Photo: Failed attempts to plant trees on the eroded Loess plateau, China, north of Xi'an. © 2007 Delena Norris-Tull
Do We Know What We're Doing?
Summary and commentary by Dr. Delena Norris-Tull, July 2020.
Given the damage to agriculture and natural ecosystems, it would seem that eradication of invasive species would be the logical goal.
But let’s get some things clear:
Based on an extensive review of the research literature, Sheley, et al., 2011, found that, in many aspects of invasive plant species management, there is a paucity of research (Refer to the section, Federal Goals for Rangeland Restoration for details of their analysis). They concluded that, “Invasive plant management is currently applied in a somewhat haphazard way based on political pressure and funding resources…. Invasive plant problems and solutions are complex and management outcomes are rarely predictable... In most cases, simple answers to complex situations do not exist.”
Research by Rinella, Maxwell, Fay, Weaver, & Sheley (2009) indicates that management of invasive plant species, and in particular the use of herbicides, can cause collateral damage to native grassland forb species that can be more detrimental than the problems caused by the invasive species. Their research presents a compelling challenge to current practices related to invasive plant species management in rangelands and prairies.
As a result, I have to constantly ask myself the question: Do we really know what we're doing? Should we even attempt to manage invasive species? Or should we simply leave them alone?
I do not yet have a clear answer to those questions. This project is my attempt to answer those questions.
In her book Braiding Sweetgrass, Dr. Robin Wall Kimmerer, a plant ecologist and a tribal member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, provides a different perspective on nature and on ecological restoration.
“Philosopher Joanna Macy writes of the oblivion we manufacture for ourselves to keep us from looking environmental problems straight in the eye. She quotes R.J. Clifton, a psychologist studying human response to catastrophe: ‘Suppression of our natural responses to disaster is part of the disease of our time. The refusal to acknowledge these responses causes a dangerous splitting. It divorces our mental calculations from our intuitive, emotional, and biological embeddedness in the matrix of life. That split allows us passively to acquiesce in the preparations for our own demise’” (Kimmerer, 2013, p. 326).
“Joanna Macy writes that until we can grieve for our planet we cannot love it - grieving is a sign of spiritual health. But it is not enough to weep for our lost landscapes; We have to put our hands in the earth to make ourselves whole again. Even a wounded world is feeding us. Even a wounded world holds us, giving us moments of wonder and joy. I choose joy over despair. Not because I have my head in the sand, but because joy is what the earth gives me daily an I must return the gift” (Kimmerer, 2013, p. 327).
References:
Next Sections:
Summary and commentary by Dr. Delena Norris-Tull, July 2020.
Given the damage to agriculture and natural ecosystems, it would seem that eradication of invasive species would be the logical goal.
But let’s get some things clear:
- Many species that are now classified as “weeds” were intentionally introduced into the U.S., typically for their food, medicinal, fiber, or landscape value. Currently, approximately 5,000 introduced plant species have made their way into U.S. natural ecosystems or agricultural landscapes, compared to the approximately 17,000 native plant species. It is important to note that many plant species that have been introduced have not had a detrimental impact on natural ecosystems or agriculture.
- Plants are considered a problem when they are deemed to have an impact on agricultural products (including livestock) currently under cultivation. But many current “weeds” were previously under cultivation in the U.S. For example, Russian Olive was a favored landscape tree (it has also been cultivated for its edible fruit), but its rapid spread resulted in it being reclassified recently as a noxious weed.
- Agency reports on invasive plant species tend to focus blame on the plant species themselves, as though they were active agents in their spread, rather than putting the blame squarely on the most invasive species of all, Homo sapiens.
- Despite the fact that many State and Federal Agencies list “eradication” of “noxious weeds” as a goal, time and time again, Agency representatives have discovered that, once established, “eradication” is often simply not a feasible solution, and can cause more damage to ecosystems than if the plant had simply been left alone.
Based on an extensive review of the research literature, Sheley, et al., 2011, found that, in many aspects of invasive plant species management, there is a paucity of research (Refer to the section, Federal Goals for Rangeland Restoration for details of their analysis). They concluded that, “Invasive plant management is currently applied in a somewhat haphazard way based on political pressure and funding resources…. Invasive plant problems and solutions are complex and management outcomes are rarely predictable... In most cases, simple answers to complex situations do not exist.”
Research by Rinella, Maxwell, Fay, Weaver, & Sheley (2009) indicates that management of invasive plant species, and in particular the use of herbicides, can cause collateral damage to native grassland forb species that can be more detrimental than the problems caused by the invasive species. Their research presents a compelling challenge to current practices related to invasive plant species management in rangelands and prairies.
As a result, I have to constantly ask myself the question: Do we really know what we're doing? Should we even attempt to manage invasive species? Or should we simply leave them alone?
I do not yet have a clear answer to those questions. This project is my attempt to answer those questions.
In her book Braiding Sweetgrass, Dr. Robin Wall Kimmerer, a plant ecologist and a tribal member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, provides a different perspective on nature and on ecological restoration.
“Philosopher Joanna Macy writes of the oblivion we manufacture for ourselves to keep us from looking environmental problems straight in the eye. She quotes R.J. Clifton, a psychologist studying human response to catastrophe: ‘Suppression of our natural responses to disaster is part of the disease of our time. The refusal to acknowledge these responses causes a dangerous splitting. It divorces our mental calculations from our intuitive, emotional, and biological embeddedness in the matrix of life. That split allows us passively to acquiesce in the preparations for our own demise’” (Kimmerer, 2013, p. 326).
“Joanna Macy writes that until we can grieve for our planet we cannot love it - grieving is a sign of spiritual health. But it is not enough to weep for our lost landscapes; We have to put our hands in the earth to make ourselves whole again. Even a wounded world is feeding us. Even a wounded world holds us, giving us moments of wonder and joy. I choose joy over despair. Not because I have my head in the sand, but because joy is what the earth gives me daily an I must return the gift” (Kimmerer, 2013, p. 327).
References:
- Kimmerer, R.W. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions.
- Rinella, M.J., Maxwell, B.D, Fay, P.K., Weaver, T., & Sheley, R.L. (Jan., 2009). Control effort exacerbates invasive-species problem. Ecological Applications, 19 (1): 155-162.
- Sheley, R.L., James, J.J., Rinella, M. J., Blumenthal, D., & DiTomaso, J.M. (2011). Invasive plant management on anticipated conservation benefits: A scientific assessment. In D.D. Briske (Ed.) Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: Assessment, recommendation, and knowledge gaps. (pp. 293-336). USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
- Swanson, E.K., Sheley, R.L., James, J.J. (Jan., 2020). Do shrubs improve reproductive chances of neighbors across soil types in drought? Oecologia, 192(1): 79-90.
Next Sections: