensis ‘Gold Bar’; Hoffman, PPA 2007; new cultivar; no notes but slide very nice, very heavy gold bar variegation; See Walters catalogue, slow grower, flowers mid-fall.
M. sinensis ‘Gracillimus’
“…is among the last to bloom…in late September or October…”
“Good version of Miscanthus”; HGTV Website; from Rick Darke
Not a clean clone, various variations over the years. Floppy
M. sinensis ‘Graziella’; a bad one, see Darke intro above; August or Early September
Bluemel blooms in August; “one of the best”
M. sinensis ‘Grosse Fontaine’; mid-summer flowers (Bluemel; early August)
M. sinensis ‘Hinjo’ aka “Little Nicky”, TM ; Compact Zebra Grass
Superb, much of character of Zebrinus; best choice of banded leaved Miscanthus for smaller gardens. Photo in mid-August in PA not yet in bloom.
“Good version of Miscanthus”; HGTV Website; from Rick Darke
Not floppy; Hines introduction
M. sinensis ‘Huron Blush’; Walters; flowers late summer
M. sinensis ‘Huron Sentinel; Walters; flowers late summer.
M. sinensis ‘Huron Sunrise’; Walters; “The most profusely blooming miscanthus.” Flowers late summer.
M. sinensis ‘Juli’: early summer flowering, probably a hybrid; Bluemel blooms in August, strong grower.
M. sinensis ‘Kascade’; midsummer blooms
M. sinensis ‘Kirk Alexander’; not in short Darke; zero germ Meyer
Better than Zebrinus, not as good as Hinjo (same banding form)
M. sinensis ‘Kleine Fontaine’; similar to Grosse Fontaine but smaller; assume mid-summer flowering
M. sinenis ‘Kleine Silberspinne’; Walters; green foliage; mid-summer blooms. The call it ‘Little Silver Spider’
M. sinensis ‘Little Dot’; Walters; see ‘Puenktchen’.
M. sinensis ‘Little Kitten’
Seedling of Yaku Jima; flowers sparsely; Low germ Meyer
Bluemel blooms late summer into fall.
M. Little Nicky TM, see ‘ Hinjo’
M. sinensis ‘Little Zebra’
“Good version of Miscanthus”; HGTV website; from Rick Dark; not in short book
Flowers late summer; Walters.
M. sinensis ‘Malepartus’: a bad one; see Darke intro above; blooms early September
M. sinensis ‘Minuett’; Bluemel; small, graceful, blooms in September
M. sinensis ‘Morning Light’
“Blooms late…and is not inclined to self-sowing, although it may do so in the warm, moist parts of the southeastern United States.” Blooms late.
“Good Version of Miscanthus”; HGTV Website, from Rick Darke
From John Geenlee: blooms mid-October; essentially a variegated Gracillimus
Darke: “Arguably the best all-around garden plant of the Miscanthus species and cultivars.”
Skip March and John Creech brought from Japan. Upright, doesn’t flop.

M. sinensis ‘Mysterious Maiden’; Emerald Coast; new plant forum PPA 2006; Blooms of Bressingham; September; thin, gold banded, upright
M. sinensis ‘Nippon’; mid-summer bloom. Bluemel blooms late June to fall.
Flowers mid-summer; Walters.
M. sinensis ‘November Sunset’; late summer bloom. Bluemel blooms in November.
M. sinensis ‘Positano’; Bluemel blooms September October.
M. sinensis ‘Puenktchen’; Emerald Coast; small version of M. strictus. Walters; flowers in late August.
M. sinensis ‘Rigoletto’; not in short Darke; low germ Meyer
Bluemel, compact Variegatus
M. sinensis ‘Sarabande’; blooms in August
Emerald Coast: “An excellent alternative to ‘Gracillimus’ for the Appalacian region, as it produces sterile seed.”
M. sinensis ‘Silberfeder’ (John Greenlee); older selection, flowers in August
Flowers freely; even in England (Darke) Flowers mid-summer; Walters.
M. sinensis ‘Silberpfeil’; not in short Darke; 0% germ Meyer
Darke encyclopedia says nearly impossible to distinguish from Variegata
Bluemel blooms August September
M. sinensis ‘Strictus’
…blooms in September…”; low germ Meyer
From Greenlee; very stiffly upright, vs Zebrinus, which is floppy; September bloom
Blooms early fall; Walters.
M. sinensis ‘Super Stripe’: Emerald Coast; Blooms of Bressingham; gold banded; small clumper
M. sinensis ‘Variegatus’
“…blooms in mid-September…”; low germ Meyer
Best variegation but usually needs staking
Flowers early fall; Walters.
M. sinensis ‘Yaku Jima’; not a true clone; several similar selections; very low germ Meyer
Bluemel blooms August September, ‘Adagio’ improved form
M. sinensis ‘Zebrinus’
“Flowers copper tinted in mid-September…; ‘Hinjo’ is better.
Usually requires staking.
M. transmorrisonensis; Evergreen Miscanthus; from Greenlee and Bluemel; green until heavy frost. Almost continual bloom from June to November. Flowers shed in fall and are ineffective in winter.”

As one can see, the varieties, forms, bloom times and textures available, make this landscape ornamental important in current design solutions, But it follows that there are many opportune pathways for introduction to natural areas, most of which will occur because of limited or absent information at the point of purchase. The end user even the professional is confronted by a bewildering array of choices and information.

And in due course the definition challenge of invasiveness raises its head as in this posting from the Takoma Gardener Weblog site: “Wikipedia tells us that witch-hunting is the persecution of a perceived enemy with extreme prejudice and disregard of actual guilt or innocence; it's a type of "moral panic." Okay, I think I have the right term, but you be the judge.

My second example is from a talk I heard recently by a plant expert from the University of Maryland. When asked if ornamental grasses are invasive she declared that Miscanthus sinensis is, yesiree. At which point I jumped into the fray to ask, "Isn't it just the species, not varieties like 'Morning Light'"? And to my surprise she responded that yes, in our area it's just the species that's a problem. So why the hell didn't she say that in the first place? “

As the reader might note, understanding requires far more investigation and time than most people are willing to invest.. Checking reference sites, we read: “Chinese Silver Grass Miscanthus sinensis Chinese silver grass was introduced from Asia about a century ago for use as an ornamental plant. It is a showy grass that readily spreads in areas where the soil is disturbed, such as roadsides, forest edges and clearings, and can create a thicket that prevents the growth of other plants. Because it is highly flammable, Chinese silver grass can be a fire hazard. It spreads by wind-dispersed seed and locally through growth of rhizomes.” This would lend credence to the Takoma Gardener’s position, it would seem. As I look at several information sites on invasive characteristics, I see a tendency to gloss over species differentiations as well as limited information on cultivar habits. A few more minutes of searching and I find: “In the United States there are two species, Miscanthus sinensis and Miscanthus sacchariflorus, that are of concern in being weedy or invading natural areas. Their differences are described below. Click on the illustrations for enlarged images” (© 2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota)

This should be a signal that there needs be a deeper investigation of the characteristics of this genus before claiming absolute knowledge one way or another. It is worth keeping in mind the resulting potential cost of a wrong choice. “According to the National Invasive Species Council, invasive plants cover more than 100 million acres in the United States and are spreading across an additional 3 million acres each year. The estimated cost of invasive species to the U.S. economy is approximately $137 billion per year.”(Kathy Reshetiloff)

I remind the reader of the idea to use Miscanthus as a bio-fuel, and one begins to see the reach of conflicting goals based on complete knowledge and science. And the always changing nature of information gathered by scientific research means that we need to make educated choices based on a continues flow of new information without the hammer of absolute scientific position. One needs to accept the current preponderance of evidence when making a gardening choice.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Frogs and chytrid/(chrytid(sic)), natural and exotic, evolution and succession. global warming and carbon sequestration.

The demise of the Panamanian gold frog to the unchecked spread of chytrid fungus brings several invasive species questions to light. One question would be the issue as to whether chytrid is in invasive species. A search online of the Global Invasive Species Database produced the following: Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is a non-hyphal parasitic chytrid fungus that has been associated with population declines in endemic amphibian species in upland montane rain forests in Australia and Panama. It is causes cutaneous mycosis (fungal infection of the skin), or more specifically chytridiomycosis, in wild and captive amphibians. First described in 1998, the fungus is the only chytrid known to parasitise vertebrates. B. dendrobatidis can remain viable in the environment (especially aquatic environments) for weeks on its own, and may persist in latent infections.

As I continue to search for the “native” habitat of the disease, I begin to find that it is wide-spread and may, by definition lie on the fringe of the current definitions. Chytridiomycosis has now been reported from 38 amphibian species in 12 families, including ranid and hylid frogs, bufonid toads, and plethodontid salamanders. Although chytridiomycosis is found in a range of species and habitats (including African frogs in lowland regions in Africa) it has caused population declines of amphibians species confined to montane rain forests (Weldon et al. 2004; Daszak et al. 1999). The fungus prefers lower temperatures which may explain the high precedence of the fungus in high elevations in the tropics. In culture conditions optimum growth occurred at 23°C, with slower growth occuring at 28°C and (reversible) cessation of growth occuring at 29°C (Longcore, Pessier, Nichols, 1999, in Daszak et al. 1999).

The issue here whether this is truly a directly introduced by human activity invasive species, or whether it is part of the natural ecological evolution and succession. The claim is made that it is directly the result of human activity which is causing an unnatural warming. “Global warming is wiping out frog populations and threatening many species with extinction by driving epidemics of disease.” (Mark Henderson: The Times, January 12, 2006). If the spread of species by changes in weather is a criterion for defining an invasion, then what would be the paradigm for normal ecological succession? The hand of mankind can be seen in the studies of carbon sequestration. “Carbon sequestration refers to the provision of long-term storage of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere, underground, or the oceans so that the buildup of carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas) concentration in the atmosphere will reduce or slow. In some cases, this is accomplished by maintaining or enhancing natural processes; in other cases, novel techniques are developed to dispose of carbon.” (Office of Science: US Dept of Energy)


When multiple variables are introduced, the task of defining an invasive species becomes complex and ever-shifting. “Every species has a set of environmental conditions under which it will grow and reproduce most optimally. In a given ecosystem, and under that ecosystem's set of environmental conditions, those species that can grow the most efficiently and produce the most viable offspring will become the most abundant organisms. As long as the ecosystem's set of environmental conditions remains constant, those species optimally adapted to those conditions will flourish. The "engine" of succession, the cause of ecosystem change, is the impact of established species have upon their own environments. A consequence of living is the sometimes subtle and sometimes overt alteration of one's own environment. The original environment may have been optimal for the first species of plant or animal, but the newly altered environment is often optimal for some other species of plant or animal. Under the changed conditions of the environment, the previously dominant species may fail and another species may become ascendant.” To complicate understanding further, “(t)here is a concept in ecological succession called the "climax" community. The climax community represents a stable end product of the successional sequence.” So it could be said that invasive species control is premised upon the stability of the overall environment which is not stable and changes over time.

So a reduction in the reach of the invasive species definition to direct human introduction may lead to a more manageable set of parameters. Species introduced by climate change may not be invasive. As in my previous post, the fuzzy, changeable edges of definition makes invasive species issues difficult to explain to a general audience. And the nature of scientific inquiry would demand a flexibility in the definition depended on current and on-going research.

The necessity to accept a changeable definition causes reluctance by the public to take action for a lack of “definite” science. This stance in turn causes friction and misunderstanding about the concept of invasive species as a whole, and therefore limits the finding of further research and control programs. Activists straining to protect ecosystems as currently occurring rush to push legislation, while others reject action until there is definitive science, which is in itself a misunderstanding of the scientific process. We wind up in a quagmire of a definition conundrum..