Invasive Notes

Are cats an invasive species - a wickedly inconvenient conversation

2009-11-27T17:00:00.010-05:00

Invasive species wickedly impact ecosystems and simultaneously are inconvenient to immediate human wants and needs. No species better illustrates this than the domesticated cat (Felis catus) also known as the house cat. The housecat occupies one of the highest positions within the turbulent world of human engendered biological co-evolution. The perfect hunting generalist is at the same time the calming innocent purring ball of contentment and pleasure. The domesticated housecat is a killing machine that can successfully hunt many small mammals, birds and even fish. And being an opportunist like its human companions, the cat quickly adopts a home and adapts to the local food supply.

Many species have co-evolved with Homo sapiens such as horses, cows, dogs, mice, rats, wheat, rice, house flies, roaches, influenza, and E.coli. This bounded collection of species has spread across the earth, together, in a stochastic system of over-production and extreme competition for resources. Each species now needs the other and so while some increase for awhile a larger balance is maintained internally at the expense of endogenous ecological systems. Simply put, the human ecosystem can be imagined as a biological bulldozer re-engineering the biomes of Earth as it moves across the planet. This whirling ball of continuous change, this human ecosystem disturbance is analogous to a farmer plowing a field. A side-effect of this disturbance is the facilitation of biological invasion. The agents of invasion are referred to as invasive species. Moreover, by deft definitional sleight of hand we mostly eliminate many of the co-evolutionary exotics that give us companionship or food from our list of invasive species, because these friends-of-mankind species have been assigned a greater value to humanity as compared to their destructive outcome to nature (the local endogenous or native ecosystem).

The housecat reigns supreme in its seat of power. It brings aesthetic and emotional pleasure earning its keep in earlier ages by keeping some of the lesser denizens of the human ecosystem’s over-production capabilities in check. Mankind values the silo of grain for tomorrow’s dinner, and thus values the cat in the raging interaction of man versus mouse. The aloofness of the cat is translated as an expression of a partially “wild” animal; a poetic state that allows humans to think the cat belongs outdoors as a right accorded to wild beings and, therefore, is living in balance in nature doing good things for all.

The purring kitten sitting on one’s lap models the image of innocence. Like the sibling that swats its brethren and then smiles when those-who-must-be-obeyed arrive, the cat is beyond suspicion or reproach for any damage to an ecosystem. Because the emotional bond is so strong and so deep and so cultivated by both the cat and the humans who love the cat, the idea of any possible negative interaction that might be induced or caused by a cat lies beyond the pale of polite conversation. The occasional pet hamster or goldfish not-with-standing, the cat is seen as a defender of the home eliminating the scourge of pest and disease vectors (rats, mice). This idea then leads to a generalization that cats only help brings balance to the world – a good thing, naturally.

One trait of the domesticated cat is to reproduce (over-produce) with little concern for population excess. The human part of the equation may from time to time make the quick calculation that cat equals wild equals nature. For whatever the reason, the cats who fall from grace and live on the edge of the human ecosystem, are now referred to as “stray” by cats-as-a-benefit and “feral” by cats-as-destructive. The word feral allows humans to use a definition function that inputs friend of man and outputs a wild species undifferentiated as to origin or impact. In other words, the feral cat is now safely classified one step removed from the good or behaved house cat, and may even be labeled by a few as an invasive species, but only if the few are willing to risk thundering approbation. Just as labeling a garden ground cover like English ivy as a weed, labeling the house cat as feral is one step from recognition of invasive species status. Both the ivy and the cat when found outside their traditional expected position or use with in the human ecosystem are species on the edge of good and bad.

Along with the blurry definitional status of the cat, the reinforcing idea that natural ecosystems consists of free, “undeveloped” spaces and, therefore, a no cost solution to the challenge of human ecosystem excesses, allows for a quick disposal of the stray cat to a native ecosystem, side-stepping the impact question and blithely finding no harm in the action. The fuzzy opportunistic definition of a cat’s place in the greater and lesser schemes of things permits us to allow the cat to reside in any aspect of any ecosystem at the lowest immediate cost to the human agent. In other words we can throw the cat out and defend its unique place in the world at the same time and do so without any internal philosophic conflict.

However, through the process of stakeholder consensus [1], housecats are not considered an invasive species. Some stakeholders, recognizing the prolific reproductive capabilities of the now stray or feral cats, propose a program of trap, alter and return. This is an attempt to protect the sanctity of all life couched in terms of a live free and let live policy. It does nothing for the impact on ecosystem resources that the now altered cats still wreak, but it does mitigate the reproductive pressure. It does highlight an environmental dichotomy between protecting life directly and protecting the ecological systems that provide the structure for life. There is an inherent collision of desires between the immediate microscopic desire to protect life now, and the large macroscopic drive to protect the ecological systems that provide the resources for the species involved in the first place. The resulting chicken and egg squabble, a collision of desired outcomes allows the much broader portion of the public as disinterested traditional cat companions to rise above the fray guaranteeing no political movement towards an ecological solution whatsoever. The result is that we have groups that claim to protect habitat, rights and welfare from human exploitation[2], but engender the destruction of the ecosystems they are trying to protect by making no distinction to the strong and weak ecological interactions. In the case of cats, we get a decrease in the extremely important weak interactions at the expense of the cat induced strong interactions. In other words non-indigenous cats are more successful at hunting indigenous species and so, changing the internal balances of the ecosystems thereby adding considerable stress.

At some level of the dialogue surrounding policy choices, if cats were classified as invasive species, serious consideration of H. sapiens as an invasive species by analogy might take place. Doing this would make the politics of climate change look like a weekend walk in the park. Invasive species definitions are constructed from an anthropocentric lens or point of view. The idea and reality of cat is ingrained in human societal expectations which by definition are good for the continuation of humanity. The practical outcome is, of course, that human societal choices are not always in the interest of all individual humans in the long term, but for the species as a whole in the long run. And even that assumption of species benefit of individual action does not necessarily guarantee species continuation.

The negative impact of cats on indigenous species with in endogenous ecosystems especially in the urban interface with what is left of natural areas may be significant. In one study in the United States suggests that “…rural free-ranging domestic cats in Wisconsin may be killing between 8 and 217 million birds each year.”[3] The large number of bird deaths should be compared to the total number of birds, but the enormity of the slaughter is enough to outrage defenders of natural areas from the predation of the cute and cuddly killing machine. This conflict of intentions sets up a us-or-them boundary and a classic wicked problem matrix (February 18, 2007, Invasive Species; Wicked Inconvenience: part two) where in stakeholders arrive at the complex issue with predetermined outcomes in mind that frame each constituency’s position and definition. An inability to actually address or even define the problem is the result of this process.

So the problem is one of perception. Is it alright to keep a house cat locked up inside away from the great outdoors for which it pines? Is there any responsibility on the part of human companions for the natural area destruction that domesticated cats can wring out of native ecosystems? Is there a role for house cats outside of strict sterile confinement? What is a natural ecosystem anyway, especially in a dense urban setting filled with mice and rats and other gems of human co-evolutionary pressures? Could we realistically ban cats in the same fashion as we attempt to ban plants or animals? To what geographic location exactly is a domesticated, co-evolved-with-humanity species native? Are housecats not native to wherever human live?

In spite of our desires for a linear simple straight to the point answer to any or all of these questions, there are no simple answers. If we intend to preserve unique, native ecosystems, then domesticated cats must be removed. On the other hand if we judge the cost of “natural” ecosystems beyond our resources to maintain, then perhaps cats have a role in the new novel unexplored ecosystems that we are unintentionally creating. We cannot have it both ways. If there are to be native species preserves, then they must be protected from the biological cloud of disturbance that is the human ecosystem including pet cats gone astray. In the end allowing pet cats or any other human companions beneficial or otherwise to wander uncontrolled in natural areas is as destructive as just paving over the green space.
On the other hand, killing our excess species, native or domesticated, because we did not take time to consider the consequences of our human actions devalue the worth of all life. Life is sacred or it is not. Treating life like we treat our plastic cups is setting up a feedback loop that will overwhelm us. We cannot build a viable, suitable life on the idea that everything has a cost-free disposable use.

[1] Definitions Subcommittee of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). (2006).Invasive Species Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper. http://www.invasivespecies.gov/global/ISAC/ISAC_documents/ISAC%20Definititions%20White%20Paper%20%20-%20FINAL%20VERSION.pdf .
“It is also essential to recognize that invasive species are not those under human control or domestication; that is, invasive species are not those that humans depend upon for economic security, maintaining a desirable quality of life, or survival.”
[2] In Defense of Animals Press Release. (2000). Boeing Co. Cats To Be Killed
Fate Of Trapped Wildlife Unknown. http://cats.about.com/library/weekly/aa090400c.htm
[3] John S. Coleman, Stanley A. Temple, and Scott R. Craven. (1997). Cats and Wildlife:
A Conservation Dilemma. http://wildlife.wisc.edu/extension/catfly3.htm

Bio Economics Of Invasive Species

2009-11-09T19:09:00.001-05:00

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Bio Economics Of Invasive Species

View more presentations from John Peter @InvasiveNotes Thompson.

Invasive species, island grey foxes & collisions of desire

2009-11-08T12:50:00.003-05:00

Invasive species issues are wickedly inconvenient. Invasive species solutions create conflicting philosophic outcomes or collisions of desires. An effort to remove an invasive species may produce unexpected consequences as the removal of the invasive plant tamarisk impacts the endangered bird, southwestern willow flycatchers. Concern about invasive species arises from two forces or interests of mankind: agriculture and conservation. Where mankind ventures, so too come companion species that stress endogenous ecosystems sometimes to the point of collapse.
An obverse of the invasive species issue is the concern and effort on behalf and for endangered species. With both issues every time the system is tweaked unintended results will occur because uncertainty is part of the equation. (picture from upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/U... )

A clear example of the complicated nature of ecosystems and species manipulation is found in the conservation efforts surrounding the Santa Cruz fox. In order to preserve the fox, in the name of protecting a pristine ecosystem, mankind will bring all of his skills and knowledge of horticulture to the problem, deciding much as any gardener does which species may live in the “pristine” Garden of Eden and which must be removed. After conservationists engineer sanctuaries to protect the foxes from the golden eagle, begin a captive breeding program, remove and relocate the golden eagles to the mainland, restore the bald eagle displaced by the aforementioned golden eagles, and for good measure place the fix on the endangered species list [1], the hoped for result will be a habitat that can support the fox in the current state of its evolution. This of course is a near term even in time and will result in long term evolutionary forces coming to bear on the ecosystem and the fox itself. This is an effort to preserve a species and its ecosystem, mankind will step in to redirect the interaction that have occurred because of ma’s arrival and his alteration of the landscape and the species of the ecosystem. The works of man are seen to have altered the “natural” state of things, and thus the works of man will be brought to bear in reconstructing a “natural” state of being.

The island gray foxes, Urocyon littoralis, reportedly arrived on three of the six California Channel Islands they now inhabit some 16,000 years ago. Important to remember in the current discussion is the 6000 year length of human involvement with the island grey fox species. Humans took the fox species, which are only one-half or two-thirds the size of mainland gray foxes to three other islands. The island fox species faces evolutionary challenges including inbreeding, competition with feral cats and exposure to canine diseases, as well as development on the islands that threatens to limit their habitat and food supply.[2]

The efforts to protect the fox will require engineering the ecosystem (reversing co-evolutionary pressures) to a state of pre-industrial human interaction. To do this, we will need to commit energy (resources) and will (policy). The loss of the fox will be measured ecologically and economically. The short term cost of less development will me compared to the uncertainty of long term gain. And of course the wicked world of invasive species will loom large as we try to “humanely” exterminate what to some will look like pets, i.e. human companion species. Paraphrasing Simberloff (2003) one might ask how much information on population biology is needed to manage endogenous ecological systems.[3]

The quiet notion wrapped in romantic dogma that mankind can return the world to a pre-industrial state informs many of our choices. The loss of the fox is a metaphor for the loss of an idyllic past that never was but for a few well off members of the human race. But like the impulse that generated the English landscape movement the recognition that mankind is in major part defined by nature and that the loss of nature is a diminution of man’s being drives us forward to protect this denizen of the California isles. The loss of the fox is a symptomatic of a greater loss, that of the Rousseauian individual who lives one equal with his surroundings not a mere god in a machine.

[1]: Island Grey Fox”. http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/island_grey_fox.htm accessed: (November 9th, 2009)
[2] Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/image_info.cfm?species_id=414 accessed: (November 9th, 2009)
[3] Conservation Biology. Volume 17 Issue 1, Pages 83 – 92. Published Online: 11 Feb 2003. ©2009, Society for Conservation Biology. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118885522/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 accessed: (November 9th, 2009)

Invasive Species & Halloween

2009-10-31T09:14:00.000-04:00

Sneaky, scary, furtive, dangerous, nimble, destructive, hidden, unexpected, spooky, terrifying, wickedly inconvenient, invasive species play trick-or-treat on Halloween and all the other days of the year. Beautifully dangerous invasive species bite and sting, overwhelm and destroy, bring pestilence and chaos. Invasive species like trick-or-treaters can look desirable but can also, when not controlled, wreak havoc on the landscape. Invasive species come in all shapes and sizes from single cell organism to charismatic mega plants and animals. Behind the friendly masks and costumes lurk potential villains of destruction. Invasive species flicker in and out of our collective imagination investing landscapes on a time scale that hides from notice until it is too late.

Like the customs and tradition that surround Halloween and have moved and changed through the centuries, invasive species have accompanied mankind as he has spread through out the last empty spaces of the planet. All Hallow’s Eve is based upon the cycles of agriculture and harvest, of the movement between the live and death. Invasive species move with humanity’s disturbance of the land and man’s dependence upon the crops of his toil. Like a roiling forest fire invasive species are an organic conflagration altering forever the ecological relationships of the natural are into which they come. And like the costumed demons of Halloween, invasive species can hide their destructive, negative intent behind familiar reassuring forms. The cat of Halloween is both pet and scary avatar, and a potential progenitor of a feral familiar.

Invasive species lack an Oprah or a Gore to champion the cost to the environment and to the quality of human life. We fail to realize the impact and the cost to ecosystem services that invasion may engender. Some people boldly fret about the impact of climate change, but little is said about the role of invasive species in altering the current balance of resources provided. Invasive species do not have cache, and go about their destructive work mostly unnoticed. We hesitate to invest in prevention because it is hard to grasp the reason to spend money on something that may or may not happen, and then, we pay to control the invasive impact, an effort which rarely gets the upper hand. We find familiar beauty and claim artistic privilege or economic benefit to plant or herd; we cry a while for the loss of habitat or tree or the last of a kind, and then return to our world lessen by the loss.

This Halloween I am thinking of dressing up as an invasive species and scaring the daylights out of the world.

Invasive species move with us as reflections of our actions

2009-10-25T16:05:00.001-04:00

Humans like to categorize things; to put things into boxes of like items. This seemingly hard-wired activity helps to sort through the conflicting chaos of perceived reality. The decision function is a simple yes it belongs or no it does not. The categories or boxes are tagged with additional dualistic labels: good or bad (evil), us or them, black or white, native or alien, nature or artifice, art or junk, profit or loss. Once categorized and tagged the grouped collection of information is used to create value assumptions, to set personal market preferences and to address policy choices.

The impulse to label surrounds invasive species questions. From questions of garden choices to forestry management and agricultural production we place organisms into redefined categories. As a first step, we create a classification system for species identification. We then identify the species with specific ecosystems and add a time tag that tells us when and where on a timeline a species is to be found. The time tag is important because we need to reduce the cosmic scale to a more manageable human scale. Next we add as many meta-value-tags as can be handled.

In the invasive species world we wind up with pathogens and diseases, insects, plants and animals, broadly speaking. The further away from everyday, easily accessible human interactions the fewer meta-tags get assigned in general. That pathogens are bad is an initial major label with the very word pathogen as a category having a pre-assigned, pejorative sense. The result is that policy ideas that include prevention as a first line of defense are usually not too controversial. In other words, very few stakeholders appear loudly opposed to pathogen detection and interdiction. If we pick a more complicated category such as insects, the meta-tagging gets somewhat more complicated as there is a greater recognition of insect interaction with the environment and thus contending constituencies strive to limit absolute prevention and interdiction. There are good bugs and bad bugs and some bugs that just are, and the framing of the problem is highly specialized based on pre-decided outcomes.

By the time we get to the categories of plants and animals other than insects the meta-tags fly with such abandon that we create super categories to contain fuzzily framed issues. We use semantic bins such as environmental, ecological, natural, traditional, necessary, sustainable, practical and other terms to nudge and re-aim first level meta-tags such as good or bad, beneficial (to what?) or bad (for whom?). The invasive species category is usually applied at this supra-meta level. The application of the designation comes after the assignment of a value. Invasive species come pre-assigned with a negative value. This creates a dynamism that disallows the addition of, for example, feral cats into the invasive species category because of negative key stakeholder reaction. The idea of cat as a category has massive positive meta-tags while the idea of invasive species is ladened with mountains of negative tags. The two concepts become mutually exclusive and contentious.

When climate dynamics are added to the invasive species discussion the implications of an a prior value tagging grow. Because invasive species questions are framed or tagged with automatic negative connotations, we focus on the impact on and to yesterday’s ecological systems, impacts that are substantial and sometimes overwhelming, and on the other hand we overlook research on the novel systems that are, in part, the result of invasion. In someway this is a reflection of human desire to choose control about which something is known over prevention which at the surface is filled with uncontrollable, intangibles and assorted unknowns. Invasive species are symptoms of climate change and human activity. Any attempt to find a one size fits all solution for invasive species will result in unexpected and unintended consequences. Finding solutions without integrating climate and human activity will not be productive. If there were no species with invasive potential ecosystem collapse would be more catastrophic than we currently imagine. What we are doing when we try to protect an existing historic ecosystem from invasion is akin to gardening (weeding, species selection and pest control).

The longing for a time when there were unexplored spaces on the planet that leads some to advocate for a return to nature allows for policies that produce the unexpected. Unfortunately almost 7 billion humans have already terra-formed the earth. We have geo-engineered the ecosystem services already. Mankind is not a static organism but is influenced and changed by all the species with which it comes into contact, just as the human contact is changing and influencing the other species of the world. We can neither stand nor let nature do not run its course nor ignore our impact upon it for we are nature part and parcel. Invasive species move with us reflections of our actions.

Sustainable green jobs in a dynamic changing world

2009-10-14T20:26:00.002-04:00

The words “sustainable” and “green” are attached to everything around us: new products, life style choices, energy and jobs. The “in” position is to sustainably green in whatever you do. You are asked to eat, think, drink, live and work green. But what does that mean? Why is there such a “buzz” about green and sustainability? What is a “green sustainable” job?

It means that there is a growing recognition that mankind must alter dramatically some of its actions because we cannot afford the cost of doing things the same old way. Our lives are build around a complex system of inter dependent actions that affects us all. We get our food and feed, our fuel, our fibers, flowers, and our forests from these ecological systems. When there were not many of us on Earth, the supply of resources seemed infinite and we planned and acted accordingly. Now the population of Earth is approaching 6 billion and some basic resources are becoming difficult to afford such as energy and food as well as water and in some places clean air.

Just as there are more people there are more opportunities and more costs. Competition for diminishing or limited resources is growing with demand. Old ideas that made the United States great now rest on no longer valid assumptions. China will soon be the number one speaking country in the world; 25% of India’s population with the highest IQ is greater than the total population of the Untied States, which means that India has more honor students than the US has children. According to a marketing video for SONY, the top ten in-demand jobs today di not exist in 2004. Today we as a standard practice are training our children for jobs that do not yet exist, but we live our lives as if everything will be just as it was yesterday. With technologies not yet discovered we are getting our next generation ready to solve problems we do not yet know exist. This is the green sustainable world of the next hour. We no longer have the luxury of waiting a few years to make decisions, for in our hesitation or inaction we will be left behind in the tsunami of humanity’s growth and technology’s relentless progress.

The US Department of Labor estimates that the children of today will have had 10- 14 jobs by the time they are 38; the old paradigms of the past have fallen and most of us are unaware. The internet has made MySpace the 5th most populous country in the world and growing; are you a citizen? It took radio 38 years to reach 50 million people television took 13, and the Internet took 4 years. From the SONY video: “A weeks’ worth of information in the New York Times contains more information than a person was likely to come across in a lifetime in the 18th century” The amount of information generated this year will be around 4 X1019; if you cannot read this number and do not understand it, you are watching the future leave the station without you. And, this amount of information is more than all the information accrued in the last 5000 years. The amount of new technological information doubles every two years. So half of what student learns is outdated by year three.

To add to this fast moving dynamic workplace are the pressures human activities are putting on Earth’s ecosystems. We are racing through our oil deposits to supply our growing energy needs and in doing so we are pouring carbon into the air which is raising the temperature that in turn is melting the ice at the poles causing some people to run for their lives as water levels rise. Of course if you have enough money already, you simply will move to higher ground and say there is no problem, but most of the world is too poor to do so. In addition mankind is adding methane and nitrogen through its insatiable demand for low quality food sources (corn syrup) that come from industrial agriculture by adding fertilizers and pesticides to lands that cannot sustain the crops in the first place. We do this so that we can provide a quick energy fix to the workers of the world while we poison the environment around us because we have not yet invent an adaptive sustainable technology that will allow us to feed an even larger human population.

The green and sustainable movement is a dynamic market and life style choice that seeks to regulate, repair and restore a balance to human actions and the systems environment that support quality of life for humanity. Conceptual definitions such as these are the easy part of the conversation; how we translate these ideas and concepts into personal, real world decisions right now is our challenge. Green or sustainable jobs, therefore, are well paying, career track jobs adding directly to preservation or enhancement of environmental quality.
It is important to keep in mind that positions designed to improve environmental quality are not guaranteed to provide a stable living wage job that provides workers with essential benefits. It is also unclear if local green collar jobs will benefit low-income people and families, a familiar refrain from the environmental justice movement. Yet the people most likely to be negatively impacted by climate change and energy costs are those with economic challenges.

Entry level jobs, for those with the basic work skills of being responsible, being on time, having good communication skills, include green building retrofitting enterprises that “fix up” buildings so that they leak less energy helping homeowners and businesses save on energy bills, lowering the use of dirty energy. Additional entry level green jobs for example include energy auditor, green carpenter, and insulation installer as well as solar and PV (photo-voltaics) installers and mass transit operators. At a professional level we find job categories such as, Eco-Tourism and Hospitality, Planning and Land Use, Health and Medicine, Environmental legal careers, Eco-educators, Design build specialties in Architecture and Landscaping, Food and Farming, and Corporate Social Responsibility officers. The list is by no means exhaustive but rather an attempt to show that everything will be a green job eventually. However, right now, today we need to sort out the immediate choices that face us everyday keeping an eye.

Post high school, college degrees are one way of acquiring the skills necessary to meet the demands of the new green movement, as are certification processes that are beginning to spring up for what were once called blue collar and now are referred to as green collar jobs. The plethora of certification opportunities come with their own challenges as the job seeker must sort through competing claims through accreditation. All of this becomes overwhelming and certainly confusing as well as full of the potential for small business start up entrepreneurs.
Sustainable and green define a mind set that tries to bring added value to the technological progress of mankind. These two concepts hope to mitigate environmental excesses in order to enhance the quality and affordability of life for the greatest number of people.

As the dynamics of climate change, up or down, begin to interact with food and energy supplies, the possibilities and demands for jobs not yet imagined will only grow. And given the complexities of the issues the need for continuing educational opportunities will become a normative standard. Knowledge, whether wiring a building or designing a wind turbine, will require detailed skill sets acquired through a life time of learning. Green and sustainable will require broad-based education and will demand the ability to change course on a dime.
,

CO2 Increase Impact - A Question of Complexity

2009-10-10T16:30:00.002-04:00

CO2 is Green, a pending 501(C)(4) non-profit organization whose mission is to support scientifically and economically sound public policy on environmental issues. Currently, the non profit organization is attempting to sway public opinion by refuting “claims that CO2 is a pollutant…” To accomplish this CO2 is Green makes its own claim that facts support the position that “…lowering levels of carbon dioxide would actually inhibit plant growth and food production.” CO2 is Green claims the facts of carbon reduction advocates are “… a myth and are absolutely false.” CO2 is Green is not the only organization or group asking us to make decisions based upon their arrangement of information. What we have here, then, is a failure to communicate wrapped in a classic wicked problem, surrounded by a selective use of knowledge.

Challenged as to where to begin, a definition of carbon dioxide seems in order. From the web site of Lenntech Water treatment & purification Holding B.V we read:

“Joseph Black, a Scottish chemist and physician, first identified carbon dioxide in the 1750s. At room temperatures (20-25 oC), carbon dioxide is an odourless, colourless gas, which is faintly acidic and non-flammable. Carbon dioxide is a molecule with the molecular formula CO2. The linear molecule consists of a carbon atom that is doubly bonded to two oxygen atoms, O=C=O. Although carbon dioxide mainly consists in the gaseous form, it also has a solid and a liquid form. It can only be solid when temperatures are below -78 oC. Liquid carbon dioxide mainly exists when carbon dioxide is dissolved in water. Carbon dioxide is only water-soluble, when pressure is maintained. After pressure drops the CO2 gas will try to escape to air. This event is characterized by the CO2 bubbles forming into water.”

Glossing over the many uses that carbon dioxide offers to mankind including decaffeinated coffee, we turn to plants and man and the regulating function such as the gas cycles of ecosystems. Although this discussion is focused on carbon dioxide, we need to keep in mind that the “…principal greenhouse gas concentrations that have increased over the industrial period are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11 (CCl3F) and CFC-12 (CCl2F2)” [Hansen et al., 1998; Schimel et al., 1996]. These increases are not in dispute but, importantly for this discussion, the mechanisms of the increase are contested by some. If the increases are by the hand of man there may be a way back from the brink; if the increases arise from a natural cycle then a much of humanity is in even bigger trouble.

CO2 is Green offers the proposition that more carbon dioxide is good and will have broad across the board positive benefits to plants and therefore mankind through increased production of ecosystem service resources. The ideas of more of anything is always better lurks beneath the claim and is supported by some plants benefitting from increased carbon dioxide. Some plants will benefit, however the CO2 is Green claim is a blanket statement of benefit, and assumes the reader will jump to the conclusion that carbon dioxide is good for all plants and plays upon most of us not recalling or ever learning about plant physiology and processes of photosynthesis.

Almost certainly, CO2 is Green is thinking of Sylvan Wittwer who observed in ‘Food, Climate and Carbon Dioxide’ that “[t]he effects of an enriched CO2 atmosphere on crop productivity, in large measure, as positive, leaving little doubt as the benefits for global food security …. Now, after more than a century, and with the confirmation of thousands of scientific reports, CO2 gives the most remarkable response of all nutrients in plant bulk, is usually in short supply, and is nearly always limiting for photosynthesis … The rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a universally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we can all reckon for the foreseeable future.”
(applet-magic.com Thayer Watkins Silicon Valley & Tornado Alley USA)

It turns out that plants are not all alike and that there is a distinct worth considering between agricultural monocultures and diversity rich natural ecosystems. Leaving out the fact that too much carbon dioxide can harm a person directly through suffocation, kidney failure or even in extreme conditions, frostbite, more carbon dioxide is not necessarily a good thing for all plants. Because some species evolved solutions to hot dry climate conditions, some plants already maximize the carbon dioxide available and will not measurably benefit from increased carbon dioxide. These are the C4 and CAM plants, many grasses, succulents and cacti of mild and desert ecoregions. This of course does not negate the CO2 is Green claims, but does strongly suggest that in ecosystems with both plant types the C3 species may, if temperatures and light conditions remain the same, become more efficient and therefore dramatically out compete changing the resources of the system at hand. If that change results in top predator degradation or loss, the entire ecosystem will collapse.

The large elephant running freely through out CO2 is Green’s argument involves temperature and photosynthesis. Keeping in mind that photosynthesis and respiration, one the reverse of the other, play an important role in the carbon cycle and are at equilibrium with one another, and that carbon dioxide levels influence atmospheric temperature, we know that as temperatures go up photosynthesis goes down in plant species which most benefit from the extra carbon dioxide. It follows that CO2 is Green is allowing its target audience to assume that the additional carbon dioxide will be taken up by the plants as a super carbon sink thereby preventing the rise in temperatures. CO2 is Green’s imbedded claim is that increased carbon dioxide is a simple linear process with no feed back loops and no interaction with other processes such as temperature. And most tellingly, CO2 is Green fails to mention that for many terrestrial land plant species, there is a process called photorespiration which occurs at high light intensities and temperatures and competes with photosynthesis limiting further increases in the rate of photosynthesis, notably when the supply of water is limited. Thus CO2 is Green might correctly claim that a rising concentration of carbon dioxide will not materially augment, neither will it limit food production for ten billion people nor lessen the land that can be spared for Nature however, the effects on ecosystem outside of agriculture cannot be foreseen and the importance of limiting factors are not considered.

The claims of CO2 is Green are built upon a few broad based truths or facts that ignore inconvenient data or processes in order to justify an a priori desired outcome, the classic position of stakeholders in a wicked problem. The simple direct linear proposition that correlates better photosynthesis in some plant species to a better world; a complicated reality that falls a little short in the complex fuzzy fractal world of wicked problems. According to Farrar & Williams (2008), although “…[l]ittle information is available for interactions between temperature and CO2. Cold-adapted plants show little response to elevated levels of CO2, with some species showing a decline in biomass accumulation. In general though, increasing temperature will increase sucrose synthesis, transport and utilization for CO2-enriched plants and decrease carbohydrate accumulation within the leaf.” Bunce & Ziska (1995) measured carbon dioxide impact among soy bean cultivars and found that “…increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration may reduce respiration in soybeans, and respiration may be insensitive to climate warming.”

But our carbon-dioxide-increase elephant is larger than even these important biochemical functions for every process is part of a higher level system, and current research strongly suggests that while in some plant species carbon dioxide certainly enhances photosynthesis, at the level of leaf canopy, the level of the plant as a whole, the increase carbon dioxide will lead to higher leaf canopy temperatures. And this increase in temperature will lead to an increase in sterility. If this were true just for annoying pest plant species, we would stop reading, however, the research is focused on and the sterility is in, grain species. At the very least this means more land to produce the same resource, and more likely it means just less food.

If we move to the next level of system complexity we enter the plant community, the biome. Here we must note that increased carbon dioxide will not only cause large leaf and plant structures for our desirable agricultural species, but of course the weed species that have co-evolved with the crop and humans. The current reduction in farm out-puts (harvests) in Asia could feed over 50 million people. With larger and more vigorous growth of C3 plants including the weeds which compete with the desirable plants, our needed resource yields will go down and starvation will go up.

In closing, we must find a way to balance the intricate mechanisms and complexities of ecosystem services and try to refrain from making simple carte blanche statements of the one size fits all variety. Mankind must find ways to adapt or die; evolutionary forces have no moral grounding, and we must not be fall into the trap of paralysis through analysis. We need to find a pathway between doing nothing at all and waiting until there is nothing to be done.
References
[1] Jerey S. Amthor, George W. Koch, and Arnold J. Bloom. Co2
inhibits respiration in leaves of rumex crispus l. Plant Physiol.,
98(2):757{760, February 1992.

[2] James A. Bunce. Responses of respiration to increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations. Physiologia Plantarum, 90(2):427{430,
1994.

[3] James A. Bunce and Lewis H. Ziska. Responses of respiration to
increases in carbon dioxide concentration and temperature in three
soybean cultivars. Ann Bot, 77(5):507{514, May 1996.

[4] Daniel Comstedt, Bjorn Bostrom, John Marshall, Anders Holm,
Michelle Slaney, Sune Linder, and Alf Ekblad. Eects of elevated
atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature on soil respiration in a
boreal forest using 13c as a labeling tool. Ecosystems, 9(8):1266{1277,
December 2006.

[5] J. F. Farrar and M. L. Williams. The eects of increased atmospheric
carbon dioxide and temperature on carbon partitioning, source-sink
relations and respiration. Plant, Cell and Environment, 14(8):819{830,
1991.

[6] Roger M. Giord. Whole plant respiration and photosynthesis of
wheat under increased co₂ concentration and temperature:
long-term vs. short-term distinctions for modelling. Global Change
Biology, 1(6):385{396, 1995.

[7] James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Jay Glascoe, and Reto Ruedy. A
common-sense climate index: Is climate changing noticeably?
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, 95(8):4113{4120, April 1998.

[8] P. A. Jollie and E. B. Tregunna. Eect of temperature, co(2)
concentration, and light intensity on oxygen inhibition of
photosynthesis in wheat leaves. Plant physiology, 43(6):902{906, June
1968.

[9] Hiroshi Koizumi, Toshie Nakadai, Youzou Usami, Mitsumasa Satoh,
Masae Shiyomi, and Takehisa Oikawa. Eect of carbon dioxide
concentration on microbial respiration in soil. Ecological Research,
6(3):227{232, December 1991.

[10] Andrew D. B. Leakey, Carl J. Bernacchi, Donald R. Ort, and
Stephen P. Long. Long-term growth of soybean at elevated [co2] does
not cause acclimation of stomatal conductance under fully open-air
conditions. Plant, Cell and Environment, 29(9):1794{1800, September
2006.

[11] Russell K. Monson, Mark A. Stidham, George J. Williams, Gerald E.
Edwards, and Ernest G. Uribe. Temperature dependence of
photosynthesis in agropyron smithii rydb. : I. factors aecting net
co(2) uptake in intact leaves and contribution from
ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase measured in vivo and in vitro.
Plant physiology, 69(4):921{928, April 1982.

[12] T. Pypker, M. Hauck, E. Sulzman, M. Unsworth, A. Mix, Z. Kayler,
D. Conklin, A. Kennedy, H. Barnard, C. Phillips, and B. Bond. Toward
using 13c of ecosystem respiration to monitor canopy physiology in
complex terrain. Oecologia, 158(3):399{410, December 2008.

[13] V. Reddy. Carbon dioxide enrichment and temperature eects on
cotton canopy photosynthesis, transpiration, and water-use eciency.
Field Crops Research, 41(1):13{23, April 1995.

[14] G. J. A. Ryle, J. A. N. E. Woledge, Veronica Tewson, and C. E.
Powell. Inuence of elevated co2 and temperature on the
photosynthesis and respiration of white clover dependent on n2
xation. Ann Bot, 70(3):213{220, September 1992.

[15] D. S. Schimel, J. I. House, K. A. Hibbard, P. Bousquet, P. Ciais,
P. Peylin, B. H. Braswell, M. J. Apps, D. Baker, A. Bondeau,
J. Canadell, G. Churkina, W. Cramer, A. S. Denning, C. B. Field,
P. Friedlingstein, C. Goodale, M. Heimann, R. A. Houghton, J. M.
Melillo, B. Moore, D. Murdiyarso, I. Noble, S. W. Pacala, I. C.
Prentice, M. R. Raupach, P. J. Rayner, R. J. Scholes, W. L. Steen,
and C. Wirth. Recent patterns and mechanisms of carbon exchange by
terrestrial ecosystems. Nature, 414(6860):169{172, November 2001.

[16] H. Wayne Polley, Patricia C. Mielnick, William A. Dugas, Hyrum B.
Johnson, and Joaquin Sanabria. Increasing co2 from subambient to
elevated concentrations increases grassland respiration per unit of net
carbon xation. Global Change Biology, 12(8):1390{1399, August 2006.

[17] Lewis H. Ziska and James A. Bunce. Predicting the impact of
changing co₂ on crop yields: some thoughts on food. New
Phytologist, 175(4):607{618 September 2007.

Invasive species issues & the danger of being controlled by dogmatic ecological paradigms

2009-09-26T17:14:00.003-04:00

Invasive species issues are wickedly inconvenient. Martha Proctor, a UC Master Gardener, writes that “[n]on-native invasive species crowd out native species by abundant seed production, rapid growth, efficient use of resources and better access to moisture during the dry summers. Invasives outcompete natives, displacing the native habitats of fish, insects, birds, plants, butterflies and other wildlife.” (Copyright © 2008 - Marin Independent Journal Posted: 09/25/2009) The rapid introduction into an ecosystem and establishment of invasive species therein create a raging uncontrollable biological wildfire.

The impacts of invasive species on an ecosystem are measured by the changes in ecological interactions. Thinking of ecological interactions in terms of competition, predation, parasitism, mutualism, commensalism and symbiosis helps to demonstrate the possible negative impacts of non native or exotic species of ecosystem services. Competition – two species share a requirement for a limited resource reduces fitness of one or both species; predation – one species feeds on another enhancing the fitness of a predator but reducing the fitness of prey; parasitism – one species feeds on another enhancing fitness of parasite but reducing fitness of host; mutualism – two species provide resources or services to each other enhancing fitness of both species; commensalism – one species receives a benefit from another species enhancing fitness of one species with no effect on the fitness of the other species; symbiosis – two species live together can include parasitism, mutualism, and commensalism.[1] The disruption of any of these creates cascade of change in the effects of multiple interactions throughout the system. If the effects are large enough, the original system is stressed and its traditional expected resource services reduced and perhaps even eliminated. So, if one wants to play baseball with a traditional wooden bat, native ash trees are selected and shaped for the native sport. The introduction and reproduction of the emerald ash borer dynamically limits access to the resource by killing the ash trees that are needed to make baseball bats.

However, the wicked inconvenience of invasive species is not the introduction of exotic aliens to ecosystems, but rather the danger of being controlled by dogmatic ecological paradigms based upon dichotomous assumptions superimposed upon the systems of nature that does not have goals and expectations. Writing in his new book, a courtesy copy of which was send to me without charge, “Invasion Biology”, Mark Davis notes the tendency of ecological professionals to categorize invasive species issues in a series of yes or no, in or out, with us or against us matrices or frameworks for discussion. The result is that we think in terms of “…two types of species: native vs non native, native vs exotic, indigenous vs non-indigenous, invasive vs non invasive.”[2] The human artifice of a dualistic interpretation leads us down the path of unexpected and unintended consequences or as I now call it on Twitter (@InvasiveNotes) – Collision of Desires. We are propelled towards a management course that suspects the intentions of novel ecosystems even though that means placing a human qualitative measurement upon the system. Thus we are predisposed at a high policy making level to think that every introduced species is intrinsically bad or evil. But the status of being non native is a “…position in evolutionary history [that] does not quality as an ecological category with distinct and consistent properties.”[3] And further, we are compelled unwittingly to consider every altered system to be dysfunctional and in need of mitigation in order to return it to a past state.

Ecosystems are not static and when new species are introduced a new, novel system is created. Some of the interactions, relationships or functions of the novel system will provide desired resources as well as numerous negative impacts. For example, tamarisk, has become a poster child for a new species introduction whose removal may now negatively impact a desired species, southwestern willow flycatcher. (Agriculture Department Forced to Re-examine Tamarisk Leaf-eating Beetle Program That Hurts Endangered Songbird) It is important to bear in mind that the introduction of tamarisk was for its ability to provide ecosystem resources and services such as “…ornamental values (e.g., T. chinensis and T. ramosissima), others for planting in wind breaks (e.g., T. aphylla) or to stabilize eroding stream banks. (Neill, 1985)” [4]

Conservation and preservation are tinged by dualistic thinking with a patina of nationalistic nostalgia for, what I call, a desire to return to a “Leave it to Beaver” time and place, a Golden Age of and for a select few. The nostalgia on the part of a few stakeholders causes among other things the reaction and rise of the environmental justice movement. The wicked inconvenience arises because there is no easily accessed set of right or wrong choices when it comes to invasive species. The German Shakespeare, JW von Goethe, said that there is “… no past that we can bring back by longing for it. There is only an eternally new now that builds and creates itself.” On the other hand, doing nothing, either from paralysis of analysis or waiting until there is nothing to be done is an invitation to extinction. If the world’s farmers took a position of hopelessness in the face of nature we would all starve.

With invasive species issues, looking for final, absolute solutions results in a chronic series of hapless unintended consequences. The choices should be based on adaptation to change with the knowledge that we need and are partners with our ecosystems; and as a gardeners in the landscapes we must work daily to ameliorate impacts while allowing resources to be used and encourage systems that are self sustaining with minimal hyper-extra-eco-system input from humanity.

[1] (www.unc.edu/~welcha/.../species%20interactions%20mini-lecture.ppt)
[2] Mark A. Davis. Invasion Biology. Oxford University Press. 2009. p.163 (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/Ecology/?view=usa&ci=9780199218752)
[3] Mark A. Davis. Invasion Biology. Oxford University Press. 2009. p.164 (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/Ecology/?view=usa&ci=9780199218752)
[4] Roland C. de Gouvenain. Origin, History and Current Range
of Saltcedar in the U.S. Saltcedar Management Workshop, June 12, 1996. http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/news/workshopJun96/Paper1.html

Sea berry: To invade or not to invade - an invasive species question

2009-09-14T18:46:00.002-04:00

A recent spate of news articles is introducing a new miracle ornamental plant, sea berry, Hippophae rhamnoides L, for desert and dry ecosystem landscapes. The plant is not new to horticulture or agriculture and has been researched for its production value in Russia and China as well as Canada and the United States since the 1940’s. A Nevada Cooperative Extension facty sheet notes that “[s]eaberry or sea buckthorn is called “Siberian pineapple” in Russia, because of the juice that is produced from the berries. It has been produced for centuries in Europe and Asia as a food and medicine source. The first commercial factory processing seaberry was established in Russia in 1940. Since then China has become a leading producer with over two million acres in production, with about 200 processing factories producing more than 200 products. Canada, Germany, Japan, and several northern European countries are working with seaberries as a potential crop.”[1]

As land use demands and population expectations change, horticulture tries to address the demands through research and study that is aimed at traditional gardening needs and wants. The landscape and nursery trade continues to find plants that use less water and therefore meet the consumer surface definition of eco-friendly. Just as the gardening industry looks for plants that are pest and disease resistant so the public can use less pesticides and be “greener”, so when appropriate the nursery professionals look for plants that need less water or irrigation while providing major informing services of the local ecosystem such as color, form, and texture.

In fact, the gardening industry also touts the providing service benefit of the new introduction. The fruit of seaberry is rich in vitamin C and A. The plant produces “…high-quality medicinal oil that is made from the fruit and used in the treatment of cardiac disorders, it is also said to be particularly effective when applied to the skin to heal burns, eczema and radiation injury, and is taken internally in the treatment of stomach and intestinal diseases.”[2] Other uses include charcoal, cosmetic, dye, fuel, oil; pioneer, soil stabilization, and wood.[3] Web site can be found that note that “…it can be used as a pioneer species to help the re-establishment of woodland in difficult areas.”

However this blog is not called invasive notes for nothing. In spite of the assurances, a few nagging issues lurk in the article by Melanie Dabovich of the Associated Press. First there is the quote at the end: "It can only propagate through suckering, which can be controlled.” The implication is that unlike other troublesome plants this one does not spread by seed. However, the first part of the article talks all about the fruit bearing capacity and use of the plant: "They actually drink the berry juice in Europe, China, Russia. The (seed) oil is used in cosmetics and creams, and it's very popular - so popular that China is starting to export." Something is wrong here, but of course desire trumps caution every time; market preference wins out over public value.

A friend of mine observed that the species “…suckers like crazy, forms dense thickets, tolerates a wide range of soils, is cold/heat tolerant, and fixes nitrogen.” None of these things are necessarily a problem and none are a sure sign of an invasive species, but many invasive species share these attributes. Invasive species decisions and policies are a challenge because the most cost effective action is to prevent their introduction. But how do you know what is invasive and what is not for your particular ecosystem? And given all the benefits of this species what economic harm would be done if we prohibited its introduction into the dramatically changing landscape of the desert southwest? Who is financially responsible if the species turns out to be yet another invasive problem?

Invasive species are shown to significantly impact natural resources and other ecosystem services. The impact is translated into economic, aesthetic and human well being assessments. Increased population pressures as well as the accompanying increase in global trade has create new pathways for introduction and greatly increased the incidents of repeated introductions of harmful species. A major pathway, but far from the only one, for pathogens and pests (diseases and insects) as well as new invasive species is the increase international in ornamental species for landscape and garden use. The majority of introduced plants are not harmful (thought they may not contribute to the local ecosystem entirely they are contributing some positive services) to the economy but provide enhancements to the quality of life.

So we need to ask two deceptively simple questions about Hippophae rhamnoides L. – seaberry: How much chance of harm is acceptable; and, how much harm are we willing to allow?

[1] Jason Davison, Area Plant and Soil Specialist, Central/Northeast Area & Willie Riggs, Eureka County Extension Educator. Testing Seaberry as an Alternative Crop in Nevada. Nevada Cooperative Extension. http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/ag/2004/fs0475.pdf
[2] Matthews. V. The New Plantsman. Volume 1, 1994. Royal Horticultural Society 1994 ISBN 1352-4186 A quarterly magazine, it has articles on Himalayacalamus hookerianus, hardy Euphorbias and an excellent article on Hippophae spp.
[3] Copyright (C) Plants For A Future, 1996-2008. http://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Hippophae+rhamnoides

Why do we resist sustainable ideas?

2009-09-12T18:44:00.001-04:00

We humans have some internalized dynamics that tend to influence our reactions to events. We tend to blame each other first because it makes us feel better. We cling to those who share our desired outcomes because there is safety in numbers. We default to an automatic opposition with those we do not agree with or understand because doing so facilitates short term decision making. We tend to dismiss out-of-hand information that is not supported by our desire-motivation for preconceived outcomes. In the end, our reactions are about the enormous amount of information that we must process here and now, and the mechanisms that we use to do so.

One tool used to sort through the enormity of information that comes to us each moment of every day, is homogenization. We create structures of identity and similarity to channel useful information so that we can react without delay and without contemplation. We expect our Starbucks and our McDonald’s, as well as our definition of organic and how we access the Internet to be predictable, even as we seek creative differences in our lives. This collision of desires creates a dynamic tension of ambiguity in our decision making processes. We oscillate rapidly between short and long term information acquisition.

The expectation that all McDonald’s will operate fundamentally the same whether in New York or Moscow, that every home shall have a lawn whether in the desert or the eastern hardwood forest, propel us towards a monaural information system design. From the system monoculture we get rapid decisive information that allows us to react quickly and efficiently. We plant great expanses of one species to increase yield (information); we develop great swathes of identical shopping malls that facilitate our immediate needs. An unintended consequence is the proportional decline in creativity that comes from reliance upon the homogenized information stream. But more crucially, the very nature of the monoculture opens it to effective and repeated attack from external information streams enabling critical disruption and loss of the information. In other words, a corn field of one cultivated variety or genetically modified cultivar is subject to increasing attack and increasing odds of catastrophic failure through disease, pestilence or climate change. The uniform shopping malls, built to provide selection and price options, are because of their similarities subject to the same market forces and unable to react quickly to changing demographics or land use conditions. Both systems sacrifice creativity and novelty to increase short term information yields.

The other possibility for information flow is found in diversity rich information streams which require much thought, research and planning to navigate. They are costly and novelty rich, but while they are resilient to disruption, they are thick with informational noise. Going to a market place in Uganda, with expectation of an American strip mall experience will bring a user up short for the information will not be packaged as expected but will require time to assimilate and understand so that the planned useful information (product/yield) can be acquired. The dynamic ebb and flow of the traditional market will be a hub of creativity delivered in small discrete packages of information.

There is a ornamental landscape analogy. We look for similarities in design and species choices to reduce the noise of novelty. When we step out of our caves in to the light of dangerous day, we do not want to be distracted by un-useful information; if it moves we want to know we can shoot it - now. So we learn a landscape grammar that can be applied anywhere; we acquire a common landscape literacy. In doing so, our gardens and landscapes become prey to disruptive forces such as invasive species, diseases pathogens and pests as well as an inability to adapt quickly to external ecosystem forces. We trade the short term comfort for the long term options in the hope that technology will find away to rescue us as it has done in the past.

A critical part of sustainability’s de-homogenization is sacrifice; to have sustainable systems some information becomes “sacred” and out of bounds. The wide array of start-up green offerings offer no short term information references; we have sacrificed some basic knowledge for alternative creativity. Interestingly, the market demand for product and service certification - itself a type of informational homogenization – is a redirected use of information in order to save the time lost by de-homogenization. In sacrificing one short term information flow, we are creating another. Of even more consequence, is the sacrifice of boundless expectations and the unintended consequences of even considering that path. Many would consider living to the highest possible standards available, a basic right of humanity. In addition, environmental justice issues are raised by sustainable policy implications. Sacrifices are considered by those who least can afford to make them by those who have discretionary resources at the moment. It is well and good to choose a Prius, but for those who real choice is between paying for dinner or the heating bill, such conversations are off the mark.

The channeling of information through homogenization provides value to the end user. The definition of value offers up a problem for sustainable policies. A good case can be made that pleasure is the root of value. [Hedonism As The Explanation Of Value ScienceDaily (Sep. 13, 2009)] Pleasure is a form of short term information. We are then driven to find ways of delaying thinking about long term options in favor of short term pleasure. Thus we pave our way to prosperity, we send our manufacturing off shore to reduce present costs, we choose hydrocarbons now for the quick information feed (pleasure) rather then deal with their impact on our ecosystems let alone their finite availability.

This information conflict is the collision of desires that underlies the antipathy and reaction to questions and ideas of sustainability. We develop structures to constrict a selected flow of information to deliver pleasure faster; the unplanned consequences will be dealt with later on an ongoing basis. We have preconceived supporting concepts of ecosystem services that are free and infinite, that will sustain us no matter what. So we can spend now ignoring the science of consequences and dismiss the theologians who have always caled for sacrifice. Here is the intersection of faith and research, of science and religion. And here is where we dare not go. The immediate pleasures of many are threatened by unspoken sacrifices implied by ecologically motivated desires and policies.

Landscapes, literacy, ecosystems services & sustainability

2009-09-11T19:55:00.003-04:00

The way we approach our understanding of landscapes influences the policies we support and the attitudes we keep. How we “see” a flower, field or forest has consequences for how we “use” them. Our fragmented, parochial, limited time horizon, decision making matrix is a reflection of why our social systems are stressed. Our collective challenges, our great social causes, are all filtered through the fuzzy goal of immediate self interest versus long term social or public value. If a memory of childhood includes recollections English Ivy lined garden pathways, then there should be no denying this ornamental addition to the current garden desire. And more importantly, the cost of managing it in parks and natural areas should be born by someone else, or better just ignored. It is the immediacy of a strong interaction that attracts self interested actions, not the outcomes of weak interactions barely noticed in the present.

Ecological and environmental issues that swirl around ecosystems and biomes are hampered because of the growing lack of landscape literacy possessed by policy makers and their constituencies. Literacy is the ability to read, write, listen and comprehend, and speak a language. I think that there is an analogous set of abilities and skills that I call landscape literacy; the ability to read, work with knowledgeably, design, use and comprehend the intricate relationships of both natural and ornamental landscapes. Landscape literacy refers then to reading and working at a level adequate for communicating ideas about ecosystem services at a level that lets one understand the complex interactions of the system. These ideas at high level of literacy would include regulating, providing, provisioning and informing ecosystem services.

Most of the traditional problems and challenges of landscape management focus on the two higher level eco-system services, providing and informing. From aesthetics to resources that can provide material for personal and commercial use, our land use planning is concerned with enhancing an supporting these high level ecosystem services with understanding of the implications of additional stress onto the ecosystem in question. The assumption that natural resources are infinite permeates local land use and development policies in urban and suburban metropolitan areas. When we add the needs of those stakeholders who are either in economic challenged communities or historically under-served areas, we compound the problems of creating sound land use consensus. We have neither a common grammar for our ornamental landscape nor a well comprehended syntax for our natural areas.

The call for sustainable landscapes has been heard but not understood. Sustainable designs do not intentionally include invasive species, and may require some measure of certification that the flora and fauna is not itself a vector for invasive pathogens or insects. The idea that beauty may be more than color combinations and texture, is met with some resistance as is the reverse that there is a need for some order in landscapes that are functional in close proximity to human activities. Sustainability looks at the entirety of nature through asymmetrical temporal lenses communicating the past to the future through the present. (adapted from Crutchfield. 2009.http://www.physorg.com/news171800572.html) The collision of desires between our near-term aesthetic and economic sensibilities and the long-term requirements of the ecosystem and its ability to support out short term needs is in perpetual conflicted opposition.

Invasive Species: Reflections of how we treat the world

2009-09-02T15:08:00.002-04:00

Invasive species cause harm to humans directly as pathways for disease, indirectly as pathways for species that harm quality of life such as food resources. Invasive species also harm the environment, or ecosystems, that provide support for human activities such as atmospheric gas regulation, storm water management and erosion control, and habitat for biodiversity that in turn supplies the genetic material we need for the Big Six “F’s”: Food, Feed, Fuel, Fibers, Flowers and Forests (also known as agriculture). And on top of this, invasive species harm human aesthetic well being damaging recreational activities such as hunting, birding, boating or swimming. Invasive species also drain resources needed to maintain open space for human activities such as hiking and running. The problem is expansive and complex; as an example, invasive species damage will eliminate the wood used to make baseball bats with the death of ash trees which are being destroyed by the emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis. Another example is the alteration of the natural resource regime of the southwest US that will allow for more intense and more frequent wild fires which will claim more building as buffelgrass, Pennisetum ciliare, changes the desert to an African grassland.

So how much damage can we allow or do we want? The cost of prevention is expensive and immediate, but it is hard to measure effectiveness. For how do you measure and convince economically society to incur the cost of the possibility of something that has not actually occurred? Meanwhile the monetary and resource outlay of control and management follows after the damage is apparent and out of control. The costs of this after the fact control and management most often exceeds available resources and elimination is usually impossible. Zebra, Dreissena polymorpha, and quagga, Dreissena rostiformis bugensis, mussels as well as kudzu, Pueraria montana var. lobata, come to mind of examples of invasive species that are severely impacting ecosystems and the resources they provide to humanity - that is us.

Do we or should we therefore seek a 100 percent interdiction rate for the importation and denial of commerce and distribution of invasive species at our borders? Is there a rational tolerance for invasive species themselves or some acceptable level of tolerance for invasive species contaminants which hitch-hike in on trade goods and human traffic, that is achievable and affordable by the industry? If a pest species is regulated because of standards, observations, research or past experience that strongly predict negative environmental impacts and damage to ecosystem services, should there be any leeway in the zero risk metric? If we let a few invasive species enter in order to lessen the economic burden or benefit for the business and to the end user, who then should pay to control and manage the ecosystem damage at a later date?

The wickedly inconvenient answer is in part a function of how you ask the question. Do you want to know how little harm is possible? Or is your focus on how much harm is allowable? These two questions divide us in two large philosophic camps at war with one another, even while we agree that we must protect our resources. And then to this muddled, murky mess we mix in individual rights versus the common good and public value. We, the end users cherish to various degrees the right to do what we want in that little area we call our own. We want to have lythrum and lionfish with our homes under our care and in our control so that we can enjoy the beauty no matter how dangerous to the general good. We claim the right to decide without the obligation to understand the potential or real harm that certain few invasive species may bring to the ecosystem that our gardens and homes are part. It is the failure to recognize that all our activities, both individual and communal are linked.

So we look for goods and services from those who can supply us with our wants of the moment with little consideration of the impact in space and time that these demands may have. And because we want, businesses supply and seek to do so at a profit that is measured in the present, accounted for in the past and debited against the future.

Invasive Species: Simple at First Glance

2009-09-01T14:56:00.003-04:00

Invasive species issues seem simple at first glance. A species is introduced, establishes reproduces and begins to alter the new ecosystem, or negatively impacting human health and well being. Direct, strong adverse interactions that effect human health rise to the forefront of community awareness and efforts to reduce or eliminate the threat. Much is spent to prevent or ameliorate the introduction or control of invasive species such as:

Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis)
Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus)
Brown citrus aphid (Toxoptera citricola)
Codling moth (Cydia pomonella)
Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata)
Cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii)
Diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella)
Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis)
European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis)
Formosan subterranean termite (Coptotermes formosanus)
Glassy-winged sharpshooter (Homalodisca coagulata)
Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar)
Hemlock wooly adelgid (Adelges tsugae)
Insect Biocontrol
Japanese beetle (Papillia japonica)
Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata)
Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens)
Oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis)
Pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella)
Pink hibiscus mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus)
Red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta)
Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia)
Silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia argentifolii)
Wheat stem sawfly (Cephus cinctus)

Things get more complicated when the invasive species threat is not direct. The difficulties of the science, and the lack of absolutes, lead to statements of concern and even desperation as desired outcomes collide. Nan Wishner, Chair Emeritus of the City of Albany Integrated Pest Management Task Force and a member of the Stop the Spray East Bay Steering Committee writes that the total elimination “.. LBAM(light brown apple moth) is not feasible, the state plans to carry out a multi-year eradication program involving mass pesticide applications; that program’s first year cost an estimated $97 million.”

As the level of complication and complexities rise, the wicked inconvenience of invasive species issues seems to compel stakeholders to define their perceived problem in terms of their own unique a priori outcome desires. This means that each group of stakeholders has a slightly different working definition of invasive species making it very hard to reach consensus. The end game then becomes one of my way or the highway.

Any farmer or gardener will tell you that pests such as pathogens, insects and weeds are eternal; they do the best they can to control and eliminate the daily invasion that reduce monetary or aesthetic yield, knowing full well that the task is akin to sticking a finger in a dike. If farmers were to decide that weeds cannot be eliminated and gave up, we all would starve. Why then is it different when we set out to protect a natural area? Some would say we should just allow the invasion to create a new balance in time in a new, novel ecosystem and learn to live with it. In deed that is one option. It is the option of the property owner who chooses not to landscape, and cuts the brush around the buildings only to prevent fire and rodent damage. The neighbor who chooses to install and maintain an ornamental work landscape that requires endless removal of invaders is no less wrong in his choice than the former. So too our natural areas are like garden, rich in complexity and under constant and it would seem permanent attack. The issue at this level is one of limited resources as well as competing goals. Don’t use chemicals to control invaders in natural areas, and therefore allow a dramatically altered ecosystem, and deal with the unintended unexpected consequence later. Use chemical and reduce the impact, but suffer the affects of chemical pollution of air, earth or water.

So far we are speaking about the easy side of invasive species management and politics. Mark A. Davis writes in his new book, Invasion Biology, Oxford University Press, 2009, that ” …it is usually much easier to assess impact than it is to determine the series of ecological causes for it.” (White et a. 2006) Because current science has focused on the assessment of impact and not upon the mechanisms of ecological cause, certain stakeholders can reasonably claim that there is either no science or not enough science to support the dedication of resources. The present reliance on science as religion with the concurrent expectation that scientist-priests will rule on great issues ex cathedra and never ever change their minds fails to recognize that science is a tool for use in public discourse and public valuation exercises; science is not the end of the conversation but the beginning.

As Davis point out on page 151 of “Invasion Biology”, the ever-changing dynamic relationship between an ecosystem (itself ever-changing) and social systems (also in a constant state of flux) provides an overwhelming set of choices for environmental decision makers, land managers, and public policy deciders. Solutions and recommendations for invasive species will never be static and the casual observer will be endlessly confused. The tendency to throw up one’s hands in surrender will be powerful and the call to do nothing will be loud.

Controlling an invasive species or even eradicating it is most cost effective before it has actually done anything harmful. The idea that the LBAM should be allowed to spread because it has not yet wiped out a crop demonstrates the difficulty of getting people to care about something that has not actually happened yet. USDA has asked for more funding but because the problem is not pandemic begging is the order of the day. We as a society are loathe to spend money on something that has not happened yet. Better to wait til someone turns to crime and then incarcerate them than to pay less up front in education and work force development is our motto and so it is with invasive species

“Light brown apple moth is a recognized agricultural pest. Moths, such as light brown apple moth (LBAM) (Epiphyas postvittana), banana moth (Opogona sacchari), and nettle caterpillar (Darna pallivitta), are [known] pests of various tropical /subtropical crops, limiting production, and may severely disrupt trade if not detected and allowed to become established in primary growing areas. LBAM also attacks temperate crops and has recently been identified in California as a new invasive species. Because LBAM threatens a multibillion dollar industry in California, alone, CDFA and APHIS, have asked ARS scientists to help develop methods for LBAM control. Research Gaps including effective management of moth pests of tropical /subtropical crops requires the development of: 1) user-friendly, economical, and environmentally acceptable technologies; 2) area-wide integrated pest management (IPM) systems for moth suppression; and 3) systems approaches to prevent pest movement on export commodities.” (http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Program/304/ActionPlan2008-2013/2h.pdf)

If gardeners waited until the weeds crowded out the tomatoes we would never have spaghetti sauce. Gardeners know that early detection and rapid response is the key to a a successful harvest and react without waiting to see if the scientist can publish; invasion of the garden are dealt with summarily. But on an ecosystem level we sometimes choose to wait until the kudzu covers the telephone poles of a million acres before buying the special machinery needed to keep the roads clear. We will carefully not try to reduce the level of the apple moth so that we have a reduction in chemical impact, as we loose the harvest of the fields, hoping that when the moth is finished it does not adapt to our natural areas and begin to be a factor in the wild fires of California as other invasive species already are. The call is to find consensus and to work together towards a common management goal using the tools of science and the techniques of IPM to reduce the toxicity of the solution and the level of the pest simultaneously.

Somehow we need to find away between do nothing at all and waiting until there is nothing to be done. But I digress…until another species catches my attention.

It’s Wicked Out There

2009-08-28T12:36:00.003-04:00

Remember the old speaker joke about the dog that was always chasing cars, until one day he caught one and didn’t know what to do with it? Well, that’s what is happening now in Washington, in nearly every dimension of politics and policy.And in no areas of debate is this more vividly apparent than in the realms of healthcare reform and the environmental movement, with its long-sought chase for solutions to global climate change. I’ll leave the contentious and near-irresolvable issues of healthcare reform to others and confine my focus to environmental concerns.
Let’s start the topic by declaring that addressing global warming is not a “tame” problem, it’s a “wicked” problem. I learned about the difference between tame and wicked problems from John Peter Thompson, former CEO of Behnke Nurseries, an ANLA member in Washington. John Peter, currently an industry consultant, has been an invaluable advisor to ANLA in developing and advancing our policy in several areas, most significantly the invasive species issue, to which he first applied the tame-wicked concept.

First, the characteristics of a tame problem:
• has a relatively well-defined and stable problem statement
• has a definite stopping point (i.e. we know when a solution is reached)
• has a solution that can be objectively evaluated as being right or wrong
• belongs to a class of similar problems that can be solved in a similar manner
• has solutions that can be tried and abandoned

A wicked problem is, well, pretty much the opposite of a tame one:
• has no definitive formulation—wicked problems are defined in terms stemming from one’s idea for solving it
• has no stopping rules—there are no objective criteria for which there is a “final, complete or fully correct” solution
• has no objectively evaluated solution as right or wrong—rather recommended solutions are considered better or worse in accord with personal or business interests, or ideological predilection• is unique unto itself, but can be considered a symptom of another wicked problem, connected in accord with personal or professional interests, or ideological predilection
• has no solutions that can be tried and abandoned—rather, solutions are attempted until resources are exhausted, the result is deemed “good enough” or there’s a sense in which “we’ve done what we can”

The reason I’m going into such detailed analysis is that the political debate surrounding wicked problems, such as addressing global warming, has so far been dominated by interests—for and against—in the context of tame problems, not wicked ones. Under those rules, the earliest move in the discussion is to figure out who’s on which side of the debate, join the preferred side, and then repeat that side’s pre-ordained causes and solutions, with no real change of heart or mind.
The only result is ... exhaustion, or maybe cynicism, or abandonment altogether and a channel switch to “American Idol”—a truly tame problem if there ever was one.

Here’s the point: Elections are conducted as though every thorny problem our society faces is a tame problem. Effective governing consists of learning that what were thought to be tame problems are, in reality, wicked problems. This is the reality that the dog suddenly faces when the car stops and driver walks away.Wicked problems can be better managed by not standing on opposite sides of the room (or broadcast studio table) yelling at each other.

Step one is identifying who, among all the people on both sides, is genuinely interested in solving the problem, not just barking at the noise.The second step is to acknowledge the issue as a wicked problem and begin to convert portions of that wicked problem into tame problems, however miniscule that portion may be. And repeat the second step. And repeat it again.ANLA’s work addressing the meaning of sustainability in (and to) our industry is an experiment in taking a portion of the wicked problem of environmental degradation and global climate change and taming it. Better to be the car driver than the dog.

Bob Dolibois is executive vice president of the American Nursery & Landscape Association and a member of the board of directors of the Small Business Legislative Council in Washington, D.C.
© Copyright 2001 - 2009 Ball Publishing

Pythons, People & Pathways: Invasive Species Slither In

2009-08-22T12:32:00.006-04:00

[picture of python taken by author on visit by National Invasive Species Advisory Committee - ISAC to the Everglades]

I was asked how the Burmese pythons that now inhabit the Florida Everglades as an invasive species arrive. I quickly answered that it was not by first class reservation on a commercial airline, but rather from the pet industry. Pet industry though does not mean just the business operations but includes the customers for whom they procure a wide variety of pets. This is an important part of the discussion for it is often too easy to blame just the business side of the issue. No business lasts long that does not provide a product sought by its consumer market.

The website, Everglades Burmese Python Project, describes the south Florida ecosystem invader as a”… Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus) are large, constricting snakes, native to southeastern Asia, that are one of the most popular snakes in the pet trade.”[1] Popular means that there are many customers who think that having a python is the sine qua non of their existence, a personal necessity for their own quality of life. And the American consumer the bulwark of the global economy is not to be denied his want. As with many wants, though, the unexpected consequence of a good python owning regime is a 15 foot pet. Not unexpectedly, the cost of containment and subsistence grows with the snake leading a few owners to decide, much like gardeners heavy clipping of ivy over the fence into a park, that the snake deserves the best and nature is boundless and unlimited in her abilities to care for the now burdensome former trophy. Out of the bag and into the Everglades and the Florida canal system the soon to be lost love slithers.

EPA provides a list of invasive species pathways noting that ‘[e]scapes or intentional release of unwanted pets can be a source of new non-native species in all parts of the country.” [2] It is most likely the case that the customers are releasing the invasive species intentionally or not rather than the businesses throwing away costly inventory. Disposal of possessions non longer wanted or needed is a challenge. The idea that the land is infinite and that we can just bury our problems is becoming a costly solution, as is releasing our pets into nature out of an anthropocentric sense of kindness. Everything has a consequence even refuse and trash, unwanted plants and pets, and those cherished species that escape from out gardens and homes.

Invasive species negatively impact every one of our current ecosystem services altering the resources that the system provides. Invasive species which are top predators may expand rapidly, deplete resources and may fade away or may become established, altering the known ability of the system to create benefits for humanity. Invasive species introduction in effect create new ecosystems that are restructuring and resetting ecological interactions and while doing so creating challenges for resource predictability. Some invasive species in certain settings can enhance ecosystem services such as Miscanthus sinensis used for erosion control.[3] These diametrically opposed possibilities in part create the wicked inconvenience of invasive species and the issues that surround them

[1] Dr. Michael Dorcas. Davidson College Herpetology Laboratory http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/research/StResearch/Python%20Project%20Website/Python.htm
Dr. Michael Dorcas and the Davidson College Herpetology laboratory are assisting the National Park Service, Dr. Frank Mazzotti, and his laboratory in their studies of Burmese Pythons in Everglades National Park and surrounding areas. Burmese Pythons (Python molurus bivittatus) are large, constricting snakes, native to southeastern Asia, that are one of the most popular snakes in the pet trade. Unfortunately, most pet owners do not realize that their 3 foot, hatchling python may grow to be longer than 15 feet. At this point, owners are frequently unable to care for such a large snake and release them. Researchers believe this is the initial reason for the population of Burmese Pythons in the Everglades; however, over time these captive snakes have bred in the Park and now there appears to be a well-established population. These snakes thrive in the Everglades because they are habitat generalists and the park has an abundance of prey available to them (nearly any animal that exists in the Everglades). These snakes have the ability to consume large animals and potentially pose a threat to threatened and endangered populations of Florida Panthers and Wood Storks among others in the Everglades. Thus, researchers are studying these animals to discover the best ways to eradicate or control the Burmese Python population. Researchers are conducting road surveys to capture snakes and are radio-tracking pythons in the area. Their goal is to determine how Burmese Pythons are using the habitat available to them in Everglades National Park and document the impact the snakes are having on native animal populations. We have been assisting with this project by conducting surgeries to implant transmitters and temperature dataloggers, aiding data collection along roads, and assisting with GIS analysis
[2] Pathways for Invasive Species Introduction http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/pathways.html Globalization has vastly increased long-distance travel and commerce, and highly altered waterways. These and other factors have increased the frequency by orders of magnitude by which non-native plants, animals and pathogens are introduced to new areas, sometimes with costly results. Invasive species can enter important aquatic habitats including riparian zones and wetlands by several common pathways listed below.
Ballast Water: Since 95% of all foreign goods by weight enter the U.S. through its ports, the potential for invasive species impacts on coastal communities is immense.
Boat Hulls, Fishing Gear and Other Recreational Pathways: Boat hulls, fishing boots (felt-soled wading boots transport whirling disease organisms from stream to stream) and equipment, diving gear, and other recreational items that are transported among several water bodies have been known to spread invasive species problems to new waters. Some zebra mussels and milfoil have been introduced via these pathways.
Aquaculture Escapes: Non-native shrimp, oysters and Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest, are just a few examples of non-native mariculture species that have generated concern over disease and other impacts that might arise from their escape.
Intentional Introductions: The introduction of non-indigenous species into ecosystems with few controls on reproduction or distribution.
Aquaria Releases: Escapes or intentional release of unwanted pets can be a source of new non-native species in all parts of the country. The invasive algae Caulerpa is thought to have been introduced to U.S. waterways after being discarded from aquaria.
Live Food Industry: The import of live, exotic foods and the release of those organisms can result in significant control costs, e.g. the snakehead fish in Maryland. Asian swamp eels are spreading through the Southeast after introduction as a food source.
Vehicular Transportation: Both private and commercial transportation are major factors in the movement and range expansion of non-native species throughout the U.S.
Escaped Ornamental Plants, Nurseries Sales, or Disposals: Many invasive plant problems began as ornamental plantings for sale in nurseries and garden shops. Purple loosestrife, for example, is sold as an ornamental plant but takes over native vegetation in wetlands, and can clog western streams preventing water withdrawal and recreational uses. Only some problem species are currently banned from sale.
Cross-basin Connections: From small channels to major intercoastal waterways, new connections between isolated water bodies have allowed the spread of many invasive species. Great Lakes invasions increased markedly after the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959.
Fishing Bait Releases: Discarding unused bait can introduce species that disrupt their new ecosystems and eliminate competing native species; examples include non-native crayfish, baitfish that overpopulate certain waters, and earthworms that are depleting the organic duff layer in northern forests where no indigenous earthworms existed (Conover, 2000).
Illegal Stockings: Although prohibited by law, people release fish into new waters and sometimes cause severe impacts. Yellowstone Lake's world-class cutthroat trout fishery is now jeopardized by an illegal release of lake trout.
Domestic Animals Gone Feral: The impact of feral house cats on birds and small mammals in natural areas is well documented; escaped feral pigs from farms have recently begun to do significant damage to soils and plants in the Smokey Mountains.
Pathogens Spread by Non-natives to Vulnerable Native Species: Non-native species problems include pathogens carried by resistant non-natives to vulnerable native species. Whirling disease, which has decimated rainbow trout in many western rivers, was originally introduced when European brown trout, tolerant of whirling disease, were imported to U.S. waters and hatcheries.
Disposal of Solid Waste or Wastewater: Seeds, viable roots or other propagules of invasive plants may be easily spread to receiving waters through wastewater discharge, then spread by water flow to distant areas downstream.
Science/laboratory Escapes, Disposals or Introductions: Accidental or intentional release of laboratory animals has introduced some non-native species into U .S. waters.
Seafood Packing and Disposal: Much seafood is packed in seaweed prior to distribution. Because seafood is transported long distances, organisms in packing seaweed may reach new waters as an unintended by-product.
Biological Control Introductions: Ideally, introducing a second non-native species to control an invader should result in diminished numbers of both species after control is accomplished, but some introduced controls have backfired because they attack non-target species. Mongoose introduced in Hawaii to control rats have wiped out many native bird species.
Past Government Programs: The establishment of a new invader is sometimes an unanticipated outcome of a government program; kudzu, for example, was originally introduced through a government-sponsored erosion control program.
Moving and Depositing Fill in Wetlands: Seeds and viable parts of invasive plants contained in fill material may rapidly colonize the new substrate, which then compete with native species within the wetlands.
Land/water Alterations That Help Spread Invaders: Many invaders are adept at rapid pioneering where soil has been disturbed or water levels or routes have been changed, leaving a temporary gap in occupation by native flora and fauna.

[3] Ann Perry. August 21, 2009. “A Hedge with an Edge for Erosion Control”. http://www.ars.usda.gov/news/docs.htm?docid=1261 One way farmers can preserve soil and protect water quality is by planting grass hedges to trap sediment that would otherwise be washed away by field runoff. Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists at the agency’s National Sedimentation Laboratory in Oxford, Miss., have calculated how much soil erosion these hedges prevent and verified predictions of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation version 2 (RUSLE2).

Invasive species & novel, emerging ecosystems; a challenge

2009-08-09T10:25:00.002-04:00

Invasive species wreak havoc upon existing, native ecosystems. Invasive plants can crowd out, consume resources, and provide a platform for pathogens and pests that prey upon existing species. Sometimes invasive plant species can achieve such density as to completely eliminate any competition. The result is a mono-culture – a biological desert. Even if they do not reach this level of damage to an existing ecosystem they can alter it creating damaged or novel ecosystems sometimes referred to as “emerging” ecosystems. A US Forest Service publication defines these altered systems that result when “…species occur in combinations and relative abundances that have not occurred previously within a given biome.”[1] (Hobbs 2006)

Noting that many invasive plants are, for example good carbon sinks, a wicked inconvenience arises. It may be that some novel emerging systems are better at providing many ecosystem services than we think. We have a built in prejudice that disturbed systems are bad; we are judgmental about the negative impacts because of species loss which colors our further considerations. The assumption that pristine is the “best” state leads to the assignment of “bad” for all other choices because we are looking at the historic perceived steady state. Invasive species reduce the number of ecological interactions. They reduce species diversity a major component of our valuation of good.

However invasive species can and do participate in regulation services of ecosystems such as atmospheric gas exchange, erosion, food, biofuels and storm impact processes. What we do not know because there is so little study, is the degree to which they contribute basic ecosystem services. The question arises then: are ecosystems like capitalism powered by creative destruction, a dynamic that not only never is but never can be stationary. Creative destruction describes the process of transformation that accompanies radical innovation.[2] A pristine ecosystem invaded by exotic species is a system subject to radical innovation.

Much of the work of natural area land managers and researchers is geared towards preserving undisturbed environments and biomes. They are working to prevent outside (exotic, alien) species and forces from changing the internal systems of the pristine area. When an invasion happens the loss is forever; the complexities of the original system, the balances, are changed with no possibility of return. And this permanent loss is judged to be bad because it is self evident that if you are trying to preserve something, radical change that disrupts and alters the status quo is bad by definition.
When we add climate change we may be fighting a rear guard action as we try to preserve ecosystems that cannot be sustained as the climates change. For what is native at 600 ppm atmospheric CO2? It will be the invasive species that act as earth’s bandage while new ecosystems come into being. They will provide the fundamental regulation services needs to reestablish functioning biomes. Humans may or may not be a casualty of this reorganization for we are dependent upon these ecoservices that we are paving over, drawing down and mostly taking for granted. Air and water, as well as hydrocarbon, as infinite resources unevenly distributed are a couple of assumptions that influence land use and development decisions. The fact that these resources are finite and depended upon ecosystem services is obscure and not generally part of the conversation.

Does this mean then we give up and let the destruction run rampant because the cause is lost? No for just as the gardener and the farmer daily fight the good fight so environmentalist must do the same. When we remove invasive plants from natural areas, aren’t we just weeding albeit on a larger grander scale? Preserving ecosystems is gardening on a large scale after all.

[1] Hobbs,Richard J.;Arico, Salvatore; Aronson, James; Baron, Jill S.; Bridgewater, Peter; Cramer, Viki A.; Epstein, Paul R.; Ewel, John J.; Klink, Carlos A.; Lugo, Ariel E.; Norton, David; Ojima, Dennis; Richardson David M.; Sanderson, Eric W.; Valladares, Fernando; Vilà, Montserrat; Zamora, Regino; Zobel, Martin; 2006. Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography, (Global Ecol. Biogeogr.)15, :17.

[2] ^ "$200 Laptops Break a Business Model". New York Times. January 25, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/technology/26spend.html?partner=rss&emc=rss. Retrieved on 2009-01-27. "Indeed, Silicon Valley may be one of the few places where businesses are still aware of the ideas of Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian economist who wrote about business cycles during the first half of the last century. He said the lifeblood of capitalism was “creative destruction.” Companies rising and falling would unleash innovation and in the end make the economy stronger."

Devolution of the Suburbs : Sustainablog

2009-07-29T17:27:00.002-04:00

Devolution of the Suburbs : Sustainablog

It is so unfortunate that some of the political leadership in Prince George's County is fixed on the sole idea that only development of open space provides prosperity and the future. While much of the rest of the world recognizes the importance of the irreplaceable natural assets (ecosystems), this county continues to "mall" the environment and pave its way towards short term gain for a very select few.

Devolution of the Suburbs : Sustainablog

2009-07-29T17:27:00.001-04:00

Devolution of the Suburbs : Sustainablog

2009-07-29T17:27:00.000-04:00

Invasive Species & Collision of Desires

2009-07-26T14:10:00.001-04:00

A collision of desires occurs whenever two or more groups with interests in a wicked problem support great ideas and outstanding goals that give rise to competing outcomes that are mutually exclusive. Invasive species wickedly and inconveniently provide many examples of collisions of desires. A dispute between a neighborhood association and a city council member over a small flower garden describes the fuzzy world of competing interests and a collision of desires wrapped in a question of taste.

The spot called Poet’s Corner has, one infers, a native look about it, and raises questions about native plants that might be called weeds. At one level we are dealing with questions of taste that derail any convergence of opinion. In the war on invasive species between traditional gardeners and naturalists, beauty is a battlefield front line and any arguments quickly escalate. The “look” of nature is one of chaotic landscape out of control of man. Our memories of the Garden of Eden wherein was found serenity and safety call us to prune and weed and chop and mow and order species into predictable rows organized by color and overlaid with hues of artistic references.
The back to nature gardener turns the landscape design matrix on its head reveling on the ecological interactions so disturbing to the traditionalists. Instead of pest free environs found in gardens of the past, all the denizens of nature are welcomed back into the garden; instead of a few reliably identifiable species that provide a common reference for understanding, a chaos of variety is a fundamental part of this new garden grammar requiring an education in order to “read” the landscape. Music offers an analogy with classical easily understood melodies composed in chromatic scales as opposed to difficult patterns found in music composed in 12 tone rows.

Eco-system syntax and grammar which are part of landscape literacy must be learned in order to see the beauty in patterns found in eco-systems and the services that they provide. Natural landscapes and gardens enhance the combinations of life and surprise. For the uninitiated the vagaries and unpredictable nature of a “natural” landscape is disconcerting. The uncontrolled and untended look “reads” as unkempt and dangerous to the current accepted gardening practices and expected principles of design.

The very garden wall that long “framed” the garden and kept nature at arms length is now symbolically (or even in deed) torn down so that nature can come in. For millennia the garden space defined the other we call nature. Now it is nature which defines the garden, a revolution in perspective. Where once we found grounding in the garden, we see definition in the wild areas and wilderness which encourage our aspirations…at least for some. The traditional garden walled out the complexities of nature reducing choices to a manageable few.

And the collision of desires comes when we try to provide an easy to understand garden with a limited palette and nothing to much moving about that cannot be easily identified while at the same time trying to support and enhance the needs of our ecosystem by planting host plants for insects and inviting other species to dine on the garden we plant. One hand wants plants that are inedible to insects; the other wants butterflies. We want an insect free zone and we want song birds. We want predictability and we want nature. We want it all. We want inexpensive food, but we also want pesticide free…yesterday. We want higher yields, but we do not want hybrids. We want security with out risk, and we want freedom without responsibility. We want restrictions of chemical controls of invasive species, so we get biological controls that bring in more exotics…exactly what we set out to diminish.

The collision of expectations gives way to unexpected outcomes motivated by well meaning desires. This then is the Collision of Desires. All stakeholders want to do the right thing. No one group sets out to do the wrong thing. But the complexities surrounding invasive species sometimes lead to solutions at odds with one another.

The Anti-Ecology of Money | Energy Bulletin

2009-07-26T09:37:00.000-04:00

The Anti-Ecology of Money Energy Bulletin

Bioeconomics of Invasive Species - A Reference for Stakeholders

2009-07-24T08:27:00.003-04:00

July 19th (Bioeconomics_review), 2009 {Book provided to me without charge by UOP}
Invasive species issues have captured my attention for more than 15 years. I still remember wondering about the science behind the claim that Lythrum, purple loosestrife, was invasive; I still recall the confusion as to what exactly what an invasive species was. In a broader sense I have spent my time in invasive species problems trying to connect the various disciplines of current knowledge to each other. I wonder how cost is measured, and what is risk; how definitions are reached and who is responsible for developing them; where are the models that coordinate problem of scale both in time and space. Bridging the chasm between business opportunities and the costs of preserving or protecting the commonly held environmental infrastructure, as well as sorting through the semantic clutter of market preferences and public values, has been almost a fool’s errand at times.

Now a new book, ‘Bioeconomics of Invasive Species Integrating Ecology, Economics, Policy, and Management’, edited by Reuben P. Keller, David M. Lodge, Mark A. Lewis and Jason F. Shogren, has been released by Oxford University Press. Aimed at professional managers and policy makers, as well as researchers in the many related fields of invasive species, the book is invaluable for anyone involved in the on going debates and conversations. Contributors, numbering over 20, to the collection of academic papers include: Reuben P. Keller, a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Notre Dame; David M. Lodge, Director of Center for Aquatic Conservation and Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Notre Dame; Mark A. Lewis, Canada Research Chair in Mathematical Biology in the Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences at the University of Alberta; and, Jason F. Shogren, Stroock Professor of Natural Resource Conservation and Management in the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of Wyoming.

The book provides an in depth look at ecological and economic modeling theory and practice that can serve as a reference for the fields of risk assessment, early detection and rapid response, and control and management of invasive species. A convenient definition from the website, Bioeconomics: Mansour Mohammadian , lays out the scope of the book: “Bioeconomics is the discipline originating from the synthesis of biology and economics. It is an attempt to bridge, through the concept of holism and interdisciplinary methodology, the empirical culture of biology and the literary culture of economics and thus finish with what C.P. Snow has called " the two cultures. The paradigm shift is really an endeavour to make the invisible visible: in the case of bioeconomics the aim is to make visible all the weaknesses of the socioeconomic activity based on the neoclassical theory and the competitive capitalist ideology.” (© 2009 Mansour Mohammadian. All Rights Reserved. www.scienceofbioeconomics.com info@scienceofbioeconomics.com )

I have stood in the middle of more than I can count stakeholder arguments that are not about invasive species but rather ecology versus economy. The property rights conversation collides with the tragedy of the commons more often than not; the larger philosophic implications are hidden by the moment of the topic. Peter A. Corning, at the Institute for the Study of Complex Systems argues “… that an economy is at heart a "survival enterprise," the basic purpose of which is "earning a living" (whatever may be our perceptions -- and the exceptions) and that both "competition" and "co-operation" represent subsidiary, contingent "survival strategies." From this perspective, bioeconomic evolution may be characterized as a consequential change in a society's (or a species') mode of adaptation -- ie., in the means of production of the requisites for biological survival and reproduction. It entails the differential selection of alternative adaptive modalities (instrumentalities of needs satisfaction). (Peter A. Corning, Ph.D. Institute for the Study of Complex Systems Copyright © 2007 ISCS. All rights reserved.) In a nutshell, or, as the authors put it, in a clamshell, Bioeconomics of Invasive Species Integrating Ecology, Economics, Policy, and Management makes “...better informed outcomes possible.”

Organized into 13 chapters the book moves from descriptions of current fields of knowledge and perspectives of invasion biology to discussions of economic and ecologic integration. From there the authors investigate trait-based risk assessments and habitat niche modeling providing details in one resource and reference for the many lines of research currently underway today. Bioeconomics continues with in depth explorations of invasive species propagule pressure and dispersal models. Make no mistake; this is not an introductory work. I had to reconnect with distant memories of avoided classes featuring differential equations and statistics, but the mental exercise was worth it, and the authors give detailed explanations of each step towards their mathematical models.

In the middle of Bioeconomics of Invasive Species I found a classic, useful presentation about fuzzy definitions, semantic vagaries and linguistic and scientific uncertainty which are central to my presentations and to my work bringing diverse and opposing constituencies together. To say the least I am excited that the authors included an entire chapter about the role and implications of uncertainty in a world that wants science to rule “ex cathedra” and never ever recant a position. Further more, Bioeconomics of Invasive Species explains in both clear economic terminology why replacement cost valuation offers erroneous answers when used to account for invasive species costs. The authors offer a descriptive metaphor for why replacement costs do not give correct answers: “Metaphorically speaking, measuring economic value by multiplying visible price times quantity would be like measuring biological phenotype by using only visible molecules and structure coded by the genetic materials.” (Bioeconomics 2009 p. 156) Understanding the insider’s problem with existing statements of invasive species costs is laid out in clear prose complete with easy to follow graphics and charts. Policies surrounding invasive species will inevitably need to consider that replacement cost and market value as currently used can lead to both understatements and overstatements of the actual or true invasive species’ costs.

Chapter 9 brings all the differing strands together presenting a goal “…to design management and policy that accounts for invader population dynamics, control and eradication measure, cost benefit analysis, and methods for optimal decision making.” (Bioeconomics 2009 p. 180) A detailed elucidation of integrated decision making modeling is capped with the observation that “[s]trong human preferences for the present period coupled to a constant discount rate explain how reduced control of invasive species may emerge as a rational decision from a bioeconomic perspective.” The authors note the intergenerational challenge to economists and ecologists of valuing the complex needs of the environment going forward. “If we wish to preserve ecosystem for future generations through rational economic behavior, we must necessarily consider new economic incentives or revised methods for valuing ecosystems that cab be used to achieve this goal.” (Bioeconomics 2009 p. 201)

Daniel Simberloff writes that Bioeconomics of Invasive Species “…is a remarkable and profound synthesis [of] successes and failures in managing invasions [and] is a must-read for invasion biologists.” I would extend that to all those who are interested in or concerned about the impacts of invasive species and the considerations to be used in setting regulatory and response policies. This is a must-have reference tool for anyone actively working in invasive species fields and a guide to future research needs to help build better tools for decisions makers and ecosystem managers.

I hope to begin a series on this web log devoted to each of the chapters, and to produce a talk and presentation grounded in this important interface between ecology and economics.

American Food Security - Dr. Roger Lawson

2009-07-16T07:18:00.001-04:00

Posted by permission of the author, Dr. Roger Lawson

"At the recent G8 summit world leaders again recognized the plight of farmers in the developing world and their inability to produce enough food to satisfy the needs of the more than one billion people who face starvation. Leaders of these rich countries pledged an additional $ 5 billion in aid over the next three years to supply the seeds, fertilizers, tools and other aid to small farmers in developing countries. The U.S is expected to commit an additional $ 3 billion.

What is missing from this food security equation is the answer to the future productivity of U.S agriculture in the rapidly changing global environment. Increased global warming with changing weather patterns are resulting in more severe droughts and floods and increased concentrations of carbon dioxide associated with burning fossil fuels. These changes are already having a profound effect on crop production and food security here at home.

The Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (ARS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland has been solving agricultural production problems for nearly 100 years. Once regarded as the flagship of ARS, the scientific staff today numbers 253 compared to more than 400 in the 1960’s. Maintaining a stable and productive U.S. food supply will require a new emphasis on research. Seeds and fertilizer, as will be supplied to the developing countries, will not solve the problems of providing a plentiful and nutritious food supply to U.S consumers.

Beltsville has developed a Center of Excellence on Climate Change where a diverse range of research that includes effects of climate change on crop yield and the development of new more climate-tolerant crops; development of more sustainable practices with reduced use of polluting nitrogen and other synthetic fertilizers; discovering the effects of climate change on reduced levels of vitamin E and other essential components in food and developing new technologies using satellite imaging to predict crop yields in a changing environment.

The challenge of food security must be addressed by Congress without further delay. If the U.S is to prepare for the current climate changes and the predicted increase in population of 130 million by 2042 that will require 30-40% more food, we must act now.
I urge all Marylanders to contact their State and U.S Senators and Representatives and Delegates and urge increased funding for the Center of Excellence."

Roger Lawson Ph 410 531-0075
10613 Steamboat Landing rlawson66@comcast.net
Columbia, MD 21044

Study Shows Why North America Tree is Invasive in Europe / July 14, 2009 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

2009-07-14T10:10:00.000-04:00

Study Shows Why North America Tree is Invasive in Europe / July 14, 2009 / News from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

Another to support the work of USDA ARS

Whitehall snipes at Prince Charles’s ‘misguided’ green thinking - Times Online

2009-07-13T13:37:00.000-04:00

Whitehall snipes at Prince Charles’s ‘misguided’ green thinking - Times Online