Re: Psuedacorus banned

 

Invasive species is a topic in which I have a great deal of interest. My master thesis was on competition between plants and my Doctoral research was on analyzing the dynamics of species on a Tallgrass Prairie community. Unfortunately I see government reacting to public opinion and not to sound ecological research. Let use the prairie as an example. Prairies in Missouri would not exist but for frequent prairie fires a formerly natural phenomenon. Eastern Red Cedar is an invasive species, not an alien invasive but a native invasive. Before man?s intervention it was a fairly rare plant confined to upland glades. Now in less then 200 years it is everywhere. Tallgrass prairies were relatively unexposed to the Cedars when they were rare, but now they quickly invade and destroy native prairie. Prairies themselves will self destruct unless they are frequently burned. Mowing can act very much the same as fire especially if the grass is harvested. Well-meaning people wishing to protect wild habitats often get distressed if the see fires and usually want to put them out. Trying to protect the environment by banning fire or banning mowing actually has destroyed a good deal of Prairie.

Hopefully a couple of thoughts might be gained from my little parable. First just because a plant is native to this country does not mean it is part of the local eco-system. I don?t believe Iris versicolor is native to Ohio and if not it is as much an alien as pseudacorus. Using the native argument there should be only two Irises that should be allowed to be grown in Ohio.           

Second environmental factors, in the case I mentioned fire and mowing, but in a native bog it might also be polluted groundwater, can effect dramatically which species survive and prosper. Today I do not believe there are any truly wild areas which are unaffected by man?s unintentional or intentional management. It we want to see truly ?Natural? Areas then they must be managed. Banning plants from gardens simply diminishes the interest that people have in maintaining wild areas. Just because a non-native plant is found in a ?wild? area does not mean that it invaded on its own, often someone planted it there. Perhaps we need alien free zones around certain wild areas. But today?s wild areas often look nothing like the wild areas of a hundred years ago. Just look at all the chestnut trees that dominate the eastern deciduous forest. If we really wish to preserve the environment of a hundred years ago, maybe we should try to understand what it really looked like, and not base our judgements on the dominant invasive natives that have replaced the ancient climaxes. Of course if we ban all the plants that grow easily than there will be a lot fewer gardeners who might help preserve the wild.

 


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

Yahoo! Groups Links
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index