Skip to main content

Aughh! They're coming. . . the plants!

You may wonder why the hell I'm putting up a summary of my class lecture--well, this rewrite helps some of the information stick in my cranial folds.

Tonight's lecture was "Pathways and Dynamics of Plant Invasions." Yes, it was not that exciting. Before the first break I had trouble staying awake--less the prof's fault than perhaps low blood sugar.

Anyway, plant species move to new areas by two primary means: natural pathways (which always existed) i.e. atmospheric, oceanic, and river currents and, of course, us. Natural pathways usually deposited plants along coastlines whereas humans can move them much further in an interior.
Human dispersal has two ways as well--deliberate e.g. commerce, taking the pretty flowers and planting them in our garden 3,500 miles away (now how did that loosestrife end up way over here?), and using species like kudzu to halt soil erosion. That did stop the erosion, but caused other problems. The other method is accidental.
Worldwide New Zealand has the highest percentage of non-indigenous plant species with a total of 50 (holy shite!)% of their present species originating elsewhere. In the U.S. Hawaii has the highest percentage and California the highest absolute number of invasive plant species.

Invasives can be successful (see the rule of tens in a previous post) because they can make use of resources that the natives can't.
There are several theories for plant invasions: species-area relationship, equilibrium theory (put forth by Mr. Berry's buddy E.O. Wilson), metapopulations, and landscape ecology. Obviously, I'm not going in to detail, suffice it to say the more invasives the more success you'll have. There are also three barriers plants have to make it through to successfully colonize a new area: the biological, the physical (like road use, for instance), and environmental (soil conditions, climate, etc.)

What is the largest single factor in plant invasions? Disturbances. So back off with the freakin' bulldozer when you're landscaping, will ya?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Worth Quoting

There are but three social arrangements which can replace Capitalism: Slavery, Socialism, and Property.                                                                                                 --Hilaire Belloc                                                                                                The Servile State

Good reads of 2009

I haven't made a list like this in a while, and I believe I discussed most of these on the blog as I finished them, but I thought I'd make a handy short-hand list for you and me. These are only in the order I read them and do not indicate any preference. The Open Door * Frederica Mathewes-Green The Children of Hurin * J.R.R. Tolkien The Omnivore's Dilemma * Michael Pollan Agrarianism and the Good Society: Land, Culture, Conflict, and Hope * Eric T. Freyfogle Wonderful Fool * Shusaku Endo Up the Rouge: Paddling Detroit's Hidden River * Joel Thurtell and Patricia Beck Johnny Cash and the Great American Contradiction: Christianity and the Battle for the Soul of a Nation * Rodney Clapp (I started the following in December, but I haven't finished them--so far they are excellent: Love and Hate in Jamestown * David A. Price and The Picture of Dorian Gray * Oscar Wilde) Try one of these--let me know.

Independent Women?

      During breakfast today I was reading an excerpt from a play in The New York Times Magazine (I know, I was a day behind and read Saturday's edition yesterday) entitled Rust .  The play, written by a professor at Grand Valley State University, here in Michigan, is a nonfiction drama about the closing of a GM plant in Wyoming, MI.  The play itself sounds interesting and I enjoyed the excerpt, but what caught my eye was something a character said.  The character is "Academic" and plays a historian and guide to the playwright, also a character.  He is explaining the rise of the automobile factories and the effect of the car on American culture.  He says, "Women became independent, they go from producers of food and clothing to consumers of food and clothing."  This was meant as an earnest, praiseworthy point.     I would counter with "How far we've fallen."  To say that a woman (or a man) is independent because she has moved from producer to cons