Invasive Notes

Urban Invasive Species Issues Forum March 1, 2012

2012-01-25T11:36:00.000-05:00

See Schedule of Events at www.nisaw.org for details on workshops and other events being held throughout the Washington, DC Area.

Urban Invasive Species Issues Forum

March 1, 2012

NISAW Hotel

Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel

1001 14th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Agenda

Overview and Purpose: Initiation of process to create a “toolkit” to be used by municipal/local governments for invasive plant management. The toolkit would include definitions, principles and guidelines for dealing with invasive species.

Organizer: Rita Beard, National Park Service, Biological Resource Management Division; Moderator: John Peter Thompson, Maryland Invasive Species Council

3:15-3:35 pm Policy and Regulatory Framework for Healthy Ecosystems - CJ Lammers, Master Environmental Planner, M-NCPPC Prince George’s Planning Department
3:35-3:55 pm Challenges, Opportunities and Needs of local Urban Ecology- Damien Ossi, Wildlife Biologist D.C. Fisheries & Wildlife Division
3:55-4:15pm Managing Ecosystem Services and Resources in an urban/suburban park system - Carole Bergmann Forest Ecologist/Field Botanist, M-NCPPC Montgomery County Parks
4:15-4:35 pm Trials and Tribulations of Volunteers - Dr. Damon Waitt, Senior Director at the Lady Bird Wildflower Center at the University of Texas at Austin
4:35-4:55 pm IPM3: Potential for using online distance education programs to address urban landscape management needs- Dr. Robert M. Nowierski, USDA NIFA
4:55-5:15 pm Workforce Development Capacity Community College as Partners - Dr. McClure Prince George's Community College
5:15- 5:30 pm Discussion: Concepts, ideas, topics and suggestions for a municipal/local government toolkit for invasive plant management; components, stakeholders and next steps

Maryland Invasive Plant Advisory Committee to Meet for First Time

2012-01-23T15:43:00.000-05:00

A News Release from the Maryland Department of Agriculture

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

CONTACT: Julie Oberg, 410-841-5888 or Vanessa Orlando, 410-841-5889


MEETING NOTICE: Invasive Plant Advisory Committee to Meet for First Time
General Assembly Created Committee to Develop Risk Assessment Protocols

ANNAPOLIS, MD (January 23, 2012) - The Maryland Department of Agriculture's
(MDA) Invasive Plants Advisory Committee, established during the 2011
Legislative Session as an advisory body to the Secretary, will meet for the
first time on Friday, January 27, at 9 a.m. at MDA headquarters in
Annapolis. The Committee's charge is to advise the Secretary on regulations
that should be adopted to establish a risk assessment protocol for invasive
plants and to establish lists of invasive plants using the protocol. This
first meeting will focus on organizing the 11-member committee and setting
goals and timelines for completing the first year's task for establishing a
science-based risk assessment protocol for invasive plants.



"The nursery and landscape industry is the second largest agriculture sector
in Maryland, second only to our poultry industry," said Agriculture
Secretary Buddy Hance. "It is critical that we do all we can to prevent and
control the potential damage that invasive plants can inflict on our plant
and animal communities in natural areas, wildlands, managed areas, farms and
even the backyards of residents. The members of this committee have
considerable expertise and experience with invasive plants and they are well
regarded within industry. I look forward to receiving their
recommendations."



The committee is chaired by Carol Holko, MDA's Assistant Secretary of Plant
Industries and Pest Management. The full text of the bill which created the
committee can be found at:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/chapters_noln/Ch_142_hb0831T.pdf.

Libraries, SOPA and PIPA - it's about information and power

2012-01-18T09:42:00.000-05:00

link to my commentary: Prince Georgian: Prince George's County Libraries, SOPA and PIPA - it's about information and power

The information infrastructure of the US is degrading; herbaria are underfunded or left un-curated; systematic collections have seen a 50 oer cent or great reduction of professional expert staff with some collections now orphaned.

Everything we need to know is NOT on the internet but in many cases sitting in boxes in libraries with no funds to curate let alone digitize.

Access to scientific peer reviewed papers is becoming unaffordable to the lay person or un-accessible to organizations because of rising costs.

The free flow of information is the bedrock upon which functioning democracies are organized; an informed public is key but the doors to knowledge are being locked.

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

Please consider participating in a Strategic Planning Task Force Survey/Questionnaire for the U.S. National Arboretum

2012-01-17T15:02:00.000-05:00

Please consider participating in a Strategic Planning Task Force Survey/Questionnaire for the National Arboretum: it needs your help. It will only take a few minutes of your time, and the results will influence the direction the Arboretum will take in the future. Your voice matters. What do YOU want the Arboretum to be? How can it better serve your needs? Let us know by completing the survey below.

Please follow this link to complete the survey. It should take only about 10 minutes.

https://delaware.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8l7OZLsxWfBOpYo

thank you in advance for your assistance. Also feel free to share the link with others who care about our National Arboretum.

Tips Trends Preparation For The 2012 Garden Season 01/13 by The Organic View | Blog Talk Radio

2012-01-13T18:54:00.000-05:00

Tips Trends Preparation For The 2012 Garden Season 01/13 by The Organic View | Blog Talk Radio

The World of Invasive Species is Divided into three Camps

2011-12-31T13:12:00.000-05:00

Theworld is divided into three groups when it comes to invasive species. The first and largest is the group thathas no idea, information or opinion about what an invasive species is or may belet alone whether there is reason for concern or not. This largest of constituenciesis only interested in non human species when they slither into its bedrooms(pythons), bring disease (tiger mosquitoes), decreases harvest of baseball bats(emerald ash borer) or pulls down power lines (kudzu) needed to stay connectedto social media.

Thesecond interest group has decided the information at hand warrants no concernand no focus or allocation of resources or consideration. In some sense thisgroup has decided to live for today knowing that tomorrow will take care ofitself as well as any human generations that may come. The third broadconstituency, on the other hand, sees aproblem and want to prevent what it canand fix what is damaged in order to preserve a future of maximum opportunitiesbased upon present understandings of biological diversity. This last group's invasive species positions are based upon anunderstanding that human welfare both directly and indirectly depends on theenvironment, a concept that the first group never thinks about and thepresumptions about which the second groups has questions.

Irreversible environmental damageto ecological system resources and services negatively affect future generations' abilities to achieve qualityof life goals. The chronic disruption of natural ecosystems caused by humandevelopment activities include the introduction and establishment of novelspecies that replace existing species' relationships and interactions. A majordifficulty arises in any effort to assign a value that would allow an easydecision or choice as to what steps to take in regards to an invasive speciesissue. The challenge is in determining theestimation of the economic value of environmental resources, service or effects,as well as the possible conflicts between the discounting of ecological effectsand long-term environmental and sustainability concerns.[1]

In asense the whole idea of environmental evaluation lead directly to a conflict betweenthe conservation of environmental assets including indigenous species patternsand aggregations versus traditional patterns of economic development such asthe clearance of land for agriculture and urban development. To safeguard future generations' access to ecologicalservices, present human activities (development) would seem to require that thepresent generation restrict the use of scarce ecological resources.[2]But that is pretty much not going to happen in a world staring at humanpopulation numbers growing to 9 plusbillion within this century.

If an invasive species has not yet made ameasurable or economical impact on a field, landscape or natural area, mostpeople ask why spend money on something that has not happened? It is the sameproblem facing schools versus prisons; why spend money on education of many individualsto prevent crimes of a few when one can wait until a crime is committed andthen remove the specific individual from the community as a whole. Of coursewhen it comes to personal health, we rather reluctantly almost get the preventionthing because our mothers told us so. When it comes to consideration of theenvironment, however, Mother's advice goes out the window.

Thefirst two group's preoccupation with the present results in a cascading seriesof decisions that extend beyond invasive species inaction. Bridges are not repaired,libraries are closed and research into environmental tools are shut down. USDA-ARS,for example, is closing its Kika de laGarza Subtropical Agricultural Research Center founding in 1935 in Texasalong with 9 other locations across the US because it can no longer afford tosupport the scientific work done there on:

1) Integrated pest management (IPM) of parasites anddiseases of honey bee colonies; 2) Biological control methods used to identifyand defeat present and potential pest threats to Rio Grande Valley agriculture;3) Organic farming systems utilizing holistic approaches to healthy andnutritious food production; 4) Quarantine treatments of subtropical fruits andvegetables; 5) Post harvest treatments of produce for disinfestations bynon-chemical means; 6) Aerial remote sensing of agricultural problems; and 7)Pesticide tolerance of vegetables, ornamental, and specialty crops forregistration labeling and EPA compliance.

Anotherexample of groups one and two unintentional and unplanned collaboration is the budget driven decision by the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers to stop funding its enormously successful Aquatic Plant Control ResearchProgram. The program traces its original to the catastrophic introductionof a non-indigenous aquatic plant, water-hyacinth (Eichhorniacrassipes (Mart.) Solms), which rapidlyinfested the waters of Florida and Louisiana. The elimination of terrestrial and aquaticbiological control research is short sighted, foolish and just plain stupid,but reflects a society concerned now with that it can get today not what itwill leave for its children tomorrow.

Thus, itcomes down to a series of trade-offs as to what to do with invasive species,their introduction, establishment and control. This is pretty much the life ofa gardener; a series of morning decisions based on unsatisfactory trade-offsinvolving resources such as time and money. It also makes the gardener's case thatan touch of prevention is worth more than a costly excursion of eradication andcontrol after the fact. But who has time to listen to gardeners anymore?

[1] JanDouwe Meindertsma. “Agricultural Research for Development” [accessed December31, 2011] http://www.icra-edu.org/page.cfm?pageid=ardhome&loginas=anon_e

[2]David Pearce. 1993. Valuing The Environment: Past Practice,Future Prospect.[accessed December 31, 2011] http://prototype2010.cserge.webapp3.uea.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pa_1994_02.pdf

Recommendations to NISC from the ISAC Meeting held December 6-8, 2011

2011-12-28T16:41:00.000-05:00

December 20, 2011

TO: Members of the National Invasive Species Council (NISC)

SUBJECT: Recommendations to NISC from the ISAC Meeting heldDecember 6-8, 2011

During the December 6-8, 2011 meeting held in Washington,DC, ISAC agreed upon the following recommendations:

Recommendation #1: ISAC recommends that NISC support andencourage the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciencesreview of frameworks for the validation of advanced molecular assays foraquatic invasive species detection technologies and their protocols.

Recommendation #2: Expanding trade across the Pacific posesa dual challenge to the control of invasive species. First, there is a highpotential for introductions of new species in both directions.

Second, there is a high potential that some introducedspecies will become invasive because of similarities between the climates andecology of central and eastern Asia and North America.

In light of these challenges and the potential negativeimpacts of the introduction of invasive species in either direction across thePacific on the economies and environment of the U.S. and its trading partnersin eastern Asia, ISAC recommends that the Department of State seek thecooperation of appropriate agencies in convening a multilateral meeting ofscientists and governmental representatives from APEC countries to developmeasures to prevent the introduction of invasive species in the course of transpacificcommerce.

Recommendation #3: ISAC recommends that the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers immediately reinstate the funding for the Aquatic Plant ControlResearch Program due to its national importance in the control and managementof aquatic invasive plants.

Sincerely

E. Ann Gibbs

Chair, Invasive Species AdvisoryCommittee

Maine Department of Agriculture

http://www.doi.gov/NISC/global/ISAC/ISAC_Minutes/2011/120611.html

Thinking about Invasive Species, Plants and Definitions

2011-12-21T16:51:00.000-05:00

Initial damage appears as thinning and dieback in the upper canopy of the tree as larvae feed under the bark they damage the conductive tissue http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/emeraldashborer/ .

Someplant species are introduced by human activity into new ecosystems at such arate that they can overcome the odds and establish themselves in the landscape.A few of these plant species do more than just establish they multiply so fastand so aggressively as to crowd out any other plant species creating abiological desert bereft of diversity. Some of these species have become notoriousin the last few decades such as kudzu (Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. var. lobata (Willd.) Maesen & S. Almeida) andthe various salt cedars or, tamarisks (Tamarix spp.); some such as common barberry (Berberis vulgaris L.) in the 18th century or fieldbindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) in the 20th century began theirrise to pest status even before we used the term invasive species.Interestingly enough the colony of Connecticut tried to ban barberry in 1726way before there even was a United States. [Connecticutkeeps trying to ban plants. 2010]

Theseplants are not indigenous to North America and so by extension we begin thinkall alien non native plants are suspect. The cognitive dissonance that ariseswhen we find out wheat (Triticum spp.) is also not native isdisturbing to a native only perspective. Then there is the little problem ofimpact, benefit and harm when it comes to judging a species place in theecosystems in which we find ourselves. And just to layer on the complications,the non native exotic plant itself may be harmless but maybe a host for invasivehitchhikers (insects and pathogens) The native ash tree. for exmaple, can be avector or a transport platform for the non native emerald ash borer (Agrilusplanipennis Fairmaire) whichdestroys both native and non native ash species. [AMenacing Discovery Of the Emerald Ash Borer in Moscow. 2007]

Defininginvasive species is the first step to finding solutions. A good resource is the InvasiveSpecies Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper from 2006 whichdefines an invasive species as:

“an alienspecies whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmentalharm or harm to human health.” In the Executive Summary of the NationalInvasive Species Management Plan (NISMP) the term invasive species is furtherclarified and defined as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem underconsideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic orenvironmental harm or harm to human health.” To provide guidance for thedevelopment and implementation of the NISMP, the National Invasive SpeciesCouncil (NISC) and the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) adopted a setof principles outlined in Appendix 6 of the NISMP. Guiding Principle #1provides additional context for defining the term invasive species and states“many alien species are non-invasive and support human livelihoods or apreferred quality of life.” However, some alien species (non-native will beused in this white paper because it is more descriptive than alien), forexample West Nile virus, are considered invasive and undesirable by virtuallyeveryone. Other non-native species are not as easily characterized. Forexample, 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 inour free society, and contributes to the complexity of defining the terminvasive species.[1]

[1] InvasiveSpecies Defined in a Policy Context: Recommendations from the Federal Invasive

Species Advisory Committee. 2006. K. George Beck,Kenneth Zimmerman, Jeffrey D. Schardt, Jeffrey Stone, Ronald R. Lukens, SarahReichard, John Randall, Allegra A. Cangelosi, Diane Cooper, and John PeterThompson*

Loss of an Herbarium: another "library" lost; the decline of scientific infrastructure

2011-12-20T11:57:00.000-05:00

Everything you need to know is NOT on Google and our lack of attention tyo scientific infrastrucre is a great threat to the future. The ARS Crop Production Systems Research Unit Herbarium (acronym SWSL) at Stoneville, Mississippi is being placed on excess and is available to any USDA-ARS management unit that is interested in acquiring and maintaining it.

The herbarium holdings include 27 metal cabinets (good to fair condition), 4 laminated cabinets (poor condition), about 18,000 mounted specimens representing about 5,700 species, a few un-mounted specimens, and limited supplies of mounting paper, folders and glue. The total floor space required for the herbarium (cabinets and supplies) is approximately 400 square feet.

The recipient of the herbarium (cabinets and supplies) must take the herbarium as a single unit and pay for packing and shipping or transport costs of cabinets and all materials related to the herbarium. The estimated weight of cabinets, specimens, and supplies is about 10,000 pounds and 22,000 cubic feet.

If you are interested in acquiring the herbarium or require additional information, please contact Dr. Krishna Reddy at krishna.reddy@ars.usda.gov (phone 662-686-5222 ) with a copy to Dr. Charles Bryson atcharles.bryson@ars.usda.gov by Friday COB, December 23, 2011.

What is an Invasive Species?

2011-11-26T16:55:00.001-05:00

What is an "invasive species"?

Ananswer will depend whom you ask, and to a large extend what outcomes the personasked expects.

That was not a very helpful answer. Could you give a few answers thatshow different definitions of an "invasive species"?

Sure. First let's look at some words that are used todescribe a change in species distribution that upset existing ecosystembalances and cause changes in ecosystem services that lead or may lead tosystem resource change or collapse: adventive,alien, casual, colonizing, cryptogenic, escaped, endemic, established, exotic,foreign, immigrant, imported, introduced, invasive, native, naturalized,nonindigenous, noxious, nuisance, pest, spreading, temporary, tramp,transferred, transformer, transient, translocated, transplanted, transported,travelling, waif, and weedy. (Colautti & MacIsaac, 2004) Brendan Larson's thirteenmeta categories to consider when we try to come to grips with a definition are:invaders, terrorists, piggy-backers, opportunists, spawn, mirrors of ourselves,providers, hybrids, tricksters, matrix elements and dynamic matrices, transients,founts of life and creation, teachers and instructors that force us to thinkabout our assumptions. (Larson, 2007)

Yes that is all very nice, but I want a simply straightforward definition.

Well,because of the complexities that arise from the ecosystems themselves and themany stakeholders and interested parties, there are many definitions. This happensbecause it is easier to start with an outcomes and work backwards to adefinition. In other words we color the definition with preconceived ideas andconcepts. This even our choice of words predisposes us to a view of the problemeven before we have a definition. The very choice of the word invasive presumesa pejorative meaning, because natural system stakeholders so the negative impactof what to them looked like invasions.

Yeah Yeah Yeah, but I am just passing through and I do not have a lotof time for this, just give me a definition.

The International Union forConservation of Nature, (IUCN) describes invasive species as “animals,plants or other organisms introduced by man into places out of their naturalrange of distribution, where they become established and disperse, generating anegative impact on the local ecosystem and species.” Invasive species cannegatively impact human health, the economy (i.e. tourism, agriculture), andnative ecosystems. These impacts may disrupt the ecosystem processes, introducediseases to humans or flora and fauna, and reduce biodiversity.

InvasiveSpecies Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper Submitted by the definitionsSubcommittee of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) in 2006 soughtto make clear the US Executive Order 13112 which defines an invasive species as “an alienspecies whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmentalharm or harm to human health.” In the Executive Summary of the NationalInvasive Species Management Plan (NISMP) the term invasive species is furtherclarified and defined as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem underconsideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic orenvironmental harm or harm to human health.” (Beck, et al., ISAC 2006)

InCaliforniaan invasive plant is defined by Cal-IPC as invasive non-native plant species thatthreaten wildlands and are are not native to, yet can spread into, wildlandecosystems, and that also displace native species, hybridize with nativespecies, alter biological communities, or alter ecosystem processes. This definitiondoes not address diseases, insects or animals, just plants and only if theyinvade California wildlands with native habitat values. The invasive plantdefinition does not include plant species found solely in areas of human-causeddisturbance such as roadsides and cultivated agricultural fields. For these human disturbance areas theterminology or word would be weed. The California Native PlantSociety has a straight forward definition of an invasive exotic plant, towit: "a plant which is able to proliferate and aggressively alter ordisplace indigenous biological communities."

TheEuropeanCommission on the Environment states that "Invasive Alien Species areanimals and plants that are introduced accidently or deliberately into anatural environment where they are not normally found. They represent a seriousthreat to native plants and animals in Europe, causing € millions worth ofdamage every year."

Great now I need to understand what a native species is? I don'tsuppose there is a simple definition. is there?

That would be adifferent blog posting. Definitions of native run into the same fuzzy definitionproblem that we are skirting in thisblog. The closer you look the harder it is to pin down exactly what the termmeans. What exactly is native at 650 ppm CO2 for example is a question no oneis talking about. Suppose we move an endangered species to a new site; is itnative now?

This invasive business requires too much thinking. Can't you make thissimpler?

Sure: an invasivespecies is the wrong pathogen, plant, animal in the wrong place at the wrongtime.

Works Cited

Beck, K. G., Zimmerman, K., Schardt, J. D., Stone, J., Lukens, R. R., Reichard, S., et al. (ISAC 2006). Invasive Species Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper. Retrieved March 2009, from http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf

Colautti, R. I., & MacIsaac, H. J. (2004). A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’. Diversity Distrib. , 10, 135-141.

Larson, B. M. (2007). Thirteen ways of looking at invasive species. In D. R. Clements, & S. J. Darbyshire (Eds.), Invasive plants: Inventories, strategies and action. Topics in Canadian Weeds Science (Vol. 5). Canadian Weed Science Society – Société canadienne de.

Once 90% of US were Self-Employed

2011-11-24T12:14:00.001-05:00

Maryland Farms During World War II http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000054/html/t54.html

In 1790,90 percent of the total population of 3,929,214 in the United States were selfemployed farmers. By self employed I mean that they lived or died by their abilityto produce for themselves food, fuel, fiber, forage, feed, flowers (herbs formedicine), and forest products for housing. Large international organizationsplayed a supporting role and employed few people. Laws were made to protect theinterests of the self employed businesses that were the family farm. For themost part laws were not made to benefit the needs and wants of large corporateemployers unless those laws directly impacted the needs of small business.

It wasin the interest of large farmers to keep control of the political process inorder to ensure the maximum distribution of governmental largess and resourcesso laws were enacted to restrict policies enfranchisement to those who ownedland for example, or in the case of slavery, those who actually produced theprofits. The "employees" were not part of the political debate becausethey were either legally or practically excluded from the important affairs ofthose in political control.

The tensionbetween the needs of the small farmer and the large land owner resulted intensions over the role of government and the use of government revenues. Public versus private road systems or other transportation infrastructure such ascanals were issues for debate. Even the idea of public schools was up for controversy,begging the question as to why an individual should have to pay out of hisprofits so another could be educated; aquestion related to why one should pay for a road or bridge from public moniesso that another could use it. Whatever the political argument, implicit inmost decisions was the concept of an individual self employed agriculturallybased family unit that was dependent on the profitable actions or successful familybusiness outcomes. And more to the point the political conversations involved amajority of the population by virtue of the total number of people impacteddirectly by the policy decision outcomes.

Today witha total population exceeding 300 million, fewer than 1 percent of us have adirect link to a family owned self employed business. Even the total number of selfemployed people today amounts to only 11 percent of the population of theUnited States. This means that the majority of us work for someone or somethingelse other than ourselves. The politics of Privilege and Power becomes that of impactinglegislation and policy in the 21st century while protecting the interests ofthe smallest number of us needed to keep power in order to distribute theproceeds of being in power. Farming nolonger has the political muscle to be a major player, but self employed smallbusiness as well as international corporate interests do have a major role evenif they only directly represent a small portion of the total population. As inthe beginning in 1790, government is not instituted to represent the interestsof all of us, but to enable the distribution of resources to the smallestnumber of us while at the same time keeping the rest of us quiet. On otherwords, the challenge for the few is to calculate the minimum distribution ofresources to the majority necessary to buy a majority's acquiescence to theholding of power by the fewest number possible.

Japanese Cedar Longhorned Beetle Found in Maryland

2011-11-22T11:51:00.001-05:00

Pest Alert:Japanese Cedar Longhorned Beetle Found in Maryland For The First Time

From: Bob Trumbule, Entomologist, Maryland Department of Agriculture PlantProtection and Weed Management

Japanese Cedar Longhorned Beetle, Callidiellum rufipenne, has been found andidentification confirmed in Maryland for the first time. It was found onCryptomeria japonica 'Yoshino' planted in the Severn area of Anne ArundelCounty. Identification was made by Gaye Williams and has been confirmed by SEL.We have been in contact with the Department of Agriculture of the out of statesupplier of the nursery stock to see if the problem started there and arecurrently performing a survey in Maryland to determine whether it isestablished in the area where the infested stock was planted. Furtherinformation will be forthcoming as we get it.

Be on the lookout for this pest. It was detected due to dieback of leaders andbranches of the infested plant material. Fully developed adult beetles werefound in tunnels in the infested plants.

Please feel free to contact me (Bob Trumbule)) with anyquestions

USDA-A{HIS http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/jclbpale.pdf

FYI FREE Class: Responsible Pesticide Use, Home Owner Awareness

2011-11-14T12:43:00.001-05:00

FREE

Responsible Pesticide Use including Alternatives

with John Peter Thompson

November 19, 2011 9 - 1 a.m.

Prince George's Community College - Westphalia Campus

to register call:

301.322.0964

Ruminations on Harm and Invasive Species

2011-11-13T13:20:00.001-05:00

Thewicked inconvenience of invasive species is wrapped up in definitionalfuzziness.[1]Bertrand Russell must of been channeling invasion biology when he wrote that "everythingis vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make itprecise, and everything precise is soremote from everything that we normally think, that you cannot for a momentsuppose that is what we really mean when we say what we think." (Bertrand Russell.1918. Logic & Knowledge: ThePhilosophy of Logical Atomism )

Inmany debates the conversation rarely moves past the definition of the wordinvasive, never reaching the dark recesses of taxonomy and the outer limits ofagreeing on what exactly a species is. Because the interest groups, both thoseworried about invasives and those who are dismissive of any concern, stay faraway from the tail-end of the general definition of an invasive species - thepart that refers to harm. TheU. S. Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive species as “an alienspecies whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmentalharm or harm to human health.” In the Executive Summary of the NationalInvasive Species Management Plan (NISMP) the term invasive species is furtherclarified and defined as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem underconsideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic orenvironmental harm or harm to human health.” As one of the authors of the whitepaper referenced in the link above, I remember the conversations surroundingthe challenge of what we mean and what we do not mean by the term invasivespecies. I also recall the problem of dealing with the idea and consequences ofharm. In a real sense, it for many stakeholders it comes down to the old adagethat one knows harm when one sees it.

Sowhat exactly is harm? The word harm comes to us through the centuries from the OldEnglish word hearm that is related to Old Norse's word harmr meaning grief andis related to the Old High German word harmwhich is translated by our modern English word injury. It is interesting tonote the Old Slavonic word sramǔ which is rendered by the Englishword disgrace. Today the modern English noun, harm, isdefined as 1. a physical or mental injury or damage or 2. a moral evil orwrongdoing. Harm can therefore be anyphysical damage to the body caused by violence or accident or fracture. Byanalogy or inference we can think of a landscape or ecosystem as a body and seethe extension of meaning as a species introduced by human activity displacesindigenous species. Harm can also be defined as an occurrence of a change forthe worse (the act of damaging something or someone) which on the surface seemsto succinctly explain the invasive problem but in itself begs the question asto how to assign a value to worse. Again we tend to resort to know it when wesee it to escape the tedious process of actually thinking through the logic ofthe definitions.

Armed with the above definitionit is clear that the problem is one of valuation. How does one assign a valueto change? What do we mean by change for the good or change for the worse? If I see a tree falling in my direction ,self-preservation assigns a value of bad and I move to correct my path so as todisallow a presumed negative outcome - on other words I get out of the way. IfI have a tree leaning towards my house and I notice that each month it leans alittle more, I will assign values to the potential damage to the house that maycome at some point versus the cost of being proactive and cutting down the treeor if possible staking it. I am nowperforming complicated future value calculations taking a discount rate andconsidering opportunity costs. I am assessing risk.

In the examples above, I am theonly decider in the equation. The problems and solutions revolve around me andthere is no other human parameter to consider. However if we add another personto the equation the process of valuation can become complicated quickly andgives rise to one of the reason we have societal laws. If the leaning tree isnot on my property, and for example is a walnut, my neighbor for his owneconomic reasons may wish to let the tree grow to harvest the wood at a laterdate when the market return is better. Short of altruism or laws his concern isnot harm to my house. It is more profitable for him to externalize the problemonto me. Of course he needs to figure the potential loss of access to when itfalls onto my property.

Now consider the problem thatarise if I decide to grow and sell a non native bamboo such as Phyllostachys aurea and my reason to sell this plant are 1. itreproduces with little input or effort from me and thus is easily propagatedfor sale and 2. is easy to marketbecause it grows anywhere and creates quick landscape screening - a readymarket for my business. I am making a profit, and from this profit am able toafford health-care. The little issue of its spread onto my neighbors land canbe seen as my "free" gift to him or her. I am externalizing some ofmy production costs because I do not spend time or resources controlling themovement of the plant through the local landscape and ecosystem. I rationalizethis by noting how wonderful it is to be able to afford health-care because ofthis wonderful non native species. My calculations are all done in near time; Ibenefit right now and tomorrow and am therefore convinced of the overwhelmingevidence of positive valuation of the introduction of this species. In fact asfar out as I can see the profits from this species will allow me to set asidefungible resources to deal with and hazy problems that may arise in the distantfuture from any unexpected challenges to the community.

Nowmy neighbor happens to be interested in back yard habitats and butterflyphotography...it is how he or she makes her mortgage payment. The destructionof indigenous biological diversity is bad enough as my plant spreads by salesinto common areas such as public parks, but the direct incursion of my profitableplant on to his or her land is intolerable. However I make money by notspending it on control. If I had to spend the amount of money necessary to keepthe plant from spreading my profits would go down. My neighbor is of course notinterested in my profits which for him or her are realized as costs. In otherwords my positive valuation becomes their negative valuation. My good speciesis their bad species. at the neighbor to neighbor level this is fairly straightforward,but when applied to ecosystems, landscapes and communities at large thevaluation process spins out of easy linear consideration.

Keepingthe above, contrived situational valuing processes in mind, we need to considerthe problem of change in space and in time. Change in and of itself is dimensionless. Change is the result of anoperation. Without change there is no life as we know it. "Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει - All is flux",said Heraclitus, and any work to hold back change has a cost. Change isgeography, change over time lead to change in resource service mix and outputpossibilities. However doing nothing about change is not an answer that leadsto long life. A farmer who says that there is no point to removing weeds in thefield every day because the weeds just come back soon as no crop from which hecan harvest food. In essence the farmer spends resources, lowering profitability,fending off the incursion and establishment of unwanted species who fromexperience he judges to have a negative value. The farmer takes a lower shortterm profit because if in the long term he chooses to do nothing he knows therewill be no benefit.

Harm in invasive species isreduced to a calculation of near and long term benefit that must be redefinedcontinuously. This makes for difficult policy conversations and the difficultyin turns leads to implications in order to enable movement towards predefinedgoals. The wicked inconvenience of invasivespecies lies in part in our inability to address how much harm is permissible,how much change can we permit and who will pay to stop a tree from falling oran ecosystem from collapsing. The cost of preventing can be compared with costof the benefit lost and a near term decision made, but ho to calculate the lossof future possibilities. For example, the emerald ash borer, aninvasive species will reduce the number of ash trees to near zero. Baseball bats are made from ash trees. Whatis the value of future loss of yet unmake baseball bats? What other as of yetunknown benefits might come from a future that now has no ash trees to speakof?

When considering harm how do wevalue biodiversity's future possibilities against present needs? Byhomogenizing the landscape, we introduce predictability into our lives many ofwhich because of our urban lifestyles are rife with landscape illiteracy. Whohas the time to learn about the interactions between species and which ones maybite or give a rash? If we introduce the same workhorse species around theworld then we can presume a certain amount of predictability and thereforeunthinking safety as we move about the landscape absorbed in our pursuit oflife. Invasive species are co evolutionary partners with mankind. Invasivespecies are biotic ploughs that chronically disturb the land around humansettlements and grind down biological diversity brining a predictablesimplicity. This simplistic landscape buys enough time in theory for humans tolife in relative safety and work to find alternative resources to providemedicine, air and clean water as the natural ecosystem declines, or so theshort term decision model seems to suggest. Humans will extract enough profitto deal with any problem that arises in a distant opaque future.

To some extent it seems that harmis in the eye of the beholder. Harm that comes today trumps the harm that comestomorrow for logically if you do not live through the day the problems oftomorrow will not matter to you. Because we use a hyperbolic function to assessthe value or size of harm in time, tomorrow's problems which are of the samesize or value as today's look smaller to us. When it comes to deciding thevalue of a future decision we findourselves in a negatively curved decision space. The decision seems to boil down to how muchknown resource extraction or change is of a benefit now versus how much willthis change possibly, maybe cost us then in inaccessible opportunities. Thissimplistic equation reduces the question about preserving biodiversity to oneof a question of preserving the crown jewels of Great Britain; what is the costof protecting them versus the worth of the metal and stones today.

To all of the above we now needto add the layman's confusion that rises between assessing risk of harm withmanaging the risk of harm. "Risk assessment isthe determination of quantitative or qualitative value of risk related to aconcrete situation and a recognized threat (also called hazard)" accordingto Wikipedia. Explicit in the definitionis the idea of concrete situations, and not therefore, hypothetical maybes. TheWiki entry continues, "Quantitative risk assessment requires calculationsof two components of risk: the magnitude of the potential loss and theprobability that the loss will occur." The idea of probability is the mostslippery deeply inset idea behind risk. It destroys our notion of a world ofclearly defined possibilities upon which we build our entire decision makingstructure . We assume that the world can be defined into convenient terms of absoluteswhen in actuality we live in a probability universe. By assigning either avalue of good or bad we set ourselves up for irrational arguments at the fuzzyboundaries of the problem. To assess the risk of harm in the future froman introduced species we enter the world of probabilities, an alien ecosystemto many of us in the domain of the general public. A challenge in risk management is finding the means to measurepotential loss and probability of occurrence. How do we go about measuring thepotential loss caused by feralcats let loose upon our common public areas or our private garden spacesfor instance?

[1] The Wicked Inconvenience of InvasiveSpecies: A Reader in Complexities

Invasive Species – AWicked Inconvenience

Invasive Species; WickedInconvenience: part two

Invasive species issues& the danger of being controlled by dogmatic ecological paradigms

Invasive InconvenienceWicked Definitions

Invasive SpeciesDefinitions akin to Herding Cats

Invasive SpeciesConundrum: A Wicked Inconvenience

Invasive SpeciesComplexities: A Wicked Inconvenience

Invasive Species;Wickedly Inconvenient Still

Invasive species: moreinconveniences of a wicked nature

Weeds: DefiningInconvenience, Wickedly

Invasive Species: Simpleat First Glance

Inconvenient question:Invasive species

The problem of invasivespecies and beauty

Wicked Invasives;Inconvenient Issues

Invasive species: TheGreat Green Divide

Invasive species:"cosmic definitions"

Private preferences,Invasive species & Public values

A Garden or a Jar inTennessee

Invasive SpeciesDefinitions Defined

Ruminationson the Complexities of Invasive Species

Invasive Species Issues -Flailing in the Wind

The Fuzziness of InvasiveSpecies Issues

The Speed of ClimateChange & Invasive Species Impacts

Climate change &invasive species

Are cats an invasivespecies - a wickedly inconvenient conversation

Assessing Harm: Precautionary versus Proactionary Principles

2011-11-05T12:07:00.000-04:00

"Stakeholders who do notsubscribe to the precautionary principle will have difficulty agreeing toactions that presume a precautionary stance."

“There are two views that arediametrically opposed at the critical point of how one assesses harm, and untilthis is understood it is impossible to reach consensus. What level of risk isachievable and acceptable?”

extract from my Book: Thompson, J. P. (2011). Certified:Feasibility of Audit-Based Certification to Prevent Invasive Plant Pests in the Nursery Industry. Washington: Northeast Midwest Institute. 112 pp +xii

From a philosophical perspective,stakeholders of scientific policy debates are divided between advocates of the“precautionary” principle on the one hand and the “proactionary principle” onthe other. The precautionary stakeholders want action now because they believethat severe or irreversible harm to the public interest will result from thelack of regulatory action in the absence of a scientific consensus. The burdenof proof in this case would fall upon those who would advocate taking the action.The “proactionary” parties are guided by their belief system, and are opposedto early action “when restrictive measures are proposed.” Risks andopportunities should be assessed “according to available science, not popularperception.”[1]

Supported by the precautionaryprinciple, conservation advocates promote changes in horticultural businessmodels to reduce or eliminate the risk of invasive species. A core tenant ofthis principle states that “exploitation of resources, and physical alterationsof the environment have had substantial unintended consequences affecting humanhealth and the environment.”[2] Belief in the precautionaryprinciple compels action because of the evidence that damage to humans and theworldwide environment is of such magnitude and seriousness that new ideas andthinking for conducting human activities are necessary. Realizing that humanactivities may involve hazards, proponents of the precautionary principle thinkthat society “must proceed more carefully than has been the case in recenthistory. It follows then that corporations, government entities, organizations,communities, scientists and other individuals must adopt a precautionaryapproach to all human endeavors.”[3]

Proponents of the precautionaryprinciple are motivated “[w]hen an activity raises threats of harm to humanhealth or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if somecause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. Inthis context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bearthe burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle mustbe open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties.This necessarily involves an examination of the full range of alternatives,including the ’no action’ alternative.”[4] Not all stakeholders that have an interest in plantpest issues share this philosophy. As a result of the lack of consensus on theneed to act, the door is opened for misunderstanding, argument, opposition, andinaction. R.B. Stewart’s reduction of the precautionary principles provides auseful summary: [5]

· Scientificuncertainty should not automatically preclude regulation of activities thatpose a potential risk of significant harm (Non-Preclusion PP).

· Regulatorycontrols should incorporate a margin of safety; activities should be limitedbelow the level at which no adverse effect has been observed or predicted(Margin of Safety PP).

· Activitiesthat present an uncertain potential for significant harm should be subject tobest technology available requirements to minimize the risk of harm unless theproponent of the activity shows that they present no appreciable risk of harm(BAT PP).

· Activitiesthat present an uncertain potential for significant harm should be prohibitedunless the proponent of the activity shows that it presents no appreciable riskof harm (Prohibitory PP).

In contrast to the precautionaryprinciple, the proactionary principle is based on the idea that consequences ofactions in complex systems are often unpredictable and irreversible. The principle,which is based upon the philosopher Max More’s writings, states that a“(p)eople’s freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, evencritical, to humanity. This implies several imperatives when restrictivemeasures are proposed:[6]

· “Assessrisks and opportunities according to available science, not popular perception.

· “Accountfor both the costs of the restrictions themselves, and those of opportunitiesforegone.

· “Favormeasures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of impacts,and that have a high expectation value.

· “Protectpeople’s freedom to experiment, innovate, and progress.”

The two competing principles producea general dichotomy between industry and natural area constituencies: industryasks the basic risk-assessment question -- "How much harm is allowable?”whereas natural and sustainable resource stakeholders ask -- "How littleharm is possible?" The foundation for basic disagreement is laid at thebeginning before any discussion of a species takes place. The nature of the twoprinciples is incongruent. The precautionary principle’s preventiveanticipation, willingness to take action in the absence of conclusivescientific proof, sense of urgency, and emphasis on generational equityengenders a visceral reaction from some stakeholders. This reaction can obscureareas of possible agreement such the “…proportionality of response orcost-effectiveness of margins of error to show that the selected degree ofrestraint is not unduly costly.”[7]

Copyright: ©John Peter Thompson.Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is

prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder

[1] More, Max. 2004. The Proactionary Principle,Version 1.0: Draft for public comment. ExtropyInstitute. [Online] Extropy Institute’s Vital Progress Summit I, 2004.Retrieved February 7, 2011 fromhttp://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm

[2] Wingspread Conference on the PrecautionaryPrinciple. (1998). Retrieved 2009, from Science and Environmental HealthNetwork: http://www.sehn.org/wing.html

[3] Wingspread Conference on the PrecautionaryPrinciple (1998). Retrieved 2009, from Science and Environmental HealthNetwork: http://www.sehn.org/wing.html

[4] Wingspread Conference on the PrecautionaryPrinciple (1998). Retrieved 2009, from Science and Environmental HealthNetwork: http://www.sehn.org/wing.html

[5] Stewart, R. B. (2002). EnvironmentalRegulatory Decision Making Under Uncertainty. Research in Law and Economics Vol. 20, pp.76. [Online] 2002.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#cite_ref-8

[6] More, Max(2004). The Proactionary Principle, Version 1.0: Draft for public comment. Extropy Institute. [Online] ExtropyInstitute’s Vital Progress Summit I, 2004. Retrieved February 7, 2011 fromhttp://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm. Extropian is defined as anevolving framework of values and standards for continuously improving the humancondition

[7] Six Basic Concepts of PrecautionaryPrinciples. (2008). Retrieved 2009, from The Global Development ResearchCenter: http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-6.html

A new invasive species: Asian kudzu bug Megacopta cribraria attacks legumes in US

2011-10-30T13:48:00.005-04:00

Megacopta cribraria Stone Mountain Park, Dekalb County, Georgia, USA

Soybean aphid, corn earworms, soybean rust, soybean cyst nematode, Sclerotina stem rot and the exotic pathogen, red leaf blotch and now the Kudzu bugare threatening the US soy bean crop. Soy beans, Glycine max (L.) Merr., are harvested and processed into animal feed and vegetable oil. The oil component of crushed soybeans is boundfor human consumption or biofuel production. Food uses include tofu, soymilk and soy-based yogurts to name a few. In addition soy ingredients, according to the Soy Facts web pageprovided by Soyatech, "...havebecome staples in the food manufacturing industry. Soy proteiningredients play functional roles in baked foods, processed meats and otherproducts. Soybeans are also processed into many industrial products. Theprimary one at this time is biodiesel, or soy methyl esters, which may be usedin any diesel engine."

Finding asuitable legume for agricultural production in the south eastern US was a majorfocus of USDA in the early years of the 20th century. Gibson and Barren (2005)write that "The soybean was first introduced into the American Colonies in1765 as "Chinese vetches." According to their web page, "an 1879report from the Rutgers Agricultural College in New Jersey is the firstreference that soybeans had been tested in a scientific agricultural school inthe United States."[1] In the preface to a 1908 report by Charles V. Piper, agrostologist in charge of foragecrop investigations of the Bureau Of Plant Industry for the United States Departmentof Agriculture lays out the importance of new plant species for agriculture:

"Leguminous crops play so important a part inagriculture that unusual interest attaches to any new ones, especially ifadapted to sections of our country where a satisfactory legume is still adesideratum. The need of satisfactory legumes is greatest at present in oursemiarid regions, though a good perennial species adapted to the Cotton Beltwould be of incalculable value. If it be true that no system of agriculture cananywhere be permanent without the use of a leguminous plant in rotation, thismakes imperative the search for such a crop for every part of our country whereagriculture is possible"[2]

Amongthe many species that were tested for potential as a food, feed or forage cropswas a close relative of soybean, kudzu, Puerariamontana (Lour.) Merr. var. lobata(Willd.) Maesen & S. Almeida.

It should come as nosurprise then that an invasive species, insect native to the same regions ofAsia from which came soybean and kudzu might feed on both species. And giventhe general lack of concern on the part of the public and the lack of much supportfor invasive species programs such as EDRR (early detection and rapidresponse), it was only a matter of time before this new invgasive species reachthe US. Megacoptacribraria (Fabricius)was found invading homes in large numbersinnorthern Georgia in late October 2009. The good news is that this pest ofnumerous legumes in Asia, has the potential to provide biological control ofkudzu, Puerariamontana var.lobata(Willd.)Ohwi, (Fabaceae); the bad news is that it islikely to continue to be ahousehold pest in the vicinity of kudzu fields as well as become a pest ofNorth American legume crops such as soybean.[3]

Tobe very clear, USDA APHIS reports that in China this recent invasive species, the kudzu bug, "...hascaused springtime crop losses of up to 50 percent and summertime losses of upto 30 percent. Severe infestations on some host plants result in seed yieldlosses, improperly developed pods, and undersized seeds. The bean plataspid isalso listed as a harmful pest of Chinese fruit trees. If it moves to other hostplants in the United States, the pest has the potential to cause significantagricultural damage."[4]

The continual drumbeat of those who claim there is noproblem from invasive species seems at odds with the facts. Part of the problemis the artificial division of invasive species issues into environmental andagricultural camps. The very term invasive species was created by naturaliststo address the destructive nature of introduced species on ecosystem servicesas if there were no existing category of investigation. At the same time USagriculture has established a century plus dedication to the research, controland management of invading species in both USDA ARS and APHIS dating back in tothe late 19th century (and earlier if you take in to account US governmentefforts surrounding the Hessian fly - but that is another blog) . Instead ofworking together and pooling resources the two stakeholders view each otherwarily and lobby their respective federal agencies to adopt policies that occasionallyduplicate efforts in research and control strategies.

As long as we continue to think of managed fields and naturalareas as exclusionary ideas we will not address completely the challenges ofinvasive species. All landscapes are managed to some extent; the tools of horticultureshould not be automatically excluded from the needs of ecology. Agriculturemust be sympathetic to the problems of invasion biology. The collision ofdesires is highlighted by the positive control of kudzu and the negative impacton soybean and native legumes. Agricultural pests and ecological invasives aretwo sides of the same problem. The destruction of our natural areas and ourmanaged fields is growing and in growing adding costs (130 billion Pimentel etal. 2001) which will threaten our collective futures. We must adapt or perish,we cannot hide.

[1] Lance Gibsonand Garren Benson, Revised March 2005. Origin, History, and Uses ofSoybean (Glycine max). Iowa State University, Department of Agronomy http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron212/Readings/Soy_history.htm

[2] USDAYearbook - Congressional edition, Volume 5481. 1909

[3] J. E. Eger, Jr., L. M. Ames, D. R. Suiter, T. M.Jenkins, D. A. Rider, and S. E. Halbert. April 2. 2010. Occurrence of the OldWorld bug Megacopta cribraria (Fabricius) (Heteroptera: Plataspidae) in Georgia:a serious home invader and potential legume pest. Insecta Mundi 0121: 1-11

[4] USDA APHIS Fact Sheet. October 2010. InvasiveInsect (Bean Plataspid) Poses Risk to Soybean Crops and Infests Homes inSoutheastern States

NARA-B FaceBook page link for USDA ARS BARC and NAL advocacy

2011-09-29T13:57:00.004-04:00

I have started a FaceBook Page for long term agricultural advocacy at http://www.facebook.com/AgAdvocate?sk=wall

I will be posting commentary on support for the people and programs of USDA ARS BARC and NAL through the work of the National Agricultural Research Alliance Beltsville NARA-B

The Alliance is looking for your support

New Members of US Invasive Species Advisory Committee

2011-09-23T09:38:00.000-04:00

On Friday, September 16, 2011, Secretary Ken Salazar appointed six new members, and reappointed eight current members to the seventh convening Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). NISC is pleased to present the members of the seventh convening ISAC among whom is the author of this blog: [http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/isac_class7.html]

Peter Alpert, Ph.D.University of MassachusettsPatrick Burch (New)Dow AgroSciencesEarl Chilton, II, Ph.D. Texas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentJoseph DiTomaso, Ph.D. (Reappointed)University of California, DavisOtto Doering, III, Ph.D. (Reappointed)Purdue University Susan Ellis (reappointed)California Department of Fish and GameAmy Frankmann Michigan Nursery and Landscape AssociationAnn Gibbs Maine Department of Agriculture(Representing National Plant Board)Bonnie Harper-Lore (New)Private Invasive Species ConsultantScott HendrickNational Conference of State LegislaturesPhyllis JohnsonUniversity of North DakotaEric LaneColorado Department of AgricultureSusan Kedzie (New)Leech Lake Band Of OjibweTimothy MaleDefenders of WildlifeRobert McMahonUniversity of Texas at Arlington N. Marshall Meyers (New)Pet Industry Joint Advisory CouncilEdward L. Mills, Ph.D. (Reappointed)Cornell UniversityStephen PhillipsPacific States Marine Fisheries CommissionJamie K. Reaser, Ph.D.Congruence, LLCKristina Serbesoff-KingThe Nature ConservancyCelia Smith, Ph.D.University of HawaiiDavid E. Starling, D.V.M. (Reapponted)Aqueterinary Services, P.C.Nathan Stone, Ph.D. (Reappointed)University of Arkansas at Pine BluffJohn Peter ThompsonMaryland Nursery and Landscape AssociationJohn TorganSave the BayRobert Van Steenwyck, Ph.D. (New)University of California, BerkeleyJennifer Vollmer, Ph.D.CPS TimberlandDamon E. Waitt, Ph.D. (Reappointed)Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower CenterUniversity of Texas at AustinRobert H. Wiltshire (Reappointed)Invasive Species Action Network(Representing the Federation of Fly Fishers)

Invasive Species Debate Rages

2011-09-16T10:49:00.002-04:00

Recently there has been a small dust up between orthodox and heretical invasion biologists, ecologists and environmentalists interested in the effects of novel species establishment on ecosystems. What this means is that differences of opinion mostly and occasionally fact are being emphasized in the general media in order to boost readership because the general public loves nothing more than to watch a brawl. The non controversy concerns the efficacy of current invasive species research application in the management of ecosystem resources. Simply put they are arguing about whether weeds introduced purposefully or accidentally to a neighbors garden (system) matter. In some sense this is a small version of the climate debate fueled by the confusion over science based fact and belief based opinion. In both cases, then public is allowed to confuse fact with opinion because the resulting controversy sells.

I offer as a postulate that when you change a complex system you will change the output. When you plant hectares of corn, you change the complex system of the place and you change the output (yield): more corn less everything else. When you cut down all the trees in a plot of land and pave it over to build a mall, you change the dynamics of the system that was in place and change the output from potential outputs to specific consumer goods. The resulting change also includes some external costs onto neighboring properties which the mall owner and users willingly choose to ignore because of course they want to reduce the costs of the services provided. The mall user wants convenience, so loss of immediate biological diversity is transferred away from the site; the user wants goods at the best possible price so storm water management issues are begrudgingly addressed if at all and if addressed paid for by everyone else. Let me be clear, the change to the ecosystem could be a mall, a campus, a housing development, a hospital, ornamental landscape or farm (organic or otherwise) or any other kind of focused resource. Let me state this again: when you change, alter or modify a complex system whether purposefully or by externalizing costs elsewhere you change the output of the system.

Now let's talk about adding new species to an existing complex ecosystem whether intentionally or through closing our eyes to accidental escapes. The nature of complex systems guarantees a future change in the output of the existing system. The further out in time the less we are able to predict the effect of the change. So we are left managing the present. We do this by looking at the near term potential of a ecosystem and changing it to produce specific outputs (yield). Because we do these things in a sense to add human value we also while making the change externalize as many of the cost of the change onto someone else's ecosystem because that is how one makes a profit - transformation of long-term potential to immediate gain.

Thus the two sides of the invasive species debate are not talking with in the same time scale. The traditional invasion biologists are looking towards loss of long term potential output, while the novel environmentalists are considering the gains of near term definite outputs. The debate gets further confused when the native-exotic conversation is over-laid onto the debate. Now along with confusing scales of time we assume everyone has the same definitions of native and exotic. For example what exactly is native within the invasive species debate at CO2 levels of over 400 parts per million?

When we change or alter an ecosystem because of human need or profit (externalization) we make it possible for new species to establish without actually having any idea of the long term repercussions to the services we now take for granted. New species that alter the ecosystem interactions or relationships quickly change the output of the ecosystem. There are no species in a system that have no impact on a system at some level of intensity. To imply that invasive species are a non issue is akin to claiming weather patterns that change over time do not impact crop outputs.

The establishment of new species in an ecosystem changes the ecosystem forever...there is no going back (part of the definition of a wicked problem). Just as the farmer knows this and starts his day controlling his ecosystem, the field, by removing and preventing the establishment of novel species (weeds) so the invasion biologists works to understand how to manage the impact of the ever increasing number of exotic species into natural (potential) ecosystems. Just as the home gardener understands that certain species negatively impact the potential of the home's landscape, so the natural area manager is concerned about invasive species impacts to his or her landscape.

Do not get caught up in the current debate fostered by our general public interest in school yard fights. There is no there, there, to this fight. As surely as human disturbance will create a state of co-evolutionary pressures from invasive species that take advantage of our chronic plowing of the earth, so we must continue to study through research the impacts and effects so that we can effectively manage our landscapes, managed and natural

List of NAPPRA Candidates for Host Plants of Quarantine Pests - USDA APHIS

2011-08-23T09:05:00.000-04:00

List of NAPPRA Candidates for Host Plants of Quarantine Pests

NAPPRA: Importation of Plants for Planting - new rules from USDA APHIS

For the associated Federal Register Notice and pest datasheets go to

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0072

Quarantine Pest:

Anoplophora chinensis

Host plant genus	Countries from which importation is not authorized
Acacia	All except Canada
Acer	All except Canada, Netherlands
Aesculus	All except Canada
Albizia	All except Canada, Israel
Alnus	All except Canada
Aralia	All except Canada, Costa Rica, Guatemala
Betula	All except Canada
Broussonetia	All except Canada
Cajanus	All except Canada
Camellia	All except Canada
Carpinus	All except Canada, Netherlands
Carya	All except Canada
Castanopis	All except Canada
Casuarina	All except Canada
Catalpa	All
Celastrus	All
Cercis	All except Canada, Netherlands, Israel
Chaenomeles	All except Canada
Cornus	All except Canada, Netherlands
Corylus	All except Canada, Netherlands
Cotoneaster	All except Canada, Costa Rica
Crataegus	All except Canada
Cryptomeria	All except Canada
Cydonia	All except Canada
Elaeagnus	All except Canada
Eriobotrya	All except Canada
Fagus	All except Canada
Ficus	All except Canada, China, Costa Rica, Dominican republic, Guatemala, Mexico, Netherlands, Taiwan
Grevillea (=Stylurus)	All
Hedera	All except Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands
Hibiscus	All except Canada
Ilex	All except Canada, Netherlands
Juglans	All except Canada
Lagerstroemia	All except Israel
Lindera	All
Liquidamber	All
Litchi	All
Maackia	All
Mallotus	All
Malus	All except Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands
Melia	All
Morus	All except Canada
Olea	All
Ostrya	All
Parrotia	All except Canada
Persea	All
Photinia	All except Canada
Pinus	All except Canada
Platanus	All
Polygonum	All except Canada
Populus	All except Canada
Prunus	All except Canada, Netherlands
Psidium	All except Canada
Pyracantha	All
Pyrus	All except Canada
Quercus	All except Canada
Rhododendron	All except Canada
Rhus	All except Canada
Robinia	All except Canada
Rosa	All except Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom
Rubus	All except Canada
Sageretia	All except China
Salix	All except Canada
Sapium	All
Sophora	All
Sorbus	All except Canada
Styrax	All
Toona	All
Ulmus	All except Canada
Vernicia	All
Viburnum	All except Canada
Ziziphus	All

Quarantine Pest:

Bursaphelenchus cocophilus

Styrax	All
Toona	All
Ulmus	All except Canada
Vernicia	All
Viburnum	All except Canada
Ziziphus	All

Quarantine Pest:

Ceratocystis maginecans

Mangifera

All

Quarantine Pest:

Chrysomyza abietis

Picea

All except Canada

Quarantine Pest:

Lachnellula willkommii

Larix	All except areas of Canada not regulated for L. willkomii
Pseudolarix	All except areas of Canada not regulated for L. willkomii

Quarantine Pest:

Phytophthora alni

Alnus

All except Canada

Quarantine Pest:

Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidae

Actinidia

All

Quarantine Pest:

Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi

Aesculus

All except Canada

Quarantine Pest:

Rhynchophorous ferrugineus

Brahea	All
Butia	All
Calamus	All
Euterpe	All
Manicaria	All
Metroxylon	All
Oncosperma	All
Roystonea	All

Quarantine Pest:

Rynchophorous palmarum

Acrocomia	All
Attalea	All
Bactris	All
Euterpe	All
Manicaria	All
Metroxylon	All
Roystonea	All
Sabal	All
Syagrus	All
Washingtonia	All

Quarantine Pest:

Tomato severe leaf curl virus

Solanum (including syn. Lycopersicon)	All except Canada
Capsicum	All except Canada

Quarantine Pest:

Tomato torrado virus

Solanum (including syn. Lycopersicon)	All except Canada
Amaranthus	All except Canada
Atriplex	All except Canada
Chenopodium	All except Canada
Halogetum	All except Canada
Lepidium (syn. Senebiera, Coronopus)	All except Canada
Malva	All except Canada
Polygonum	All except Canada
Nicotiana	All except Canada
Spergularia	All except Canada

Quarantine Pest:

Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae

Punica granatum

All

List of NAPPRA Candidates for Quarantine Pest Plants - USDA APHIS

2011-08-22T12:29:00.000-04:00

List of NAPPRA Candidates for Quarantine Pest Plants

Invasive Notes: NAPPRA: Importation of Plants for Planting - new rules from USDA APHIS

For the associated Federal Register Notice and pest datasheets, go to:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0072

Comment period ends September 26, 2011

Quarantine Pest Plants

1. Acacia hockii

2. Alstroemeria aurea

3. Andropogon gayanus

4. Angelica sylvestris

5. Artemisia austriaca

6. Artemisia japonica

7. Berberis glaucocarpa

8. Berkheya rigida

9. Bromus pectinatus

10. Cassina arcuata

11. Celtis sinensis

12. Cestrum elegans

13. Cestrum laevigatum

14. Chrysanthemoides monilifera

15. Cineraria lyratiformis

16. Cordia curassavica

17. Echinochloa pyramidalis

18. Eleocharis kuroguwai

19. Gladiolus undulates

20. Gomphrena celosioides

21. Gymnocoronis spilanthoides

22. Hakea gibbosa

23. Hakea salicifolia

24. Hakea sericea

25. Impatiens parviflora

26. Launaea cornuta

27. Limnobium laevigatum

28. Litsea glutinosa

29. Ludwigia hyssopifolia

30. Ludwigia prostrata

31. Nymphoides cristata

32. Oryza barthii

33. Phyllanthus maderaspatensis

34. Picnomon acarna

35. Potamogeton distinctus

36. Potamogeton schweinfurthii

37. Praxelis clematidea

38. Rhamnus alaternus

39. Rumex sagittatus

40. Senecio angulatus

41. Wikstroemia indica

NAPPRA: Importation of Plants for Planting - new rules from USDA APHIS

2011-08-19T11:41:00.000-04:00

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is altering its rules and regulations on the importation of nursery (garden and landscape) plants into the United States. USDA authority stems from the Protection and Quarantine (PPQ program within the USDA APHIS. PPQ protects agriculture, horticulture and natural resources from the risks associated with the entry, establishment, or spread of animal and plant pests, invasive species and noxious weeds to ensure resilient functional ecosystem services.

The USDA APHIS site explains that "[p]lants for planting can carry a wide variety of pests that are more likely to become established in the United States than pests that could enter through imported fruits or vegetables. The volume of plants being imported into the United States has continued to increase in recent years, as has the body of scientific information regarding emerging plant pests of concern. As a result, APHIS determined the Agency needed to update its regulations in order to better prevent the introduction and establishment of plant pests in the United States."

APHIS formerly has two categories for plant importation: 1) prohibited (not allowed); or 20 restricted (allowed under certain conditions). Now APHIS introduces the category of “not authorized pending pest risk analysis,” referred to as NAPPRA. APHIS has a "list of plants that it considers to be quarantine pests or hosts of quarantine pests. Such plants will not be allowed to be imported until we have completed a pest risk analysis."

" Plants for Planting Whose Importation Is Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk Analysis; Notice of Availability of Data Sheets for Taxa of Plants for Planting That Are Quarantine Pests or Hosts of Quarantine Pests

[USDA will consider all comments it receives on or before September 26, 2011.]"

for more information see Importation of Plants for Planting USDA APHIS site

Lists of NAPPRA Candidates for Host Plants of Quarantine Pests

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/downloads/NAPPRA1stNoticeList-CandidateHostPlants.pdf

List of NAPPRA Candidates for Quarantine Pest Plants

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/downloads/NAPPRA1stNoticeList-QuarantinePestPlants.pdf

History of John H Bayne, Salubria, Horticulture and Slavery

2011-07-13T17:51:00.002-04:00

Speaker Series

2011 Speaker Series – 7/27/11

July 27^th 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

Live and Enjoy: How to Best Honor the Past and Plan for the Future: Seeking a Balanced Approach for the Salubria Plantation Site – 1.5 CM credits (pending)

Presentation Description:

What is best for the Salubria Plantation site? A landowner plans and community members ponder the future of a historic site that features prominently in the African-American history of Prince George's County. The rich history serves as a backdrop to a contemporary opportunity to enhance this community through collaborative land use planning. Pending future plans, can the historic significance be captured with a thoughtful, inclusive site design that highlights the colorful past and current natural environmental beauty of the site? An opportunity exists for a win-win-win for the community, the landowner, and the link to the past that this site clearly represents. This discussion will focus on why the historic Salubria Plantation is considered important to the community. The history represents a tragic juxtaposition of abundant wealth and prosperity on one hand and oppression and yearning for freedom on the other. The speakers will shed light on the process of historic preservation; the legacy of John H. Bayne, influential leader in the fields of medicine, politics, education, and agriculture; the five generations of his family who lived and prospered there; and what lessons we can learn from the past.

Presenters' Biographies:

Jennifer Stabler, Ph.D., Planner Coordinator, Historic Preservation Section, M-NCPPC. Dr. Stabler reviews subdivision plans submitted to the Prince George's County Planning Department to determine the necessity of archeological surveys. She reviews archeological reports to ensure compliance with county, state, and national guidelines and recommends treatment of significant archeological resources to the Prince George's County Planning Board. Dr. Stabler also reviews historic area work permits and makes recommendations to the Prince George's County Historic Preservation Commission on archeological matters. She served as the project leader in developing a cemetery preservation manual, an antebellum historic context, and a postbellum historic context for Prince George's County. Stabler has archeological survey and excavation experience in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Texas, Israel, and Italy. She assisted archeologists at Fort Hood, Texas, in evaluating the significance of more than 1,000 historic archeological sites for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Dr. Stabler also excavated for 15 field seasons with the University of Maryland at Caesarea Maritima in Israel, a major Mediterranean port from the Roman through Crusader periods.

John Peter Thompson: Mr. Thompson works with public and private organizations providing historic frameworks and philosophical paradigms that enable researchers and policy mangers to creatively address complex environmental issues in the areas of invasion biology and sustainable agronomic best-management practices. He serves as a technical advisor for the national sustainable landscape standards project of the US Green Building Council and the LBJ Wild Flower Center, University of Texas, and currently serves as a national credit steward for the project with responsibility for invasive species and historic sites that are among several areas within the framework developed by SITES assigned to him. He is working with the Department of the Interior to develop urban invasive species management protocols. In addition, he is serving as a subject matter expert for Prince George's Community College to create a "green" workforce development program. He also is working with Cameroonian farmers on sustainable coffee and chocolate production in the northwest.

Moderator: Howard Berger: Trained as an architectural historian, Mr. Berger has conducted field survey and research projects at M-NCPPC that have culminated in both the listing of historic districts in the National Register of Historic Places (Mount Rainier, University Park) and designation of local historic districts (Old Town College Park, St. Thomas Episcopal Parish). He has also reviewed historic area work permit applications and preservation tax credit applications affecting historic sites, been responsible for development referrals affecting historic resources, and supervised contractors responsible for large-scale survey and documentation projects. He has participated in two Historic Sites and Districts Plan amendments (1992 and 2010), and is a graduate of Hamilton College (B.A. in Government) and has done graduate work in historic preservation at George Washington University's American Studies program. He is active in Washington, D.C., as president of the Sheridan-Kalorama Historical Association, Inc.; president of The Friends of Alice Pike Barney Studio House, Inc.; and as a long-time board member and volunteer for the D.C. Preservation League.

Further Speaker Series information: http://www.pgplanning.org
Time: 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (See dates here.)

Location: County Administration Building, 1st Floor Council Hearing Room, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Contact:
o E. Fatimah Hasan, AICP, Planner Coordinator - Fatimah.Hasan@ppd.mncppc.org
o Ivy Thompson, Senior Planner and Co-Chair, Employee Development and Training CCI Goal Team –Ivy.Thompson@ppd.mncppc.org

http://www.pgplanning.org/Projects/Speaker_Series.htm

Congress Cuts Science Infrastructure - to buy more bullets?

2011-06-22T15:50:00.000-04:00

One has to wonder what exactly we are fighting to save overseas when we can not save the science behind our food source; perhaps we think the Chinese will take up the research and give us information from time to time for free? Or perhaps we think corporate America will deign to give the information they find to us mere mortals at no cost - Lincoln created USDA to distribute to all Americans the science and know-how of Agriculture so that all might share equally in the knowledge and build together a better tomorrow. What exactly are we doing?

"The House continued to make progress on its appropriations bills last week, passing the Military Construction and Veterans Administration bill (H.R.2055) on Tuesday and the Agriculture bill (H.R.2112) on Thursday. The Agriculture bill includes deep cuts to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) R&D, including a 12.9% ($146 million) cut from FY 2011 funding levels to the intramural Agricultural Research Service; a 16.7% ($203 million) cut to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA); and within NIFA, a 13.9% ($37 million) cut to the competitive, extramural Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. The bill also includes an amendment from Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) which prohibits funding for implementing the June 3rd USDA departmental regulation dealing with climate change adaptation." - AAAS Policy Alert -- June 22, 2011

The Wicked Inconvenience of Invasive Species: A Reader in Complexities

2011-06-12T11:32:00.002-04:00

    Reading news articles, list-serves and social media clips interspersed with hall-way conversations, it is possible to reduce the world of invasive species to two world views. The first sees danger and the end of the world as we know it invading not only our personal spaces but even the last great natural landscapes thereby brings doom to life as we have know it. The second view takes up the challenge and claims that there is both no problem and, in the same breathe, a problem so large as to be impossible to address; live and let live translated into do whatever you want wherever you may to whomever is there.

    It is perhaps instructive to remind the reader of the US federal definition of an invasive species. The : 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." The Invasive Species Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper (2006) of which I am one of the contributing authors clearly states that "...there continues to be uncertainty concerning the use and perceived meaning of the term [invasive species], and consequently over the prospective scope of actions proposed..." The difficulties inherent in the definition of invasive species is a key indicator of the wicked problem nature of the issue.

    The first world view grows more shrill and inclined to use the tactics of fear to spotlight change while the second view of invasive species annoyed by personal constraints and costs offers reassuring canards that imply inaction is always better. Both sides use the fuzzy consensus-made definition of invasive species to reach a disinterested general public. Recent environmental research history having bequeathed the modifier invasive with its a priori pejorative connotations, the debate now swirls around implicit assumptions that are rarely clearly defined in the general discourse and media exposés.

    In general the layperson is allowed to equate an invasive species with any species not indigenous to a particular location in space and recent time. There is no discussion by this world view of what exactly is native at CO2 levels way above those found in the time scale used to define a "native" species. Sadly the professionals in the field know for certain and discuss often the seldom discussed part of the invasive species definition that involves some measurement of harm to human health and well being. This annoying part of the definition rarely makes it into the general information stream, and its absence allows the world view of nature first to define an invasive species as any species not part of the original ecosystem before the advent of Europeans had a millennium ago.

    The do nothing world view on the other hands deftly spots an opportunity to dismiss the immediately costly outcomes of the first invasive species view and knowing better allows the media and the general public to run with a do nothing proposal that builds hysteria on the extension of the first's ideas to include agricultural species and even man himself in order to create an untenable set of outcomes that allow the assumption that invasion specialist want to exclude humanity from the system. Feeding on the ideas of naturalization being a good, normal idea and pushing the lack of resources or personal cost to actually do anything. the second group weaves a surface argument that implies the first is hysterically whining about nothing really at all.

         In truth, both sides taken together approximate the reality of the situation. Just as a farmer would never wake up one morning and say that because farmers have been removing unwanted plants since the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, from this day forward he would no longer weed the fields (as he would no longer ask USDA APHIS to inspect and interdict imports containing any weed, insect or disease, free entry to the country), so the ecosystem manager in spite of the seeming hopeless task of removing species that change the systems resource services continues to tend the system in the face of Sisyphean odds. The embedded unintended message is that non-natives are bad is the message that bubbles out and up through the varied media are and resonates with the general disinterested public.

    On the other hand, the second world view knows that we must find ways to adapt, that change will happen if for no other reason than the impact of 7 billion people. They struggle with the exclusion of indigenous species such as poison ivy from the lists of invasive species because it is native. When the media attack invasion biology orthodoxy, they in fact are using broad strokes of generalities to expand the definition, but in doing so allow the general public to see a controversy where none actually exists. The complexity of the invasive problem leads interested parties to predefine their expected outcomes and then work backwards towards their personalized definition that is mostly at odds with the next stakeholder group's personalized definition. This leads in finger pointing, allegations and unproductive debates that solve nothing and limit knowledge and solutions. Asian carp in the Great Lakes, Burmese pythons in Florida, emerald ash borer and Asian long horned beetles, lion fish and Lythrum

Further reading:

Invasive Species – A Wicked Inconvenience

Invasive Species; Wicked Inconvenience: part two

Invasive species issues & the danger of being controlled by dogmatic ecological paradigms

Invasive Inconvenience Wicked Definitions

Invasive Species Definitions akin to Herding Cats

Invasive Species Conundrum: A Wicked Inconvenience

Invasive Species Complexities: A Wicked Inconvenience

Invasive Species; Wickedly Inconvenient Still

Invasive species: more inconveniences of a wicked nature

Weeds: Defining Inconvenience, Wickedly

Invasive Species: Simple at First Glance

Inconvenient question: Invasive species

The problem of invasive species and beauty

Wicked Invasives; Inconvenient Issues

Invasive species: The Great Green Divide

Invasive species: "cosmic definitions"

Private preferences, Invasive species & Public values

A Garden or a Jar in Tennessee

R Invasive Species Definitions Defined

Ruminations on the Complexities of Invasive Species

Invasive Species Issues - Flailing in the Wind

The Fuzziness of Invasive Species Issues

The Speed of Climate Change & Invasive Species Impacts

Climate change & invasive species

Are cats an invasive species - a wickedly inconvenient conversation

On the Sowing of Flower Seeds - The Maryland Farmer and Mechanic. June 1, 1864

2011-05-31T09:23:00.000-04:00

In order to be successful in raising flowers from seeds, it will be necessary to bear in mind that the smaller the seed the less deeply should it be covered with earth. Some seeds are so small that they require only to be sprinkled over the ground and gently pressed into the soil, and should the weather prove very dry, a thin layer of damp moss ought to be placed over them til they germinate, when care must be taken to have it removed. There are few seeds that require such extreme attention.

Small seed such as Petunia, Portulacca, &c sow about one-eight (sic) of an inch in depth; those of larger sizes as Mignonette, Sweet Alyssum, &c, about one quarter of an inch in depth; still larger as Balsam, Morning Glory, &c, three quarters off an inch in depth; and seeds of the largest size as Nasturtium, Lupine, &c, fully one inch in depth. They must be covered with finely pulverized soil, or leaf mold slightly pressed down, and should be kept moderately moist by shading or slightly sprinkling of water, until they make their appearance. Tall varieties should be neatly staked to prevent injury from wind or rain.

Transcribed from: On the Sowing of Flower Seeds - The Maryland Farmer and Mechanic. June 1, 1864. p. 183

Verbenas - The Maryland Farmer and Mechanic - June 1, 1864

2011-05-27T20:22:00.000-04:00

Verbenas

    This, the prince of bedders, everybody who has a garden should have. Of endless variety, of almost all shades of color, many strongly fragrant, they are universally grown in the old world and the new. An ordinary soil will grow them. The only favor they ask is fresh, new ground. In this, if allowed plenty of room, they will flower from the first planting out until early winter frosts.

    Among the hundreds now named in catalogues at home and abroad, there are not twenty sorts notable for perfection of habit, flower, color and profusion of bloom. Small plants of a few inches in height are most certain to grow close to the ground than large plants.

    The following are choice standard varieties and most serviceable:

    White - Snowflake and White Perfection; Blue - Turquoise and Azurea; Striped - Mœnitta Coccinea and Madame Janvier; Scarlet - Fox Hunter, Mrs. Woodruff and Illuminator; Crimsons - Crimson Perfection, Giant of the Battle, and Brilliant de Valse; Rose and Pink - Celestial, Pompadour, and Rosy Morn; Dark Purple and White Eye - Royalist, Grand Turk, and Warrior

transcribed from: The Maryland Farmer and Mechanic. June 1, 1864. p. 183

Invasive Xylotrechus hircus - A New Beetle Species Tries to Sample Our Forests and Landscapes

2011-05-26T14:49:00.000-04:00

   Two Xylotrechus hircus, longhorned beetles, were discovered in a shipping container of magnesium desulphurization reagent in Philadelphia by agricultural inspectors on April 28th, 2011. These were the first ever reported interdiction of this potentially damaging, harmful invasive species in Philadelphia as well as the United States as a whole according to Steve Sapp with the CBP Public Affairs office. Invasive species like these are most effectively handle by early detection and rapid responses such as those administered by USDA APHIS PPQ and US CPB.

    Why do we care about two beetles? The economic and environmental damage that can come from newly introduced species can overwhelm any cost effective response once the species is established. The emerald ash borer is a prime example of what can go wrong and the extent of the damage when there is no early detection and no response.[1]

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection notes that the "invasive species Xylotrechus hircus is an invasive, wood–boring insect pest from the Cerambycidae family of destructive longhorned beetles indigenous to Asia. Longhorned beetles pose a serious threat to American agriculture, to national forests and to the timber industry. CBP issued an Emergency Action Notification and ordered the importers to re-export the container of desulphurization reagent in which the longhorned beetles were discovered. That container was shipped from China."

[1] Emerald Ash Borer Awareness Week Don't Move Firewood; Save America's Trees http://www.emeraldashborer.info/

Domestic Recipes - complete transcription - June 1 1864 Maryland Farmer and Mechanic

2011-05-26T12:05:00.000-04:00

Maryland Farmer and Mechanic. June 1, 1864. Baltimore. S. S. Mills & Co. p. 191 "Domestic Recipes"

    Rhubarb Wine - Peel and slice as for pie; put a very small quantity of water in the vessel, only just enough to cover the bottom; cover the vessel and gradually bring to a slight boil; then strain, pressing out all the liquid; to this liquid add an equal quantity of water; to each gallon (after mixing) add from four to five pounds of brown sugar; set aside, ferment and skim like currant wine; leave ion the cask and bulk as long as possible before sending away. - All wine is better kept in casks.

    Strawberry Wine - Press out the juice from the strawberries, and add two quarts of water to each quart of juice. Loaf (sic) sugar is then added at a rate of one pound to the gallon. Put into a barrel in a cool cellar, and ferment in the usual way.

    Currant Wine - One quart of currant juice, two quarts of water, three pounds of crushed sugar, and to each gallon of the mixture add one gill (sic) pure brandy. Place a cask on its side with the bung up and fill it entirely. It will require replenishing, as it wastes by fermentation, and the cask should always be kept full.

    Currant Jelly - Pick fine and large ripe currants from the stem, bruise them and strain the juice from a quart at a time through this muslin pressing it easily to get all the liquid. Put a Lb. of white sugar to each pound of juice; stir it until it is all dissolved; set it over a gentle fire; let it become hot and boil for fifteen minutes; then try it by taken a spoonful into a saucer. When cold, if it is not quite firm enough, boil it a few minutes longer. It may be made by standing it in the sun, without boiling, if put in a very warm place and is generally of a much better color than when cooked by the fire.

    Strawberries - This delicious fruit is so acid that it requires that it requires the full complement of a pound sugar to a pound of fruit to prevent its spoiling before winter. They preserve their shape and color better if they are only partly cooked in the syrup, and then allowed to stand in the sun two or three days; but if cooked entirely by the fire, they should be put into jars while hot and sealed immediately.

    Raspberry Vinegar - Take three or four quarts of raspberries, put them in a stone crock and cover them with vinegar. Let them stand twenty-four hours. Then strain this juice through a jelly-bag and pour it on to fresh berries, letting this stand another day. Repeat this process until you have the quantity desired. Add to each pint of juice one pound of sugar. Put it into a preserving kettle and allow it to heat sufficiently to melt the sugar. When it is cold, put it into bottles. It will keep several years.

This transcription is dedicated to @dewdropper9 who asked me to see it through today

Rhubarb Wine Recipe from June 1, 1864; Maryland Farmer and Mechanic

2011-05-26T10:29:00.002-04:00

Maryland Farmer and Mechanic. June 1, 1864. Baltimore. S. S. Mills & Co. p. 191

"Domestic Recipes"

Rhubarb Wine - Peel and slice as for pie; put a very small quantity of water in the vessel, only just enough to cover the bottom; cover the vessel and gradually bring to a slight boil; then strain, pressing out all the liquid; to this liquid add an equal quantity of water; to each gallon (after mixing) add from four to five pounds of brown sugar; set aside, ferment and skim like currant wine; leave ion the cask and bulk as long as possible before sending away. - All wine is better kept in casks.

Image: University of Illinois Extension

University of Illinois Extension University of Illinois Extension University of Illinois Extension University of Illinois Extension University of Illinois Extension University of Illinois Extension

**************************************
WARNING
Never eat rhubarb leaves, cooked or raw. Eating the leaves can be poisonous because they contain oxalate. This toxin, plus another unknown toxin also found in the leaves, has been reported to cause poisoning when large quantities of raw or cooked leaves are ingested. http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/month/rhubarb.html

see complete transcription of recipes at: http://ipetrus.blogspot.com/2011/05/domestic-recipes-complete-transcription.html