We have some crazy growing invasive plants out here like Knotweed, yet there are people who like Knotweed. Maybe the distinction isn't all that important. Horses came here with people, but monkeys might have come over here washed out at sea. Either way, a new ecosystem evolves. You write well!!
Knotweed is good medicine and food and excellent for helping breakdown tricky man made infrastructure. Humans have a real hard time letting the land be in charge which is so sad. Nature is the master of balancing systems.
You might note that the earthworm and the honeybee are not native to the americas. How could we possibly fix that or wish to ? I have the same issue with floridas native plant list given most are rarely seen , generally unknown and most importantly native to only A particular environment and not well adapted to others at all .
In regard to succession as a result of aging in an botanical environment- fire is usually a fundamental component so consider LA , this is a sign to not live in desert like places and build fire prone structures .
Yep, I knew that about earthworms and honeybees, who are both obviously essential to agriculture. I understand that there were earthworms in the previous inter-glacial period, but they didn't return after the last glacial maximum (that is, in the Holocene).
And yes, very good point that some plants only like particular environments and aren't adapted to others at all. It's much more helpful to look at plants that way than in terms of political boundaries. I used to live in Oregon, and the differences between the west side of the Cascade Mountains and the east side are stark. The west is moist and verdant and the east is arid. An Oregon "native plant" from the east side might not like it at all on the west side and vice versa.
I really appreciate your nuanced examination of this topic and I especially appreciate your exploring the concept of "novel ecosystems". I essentially advocate the creation of forms of "novel ecosystems" where "novel cultural ecosystems" can be nested within in my post and presentation on Biocultural Refugia.
For instance, while I do try to lean into designing with food and medicine trees that are considered by most to be "native", I also work with trees that are not from this bioregion (such as Ginkgo, Schisandra chinensis, Lycium barbarum and Malus sieversii) as they are extremely resilient, provide potent food/medicine sources, are favored by native pollinators, birds and/or they are not prone to outcompeting their local ecological counterparts).
The wild (Malus sieversii) Apple trees of the Tian Shan Mountains (in modern day Kazakhstan) share a similar story to the Carpathian Walnut you mentioned in reference to humans moving the trees/seeds along the silk road. The modern day descendants of those wild apple trees are now globally distributed and beloved by most humans. (For more on that species : https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-wild-apples-of-the-tian-shan )
As I touched on in my more recent article on regenerative ocean gardening, the Hul'q'umi'num language (of the Coast Salish peoples of what is now called "British Columbia, Canada") had a word for the regenerative management of and movement of our non-human relations for enriching biodiversity and food sources. The word "Hwteyqnuts-t" described the intentional movement of living beings such as plants, trees, salmon eggs and shellfish to new locations to become permanently established there via habitat modification/enrichment techniques.
As you astutely point out, the Eastern Woodlands of Turtle Island (where I live in modern day "ontario") also had peoples such as the Huron, Chippewa, Algonquin and Wendat that engaged in the intentional movement of species of trees and animals from one place to another where they were not previously (for enriching food sources and providing habitat for the animals they hunted).
If looked upon in today's vernacular, according to some of the more aggressive "eden ecologists" (and their "invasive plant council" priesthoods in the local government parks services and horticultural societies) those peoples regenerative agroforestry practices might have been described in the context of the horrible sin of "introducing invasive species". However, the legacy of their centuries long efforts to engage in what the Salish people described as "Hwteyqnuts-t" is enriched biodiversity and the blueprints for an extremely resilient and ecologically viable food production system for humans.
I am with you in recognizing the voice of the birds, butterflies and the bees and how they "cast their vote" with regards to what plants I welcome (and/or encourage) in my designs or not.
"The term “native” can have utility; it tells you that a plant was well-adapted to a given place in a given time period because of the conditions that existed there then, and this can be helpful in understanding a species or an ecosystem. But it’s not an ancient, universal concept among all humans by any means, and ultimately it’s just a label of no account whatsoever to the big mover and shaker of life, Mother Nature."
Yes! You've probably read Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris, but she follows these same threads, unpacking ideas of "historic baselines" and touching on novel landscapes. I've been following these same fault-lines in my work as an artist for the past several years, attempting to build intimacy and community around invasive plants and weeds. Thanks for writing Kollibri!
I could not love this more. Appreciate the depth and breadth of this essay. Succession is always in progress. That’s the planets’ way of tending to change in my opinion. Feel like I should send this off to the news station I was watching on the fires in LA. I had to listen to a five minute diatribe about invasive plant species being responsible for the fast moving flames. Is climate change too much of a political word now we have to pretend THAT’S not the issue and we’ll blame the plants? I looked up the ‘invasive’ tree in question… so much goodness from that tree, from the bark to the berries, but yeah— keep telling me it’s bad. Thank you for another insightful read. Glad you reposted. ❤️
Thank you so much for this! I so wish we could stop this evil, destructive obsession with murdering "invasive" species who are helping animals (including us) to survive and deal with the terrible harm being done to the earth. Reading what you said about Redwoods makes me think about how the West Coast must have been an incredible rain forest with those massive old growth trees and so many other trees and plants bringing rain from the fog, filling creeks and rivers and lakes. And now we have this sad, increasingly arid land where the plants are drying out and even the earth becoming like concrete. Aotearoa/New Zealand would be wonderful for Redwoods with their rainy climate.
My only concern is about is it really true that the people here before the invasive Europeans used fire the way the agencies describe? I so don't trust their propaganda and know that even with access to water and helicopters, etc. some of their "prescribed burns" turn into massive fires. I'm thinking the original people would not have ways to stop fire that got out of control and would have seldom used it. (I'm skeptical of everything they tell us in the news about the environment.)
Anyway, thank you again for another moving and important article to share!!!
Thank you for reposting this and providing so much food for thought. I am a newer subscriber and likely wouldn’t have found this essay otherwise. You framed this argument so well, especially “Novel ecosystems demonstrate nature’s inherent resilience. What we need to do is recognize them as ecologically legitimate and work with them from there.” Thanks again!
Kollibri, I thought about you months ago when I read a post on columbines by Diane Porter, but I never remembered to ask if you'd read it. I am glad you posted this piece; it jogged my memory! Check this out: 'native' columbines only came to North America 10,000-40,000 years ago over the Bering Land Bridge from Asia. I'd guess they almost certainly came with the first nations people, right? Or at least their seeds caught in the fur of animals migrating with them. But now they are a crucial food source for hummingbirds, who have co-evolved to move northward with them (and other flowering plants) each spring as they bloom. Really blurs the native narrative.
Thank you Kollibri. Nothing is black and white, so native/nonnative—while alluringly simple—is an oversimplification. It falls into the same false category as good/bad. Bad things have good elements, and good things bad. It’s limiting to try seeing the world that way, black & white, it also endows plants with implied malevolence. Plants don’t huddle around a map and think “yes let’s invade this area!” Thanks for demanding we take a nuanced look at a nuanced idea—and if we’re looking for a “problem” to blame we should look at ourselves.
Thank you for this article. I really enjoy your writing, it's very thoughtful and thought provoking and it feels like you try very hard to provide a clear-eyed and informed view, with the data references to back it up. And it has been successful in getting me thinking, quite a bit. I am in the process of trying to set up a (mostly native) plant nursery (I tend to personally lean towards the 80/20 rule as far as 80% native to support the ecosystem/20% personal choice in other plants to support personal values of beauty, etc.). I would like to focus on keystone species because they offer the most biological value for the greatest number of species and it seems like we need that right now and that for smaller yard spaces, it would be possible to level up your impact on forage for pollinators and more
I guess I'm wondering what you feel is the best way to approach the native/invasive call to action going on? From what you wrote, I could almost gather that maybe it's best to leave things up to nature, that there may be some species that get out of balance with the ecosystem but if left to its own devices, the ecosystem will solve the problem (in a positive way for the ecosystem) without human intervention?
But that feels too passive, almost like neglect, being that we are humans and usually the source of the whatever species invasion involved. But if you decide to take each situation, case by case and examine the circumstances individually and then choose a course of action based on what you find, then given that nature is constantly changing, and time is a factor, how do you determine when 'enough' time has passed and the situation requires intervention?
Good points! The "native" category seems to have all the same problems as taxonomy does. Where we divide species is valid in some ways but arbitrary in others. Ultimately, taxonomy descends from the idea that all the world can and must be put into neat, orderly (and, hierarchical) boxes. That's a religious concept moreso than not a scientific one.
Thanks. That actually resonates with me abd how I look at plants.
You're welcome!
We have some crazy growing invasive plants out here like Knotweed, yet there are people who like Knotweed. Maybe the distinction isn't all that important. Horses came here with people, but monkeys might have come over here washed out at sea. Either way, a new ecosystem evolves. You write well!!
Knotweed is good medicine and food and excellent for helping breakdown tricky man made infrastructure. Humans have a real hard time letting the land be in charge which is so sad. Nature is the master of balancing systems.
You might note that the earthworm and the honeybee are not native to the americas. How could we possibly fix that or wish to ? I have the same issue with floridas native plant list given most are rarely seen , generally unknown and most importantly native to only A particular environment and not well adapted to others at all .
In regard to succession as a result of aging in an botanical environment- fire is usually a fundamental component so consider LA , this is a sign to not live in desert like places and build fire prone structures .
Yep, I knew that about earthworms and honeybees, who are both obviously essential to agriculture. I understand that there were earthworms in the previous inter-glacial period, but they didn't return after the last glacial maximum (that is, in the Holocene).
And yes, very good point that some plants only like particular environments and aren't adapted to others at all. It's much more helpful to look at plants that way than in terms of political boundaries. I used to live in Oregon, and the differences between the west side of the Cascade Mountains and the east side are stark. The west is moist and verdant and the east is arid. An Oregon "native plant" from the east side might not like it at all on the west side and vice versa.
Said it better than I could’ve ! Great read!!!
Thanks, Cosmo!
I really appreciate your nuanced examination of this topic and I especially appreciate your exploring the concept of "novel ecosystems". I essentially advocate the creation of forms of "novel ecosystems" where "novel cultural ecosystems" can be nested within in my post and presentation on Biocultural Refugia.
For instance, while I do try to lean into designing with food and medicine trees that are considered by most to be "native", I also work with trees that are not from this bioregion (such as Ginkgo, Schisandra chinensis, Lycium barbarum and Malus sieversii) as they are extremely resilient, provide potent food/medicine sources, are favored by native pollinators, birds and/or they are not prone to outcompeting their local ecological counterparts).
The wild (Malus sieversii) Apple trees of the Tian Shan Mountains (in modern day Kazakhstan) share a similar story to the Carpathian Walnut you mentioned in reference to humans moving the trees/seeds along the silk road. The modern day descendants of those wild apple trees are now globally distributed and beloved by most humans. (For more on that species : https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-wild-apples-of-the-tian-shan )
As I touched on in my more recent article on regenerative ocean gardening, the Hul'q'umi'num language (of the Coast Salish peoples of what is now called "British Columbia, Canada") had a word for the regenerative management of and movement of our non-human relations for enriching biodiversity and food sources. The word "Hwteyqnuts-t" described the intentional movement of living beings such as plants, trees, salmon eggs and shellfish to new locations to become permanently established there via habitat modification/enrichment techniques.
As you astutely point out, the Eastern Woodlands of Turtle Island (where I live in modern day "ontario") also had peoples such as the Huron, Chippewa, Algonquin and Wendat that engaged in the intentional movement of species of trees and animals from one place to another where they were not previously (for enriching food sources and providing habitat for the animals they hunted).
If looked upon in today's vernacular, according to some of the more aggressive "eden ecologists" (and their "invasive plant council" priesthoods in the local government parks services and horticultural societies) those peoples regenerative agroforestry practices might have been described in the context of the horrible sin of "introducing invasive species". However, the legacy of their centuries long efforts to engage in what the Salish people described as "Hwteyqnuts-t" is enriched biodiversity and the blueprints for an extremely resilient and ecologically viable food production system for humans.
I am with you in recognizing the voice of the birds, butterflies and the bees and how they "cast their vote" with regards to what plants I welcome (and/or encourage) in my designs or not.
"The term “native” can have utility; it tells you that a plant was well-adapted to a given place in a given time period because of the conditions that existed there then, and this can be helpful in understanding a species or an ecosystem. But it’s not an ancient, universal concept among all humans by any means, and ultimately it’s just a label of no account whatsoever to the big mover and shaker of life, Mother Nature."
Well said. Thanks for sharing this.
Yes! You've probably read Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris, but she follows these same threads, unpacking ideas of "historic baselines" and touching on novel landscapes. I've been following these same fault-lines in my work as an artist for the past several years, attempting to build intimacy and community around invasive plants and weeds. Thanks for writing Kollibri!
I could not love this more. Appreciate the depth and breadth of this essay. Succession is always in progress. That’s the planets’ way of tending to change in my opinion. Feel like I should send this off to the news station I was watching on the fires in LA. I had to listen to a five minute diatribe about invasive plant species being responsible for the fast moving flames. Is climate change too much of a political word now we have to pretend THAT’S not the issue and we’ll blame the plants? I looked up the ‘invasive’ tree in question… so much goodness from that tree, from the bark to the berries, but yeah— keep telling me it’s bad. Thank you for another insightful read. Glad you reposted. ❤️
Thank you so much for this! I so wish we could stop this evil, destructive obsession with murdering "invasive" species who are helping animals (including us) to survive and deal with the terrible harm being done to the earth. Reading what you said about Redwoods makes me think about how the West Coast must have been an incredible rain forest with those massive old growth trees and so many other trees and plants bringing rain from the fog, filling creeks and rivers and lakes. And now we have this sad, increasingly arid land where the plants are drying out and even the earth becoming like concrete. Aotearoa/New Zealand would be wonderful for Redwoods with their rainy climate.
My only concern is about is it really true that the people here before the invasive Europeans used fire the way the agencies describe? I so don't trust their propaganda and know that even with access to water and helicopters, etc. some of their "prescribed burns" turn into massive fires. I'm thinking the original people would not have ways to stop fire that got out of control and would have seldom used it. (I'm skeptical of everything they tell us in the news about the environment.)
Anyway, thank you again for another moving and important article to share!!!
Thank you for reposting this and providing so much food for thought. I am a newer subscriber and likely wouldn’t have found this essay otherwise. You framed this argument so well, especially “Novel ecosystems demonstrate nature’s inherent resilience. What we need to do is recognize them as ecologically legitimate and work with them from there.” Thanks again!
Kollibri, I thought about you months ago when I read a post on columbines by Diane Porter, but I never remembered to ask if you'd read it. I am glad you posted this piece; it jogged my memory! Check this out: 'native' columbines only came to North America 10,000-40,000 years ago over the Bering Land Bridge from Asia. I'd guess they almost certainly came with the first nations people, right? Or at least their seeds caught in the fur of animals migrating with them. But now they are a crucial food source for hummingbirds, who have co-evolved to move northward with them (and other flowering plants) each spring as they bloom. Really blurs the native narrative.
https://mygaia.substack.com/p/ruby-fire
Very informative, thank you. I particularly enjoyed the observations where native birds and insects adapt to the new species.
Thank you Kollibri. Nothing is black and white, so native/nonnative—while alluringly simple—is an oversimplification. It falls into the same false category as good/bad. Bad things have good elements, and good things bad. It’s limiting to try seeing the world that way, black & white, it also endows plants with implied malevolence. Plants don’t huddle around a map and think “yes let’s invade this area!” Thanks for demanding we take a nuanced look at a nuanced idea—and if we’re looking for a “problem” to blame we should look at ourselves.
Thank you for this article. I really enjoy your writing, it's very thoughtful and thought provoking and it feels like you try very hard to provide a clear-eyed and informed view, with the data references to back it up. And it has been successful in getting me thinking, quite a bit. I am in the process of trying to set up a (mostly native) plant nursery (I tend to personally lean towards the 80/20 rule as far as 80% native to support the ecosystem/20% personal choice in other plants to support personal values of beauty, etc.). I would like to focus on keystone species because they offer the most biological value for the greatest number of species and it seems like we need that right now and that for smaller yard spaces, it would be possible to level up your impact on forage for pollinators and more
I guess I'm wondering what you feel is the best way to approach the native/invasive call to action going on? From what you wrote, I could almost gather that maybe it's best to leave things up to nature, that there may be some species that get out of balance with the ecosystem but if left to its own devices, the ecosystem will solve the problem (in a positive way for the ecosystem) without human intervention?
But that feels too passive, almost like neglect, being that we are humans and usually the source of the whatever species invasion involved. But if you decide to take each situation, case by case and examine the circumstances individually and then choose a course of action based on what you find, then given that nature is constantly changing, and time is a factor, how do you determine when 'enough' time has passed and the situation requires intervention?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Good points! The "native" category seems to have all the same problems as taxonomy does. Where we divide species is valid in some ways but arbitrary in others. Ultimately, taxonomy descends from the idea that all the world can and must be put into neat, orderly (and, hierarchical) boxes. That's a religious concept moreso than not a scientific one.