Ecolog: I received the following reply from a subscriber, which made me want to find a picture of the highway sign that says "END LANDSCAPING." I have edited it to ensure privacy:
"Another motivation for the importation of exotic plant species is the need for plants that are more climate-appropriate. Most people who move to [a western USA desert city] come from more mesic areas and want a lush appearance to the landscape of buildings where they live, work and play. The California transplants love their Agapanthus so we are testing puyas from South America in our test garden. The puyas seem to need about half the water." I wonder if there are other ecologists or other scientists out there who think that plants that "seem to need about half the water" have been adequately "tested." I also wonder how many ecolog subscribers think that the importation of "climate-appropriate" plants is a good idea, and why. Not that puyas are likely to run amok like Saraha mustard, or displace creosote bush, but when such "tested" species hit the market on one habitat where they don't run amok, what's to stop the nursery industry or aunt Myrtle from moving them to habitat in which they can. "Tree of Heaven," f' God's sake, was about all that would grow in Brooklyn, but the stinkin' thing ended up choking up streamcourses in California and elsewhere (anywhere?) in the western USA. Can anyone put their finger on other aspects of this loaded statement and my reaction to it? WT
