And of course, this is problematic with regard to native species like Eastern Red Cedar and Sugar Maple that have legitimate ecological roles in systems that operate somewhat naturally. Red Cedar is native (has occurred in the area of concern for hundreds of years). Prior to fire suppression and modern grazing, it typically occurred (in the southern plains) on steep or rocky terrain where fire did not reach. In those settings, it provided cover and loafing habitat for birds and small mammals. But with fire suppression and modern grazing, it escaped that terrain, and moved out onto the prairies. Now many tens of thousands of acres support only this plant. No other plant can grow in the cedar thickets, and it produces little that is useful to most birds and small mammals.
But how does one designate a native as legally noxious? In many states, farms are required by law to eradicate legally designated noxious species. David McNeely ---- L Quinn <lqu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm sure many of you are already aware of this, but "noxious" is a legal term > (in the US anyway) that refers to taxa that have been deemed problematic by > state and federal agencies, usually in the context of agricultural or other > modified habitats. It turns out that state and federal regulators are pretty > bad at designating as noxious those taxa that affect natural areas (the taxa > that we ecologist care more about!). > If you care to read a recent analysis on the subject, please check out the > following link:http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/bio.2013.63.2.8 > Best, > Lauren QuinnResearch AssociateEnergy Biosciences InstituteUniversity of > IllinoisUrbana, IL > 61801708-753-3709ldquinn@illinois.eduhttp://laurendquinn.weebly.com/ > > > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:49:25 +0000 > > From: steve.yo...@unl.edu > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Merits of invasion science > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > > > And don't forget that eastern redcedar is also propagated and distributed > > by nurseries to agencies and individuals for windbreaks and the like. Even > > if fire and bison were allowed to run over the plains again, they might > > still not be enough to overcome this anthropogenic dispersal mechanism. > > > > Steve > > > > > > ……………………………………. > > Stephen L. Young, PhD > > Weed Ecologist > > University of Nebraska-Lincoln > > http://ipcourse.unl.edu/iwep > > Twitter: @NAIPSC > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely > > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:34 PM > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Merits of invasion science > > > > The species in question are a part of environmental degradation. For > > example, Eastern Red Cedar (_Juniperus virginianus_) has become noxious in > > the Southern Great Plains due to fire suppression and grazing. We know > > what caused it to become so. We don't, evidently, know how to get the > > prairie back from it and other woody species over the broad range where > > they have become dominant, given the patterns of ownership and occupation > > that now exist. If we could allow wildfire at any season to run over the > > plains, and if we could bring back bison in the numbers that once existed, > > that likely would work. But there are people in the way. Believe me, no > > one who has to contend with the emergence of "cedar breaks" over the > > landscape in recent decades is at all bothered by the terms "noxious," and > > "weedy," especially when a grass covered plain is the alternative. > > > > David McNeely > > > > ---- Madhusudan Katti <mka...@mail.fresnostate.edu> wrote: > > > Really? You want us to go from “invasive” which is already contentious > > > because it attaches some anthropocentric value to an ecological process, > > > to even more strongly negative value-laden terms like “noxious” and > > > “weed”? What room is there then, on a planet dominated by humans (and our > > > values), for any range expansions or distributional changes by any > > > species in response to, say, climate change? > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Dr. Madhusudan Katti > > > Associate Professor, > > > Department of Biology, M/S SB73 > > > California State University, Fresno > > > 2555 E San Ramon AVe > > > Fresno, CA 93740 > > > > > > http://about.me/mkatti > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 12:09 PM, David L. McNeely <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > A better term than "native invasive" to apply to species that become > > > > pests within their native geographic range (Eastern Red Cedar is an > > > > excellent example in the southern plains and prairies) is "noxious." > > > > Or, we might simply call them pests. "Invasive" makes no sense for > > > > such species. From where have they invaded? Hence, your sugar maple > > > > example would be a noxious weed species. The bull frog is a true > > > > invasive in that it did not occur in the western part of North America > > > > prior to introduction. > > > > > > > > David McNeely > > > > > > > > ---- malcolm McCallum <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> wrote: > > > >> Cattle Egrets were supposed to be a natural dispersal via > > > >> anemochore as I recall, a one time event wasn't it? > > > >> > > > >> Invasive species need not be exotic species, at least from a > > > >> continental perspective. > > > >> For example, sugar maple is native to most forests in Illinois, but > > > >> with changes in fire regimes it becomes invasive crowding out the > > > >> oak-hickory. Sweetgum does a similar thing in southern wet > > > >> forests, and there are a pile of other examples. these are NATIVE > > > >> INVASIVES. > > > >> Bullfrogs fall in between from a continental pespective. they are > > > >> native to and widespread in North America, but they have been > > > >> introduced into habitats in the west where they do not normally > > > >> occur creating havoc. Technically, these are also exotic invasives > > > >> at the regional or local level, but native invasives from a > > > >> continental perspective. > > > >> Lonicera japanicus is an exotic invasive in streams of North > > > >> America, although some closely related Lonicera are NONINVASIVE > > > >> EXOTICS, and some simply cannot even become established!! > > > >> Likewise, asiatic mussels, zebra mussels, and an assortment of > > > >> other species are EXOTIC INVASIVES. > > > >> > > > >> I don't know why we do it, but often we lump issues about exotics > > > >> and those about invasives together under the same title. It really > > > >> is not appropriate because the two overlap, but are not the same > > > >> things. > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Meg Ballard <mball...@udel.edu> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> The difference is the scale of invasion, both temporal and spatial. > > > >>> > > > >>> There is a difference in moving from one pond to an adjacent one, > > > >>> where your natural enemies and competitors are likely to exist, vs > > > >>> intercontinental or oceanic movements that occur in short time > > > >>> scales rather than evolutionary time scales. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:45 AM, malcolm McCallum < > > > >>> malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> I mentioned this correspondence to a friend who works a lot in > > > >>>> this field. This is what he/she said (i'm leaving off the name > > > >>>> since he/she is not available to ask permission to expose it right > > > >>>> now!): > > > >>>> > > > >>>> "What I absolutely can't stand is the term "invasion biology". > > > >>>> It's colonization theory pure and simple. Anything can invade. > > > >>>> Painted Turtles or Green Frogs to a new farm pond. Besides being > > > >>>> misused, I think that the term prejudices the research approach. > > > >>>> As for the debate, the best arguments against studying exotic > > > >>>> species and their impacts are embarrassing." > > > >>>> > > > >>>> What has caused us to move from using "colonization theory" and > > > >>>> to the new term "invasion biology?" Are they really different? > > > >>>> I don't see a difference either. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:58 AM, lisa jones <lajone...@hotmail.com> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> A quick and interesting editorial piece from Richardson & > > > >>>>> Ricciardi > > > >>>> "Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field guide" in > > > >>>> Diversity and Distributions (2013, 19: 1461-1467). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> A link to the article can be found here on the Canadian Aquatic > > > >>>>> Invasive > > > >>>> Species Network (CAISN) website (listed near the bottom of the page): > > > >>>>> http://www.caisn.ca/en/publications > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I am sure there will be a response from those who see no value > > > >>>>> in > > > >>>> invasion science but as one reviewer pointed out "when invasions > > > >>>> are driven by us (ballast waters, trade, aquaculture, you > > > >>>>> name it) and overcome wide ecological barriers... well, I would > > > >>>>> be very careful in saying that there is no problem." > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Lisa > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> Malcolm L. McCallum > > > >>>> Department of Environmental Studies University of Illinois at > > > >>>> Springfield > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Managing Editor, > > > >>>> Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of > > > >>>> drive" - Allan Nation > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > > > >>>> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > > > >>>> and pollution. > > > >>>> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution > > > >>>> reduction > > > >>>> MAY help restore populations. > > > >>>> 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work > > > >>>> Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o > > > >>>> morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o > > > >>>> principle > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > > > >>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and > > > >>>> may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > > > >>>> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is > > > >>>> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > > > >>>> contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the > > > >>>> original message. > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Malcolm L. McCallum > > > >> Department of Environmental Studies University of Illinois at > > > >> Springfield > > > >> > > > >> Managing Editor, > > > >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" > > > >> - Allan Nation > > > >> > > > >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > > > >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > > > >> and pollution. > > > >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > > > >> MAY help restore populations. > > > >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > > >> > > > >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work > > > >> Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o > > > >> morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o > > > >> principle > > > >> > > > >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > > > >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and > > > >> may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > > > >> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. > > > >> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by > > > >> reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > David McNeely > > > > -- > > David McNeely > -- David McNeely
