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
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Monday, November 27, 2006
New Invasive; Early Detection; Rapid Response
Wavy-leaf basket grass, a great marketing name, is the comm
on 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.
on 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.
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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)