next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Quoting David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>: > Randy Lauff wrote: > >> 2008/8/9 David & Alison Webster dwebster@glinx.com >> <mailto:dwebster@glinx.com> > >> Now herbicide is being used in the highlands park (injecting each >> stem)... but mowing, whenever the shoots reach about 3 dm, would >> be more efficient and effective. >> >> I fail to see how mowing could be either more efficient or >> effective. Mowing has to be done several to many times a year (every >> year!) due to the vigorous growth. A minimum effective dose of >> herbicide would solve the problem in one bout. >> >> David Webster continues to be carefree about introduced species, >> including invasive ones. And now he's against the National Park >> trying to maintain natural biodiversity? >> > Hi Randy & All, Aug 15, 2008 > If you read my original post you find no indication that I am > against control of this plant in the National Park. [section cut out]... > I think we should judge plants and animals by behavior and > properties not by point of origin. In general, when a plant is > invasive it is because there is some underutilized resource that > happens to meet their (its) requirements. > Yt, DW Hi Dave: Irrespective of the merits/demerits of Japanese Knotweed, but regarding your last paragraph reproduced immediately above: I think this idea should be a hard sell and doubt you can get away with making it. Invasive species usually seem to succeed because they are already pre-adapted from a similar environment to compete with the natives, but without the parasite and predator load that they conveniently left behind in the old country, so they out-compete the local species. You could argue that the trees are under-exploited in Patagonia or Cape Breton by beavers and gypsy moths respectively, but then the invaders seriously destabilized the existing ecology by killing off lots of the resources, trees, so it is not a benign result. For plants, a classic case would be the prickly pear imported into Australia, which originally had no parasites to control it until the moth (Cactoblastis?) was introduced for this purpose. I'm not an ecologist, but some on NNS are. Maybe someone else (or you yourself) can come up with an actual example of your point, where you seem to claim that an invading species can come in and wax fruitfully in a new zone without damaging the ecosystem, merely by utilizing an unused resource? Maybe I'm missing something. Steve, Halifax
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects