I think you need to read Nature's Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation That Starts in Your Yard by Doug Tallamy to truly understand the importance of native plants and the ecolgical damage from human-introduced species.
We're familiar with Doug Tallamy and will be addressing his claims in our book. Once you go deeper than his book and delve into the peer-reviewed literature at large on the subject, you find a lack of consensus on the subject. Tallamy has been criticized for overstating his case and misrepresenting his data.
Sorry, but I live it and see it every day. Call that anecdotal if you like, but it lines up with Tallamy's work. The prolific spread of species such as Callery Pear, Multiflora Rose, and Asian Honeysuckle here in Central Ohio has most certainly decreased the population of native species - plant and animal, without providing the nutritional and brooding benefits of those natives to the larger ecological community. Certainly those introduced species do contribute to the ecological systems but not nearly in the same way as those species they've replaced. Evolutionary biology as well as simple observation. There are such valid reasons for trying to eliminate the spread of non-natives when they don't provide the benefits of natives and we've got so very little non-human space left for the benefit of our biodiversity and not the time to allow for new evolutionary adaptations.
Respectfully, we're on our sixth year of research for this book. One thing that initially surprised us was the wide gap between the *science* of invasion biology and the popular *narrative* about introduced plants. Biologist Mark Davis, author of the exhaustive book, "Invasion Biology," which cites over 2200 papers and books, sums up the current state of the science of invasion biology like this:
"Invasion biology is best characterized right now by its diverse perspectives, [and] writers should be careful not to oversimplify the invasion process and foster a false sense of clarity on issues currently distinguished more by debate and controversy than consensus."
This is why the working title of our book is "A critique of the 'invasive plant' narrative" with an emphasis on "narrative." Because there is a rather black-and-white story being told that doesn't reflect the many shades of grey of the science.
This comment box is insufficient for responding to each of the points you raise, all of which require some unpacking, and about which we would want to provide citations. So when we have a completed draft (hopefully this spring), we will happily send you an electronic copy. Also, the subject will definitely be featured on this SubStack again. Thanks for reading.
Additionally, western society has some deeply-held cultural beliefs and prejudices that distort how we view nature and ecological interactions. We believe that asking the question "WHY do we believe this narrative?" will help us find the most respectful way forward. We will have an entire section of the book exploring these.
I'm sure there are many shades of gray that I don't know about and I obviously lack the years of research that you've done. I mean no disrespect. I also have to honor what I personally experience and observe. Look forward to reading the forthcoming work.
No disrespect taken. And yes, personal experience and observations have validity, and we are including some of our own in the book. As we have researched the subject, some of our interpretations of our own previous experiences and observations have changed, which can be challenging in some moments.
I want to stress, too, that our primary motivation for writing this book is a deep love and concern for plants and their habitats. (Hence our opposition to lithium mining in the Great Basin, which has also been a featured topic on this substack.) We were both initially brought to the "invasive" plant issue (separately, before we knew each other) by our opposition to the use of pesticides, which virtually always harm "non-target" species, including native plants and animals, and often have lasting detrimental effects where they are used. (We have both been organic farmers too.)
We believe that humans have a responsibility to address the destruction caused by our civilizations, and such efforts will include making calls about what plant life we are going to encourage or discourage in different places. Making choices like that is what humans have done for many millennia, well before agriculture. For example, in pre-Columbian California, indigenous people tended Oak groves with fire in part to suppress the growth of conifers. They were choosing to encourage one set of plants over another set. So it's arguably who we are as a species to make such choices.
We don't believe that the current "invasive plant" _narrative_ as it stands is a good guide for making choices about plants because a) it lacks scientific support and b) it reflects cultural values that are part of the problem in the first place. You can decide if we make a good case or not!
This was a wonderful piece, thanks. I really enjoyed the way that you brought up our raping of the land for monocultures as an example of ‘invasive species’. Don’t get me started on golf courses - I hadn’t thought about them as being a giant example of ‘invasive species’. I think back to my master gardener courses and the feeble attempts to define plants as invasive while most of these also have medicinal value, etc.
I look forward to release of your book. You have a confirmed sale here ☺️
Hey Tara, thanks so much! Check your email -- As a "thank you" for subscribing, I sent you a link to download a free copy of my 2018 book, "The Failures of Farming & the Necessity of Wildtending" which I think you'll enjoy.
Great stuff, keep it coming. The idiotic "war on invasive species" is so out of control and based on non-science, it's depressing. Even many well-meaning, self-described "environmentalists" have gulped down the Invasives Kool-Aid. As one fellow activist pal put it so succinctly, "We just want them [the "nativists"] to stop killing things." Indeed. In our war on nature, we will inevitably find ourselves on the losing side. Hence my creating more resources on this critical topic: https://treespiritproject.com/invasionbiology/
I think you need to read Nature's Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation That Starts in Your Yard by Doug Tallamy to truly understand the importance of native plants and the ecolgical damage from human-introduced species.
We're familiar with Doug Tallamy and will be addressing his claims in our book. Once you go deeper than his book and delve into the peer-reviewed literature at large on the subject, you find a lack of consensus on the subject. Tallamy has been criticized for overstating his case and misrepresenting his data.
Sorry, but I live it and see it every day. Call that anecdotal if you like, but it lines up with Tallamy's work. The prolific spread of species such as Callery Pear, Multiflora Rose, and Asian Honeysuckle here in Central Ohio has most certainly decreased the population of native species - plant and animal, without providing the nutritional and brooding benefits of those natives to the larger ecological community. Certainly those introduced species do contribute to the ecological systems but not nearly in the same way as those species they've replaced. Evolutionary biology as well as simple observation. There are such valid reasons for trying to eliminate the spread of non-natives when they don't provide the benefits of natives and we've got so very little non-human space left for the benefit of our biodiversity and not the time to allow for new evolutionary adaptations.
Respectfully, we're on our sixth year of research for this book. One thing that initially surprised us was the wide gap between the *science* of invasion biology and the popular *narrative* about introduced plants. Biologist Mark Davis, author of the exhaustive book, "Invasion Biology," which cites over 2200 papers and books, sums up the current state of the science of invasion biology like this:
"Invasion biology is best characterized right now by its diverse perspectives, [and] writers should be careful not to oversimplify the invasion process and foster a false sense of clarity on issues currently distinguished more by debate and controversy than consensus."
This is why the working title of our book is "A critique of the 'invasive plant' narrative" with an emphasis on "narrative." Because there is a rather black-and-white story being told that doesn't reflect the many shades of grey of the science.
This comment box is insufficient for responding to each of the points you raise, all of which require some unpacking, and about which we would want to provide citations. So when we have a completed draft (hopefully this spring), we will happily send you an electronic copy. Also, the subject will definitely be featured on this SubStack again. Thanks for reading.
Additionally, western society has some deeply-held cultural beliefs and prejudices that distort how we view nature and ecological interactions. We believe that asking the question "WHY do we believe this narrative?" will help us find the most respectful way forward. We will have an entire section of the book exploring these.
I'm sure there are many shades of gray that I don't know about and I obviously lack the years of research that you've done. I mean no disrespect. I also have to honor what I personally experience and observe. Look forward to reading the forthcoming work.
No disrespect taken. And yes, personal experience and observations have validity, and we are including some of our own in the book. As we have researched the subject, some of our interpretations of our own previous experiences and observations have changed, which can be challenging in some moments.
I want to stress, too, that our primary motivation for writing this book is a deep love and concern for plants and their habitats. (Hence our opposition to lithium mining in the Great Basin, which has also been a featured topic on this substack.) We were both initially brought to the "invasive" plant issue (separately, before we knew each other) by our opposition to the use of pesticides, which virtually always harm "non-target" species, including native plants and animals, and often have lasting detrimental effects where they are used. (We have both been organic farmers too.)
We believe that humans have a responsibility to address the destruction caused by our civilizations, and such efforts will include making calls about what plant life we are going to encourage or discourage in different places. Making choices like that is what humans have done for many millennia, well before agriculture. For example, in pre-Columbian California, indigenous people tended Oak groves with fire in part to suppress the growth of conifers. They were choosing to encourage one set of plants over another set. So it's arguably who we are as a species to make such choices.
We don't believe that the current "invasive plant" _narrative_ as it stands is a good guide for making choices about plants because a) it lacks scientific support and b) it reflects cultural values that are part of the problem in the first place. You can decide if we make a good case or not!
Thanks again for reading.
This was a wonderful piece, thanks. I really enjoyed the way that you brought up our raping of the land for monocultures as an example of ‘invasive species’. Don’t get me started on golf courses - I hadn’t thought about them as being a giant example of ‘invasive species’. I think back to my master gardener courses and the feeble attempts to define plants as invasive while most of these also have medicinal value, etc.
I look forward to release of your book. You have a confirmed sale here ☺️
Hey Tara, thanks so much! Check your email -- As a "thank you" for subscribing, I sent you a link to download a free copy of my 2018 book, "The Failures of Farming & the Necessity of Wildtending" which I think you'll enjoy.
Thanks so much! Hoping to be back to gardening this year and this will come in super handy! Excellent!
Great stuff, keep it coming. The idiotic "war on invasive species" is so out of control and based on non-science, it's depressing. Even many well-meaning, self-described "environmentalists" have gulped down the Invasives Kool-Aid. As one fellow activist pal put it so succinctly, "We just want them [the "nativists"] to stop killing things." Indeed. In our war on nature, we will inevitably find ourselves on the losing side. Hence my creating more resources on this critical topic: https://treespiritproject.com/invasionbiology/
Glad you appreciated it, and there's more coming.
Great website! Watching the Theodoropolous talk right now...