| Invasive
Species |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Nov
04, 2003 11:50 PST |
...When you add man to the mix, management is not optional.
Unless, of
course, you can live with the consequences...
When you consider that over 70,000 nonnative species (many
invasive) have
been brought into this country since it's birth, you realize
that logging is not
the only issue (if even the most relevant).
RC |
| Re:
Invasive Species |
Colby
Rucker |
| Nov
04, 2003 13:15 PST |
Randy,
What's the source and breakdown for the 70,000 figure? To be
relevant, one must assume it refers to species that have become
established in this country (however we describe the
geographical limits). Is the number documented, or does it
include massive guesstimates for viruses, bacteria, and the
like?
Everything considered, the number of imported pests, diseases
and competitors significantly affecting our native vascular
plants is actually quite small, not to belittle some horrendous
exceptions. Putting those exceptions aside, large numbers of
introduced species do not necessarily translate into
proportionately severe problems.
While some plant species, like roundleaf bittersweet, will cause
extensive damage, others may prove innocuous or beneficial,
although scorned by the purists. In some cases, we become
dependent on "invasives." As an example, the crash of
Eurasian millfoil in local estuaries removed the physical buffer
for nesting pumpkinseed sunfish, which were essential to
populations of yellow perch and chain pickerel. Native aquatic
vegetation is simply inadequate to withstand boat wakes. Of
course, the environmentalists ignore the sunfish, and the state
keeps dumping perch in the river with no results.
I think numbers are often used selectively to advance
fine-sounding agendas, and insure more jobs. It's curious that
the purists across the country never attack brown trout,
ringnecked pheasants or norway spruce.
Anyway, I think 70,000 begs for context.
Colby
|
| Re:
Invasive Species |
jarred
trout |
| Nov
04, 2003 14:08 PST |
bob,
randy, brothers, and sisters:
is there anyway or any reason that good use could not be made of
the over 70,000 nonnative species, including invasives?
furniture for the poor, fuel for the fires, building materials,
even the more popular and expensive veneers?
sorry for the dumb question, but by nature and profession, i
have been made to think "lemonade from lemons"
thank-you,
jt
|
| Re:
Invasive Species |
SHAMR-@aol.com |
| Nov
04, 2003 15:07 PST |
Mr.
Trout,
Many invasives are useful and some may even prove down right
beneficial to
our long term survival. The problem with introducing nonnative
species without
very strict controls is that we do not know what they will do to
natural
systems that have been functioning in a relatively sustainable
balance for thousands
of years.
Unfortunately the genie is already out of the bottle. The
invasives are here,
more are on the way and new ones are being created by chemists
with
absolutely no idea how natural systems work. We are running a
completely uncontrolled
experiment on the natural environment in which we evolved and
upon which our
survival depends. Will this experiment make our lives better or
worse? I don't
think anyone can say for sure. But, it does make our future a
lot less certain.
The purists are going to have no choice but to get used to new
species in
their backyards and the experimenters are going to have to deal
with, and
hopefully be held accountable for, the unexpected consequences
their actions release.
In the end we are all going to have to work together even harder
to ensure
our survival in a rapidly changing system that we still know so
very little
about.
The human race began taking its survival out of nature's/god's
hands and into
its own with the invention of agriculture. Only time will tell
if we are wise
enough to handle that responsibility. Like it or not that
responsibility is
now largely ours. It is much too late to turn back even if we
wanted to. The
only choice we have is to increase our understanding and find
ways to restore
and maintain a sustainable balance between ourselves and the
environment that
provides the resources we need to survive.
Tim |
| Re:
Invasive Species |
SHAMR-@aol.com |
| Nov
04, 2003 16:56 PST |
In
a message dated 11/4/2003 6:43:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jarred-@yahoo.com
writes:
| |
if
the deed already has been done, how can we ford a path
to what defines
us and ours? |
First people need to realize just what deeds have been and are
being done.
Then we need to recognize which of those deeds are good and
which are bad, not
just in the short term but more importantly for the long term
survival of the
human race. Only then can we stop repeating all the bad deeds.
Human beings are amazingly adaptable. I know we can fix the
messes we have
made. But unless we learn from past mistakes we will be forced
to spend all our
time cleaning up some of the present messes while new ones keep
pilling up to
replace them and overwhelm us. The first thing a doctor does
with an injured
patient is find and stop all the bleeding. Only then do they
work on putting
the person back together. If they started out by just fixing
each wound they
came across, one at a time until it is completely healed, there
is a very good
chance the patient would die from another equally serious wound
somewhere else
on the body.
Because our society and our economy are so focused on short term
gratification we our loosing sight of what our short term
actions have on our long term
survival. 200 years of clear cutting and highgrade logging made
some quick money
for some people. Aggresive fire supression allowed some lucky
people to build
trophy homes in the middle of forests. Irrigation allows some
farmers to grow
food in the dessert. But what are the long term costs of these
actions to the
rest of society? The people in CA are getting yet another hint
to the answer
of that question.
Humans began to dominate their surrounding through mutual
cooperation and
innovative use of technology. Somehow our value system switched
from working
together to survive to working separately to get the most
gratification for the
self. Only a change in our societies value system will lead to
long term
solutions. With the right value system and knowledge technology
can save us. With
incomplete and faulty logic and a short sighted selfish value
system it will
destroy us.
Tim |
| Re:
Invasive Species |
Don
Bertolette |
| Nov
04, 2003 17:49 PST |
Bob/RC-
But a not unrelated point...invasives, exotics, are most
effective
colonizers of newly disturbed lands...the two most significant
vectors here
in the SW are logging and wildfire...we're in the middle of a
Colorado
Plateau research conference and the papers on the relationship
between burn
severity and presence/abundance of invasives is extraordinarily high.
-Don
|
| Re:
Invasive Species |
Gary
Beluzo |
| Nov
04, 2003 17:52 PST |
Jared,
The agricultural revolution of 12,000 years BP resulted in a
dichotomy
between US and THEM… settlement and WILDERness,
domesticated/cultivated
species and WILD undesirable species….those organisms that
were cultivated
or domesticated were artificially selected for by humans
according to
utilitarian design and those that were wild and under natural
selection
pressure were seen without intrinsic value and hunted down or
eradicated.
Humans see natural systems as “wild”, chaotic, and “red in
tooth and
claw”…in reality it is these natural systems that are fine
tuned to the
environment in which they are found not the greatly simplified
monocultures
that humans manage like cornfields and tree plantations that are
genetically
engineered…through trial and error the natural species have
become
adapted..they are the survivors and “fit”. Until we realize
that natural
systems belong and that managed systems are inferior versions we
will
continue to degrade forests…
Gary
|
| Re:
Invasive Species |
Don
Bertolette |
| Nov
04, 2003 17:53 PST |
Colby/Randy-
It's easy to get into statistical claims and run numbers against
numbers, but easily as critical in the equation are qualitative
measures...there are a handful of exotics in the west that are
absolutely taking over grasslands/understory
ecosystems...extensive AND intensive impacts.
Jobs? None of our "weed queens" know of many jobs, and
the next level is volunteers, god bless their souls!
-Don
|
| Re:
Invasive Species |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Nov
04, 2003 19:07 PST |
Re:
Highgrading 11/4/2003 3:12 PM E greentr-@aol.com
...over 70,000 nonnative species (many invasive) have been
brought into this
country since it's birth, you realize that logging is not the
only issue (if
even the most relevant)...
Re: Highgrading 11/4/2003 4:16 PM E col-@toad.net
...To be relevant, one must assume it refers to species that
have become
established in this country...the number of imported pests,
diseases and
competitors significantly affecting our native vascular plants
is actually quite
small...numbers are often used selectively to advance
fine-sounding agendas...I
think 70,000 begs for context...
assume ~ to take as granted though not proved
established ~ to become a landscape fixture
invasive ~ fast-growth, high-reproduction & few natural
enemies allow
invasion of new habitat
non-native ~ introduced species, not naturally-occurring
(whether across the
mountain or the ocean)
relevant ~ bearing upon the matter at hand
refer ~ to assign to a certain source, cause or relationship
species ~ group of similarly-reproducing organisms
Colby,
Not that you would insinuate (subtly suggest) that yours truly
would use a
number to selectively advance a fine-sounding agenda, but with
the subject title
"highgrading", I had hoped to draw one of our esteemed
colleagues into our
dialogue. With such an informed group, I am not afforded the
luxury of
"assuming" anything. I think it important that we
qualify of terms. After being
grilled by opposing counsel in my first deposition, I spent the
next few weeks
coming up with a 1,500 word glossary of terms (some attorneys
require additional
education). "Non-native species brought into the
country" is a far cry from
"species that have become established in this
country", and an even greater
stretch to say, "significantly affecting our native vasular
plants." Non-native
or exotic simply means not idigenous or not naturally occurring,
whether
across the mountain or the ocean. While invasives not only have
become established
in their new habitat, but because of fast growth, high
reproduction and
little or no natural enemies, threaten the very existence of
native species
(whether the "top of the food chain" deems them
desirable or no).
"Over 70,000 non-natives species brought into this
country" was the general
consensus for a Terrestrial Plant Invasion Conference I
attended. Among the
council were Drs. Keith Douce, David Moorhead, Odell, White,
Miller, Eplee,
Williamson, Buck, Patrick and the current National Invasive
Species Council Chair.
While many arborists and foresters are prone to limit invasives
to vascular
plants, this arborist is not so prone. Case in point; when's the
last time
you've seen a mature American chestnut, American elm or
butternut? Just 3
non-native invasive pests have forever changed the Eastern
landscape. Now our
hemlock and ash are so threatened. Even if is highgrading was
successfully banned
across the Land, and the very best forestry practices enforced,
let a few
non-native invasive pests into our ports, and all can easily be
rendered moot. I
have only mentioned 5 threathened species.
By 1950, the number of just "plant" introductions into
the United States was
estimated to be as least "180,000" (Klose 1950). In
1975, it was estimated
that at least 1,800 introduced plant species had escaped into
the wild (Ripley
1975), with a large proportion establishing free-living
populations (Austin
1978). The U.S. Congressional Office Technology Assessment
claims there are at
least 4,500 species of foreign plants and animals that have
established
free-living propulations in the U.S. since the beginning of
European colonization.
Of that total, at least 675 species cause severe harm. 79
Species have caused
documented losses of almost $100 billion from 1906 to 1991
(Office of
Technology Assessment 1993). According to APHIS, invasive plants
are estimated to
cover 100 million acres of land in the U.S., and are spreading
up to 4,600 acres
everyday (USDAFS 1998). Cornell University estimates that
invasive species
are presently costing Americans "$137 billion" every
year (Pimentel 2,000).
Whether we should venture down the path of "reality"
or remain uninformed,
invasive species affect all of our lives, tranforming our
ecosystems, damaging
our crops, destroying our wetlands, altering natural habitats
and threatening
many native species. With world globalization, this silent and
costly invasion
is growing at an "unprecedented rate". To be sure,
most of our food crop and
animals are non-native species and their benefit goes without
saying.
But livestock and other organisms which are actively managed are
not
considered "invasive".
For example, fire ants and gypsy moths, cause harm on many
fronts. While
most have accepted into the landscape as a permanent fixture the
honey bee, the
Africanized killer bee represents a real threat. Zebra mussels
have invaded
the Great Lakes, clogging water intake systems. Not to mention
the sea lamprey,
which "collapsed" the great Great Lakes lake trout and
whitefish nursery
(Wilkinson). The formosan termite, which can and does "eat
it's way through
concrete" to get to food, causes $300 million in damage
annually to New Orleans
alone (Bordes 2000). Then there's the Asian longhorned beetle
which literally
"eats trees to death". What about
"deliberate" introduction like "kudzu" that
now covers much of the South, or purple loosestrife, that
destroys waterfowl
habitats, choking out all native plants and animals. Then
there's continuous
reintroduction of citrus canker threatening citrus crops.
Florida alone has
spent $200 million to once again eradicate this foreign invader.
With more than 230 non-native species that have become
established, San
Francisco Bay Estuary may be the most invaded estuary in the
entire world (Cohen
and Carlton 1998). In some areas, it is difficult to find a
"native" organism!
The pace of invasion is rapidly accelerating. About half of
non-native
species have arrived in the last 35 years. From 1961 to 1995,
the rate was a new
species every 14 weeks (Cohen and Carlton 1998). Nine months
after the
introduction of a foreign "clam", it became the most
abundant like-species in the
Bay, reaching densities of near "50,000 clams" per
square meter (Peterson 1996).
I could go on...I'll spare you the dribble. But, whether you're
talking
about illegal aliens or non-native invasives, this country has
not seen the likes
of or so been threatened, by such an invasion. As I said at the
outset, "When
you add man to the mix, management is not optional, unless you
can live with
the consequences. Yes...high-grading is reducing our once great
forests to
puny facsimiles of their former grandeur. And NAFTA is farming
out many
manufacturing jobs to much of the world. But if we continue to
open our borders to
any and all, we might as well collect all our proverbial marbles
and head the
hell home!
My 1 1/2 cents worth,
Randy |
| Re:
(useful links) |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Nov
04, 2003 19:37 PST |
| Re:
Invasive Species |
Colby
Rucker |
| Nov
04, 2003 21:12 PST |
Randy,
Thanks for providing some background on the 70,000 figure. Now,
as I understand it, somewhere between 70,000 and 180,000 foreign
plant species have been transported into this country, but only
1800 actually escaped by 1975. Of 4500 foreign plants and
animals which became established, 675 have caused severe damage.
The number of offending plants is unknown, but perhaps two or
three hundred. Of those, a much smaller number actually threaten
our forests.
It was obvious there aren't 70,000 plants threatening our
forests, and I'm sure you didn't intend to say that, but I
couldn't decipher your meaning. Such a number gets the attention
of one's audience, but is, of course, misleading when referring
to forest issues.
I had no information on the actual numbers, so I appreciate your
clarification.
Colby
|
| Re:
Invasive Species |
Greentr-@aol.com |
| Nov
04, 2003 21:38 PST |
In
a message dated 11/4/2003 10:09:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Greentr-@aol.com
writes:
...79 Species have caused documented losses of almost $100
billion from 1906
to 1991 (Office of Technology Assessment 1993)...
Colby,
We can bring that number further down to "79" invasive
species...but look at
the amount of damage 'so few' cause!
One other thing; none of these books mention "birds".
Are not several
species non-native and quite destructive? What's the story on
starlings?
Randy |
| Invasives |
Thomas
Diggins |
| Nov
05, 2003 10:20 PST |
The numbers involved in the non-indigenous debate are, indeed,
quite
shocking. I wouldn't at all doubt the veracity of 70,000 species
introductions. Randy also points out, quite correctly, that the
impact
of invaders is highly variable. Very fortunately for us, a
relatively
small percentage of invasions turn out to be truly harmful. In
the Great
Lakes it is about a dozen out of >140 invading species. The
majority go
mostly unnoticed. This is, of course, not an argument to ignore
the
problem. We don't need to look far to see how just a few
disastrous
invasions can irreparably harm an ecosystem, even a whole
continent.
Charles Elton (in his seminal work on Species Invasions from
1958) views
human-facilitated species invasions as making the biological
world "not
more complex, but simpler - and poorer".
On a side note, species invasions often have contributed jointly
with
poor management to ruin ecologically and economically valuable
resources. Case-in-point: the sea lamprey and the Great Lakes
fisheries.
The sea lamprey (prior to TFM applications to natal streams)
preyed
heavily on stocks of lake trout and whitefish, but these species
had
already been over-fished to the point of near total collapse by
c. 1950.
The sea lamprey was more of a "last straw", and an
impediment to
recovery, than an uderlying cause of collapse. Don could
probably
comment on the interplay of bad management and species invasions
with
regards to western forests.
Tom |
| Invasive
Species |
Fores-@aol.com |
| Nov
06, 2003 08:00 PST |
ENTS
I have far too much to say on the subject of invasives
and have read
the past posts with great interest.......maybe I can gather my
thoughts on
invasives at some point but the subject has me so concerned and
worried that I
simply have not figured out how to deal with it. In WV we have a
serious
invasion of Tree of Heaven and royal Pawlonia underway as well
as scattered patches
of kudzu. Right now, our hardwood forests are under assault by
one of the
most serious vegetative invasions ever experienced, Japanese
stilt grass. It
was not discovered in WV until 1990, by 1995 is was in all 55
counties of the
state. It grows into all disturbed land including, game trails,
hiking trails,
highways, power lines, logging roads and stream banks. On land
in Crummies
Creek that was clearcut following the February 2003 ice storm
the stilt grass
grew over 6' tall this year covering all of the tops of
harvested trees and
shaded out (and already killed) the regeneration. Stilt grass
has a thatch that
takes at least three years to decompose (compared to most tree
leaves that are
gone in 18 months) and the dried thatch burns like
gasoline.......not
something you want in the understory or a quality hardwood
forest.
Russ Richardson |
|