Invasive Plants - We'd Better Kill Them

[Acme]

For all the public commotion over genetically modified plants, invasive plants seem of little public interest. Granted GM plants have the potential to wreak havoc with agriculture and ecosystems, but invasive plants have already been at it for years. Where's the anger? The suspicion? The hue and the cry?

Do you know what is and is not invasive where you live? Do you or do you not do anything about it? Do you think it's a non-problem? If you think it's a problem is it the other person's? The goverments' problem(s)? Who should do what, when, where, and for how much expense to thwart the invasive plant onslaught?

I never paid much attention until I got on a jag hiking around looking for native plants, and even now I don't go out of my way to combat invasives. I mean I hack their insolent stemage & rip out their filthy little roots when I find them but I haven't joined or invested in any group kills.

Here's a US government invasive organism clearing house site for your enjoyment.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/index.shtml

While there are invasive creatures o'plenty, I suspect advocating that we'd better kill a bunch of plants will stir up less angst than say, erhm ... European sparrow hunting.

[StringJunky]

In the UK, the people responsible for nature reserves - which are supposed to be sanctuaries for native species - have their hands tied by ever-restricting European laws on what herbicides they can use when faced with an invasive foreign plant. New Zealand Pygmy Stonecrop is a serious concern at a reserve near me yet they have only one aquatic herbicide option and it doesn't work. The ones that might work are banned. This is an example of a negative side-effect of government policy, aimed at environmental responsibility, working against responsible control in other areas. The solution here I think is extremely strict rules on who is allowed to use otherwise banned chemicals and where.

 

The absolute worse thing anyone can do is attempt to remove plants in an ignorant manner because it might cause increased propagation. Every little bit of the plant left behind could be a new individual plant - this is the case with Stonecrop. Weed Warriors are really not a good idea.

 

From a more objective frame, I think the transmission of species' genes across the globe by humans, for good or bad, is all part of the evolutionary process when looking at the big picture.

[Acme]

In the UK, the people responsible for nature reserves - which are supposed to be sanctuaries for native species - have their hands tied by ever-restricting European laws on what herbicides they can use when faced with an invasive foreign plant. New Zealand Pygmy Stonecrop is a serious concern at a reserve near me yet they have only one aquatic herbicide option and it doesn't work. The ones that might work are banned. This is an example of a negative side-effect of government policy, aimed at environmental responsibility, working against responsible control in other areas. The solution here I think is extremely strict rules on who is allowed to use otherwise banned chemicals and where.

A sticky wicket to be sure. Have the reserve people made any official appeal for exemptions? Have they brought the matter to the attention of the general public, or did you learn of it through casual conversation(s)? Also wondering if you have the Stonecrop in your own yard or have seen it elsewhere in the community?

 

The absolute worse thing anyone can do is attempt to remove plants in an ignorant manner because it might cause increased propagation. Every little bit of the plant left behind could be a new individual plant - this is the case with Stonecrop. Weed Warriors are really not a good idea.

The solution here I think would be educating the weed warriors. Since any plant or community of plants can only occupy a finite area it seems to me pulling an invader out is worth the risk of leaving some to regrow. At the very least it gives a native an oportunity to occupy the space before any regrowth of the invader. In that vein I think an important adjunct to invasive removal is replacing it with natives whenever possible.

 

From a more objective frame, I think the transmission of species' genes across the globe by humans, for good or bad, is all part of the evolutionary process when looking at the big picture.

I can accept that to some degree, but I don't see it as removing we peoples from responsible stewardship. One might argue we have 'naturally' evolved to pollute but that doesn't negate that we also naturally know better than to put the outhouse next to the well. The invasive plants can and do endanger native plants and so decrease biodiversity. A more immediate economic cost for some areas relates to eco-tourism inasmuch that if a unique plant or plant community is quashed, people will no longer travel to the area to see it.

 

A particular concern to me in my own area is the English Ivy. It escapes into forests & climbs the trees where it adds 1000's of pounds to the tree, ups the wind-load by increasing surface area, covers over the trunk making it unavailable for birds, lichens and other native life, as well as going to seed. State laws exist to restrict it, but they and the counties often have no resources to combat it on public land let alone enforce the laws requiring private landowners to control it.

 

Good stuff StringJunky; thanks for the input.

[Harold Squared]

Why stop there? Let's consider the animal kingdom as well. Cane toads, walking catfish, the wily mongoose, AND that most dangerous of animals, the English speaking white person, scourge of two continents and various other infestations around the globe.

 

Just kidding, hehehehehe...

 

Actually this subspecies of humanity is responsible for quite a lot of other invasive species from water hyacinths to starlings.

 

Hail Darwin!

[Acme]

Why stop there? Let's consider the animal kingdom as well. Cane toads, walking catfish, the wily mongoose, AND that most dangerous of animals, the English speaking white person, scourge of two continents and various other infestations around the globe.

I'm well aware of animal invaders and your 'joke' smacks of racism. Start your own thread and don't hijack mine.

 

Just kidding, hehehehehe...

 

Actually this subspecies of humanity is responsible for quite a lot of other invasive species from water hyacinths to starlings.

Hail Darwin!

Humans have no sub-species. If you want to elaborate on water hyacinth, feel free.

 

Edit: Fix quotes

Edited March 26, 2015 by Acme

[Harold Squared]

No harm meant, colleague. FYI, yours truly is a member of said group and so entitled to make such little jests.

 

I suppose what humans have done they can in most cases undo, and my point about Europeans generally and Anglophones in particular is perfectly valid in that they are responsible for the proliferation of rabbits, et al, deliberately and otherwise. Adaptation continues, as one might expect.

 

Contemplate this, if you will accept this idea as a sort of olive branch: why not develop tailor made viruses targeting the said noxious life forms? For example tinker with tobacco mosaic virus to eradicate the noxious weed? Or the coca bush, the opium poppy, and cannabis sativa? The war on drugs turned biological. Maybe we could win it with such a strategy.

 

Or at least quit pulling crabgrass.

 

In any case you have made a quite excellent point regarding the cost of exotic species and I thank you for it.

 

Good point about the means and methods used above, too. I am reminded of the oystermen who ground up every starfish they found, only to find every bit of starfish growing into an entire starfish. Most counterproductive.

 

Dumping herbicide all over only benefits Monsanto in the end.

 

Is it possible or desirable to consider eradication of corporations while we are at it? Darwinism as applied to economics, there's a new thread idea, but where to put it? Any suggestions?

Wandering far afield again there. Apologies all round, but why not frame the idea as "noxious vs banign" rather than "native vs non-native"?

 

After all, yours truly is native to the Goodole U.S. of A., yet not Native American. And incontestably noxious, according to most.

 

Yet another thought- a virus which renders the infected plant less attractive to pollinators. Any interruption of the reproductive cycle would have an effect, the thing to do is to identify the weakest point of the cycle and target the strategy accordingly, or would you differ?

Edited March 26, 2015 by Harold Squared

[Acme]

No harm meant, colleague. FYI, yours truly is a member of said group and so entitled to make such little jests.

No one is entitled to racism.

 

I suppose what humans have done they can in most cases undo, and my point about Europeans generally and Anglophones in particular is perfectly valid in that they are responsible for the proliferation of rabbits, et al, deliberately and otherwise. Adaptation continues, as one might expect.

While humans primarily spread non-native plants, making that spreading out to be the work of a single culture is narrow-minded to say the least.

 

Contemplate this, if you will accept this idea as a sort of olive branch: why not develop tailor made viruses targeting the said noxious life forms? For example tinker with tobacco mosaic virus to eradicate the noxious weed?

Perhaps viruses could be used, however: >> Plant virus

Overview

...Viruses in wild plants have been poorly studied, but those studies that exist almost overwhelming show that such interactions between wild plants and their viruses do not appear to cause disease in the host plants. [1]...

Or at least quit pulling crabgrass.

In any case you have made a quite excellent point regarding the cost of exotic species and I thank you for it.

 

Good point about the means and methods used above, too. I am reminded of the oystermen who ground up every starfish they found, only to find every bit of starfish growing into an entire starfish. Most counterproductive.

 

Dumping herbicide all over only benefits Monsanto in the end.

 

Is it possible or desirable to consider eradication of corporations while we are at it? Darwinism as applied to economics, there's a new thread idea, but where to put it? Any suggestions?

Put it where you think best and if the staff thinks it belongs elsewhere they will move it.

 

Wandering far afield again there. Apologies all round, but why not frame the idea as "noxious vs banign" rather than "native vs non-native"?

 

After all, yours truly is native to the Goodole U.S. of A., yet not Native American. And incontestably noxious, according to most.

 

Yet another thought- a virus which renders the infected plant less attractive to pollinators. Any interruption of the reproductive cycle would have an effect, the thing to do is to identify the weakest point of the cycle and target the strategy accordingly, or would you differ?

There are subcategories already to delineate specific circumstances of native vs. non-native. Noxious weed is such a class and depending on the severity of the damage/threat there are sub-classifications by letters, e.g. Class C noxious weed. The idea of being benign is already a part of the classification systems in use, albeit these names vary by region and country.

 

So again yes, viruses may have some use. It's a ways off it seems and it may prove as detrimental as herbicides so caution seems advisable.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Acme

[Harold Squared]

No one is entitled to racism.

 

(Good point, I must inform all my nonAryan friends who casually refer to themselves as n-----s. Should go over well. Loosen up.)

 

While humans primarily spread non-native plants, making that spreading out to be the work of a single culture is narrow-minded to say the least.

 

(Yet accurate, as the British Empire was biggest of all. A lot depends on how you quantify it, total number of organisms introduce, number of square kilometers infested, etc., but just the cane toads and rabbits devastating Australia thanks to those who boldly took up the WHITE MAN'S BURDEN, as Kipling so memorably put it, not that they were entitled to, anymore than they were entitled to rob the world blind, that some credit is due.)

 

Perhaps viruses could be used, however: >> Plant virus

 

(Thank you.)

 

Put it where you think best and if the staff thinks it belongs elsewhere they will move it.

 

There are subcategories already to delineate specific circumstances of native vs. non-native. Noxious weed is such a class and depending on the severity of the damage/threat there are sub-classifications by letters, e.g. Class C noxious weed. The idea of being benign is already a part of the classification systems in use, albeit these names vary by region and country.

 

So again yes, viruses may have some use. It's a ways off it seems and it may prove as detrimental as herbicides so caution seems advisable.

 

(Agreed, but why is it not being investigated at present?)

If you'd care to speculate. I mean, patent law has been applied to living organisms and these days corporate responsibility for creatures so developed must follow. So there is that. What else comes to mind?

Edited March 26, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

Do what you can to slow down the intercontinental transferrals and intracontinental spread - buy time for adjustment, disease arrival, etc - but once a solid foothold is established you aren't going to get rid of very many organisms.

 

Try not to provide easy transport and suitably vulnerable landscapes (the parks and wildlands of the US are not carpeted with dandelions, notice). Restrict motorized watercraft, for example - a complete ban on motorized transport in places such as small lakes or wildlife refuges would help a lot, but is unlikely.

 

Otherwise, it's a done deal. There are going to be earthworms and nightcrawlers in the Great Lakes region of North America from now on until the next glaciation, and that's all there is to it. Enjoy the diversity - in many cases, the new guys take up where extinction and destruction have left holes. Half the flowers you see in the meadows of NA are recent arrivals to the landscape - it's almost a regret that similar replacements of the missing big moths and butterflies have not also established themselves.

Edited March 27, 2015 by overtone

[Harold Squared]

Racism is currently out of fashion, yet this was hardly the case during the heyday of colonial exploitation and the rampant introduction of exotic species from one continent to another by imperialism.

 

Genocide, however, is even more unpopular and would be the inevitable result of any serious attempt to eradicate "invasive plants" such as wheat, rice, or soybeans in North America, for example. Most food crops are not native to extensive regions where they are vital for human sustenance.

[Acme]

Racism is currently out of fashion, yet this was hardly the case during the heyday of colonial exploitation and the rampant introduction of exotic species from one continent to another by imperialism.

 

Genocide, however, is even more unpopular and would be the inevitable result of any serious attempt to eradicate "invasive plants" such as wheat, rice, or soybeans in North America, for example. Most food crops are not native to extensive regions where they are vital for human sustenance.

Genocide refers to people, not plants. Likewise you misuse the definition of invasive plants as applied by botanists. All-in-all I find your analysis worthless.

[Harold Squared]

People rely on "invasive plants" for food to a great degree as our less obtuse colleagues may realize. Starvation is a proven means of genocide. With the passage of time even you may realize this point.

 

Your fanciful campaign to eradicate such plants, carried to its ultimate logical conclusion, would necessarily entail such starvation.

 

Checkmate.

Oh hey! Almost forgot! If you want to see a fantastic documentary on invasive species check out "Darwin's Nightmare". It is about Nile Perch in Lake Victoria and is incredibly depressing, hopelessly wickedly awful, but just the content, not the film itself.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The topic here is invasive plants. Please confine your discussion to that topic.

[Harold Squared]

Invasive plants include food crops, often consumed by other invasive species. The major vector for said invasive species, vegetable and otherwise, is human activity.

 

Furthermore it would be nice to know if overtone, for example, is being admonished for mentioning non-plant species as he clearly has above.

 

None of my business apart from moderation being an impartial activity free from petty personal animosities.

[Endy0816]

I don't think many of our crops are considered invasive, though most are nonnative. To qualify as invasive they need to be good at spreading without our deliberate assistance.

[StringJunky]

Those 'invasive' plants will become accepted once collective memories start to fade. In the UK, for example, Canadian Pondweed is, more or less, regarded as an integrated part of British waterplant life now. It's all part of evolution; nothing will thrive where it's not suited.

[Harold Squared]

I don't know, invasive seems the only word to describe countless acres of arable land colonized by a single type of cereal grain vs your Pygmy Stonecrop example. And as time staggers on we shall probably see deliberate efforts to make crops hardier and more invasive in the sense of which you speak, purely as a cost cutting measure.

 

Let us imagine a Monsanto of the future developing a strain of soybeans which is not only tolerant of the Roundup herbicide, but able to secrete this chemical. There are plants which already do much the equivalent purely by natural adaptation.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Harold Squared

[Acme]

I don't think many of our crops are considered invasive, though most are nonnative. To qualify as invasive they need to be good at spreading without our deliberate assistance.

Yes. Moreover:

...The term as most often used applies to introduced species (also called "non-indigenous" or "non-native") that adversely affect the habitats and bioregions they invade economically, environmentally, and/or ecologically.

...

The European Union defines "Invasive Alien Species" as those that are, firstly, outside their natural distribution area, and secondly, threaten biological diversity.[6]

source

 

It is the threat to biological diversity that I am on about and in particular the areas that retain native plant biodiversity. Bringing up our crops and/or passing invasives off as just evolution are red herrings. Then too, throwing in the towel makes as much sense as not treating someone who is ill because hey, they're gonna die sooner or later anyway.

[Phi for All]

Yes. Moreover:

source

 

It is the threat to biological diversity that I am on about and in particular the areas that retain native plant biodiversity. Bringing up our crops and/or passing invasives off as just evolution are red herrings. Then too, throwing in the towel makes as much sense as not treating someone who is ill because hey, they're gonna die sooner or later anyway.

 

!

Moderator Note

Please, let's use the definition of "invasive" that applies to the thread as Acme has outlined. If another thread is needed, please start it fresh, I hate splitting discussions.

 

If you object, report this post and let me know your reasons. Son't talk about it here.