>From a land-manager's perspective regarding the post oaks of the Texas region, >most likely one would say that post-oaks havenaturalizedas many introduced >species do. Whether the species was introduced by animal or weather phenomena >is a debate not worth having. But for fun I thought I would add the POV of a >stewardship technician: that if it isn't running amok, then I have more >aggressive plant species to try to corral. Cordially yours, Tacy Fletcher (uses pseudonym "Cayt Fletch" on facebook) also tflet...@pnc.edu Fletch
>________________________________ > From: Martin Meiss <mme...@gmail.com> >To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:39 AM >Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" > > Even if we agree as to what "native" means, phrases such as "native to >Texas" are problematic, and not just because, as Matt Chew points out, >human political constructs vary with time. If a tree is native to one >little corner of Texas, then the statement "native to Texas" applies, but >what does it mean? It might be politically significant, for instance for >state laws governing exploitation of the species, but biologically not very >useful. It seems to me that for biological purposes, the concept of >"native" should be tied to some biologically oriented construct, such as >Holdridge's life zones. > > Of course, a person out for a walk my come upon a species and wonder >if it is found in the area because of human intervention. Phrasing the >question as "Is this species native to this area?" would probably be >understood, but perhaps it would be better to ask in terms of human >intervention, i.e., "Is this species introduced?" Sometimes it is easier >to account for what humans do than for what nature does. > >Martin M. Meiss > > >2012/3/13 Matt Chew <anek...@gmail.com> > >> The general definition of 'native' is 'not introduced'. It is a historical >> criterion, not an ecological one, and it rests entirely on absence of >> evidence for introduction. That definition has not changed at all since it >> was first fully codified in England in 1847. >> >> David McNeely's claim that "Post oak has been in Texas probably for much of >> its existence as a species" suggests that Texas has been Texas for a very >> long time indeed. But Texas, as a place identified by various sets of >> boundaries, is itself "post European" by the standard David provided. By >> 1847 Texas was already flying the fifth of its six European-derived flags, >> during the Mexican-American War. And of course, post oak certainly isn't >> endemic to any version of Texas, no matter how expansively imagined; most >> post oaks have not been in Texas in any way. >> >> The tree hasn't even been called 'post oak' for "much of its existence as a >> species". Whether it was a species at all before being described and named >> _Quercus_stellata_ by Friederich Adam Julius von Wangenheim late in the >> 18th century is arguable, but it is certain that _Quercus_stellata_ >> translates more literally to "star oak" than "post oak". Very Texan. >> >> While this is all good semantic fun, it also draws attention serious >> conceptual weaknesses in our vague ideas and ideals of place-based >> belonging. For more, see >> >> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew/Papers/450641/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Biotic_Nativeness_A_Historical_Perspective >> a.k.a. chapter 4 of Richardson's "Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The >> Legacy of Charles Elton." >> >> Matthew K Chew >> Assistant Research Professor >> Arizona State University School of Life Sciences >> >> ASU Center for Biology & Society >> PO Box 873301 >> Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA >> Tel 480.965.8422 >> Fax 480.965.8330 >> mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com >> http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php >> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew >> > > >
