Sara,   I would really recommend a visit to Quail Springs (quailsprings.org) which is an exemplary method of using thoughtful permaculture methods to regenerate wilderness.  Quail Springs is 300+ acres in Ventura County that have been severely damaged by strip mining and cattle ranching, leaving almost no trees in a previously forested area, huge erosion problems and almost no water on a land previously fed by a year round stream. Warren Brush has some wonderful experience and philosophies on this subject and there are some great examples that you can see at work (his work to revive the water supply is one of them).   They have regular events up there but I believe you can arrange to visit any time that Warren is available.  One of his programs includes a Trees for Children tree planting program. 

Perhaps there could be some sort of "sister" project that gets done with him.  He does awesome work with kids, very transformative.  My son experienced that, and it changed his life.

Best, Cory

Sara Benjamin <benjamin_sara@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello All,
 
Thank you to everyone who contributed to this recent dialogue on invasive species. This topic has been swirling around in my awareness for a good long while and I sincerely appreciate all of your permaculture-informed perspectives.
 
I am  interested in exploring the possibility of Regenerative Wildland Restoration. I am extremely keen on applying permaculture ethics and principles to wildland rehabilitation. A truly regenerative approach to restoration and remediation work.
 
I regularly witness methods and practices in the world of restoration that don't sit right with me, but I am not yet savvy enough to offer less intrusive, naturally-informed solutions. In places where human actions have tipped the balance of a healthy ecosystem,  a "hands off" approach does not fulfill the stewardship role that seems to be required of us (and which was historically present in the co-evolutionary relationship of many intact indegenous cultures with their place). I want to begin to look at new models for doing restoration work. I do not want to "go to battle" with "evil" "non-native" plants. Rather, I want to work with nature to efficiently optimize and restore the health and regenerative capacity of these wild ecosystems. 

My request:  Does anyone know of anyone already looking at these things? A workshop or course I could take? Books that might speak to these intentions?
 
Warm regards,
 
Sara
 
><((((º>`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸. ·´¯`·.¸. , .. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
 
Sara Benjamin
"Once Upon a Wetland…" Project Director
Oak Grove School
220 West Lomita Avenue
Ojai, California 93023
 
805.895.1241
benjamin_sara@yahoo.com


----- Original Message ----
From: Cory Brennan <cory8570@yahoo.com>
To: Lapg@arashi.com
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:17:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Lapg] [Scpg] Interesting perspective about invasive species

To me, this could be summed up in this way:

Blaming "invasive species" for ecosystems problems could be considered an incorrect target.

A more correct target would be mankind's irresponsibility in how they are introduced, his ignorance of how ecosystems work, and his laziness in observing the effects created by his actions.

That is because, as was mentioned by Toby and others, too often "invasive species" are a form of succession plant that is taking opportunity of edge or degradation of ecosystems caused by man's activity.   For instance, I don't have any personal experience with kudzu, but have been told that it normally would not invade forests, except that it can get a foothold at the "edge" created by roads cut through forested areas, man made fields, etc. 

It may be harder to confront the problem of how to educate mankind than how to kill "weeds" in an ecosystem, but to the degree we do confront that, we will solve the problem for generations to come.

It is true that sometimes the damage has been such that it is important to remove certain species from an ecosystem to salvage and regenerate that system.  This would of course best be adjudicated by someone who was well educated about how ecosystems work and specifically had observed that particular ecosystem enough to determine what would truly help it recover.

Was it Holgrem that said that it is not the diversity in an ecosystem, but the number of beneficial connections that help create viability of that system? This is something that could specifically be observed - what does that species add, in terms of cooperation, to that system?  What does it subtract?  

This approach does entail not being glib or rote or "know it all" or any of those other things we all can fall into sometimes.  It entails an ability to observe what is in front of you, and to look past the obvious, which this culture tends to discourage quite mightily.  

After starting a food forest business and trying various other approaches to permaculture, I've personally settled on focusing on education, because I see it as an essential link to ever really getting permaculture principles applied on any sort of meaningful scale.

By the way, though it may have been sort of a joke, I agree that corn and soybean fields are the biggest invasive species problem we have!    :-))  It is also the most artificially maintained invasive species - how much corn do you find growing wild in an abandoned field?  Let's hear it for polycropping, family farms, five zone planning, and other more sane methods of producing food.

Cory

steve williams <steelheadwig@yahoo.com> wrote:
For balance, I'd like to add this review by Toby Hemenway, whose wisdom and eloquence I have much respect for: http://www.patternliteracy.com/exotics.html
---S
Another Kind of Genocide
Review of
Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience
By David Theodoropoulos
Avvar Books, Blythe CA. 2003.
237+xiv pp. Paper. $14.50
One of my favorite ways of setting off small explosions is to tell a group of gardeners that I have no dislike of invasive plants. Since the polarization over the natives-versus-exotics issue is fierce, the discussion quickly heats up. But lately I've noticed some thinning of the ranks of the natives-only army, and the debate has grown much more nuanced and sophisticated. Many people still cling to the simplistic battle cry of "natives good, exotics bad" that was once almost the only view to be heard­or to get funding. But the murmurs of a few questioning voices have now grown to a full-scale argument, with a growing body of data on the "don't blame exotics" side.
David Theodoropoulos, a conservationist and founder of an excellent resource for seeds of multi-functional plants, J.L. Hudson Seedsman, has waded into the battle with an arsenal of scholarship. His book, Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience, ranges beyond an examination of invasive-plant science (more properly, the lack it) and also explores the psychological, political, and cultural reasons behind our eagerness to hate certain species.
Theodoropoulos opens by reviewing the underpinnings of the anti-exotics movement, or invasion biology—the idea that certain organisms belong in certain places, and others don't. Quickly we see that unlike most scientific reports, papers in even academic journals such as Conservation Biology and Restoration and Management Notes bristle with xenophobic rhetoric: "all [species] should be treated as threats . . . unless proven otherwise." Species are labeled "nefarious," "stealing," "stormtrooper plants," and "intruders" that should be "weeded out" to "prevent their escape." Hardly the language of objective science.
Good science also requires that definitions and operating terms be rigorous and uniformly applied. Yet invasion biologists have not defined their terms and use them in varying, idiosyncratic senses. The usage of the words native, exotic, diversity, natural community, and other terms slip and slide in Humpty Dumpty fashion: The words mean whatever they want them to mean. What is a native? In the most recent one percent of the Earth's history, figs and breadfruit have grown in Wyoming, and neotropicals in Alaska. Elms and chestnuts thrived in California in the early Pleistocene—just yesterday. But no one calls them native to those places. And many species labeled as native turn out to have arrived a few years before, or a century ago, or 500 years. Native seems to mean simply, "It was here when I got here."
What defines a native's range? Monterey cypress, osage orange, and black locust are being exterminated as exotics only 100 miles from their accepted native habitat. Yet species can naturally extend their range that far in a few years.
And what is diversity? A patch of exotics and one of native plants can both offer equally high diversity, in all of the term's accepted meanings, whether number of species, species turnover, or relative abundance of each species.
Theodoropoulos reviews the claims of the invasion biologists: that we are in an invasive-species crisis; that humans are moving species faster and farther than nature ever could; that many species have become extinct solely due to exotics; that invasion corrodes ecosystem processes, lowers diversity, and is destroying our wildlands. Admirably, he goes to the original sources cited by the doomsayers, and shows that the data do not support a single one of these claims. Purple loosestrife, the poster child of invasion biologists, harbors slightly more native insects and birds than nearby native plants. It also is an excellent nutrient accumulator, thriving primarily in­and cleaning up­polluted waters (which hints at the real reason for its abundance). There is no evidence that tamarisk, scourge of the southwest, has displaced any native species or changes riparian hydrology, and it too supports as many species as natives (including a rare flycatcher), and more species than indigenous cottonwoods. Theodoropoulos hauls out bags of similar evidence on all the big-name invasives and many lesser ones to firmly scotch the prejudice that non-natives alone can harm ecosystems.
Obliterating the claim that humans have sped up dissemination of species, Theodoropoulos cites, among many, Darwin's studies of individual birds and insects carrying dozens of seed species a few to thousands of miles. Multiply that by billions of animal carriers, and it equals or dwarfs human plant exchanges. Fifty years after isolated Krakatau blew up, 1100 species had crossed open ocean to repopulate the island. Other evidence of the astounding rate of natural transport is offered in abundance. He notes also that the mixing of the Red Sea and Mediterranean biotas caused by the Suez Canal, as rapid and large-scale an exchange as we are likely to encounter, seems not to have resulted in any extinctions.
The book also reveals the connection between invasion biology and the pesticide industry. A founding board member of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council is a Monsanto executive who was instrumental in developing Roundup. The industry generously funds these councils and similar organizations.
Invasion biology also suffers from number bloat. An oft-cited paper by noted biologist David Pimentel states that exotics cause $137 billion in damage every year, but examination quickly reveals some wild assumptions and flagrant bias. Loss from cats is pegged at $17 billion (12% of the total!) but the basis is speculation on the number of birds killed and a $30 value for hand-rearing each bird, when little money is actually spent replacing dead birds. And why aren't rats, mice, and crop-eating birds that are killed by cats subtracted from this absurd number? Theodoropoulos rightly suggests that by this logic, we should puff the total cost into the trillions by adding the estimated price of restoring all Midwest farmland to pristine prairie. After all, corn and soybeans may be the continent's most widespread and damaging invasives.
The author barely suppresses laughter as he shows the contradictions of this so-called science. When native species drop mulch, fix nitrogen, attract new pollinators, or create shade, it's called beneficial. When an exotic does exactly the same, it's labeled ecosystem disruption. The bias dies hard: Researchers found that native plants dominate undisturbed prairie (10,700 natives to 2 wild carrots) while exotics require disturbed soil, yet they still opened their paper with "Invasion by exotic plant species is a serious threat to the integrity of natural communities." One proponent of natives recommends we "choose breeding stock carefully to avoid inbreeding and genetic contamination," forgetting that you can't avoid both simultaneously. And on and on.
So what's happening here? If the data do not support it, why the rage and fear toward non-native species? Here Theodoropoulos turns, in the middle third of the book, to the psychology, politics, and pseudoscience driving the hate campaign against non-natives.
Humans have an innate and sometimes-justified fear of change in our environment. Change may introduce a potential danger, hence one reaction to change is fear unless we examine the fear or make its cause conscious. Also related is xenophobia, fear of the other. For animals at the mercy of their environment, these can be useful defense mechanisms. But for animals who have evolved into technological humans, they are destructive atavisms that isolate us from nature.
As one illustration, the author describes the native-plant campaigns of Hitler's followers, though he is very careful not to call exotics-haters Nazis. He believes invasion biology is rooted in the same fears and prejudices that power Nazism and other racist, genocidal ideologies. A desire for genetic purity and preservation of the homeland, dissatisfaction with current status, an easily identified enemy, and a simplistic answer—extermination—are elements that these ideologies share. And he does call invasion biology an ideology, demonstrating that it cannot justifiably be called a science. In no scientific discipline can data be suppressed or used selectively to support a preconception as is done in invasion biology. Pseudoscience is known for refusing to acknowledge conflicting data, not testing assumptions, exaggeration of limited truths, and circular arguments. ("If it's not native it's bad, and the reason it's bad is because it's non-native.") Invasion biology fits this pattern.
We greatly prefer to find simple, physical causes for problems and then eradicate them. We're very good at spotting and killing enemies, and we feel virtuous while we do it. We're far less successful and confident when causes are multiple, the solution requires changes in our thinking, and the "enemy" is our own behavior.
Most harm resulting from introduction of non-native species should be blamed not on the species themselves, but on human destruction of habitat and on practices that change landscapes so they no longer support their native vegetation. Non-native species are almost never capable of competing successfully with species in an intact native ecosystem. (The author points out one oft-heard contradiction here: that exotics often drive out the better-adapted natives. Say, what?) Clearing, soil disturbance, creation of sunlit edges, harvesting, and the other collateral damage of development all degrade native habitat to render non-natives more suited to the new conditions. Thus yanking the exotics will do no good—they'll come back faster than the now-handicapped natives under the changed conditions.
Another harmful manifestation of exotic-species hatred is our hubris: the conviction that we know better than nature which organisms should be living somewhere. Eradication of non-natives has often had a Vietnam-village effect of destroying what we are trying to save, and can in fact damage ecosystem function more than the exotics. Evidence is mounting that the vigorously growing blends of native and non-native plants that "invade" damaged land are yet another example of nature's wisdom and resourcefulness. Nature creatively mingles both native and exotic without prejudice, using all resources available to throw a green Band-Aid over ravaged landscapes. We demean her intelligence and set back the healing process when we hack away these recombinant communities. The book's final section uses this view as the basis for a new relationship with human-dispersed species.
Theodoropoulos seems to have modeled his book on The Origin of Species, wherein Darwin assembled an overwhelming number of examples to support his view and in effect crushed his enemies by sheer weight. Invasion Biology is similarly exhaustive, which at times makes for repetition, although I think the author was right to show that he was not just selecting a few isolated favorable examples. His ranging into aspects of psychology and politics carries him into fields where he is not well-versed, but these are territories that are clearly relevant and needed inclusion. He has opened the door for specialists to follow and deepen his opening arguments that link the hate-speech of invasion biology to its cultural roots.
The book is self-published (and cheaply bound—my copy's binding is failing) and deserves a much wider readership than its limited distribution is getting. If you find yourself incensed at what you've read here, or are asking, "But what about . . ." you should read this book, as this review can only hint at the wealth of evidence and arguments. And it's just the thing for permaculturists confronted by natives-only partisans. It is available from the author (David Theodoropoulos, Star Route 2, Box 337, La Honda, CA 94020 USA, www.dtheo.com/BookOrder.htm) and some major booksellers. Or ask your local bookseller to order it, and get it on the shelves for others to see.
Copyright 2005 by Toby Hemenway


steve williams <steelheadwig@yahoo.com> wrote:
Camille, I'll get back after I read the book...
 
For now, here is the review from "Ecology", a publication of the Ecological Society of America (http://www.esapubs.org/esapubs/journals/ecology.htm#Sco):
"Now it is invasion biologists' turn to face misguided invective. [The book is] faulty... inconsistent... [has] an inadequate evolutionary framework... incendiary... disingenuous... inflammatory... spurious, highly politicized... invective, masquerading as an authentic scientific critique." —Dr. D. Secord, University of Washington. Book Review, Ecology 85(4), April 2004.

Also, here are some  websites about invasive species so folks can weigh both sides and form their own opinions:

http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/definitions/impact.php
http://biology.usgs.gov/invasive/effects.html
http://www.weedcenter.org/  (see doc about invasive hydrilla and bald eagle deaths)

word out...S



camille cimino <camcim@yahoo.com> wrote:
i highly recommend the book!

it's not fair to start the discussion until you can
see the long term facts, science, and data.

FYI.............

david thedoropolus is the steward of j.l. hudson
public access seed bank. it used to be the largest
until SSE started taking corporate monies form
kelloggs etc.

also,
i was not joking about planting invasive species.

i just planted some variegated arundo donax in
pasadena in the arroyo seco, right near the rose bowl.

today i planted valerian in silverlake

tomorrow i am planting spearmint in a veggie garden

and soon i will plant very large eucalyptus in on open
chaparral fire zone, kinda close to the house.

if you want to knopw the circumstances i would be glad
to share.............

ie the arundo donax went in a very special jungle yard
underneath huge trees and massive vines in a very
shady zone. no worries about it getting out of
control.

i really hope it lives!!!!

it all about context and observation. no such thing
as invasive, no such thing as native vs non-native, no
judgement about nature or presumption that we can even
begin to understand the complexity.

jeez.....we still don't even get the interconnectivity
of a forest.

i VOTE FOR DIVERSITY.












--- steve williams wrote:

>
>
>
> My 2 (3?) cents:
>
> I have worked in several National Parks, mostly
> doing habitat restoration. That is, restoration of
> areas damaged by introduced livestock or humans,
> which usually result in non-native weed invasions.
> We removed weeds and planted natives into those
> sites. In general, I found it to be a worthwhile
> mission.
>
> Having said that, I think there IS a certain
> fanaticism to the "nativist" mission. I've always
> been leary of their mostly unchallenged willingness
> to resort to chemical solutions to some of these
> persistent weeds. I agree that the pesticide
> industry promotes this sometimes over-zealous "war
> on weeds". I don't like that language...who wants
> another war?! I believe non-chemical weed
> management with mulching, native planting and other
> more benign solutions has a place in wildland
> management.
>
> I have not yet read the below-mentioned book, but I
> am going to. I agree with Cory's observation that
> it appears to be fanaticism from the other
> extreme... I too, don't see this as a black and
> white issue; it IS case-by-case. I'm not a big fan
> of polarization either. Taking the Permaculture
> Design course has given me a fresh perspective on
> alternative views on weed management.
>
> Lastly, Camille, I find your below statements,
> "I purposely plant invasive species all over, see
> who is gonna win! pampas grass rules!"
> to be particularly disturbing. Hopefully this is a
> joke to get a rise out of people. While invasive
> ornamentals may have a place in urban/suburban
> environments, planting them purposefully in any
> proximity to native wildlands is considered an
> eco-crime. If this is the case, you are a true
> loonytunes of the weedophile fringe, and I hope to
> god I never see you on a trail waving one of your
> beloved seed-laden pampasgrass fronds around!
>
> ----Steelhead Steve ( ;
>
>
>
>
>
> camille cimino wrote: i am a HUGE
> fan and personal friend of david
> thedoropolus and his book "invasion biology."
>
> i highly recommend reading his book to get the FACTS
> instead of buying in to the nativist hysteria.
>
> according to permaculture principles there should be
> ZERO judgement regarding plants, just the right
> plant
> in the right spot.
>
> i purposely plant invasive species all over, see who
> is gonna win!
>
> pampas grass rules!
>
> PS she we get him to come down for another book
> tour?
> he was here in LA 2 or so years ago.
>
>
>
>
> --- Diana Liu wrote:
>
> > Hi, Cory. I agree with you. It's definitely not
> a
> > black and white thing. There is so much that we
> > don't know about nature. Someone mentioned (I
> think
> > Larry) once that it's just how plants propagate,
> > spreading their seeds (and genes) anywhere they
> go.
> > So, are there really so called "native" vs.
> > "non-native" (and therefore invasive plants)?
> > Again, these are labels that we, human invented.
> >
> > I would think that there could be a lot of cross
> > pollination and hybridization between the "native"
> > and "invasive" plants. As a consequence, may
> create
> > progenies (diversity) that are more adaptive than
> > either parent plants. Isn't diversity the golden
> > rule for sustainability to happen?
> >
> > Cory Brennan wrote:
> > I think the problem is more of a situation where
> > permaculture principles are not applied, by either
> > side. I know of a number of situations with
> > invasive species that were quite destructive and
> > disruptive of ecosystems, destroying forests,
> > waterways, etc. It is usually not a black or
> white
> > situation. You have to go in and actually observe
> > the ecosystem in question and find out what is
> > happening and why. Sometimes that isn't obvious.
> > For instance, beetle invasions that kill forests
> may
> > not have happened if the forests had not been
> > weakened in a number of ways first by man's
> > intervention (clear cut, replanting of single
> > species, incorrect fire management techniques,
> > pollution, etc, etc). Application of microbes can
> > stop invasions as the system is strengthened - I
> > personally don't know of any situation where
> > artificial chemical solutions would be
> "necessary".
> > In other cases, like mustard, there are
> adaptability
> > features that native species don't have.
> >
> > The review of this book makes it sound as extreme
> as
> > those it is criticizing - I tend to distrust
> > anything that makes things so black and white,
> from
> > any side. My view is that you have to observe and
> > then do what will be least disruptive to the
> > existing system, as per permaculture principles.
> A
> > great argument for natives is that we too often
> > don't know their use and we really should bother
> to
> > find out. So often, they offer more nutrition and
> > other uses than imported species. California
> > natives such as the oak are amazing plants and
> have
> > so many great uses. Cutting them down to bring
> in
> > cattle and strip mining has caused very easily
> > observed damage to ecosystems, including massive
> > erosion problems.
> >
> > I think the argument of natives vs non native is a
> > bit of a red herring. The real issue is whether we
> > are observing the effects we create on our
> > ecosystems and the implications of those effects,
> > and taking responsiblity for that or not.
> >
> > By the way, someone mentioned on one of these
> lists
> > plants that are compatible with live oak. Is
> there
> > a list? I'm familiar with some, but not all.
> >
> > Cory
> >
> > Marc Bailey
> wrote:
> > var YAHOO = {'Shortcuts' : {}};
> > YAHOO.Shortcuts.hasSensitiveText = true;
> > YAHOO.Shortcuts.sensitivityType =
> > ["sensitive_news_terms", "adult"];
> > YAHOO.Shortcuts.doUlt = false;
> > YAHOO.Shortcuts.location = "us";
> > YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_id = 0;
> > YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_type = "";
> > YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_title = "Interesting
> > perspective about invasive species";
> > YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_publish_date = "";
> > YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_author =
> > "playtoe1@yahoo.com"; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_url
> =
> > ""; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_tags = "";
> > YAHOO.Shortcuts.annotationSet = {
> "lw_1207900164_0":
> > { "text":
> >
>
"http://jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm#Invasion%20Biology",
> > "extended": 0, "startchar": 1140, "endchar": 1192,
> > "start": 1140, "end": 1192, "extendedFrom": "",
> > "predictedCategory": "", "predictionProbability":
> > "0", "weight": 1, "type":
> >
>
["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/hyperlink/http"],
> > "category": ["IDENTIFIER"], "context": "other\x27s
> > on this
> > list would find interesting. Happy composting,
> > -Marc
> >
>
http://jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm#Invasion%20Biology
> > We have all heard the breathless tales of the
> > dangers", "metaData": { "linkHref":
> >
>
"http://jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm#Invasion%20Biology",
> > "linkProtocol": "http", "linkRel": "nofollow",
> > "linkTarget": "_blank" } }, "lw_1207900164_1": {
> > "text": "Florida", "extended": 0, "startchar":
> 1779,
> > "endchar": 1785, "start": 1779, "end": 1785,
> > "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "PLACE",
> > "predictionProbability": "0.959674", "weight":
> 0.35,
> > "type":
> ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/destination",
> > "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/us/state"],
> > "category": ["PLACE"], "context": "invasive
> > alien\x22 hydrilla supports the highest bird
> species
> > diversity in Florida, and it supports higher fish
> > species density and many times", "metaData": {
> > "geoArea": "148514", "geoCountry": "United
> States",
> > "geoIsoCountryCode": "US", "geoLocation":
> > "(-81.541183, 27.975639)", "geoName": "Florida",
> > "geoPlaceType": "State", "geoState": "Florida",
> > "geoStateCode": "FL", "type":
> > "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/us/state" } },
> > "lw_1207900164_2": { "text":
> > "http://mail.yahoo.com", "extended": 0,
> "startchar":
> > 4811, "endchar": 4831, "start": 4811, "end": 4831,
> > "extendedFrom": "", "predictedCategory": "",
> > "predictionProbability": "0", "weight": 1, "type":
> >
>
["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/hyperlink/http"],
> > "category": ["IDENTIFIER"], "context": "of spam?
> > Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has
> the",
> > "metaData": { "linkHref": "http://mail.yahoo.com",
> > "linkProtocol": "http", "linkRel": "nofollow",
> > "linkTarget": "_blank" } } };
> > I've been thinking about plants labeled as
> > invasive species and how many of them have
> extremely
> > positive aspects. Much time, effort, and money is
> > spent fighting these plants, but perhaps our
> > energies could be directed in more fruitful ways
> > (pun intended).
> >
> > Coincidentally, a book that I had been reading
> > called "Edible Forest Gardens" (Jacke &
> Toensmeier)
> > recomends another book: "Invasion Biology:
> Critique
> > of a Pseudoscience". I went to the website and
> > found the following synopsys of the book that I
> > thought other's on this list would find
> interesting.
> >
> > Happy composting,
> > -Marc
> >
> >
>
http://jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm#Invasion%20Biology
> >
> > We have all heard the breathless tales of the
> > dangers of "invasive alien species," but what does
> > science say about them? Did you know that studies
> > show that purple loosestrife does not affect
> species
> > richness of native plants? Or that it supports
> > higher bird densities than native vegetation? That
> > saltcedar supports native birds and insects in
> high
> > numbers and at high levels of diversity, including
> > endangered species? That the "invasive alien"
> > hydrilla supports the highest bird species
> diversity
> > in Florida, and it supports higher fish species
> > density and many times the fish biomass than
> > natives? That the zebra mussel increased the catch
> > of yellow perch five-fold, and that it improves
> > water quality? That the so-called "killer algae"
> > reduces pollution and helps native species? That
> in
> > all cases, including even oceanic islands,
> > introduced species have increased biodiversity?
> >
> > Thoroughly researched, with full citations to
> > scientific literature, this book will definitely
> > change your view of introduced species. It will
> give
> > you the facts you need to counter those promoting
> > invader fears.
> >
> > Chapters cover the origins of "natural" ecosystems
> > and their changes over time, and detail the true
> > underlying causes of "invasion" in the damage
> > industrialism is wreaking on the planet. Case
> > studies of many of the most feared "invaders" are
> > presented, each case showing the distortions of
> the
> > nativists, and the beneficial effects of the
> > newcomer. The resiliency of ecosystems and the
> rapid
> > ecological integration of newcomers is
> demonstrated.
> > A chapter details the growing extremism of the
> > nativist movement, and the harm caused as they
> > clearcut, bulldoze, herbicide, and burn natural
> > areas around the world in the name of purifying
> the
> > landscape of the "foreign," even killing
> endangered
> > species as "invaders."
> >
> > A detailed analysis of the writings of these
> > nativists reveals the psychopathologies that drive
> > this reactionary movement. Numerous quotes are
> > compared which demonstrate that the same fears
> that
> > underlie xenophobia, racism, and fascism fuel the
> > anti-invader movement. A chapter covers in detail
> > the pseudoscientific nature of invasion
> biology-why
> > the invasive species model cannot be scientific,
> and
> > the poor practices that characterize the field.
> The
> > impossibility of predicting invasions is covered,
> > showing the "white list" concept to be useless as
> > public policy.
> >
> > The hidden influence of the herbicide industry is
> > exposed. The regulatory industry and corporate
> > interests are colluding in an effort to leverage
> the
> > fictitious "invasion crisis" into a system of
> > complete bureaucratic control of nature, and
> > corporate privatization of the earth's biological
> > diversity.
> >
> > The final chapters concern the beneficial,
> > diversifying effects of anthropogenic
> dispersal-the
> > movement of species by man. These species increase
> > biological diversity, benefit ecosystems, prevent
> > extinctions, and act as an important force for
> > healing the planet. Dispersal is a powerful
> driving
> > force of evolution, and the book concludes by
> > pointing out a new direction for conservation-the
> > incorporation of dispersal as an essential
> strategy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scpg mailing list
> > Scpg@arashi.com
> > https://www.arashi.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/scpg
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lapg mailing list
> > Lapg@arashi.com
> > https://www.arashi.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lapg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> > Kindness in words creates confidence.
> > Kindness in thinking creates profoundness.
> > Kindness in giving creates love.
> > - Lao Tzu
> > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > Lapg mailing list
> > Lapg@arashi.com
> > https://www.arashi.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lapg
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Lapg mailing list
> Lapg@arashi.com
> https://www.arashi.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lapg
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com >
_______________________________________________
> Lapg mailing list
> Lapg@arashi.com
> https://www.arashi.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lapg
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________
Lapg mailing list
Lapg@arashi.com
https://www.arashi.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lapg

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________
Lapg mailing list
Lapg@arashi.com
https://www.arashi.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lapg

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Scpg mailing list
Scpg@arashi.com
https://www.arashi.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/scpg

between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99