eGarden © 2004 Ed Mues

Native Plants vs. Exotics: "Fraught with Controversy"

On July 14th of this year, I wrote about "killer plants", suggested some are not welcome here because of their growth habits, and even referred to some as foreign invaders. Be that as it may, I went further on August 11th, with suggestions on how to rid your property of unwanted weeds, native or foreign. Today, I'm revisiting the issue, to explain the "fraught with controversy" words with which I ended my column. The issue is loaded to the hilt with heated argument. The following is some of what I've found.

In 1984, the notion of invasive, non-native plant species was a minor concern to a group of citizen non-scientists. It grew quickly to become embraced by a band of conservationists who had done no critical research. Not long after, many non-native plants were falsely classified as foreign invaders, and measures to exterminate them were quickly put into place. The frenzy was fed by advocates manning chain saws, pruning shears, bulldozers, and, you guessed it, herbicides.

Not unlike some of the behind the scenes scenarios in today's politics, greed played an important role. Huge sums of money could be made in this new quest for botanical purity. Sounds familiar, no? In any event, by 1994, Monsanto, then a primary manufacturer of herbicides, was a sponsor of the California Exotic Plant Council's meeting. On its board of directors sat a Monsanto employee, herbicides were promoted and talks of circumventing current environmental laws were taking place.

Today, 42 states have noxious weed lists, exotic pest plant councils, and are supported by the USDA, APHIS, US Fish and Wildlife Svce., USDA Forest Svce., US National Park Svce., the Nature Conservancy, and the support continues to grow. Visit the Federal Noxious Weedlist. Remember the 1940s and one maniac's call for racial purity? It is the growing popularity of this notion that if a plant is not a native, it is an aggressive exotic that will invade and destroy local ecosystems, and that is a concern. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Natives evolved in place over geologic time in response to climatic changes. They adapted to local conditions according to the dictates of site conditions. soil types, and land formations.

It might be argued that exotics introduced by man directly or indirectly, intentionally or accidentally, anywhere around the world have contributed to the expansion of local and global diversity. It would be difficult to distinguish man's role from the movement of species that has been going on since the beginning of life by natural means. Land bridges between continents have appeared and disappeared. Ice ages have advanced and declined. The biotic composition of lands and aquatic bodies around the world have enlisted the service of ocean currents, wind, hurricanes, tornadoes and climate shifts. So, what clear distinction can be made between native and exotic?

Yes, Asiatic bittersweet and porcelainberry are both aesthetically appealing and desirable to behold. Yes, both can be dangerous as they weaken and kill trees and pose numerous threats to homes, highways and motorists. Yet I, and, I suspect, you too, have seen stands of Japanese Knotweed and Purple Loosestrife showing no tendency to be invasive or take over a landscape. That's because they are planted in an environment where their growth can be watched and managed, as opposed to a low wet area where management is difficult or impossible.

So, each non-native must be viewed in its ecological context. Sweeping judgments need to be avoided, just as biological cautions must not be ignored, but must, instead, be assessed on a case by case basis. No plant, native or exotic, is all good or all bad.

Intact ecosystems have a strong resistance to colonization and takeovers from outside plant species. Conversely, heavily disturbed habitats are ripe for such revegetation by other species. In fact, such lands can serve as nurseries that assist a native ecosystem's recovery. New species create niches for more species, increasing the potential for bio-diversity.

Proponents of "native only" landscapes maintain such landscapes sustain native wildlife -- butterflies, moths, beneficial insects, birds, reptiles, mammals and other fauna -- with food, nesting habitats and seasonal cover. They believe it is closest to a land ethic that celebrates out natural heritage, in the way it was first expressed in the philosophy of naturalist, Aldo Leopold. There is no doubting that many of our native alternatives to foreign counterparts offer superior performance, color, fragrance, fruit and cover. Our sugar maple is vastly superior to the faster growing Norway maple which tends to shade out almost everything else native.

The crux of the problem is this. I stated above that no plant is all good or all bad. The recent controversy stems from a widespread belief that all natives are good, and all exotics are bad. And, funding seems to follow this thinking. With 42 states on board with this kind of thinking, with the number of plants being banned growing every week, often with little or no thorough scientific justification, the question one might ask is, "Hasn't history shown us that those who ban might be extremists?" Or, perhaps phrased in another way, "Might not this be xenophobia in yet another guise?"

Widespread claims of invasions by alien plants are often unfounded and minute in land area, when contrasted to modern corporate agriculture's millions of acres of GM monoculture crops found around the world. There is no bio-diversity in the corporate crop deserts. And many of these corporate entities are the very manufacturers of the herbicides used to exterminate the alien invaders. There is strong evidence that some efforts to eliminate non-natives has also pushed natives to near extinction.

Did you know about the National Invasive Species Council? Natural Areas News, Vol. 3, No. 4, Autumn 1999 stated "It is noteworthy that at the Invasive Species Council's inaugural meeting in Washington, Interior Secretary Babbitt advocated the use of a white list, wherein exotic species are presumed guilty until proven innocent." In their Management Plan they say they intend to prohibit "Introduction of non-native propagative plants or seeds for any purpose (e.g., horticulture or botanical gardens) within the continental United States."

White list has been modified to "clean list" and "dirty list". Is our government is going to tell us what we can and cannot put in our gardens? Anything not approved may be exterminated. You can guess major herbicide manufacturers are backing this one. Soon, only major corporations will have the money and wherewithal to fund the extensive safety testing for new plants before they can be approved for possession and propagation.

David Theodoropoulos, in his landmark "Invasion Biology: Critique of a Psudoscience", calls into question the entire anti-exotics movement, our current definitions of native range, diversity, the psychology of fear, and even goes so far to point out that purple loosestrife offers home to a few more native insects and birds than other surrounding native plants, and flourishes in and cleans polluted waters, suggesting another explanation for it success.

Anyone seeking more information about this hot issue, please visit www.geocities.com/nowhitelist, or read David's book which suggests that a new and different genocide may be taking place.

"All living things have the right to engage in the struggle for existence." L. H. Bailey

From The Garden of Ed. Submitted for publication in The Towne Crier on October 6, 2004

Page Up