One thing about NZ, there is a vast amount of land devoted to timber plantations. Pseudotsuga and Pinus radiata seem to be the dominant plantings and have found the NZ climate quite to their liking and have certainly "expanded" well beyond the plantations so I could certainly see them as being labeled as invasive.

Where I live, Juniperus occidentalis is the invasive conifer. It is native, and as I do native landscaping and restoration I do plant them occasionally. For my small part of the world fire suppression is the culprit, but, the species did not play dominant role before man showed up. We have many sites boasting ancient specimens, but they exist primarily on rocky outcrops throughout the volcanic landscape (where fire couldn't get them). Grasses and perennials were dominant if anything. Now, while still beautiful, we have vast areas of Western juniper, Wyoming Big Sage and Bitterbrush, arguably the three most fire sensitive species in the area, with little else in between or below in most cases (Let it burn!).

VA juniper and VA pine are pretty aggressive colonizers here, in somewhat particular situations (VA juniper in limestone soils). White pine does it sometimes. Table Mnt pine colonizes aggressively in cleared/burnt areas of the southwest Virginia mountains.

I sort of dislike it when people use the word "invasive" for native plants. We already have a perfectly good word for plants that spread where we don't want them..."weed". We shouldn't blur the "invasive species and their environmental consequences" issue with the "weeds in my garden that annoy me" issue.

Anyway, I looked up some invasive species lists and I've seen Norway Spruce listed. I've never noticed it being a problem personally.

Where I live the only two conifers likely to pop up in a vacant lot where no one planted them are Eastern White Pine and Eastern Red Cedar, both native. I could totally see Eastern red Cedar becoming a problem in another country, though.

By definition a native plant cannot be "invasive", aggressive yes, like the Prunus carolina I fight all the time, not to mention Campsis vine. Supposedly natives have insects and diseases to control their spread, I don't see it with those two. ERC spread because fires are suppressed for pastures to feed another foreign species- cattle.

The definition of invasive from USDA is:
"What is an Invasive Species? An invasive plant has the ability to thrive and spread aggressively outside its native range. A naturally aggressive plant may be especially invasive when it is introduced to a new habitat."

By definition, a native can't be invasive. I should have said in my original post that which conifers have the potential for becoming invasive outside their native range. I should have also said that Eastern Red Cedar in my area are highly aggressive or weedy.

However, here are some articles on when something native become an invader within it's native environment when there are changes in the natural or made-made changes in the environment

http://invasivore.org/2013/01/when-native-species-invade/

http://kateprengaman.com/native-invasive-species/

I think the whole question of what is invasive is probably a bit more complex the more I think about it. How far away does the introduction need to be before it is considered invasive? For example, a particular fish may exist in a river in the state but historically not in another nearby river. It somehow ends up in the nearby river because of flood. The river may be within it's defined range, but the fish never existed in that river historically. Can that fish be considered invasive to the river?

What about ancient species that are re-introduced into areas they were once native to the area maybe a several thousands of years ago? They show up again and their population explodes. Can that be considered an invasive species?

Speaking of invasive Norway Spruce, I read this article not long ago
http://www.salicicola.com/plants/invasive/notes/20101024picea.html

The only place in NJ that I've seen a lot of self-sown Norway spruce is in Sussex County in the top north-western part of the state. From what I've seen, there are seedlings in areas where there are a large number of white pine and hemlock. Probably have similar soil/germination bed requirements. I rarely see them in areas where there are more deciduous trees. Usually they are in wood lots near homes that have some full grown Norway spruce. I've seen places where there are quite a lot seedlings, but I've never seen them out of control.

Dgg1 says, "We have many sites boasting ancient specimens, but they exist primarily on rocky outcrops throughout the volcanic landscape (where fire couldn't get them)". Referring to Juniperus occidentalis.
Here's a picture I took of one growing in the very conditions you describe. Located just south of you in The Devil's Homestead Lava Flow, California. It's just south of Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Mike

{{gwi:815246}}

I've seen some things I *THINK* are Norway Spruce in Massachusetts median strips, but never in vacant lots or the woods. I think they are a little more salt tolerant then the native White Pine and hemloch, which gives them an advantage dealing with road salt, but the other trees out compete them in actual woods around here? Or maybe it's just that not many conifers can get their seeds into median strips, and the median strips I was thinking of happened to be near some yards with Norway Spruce. Or maybe the highway department planted them at someone point.

This post was edited by edlincoln on Fri, Sep 26, 14 at 18:05

Tsuga heterophylla in Britain.

Resin

Abies procera in Britain.

Resin

After the iceage, the first to invade the Netherlands were probably Scotspine. After that broadleaves came. It seems Picea abies spread was halted by mans agriculture although I think they were/are growing here and there. Pollenresearch really next to our border in Germany has shown it.
In modern times, Scotspine tends to "invade" heath all the time. You can find Sitka spruce here and there, sometimes no Sitka spruce around it seems. Picea abies does well where they grow.
Abies alba, Abies grandis, Tsuga heterophylla all do well and very well actually, but mostly under a canopy of the same tree. Tsuga can spread through woulds but grows slowly, but even seem to be able to survive under beech.

One that does very well too is Doug fir and various Larch species.

Where woods are left alone, like in the Emmerdennen, the forest tends to become darker and darker with Tsuga, Abies and Picea species becoming the dominant trees. Broadleaves on this fertile red boulderclay are simply not fit enough. They do better elsewhere.

What we can see is that newcomers brought in by human dispersal do form their own, novelecosystems or recombinant ecosystems where they intermix with species that invaded NL after the iceage. Those forests are of course very rich in species and also very metropolitan so to speak...

What is called homogenisation of biota is a very nice thing we have done, especially in Europe where our impoverished flora badly needed a fresh breath.

New Zealand btw does exceptionally well: they have 2069 newcomers and 2065 species that were there before mankind entered the isles. They only lost 4 species so also in New Zealand the intermixing seems to go quite fine actually.

Fantastic exmaples of such forests are also found in Scotland. every where I went I could see conifers growing (Scotpine was dominant near Braemar elsewhere mainly Sitkaspruce but I also witnessed Stuga and abies there in the undergrowth). Larch grows everywhere there too. The Hermitage NW of Perth was very very nice with all sorts of conifer species doing well...etcetc.

In contrast to men, nature does not seem to be xenophobe or does not have some strange preference for the old and therefor gives no permits. Nature accepts reality as it is, much more progressive and sensible. You survive or you don't, so some species will become extinct, new species will appear too. It seems many ecologists, biologistst etc cannot stand change, yearn for the old, despise the new and hate pioneer species that do well but came here after some arbitrary time...So if you mean "invasive" along these lines of thinking: it is mainly one ultraconservative view I remember from ultraconservatives in culture to (toward invading immigrants)....

This post was edited by jorginho on Mon, Sep 29, 14 at 17:59

I like the train of thought, Jorg. As time goes on, I think we may just come to wish for some degree of invasiveness, at least in some plant types. For my part, every time I see Resin's British Isles photos, I'm greatly impresses with what has happened there. I'm sure there's an outcry calling for a "return", but to what? Were not the British Isles more or less completely deforested thousands of years ago?

In my own doings, I've planted now perhaps four thousand Norway spruce on my land. I'd like nothing better than to see it become naturalized. I must say though, such an occurrence is relatively rare. I know of exactly one region of Wisconsin where this species has become naturalized to any significant degree. As a side note, that area just happens to be where the geniuses now in control of our politics want to site the world's largest open-pit iron mine. Not to mention, that same upland area is headwaters to some 35 class A trout streams. But I digress.

This whole concept of invasiveness must be handled in a nuanced fashion. I think we all can agree, the rampage of common buckthorn or garlic mustard through the north temperate zone of . America is a disaster. But Scot's pine? Norway spruce? I think not.

+oM

Well Wisconsitom, I agree. Look, I am a socialist which would be incredible leftwing in the USA. I am an accountmanager, I sell huge amounts of energy (also from coal). At the same time. I give lectures about Global Warming and have made climate models. I know what Co2 burning does,it is a scientific fact. Why do I say this? BEcause ecology is an ideology: it villifies palnts and creatures based on where they came from AND where they are now. It is ecofascistic. Say exactly the same things about human immigrants and you are a rightiwng conservative. Ecologists (I know some of them) share much of my views, but seem to be blind by their preference and blind about their hatred towards succesfull plants. But basically, like other religions and ideology it seems to have hatred against mankind and the change we brought on. The plants and animals are scapegoats. They also think of humans as not being natural and its influence (dispersal) as unnatural. They of course exclude themselves, which is why they can garden the landscape constantly to keep it the way they see fit. When it is up to nature, heath and meadows would be very rare (non exitent mostly in NL, it is way too humid over here). Etcetc.

Also: what does native mean? It is place in the past? In its place now? In its place in the future? In itrs place in a garden, in manmade landscapes? Is time (history) the only thing that matters in a world where the habitat of many species is moving north at a fast rate?? We already see this coliding with those conservationalists who want to help treespecies venture up north (or south in the southern hemisphere.

Garlic mustard etc: sorry, all the same. Could one ecologist tell me what the outcome will be of Garlic M and others in 10-20-30 years? Because they fail with their predictions time and time again (always predicting a rampage). They did so wit Argentinian ants in Texas (dominated all others in the 80s, but now is just one of the many species living there). They did so when your Prunus serotina (which is very dominant in some pine forests over here) ventured into an undisturbed forest 35 years ago. After 35 years, it is only here and there and in fact just one of the many species.
Also, when ecologist venturedinto an area they were not familair with they deemed a very abundant tree as an invasive alien. They w ondered why it was left alone. Most were appauled. When they were told it was a native species, they were relieved and never commented again? So what a species does in general does not seem to matter. Which species it does matters. It is liek when a white guy kills some one it is worse then when a Chinese does the very same thing...in China.

Ecology is an ideology, not a scientific field. In science there is no room for opinion (unless it is philosophy etc). In science it is about facts. And the facts do not show now or in the past that big influx of new species, via alndbridges or sea-ways opening up or indeed mankind now lead to less biodiveristy or massextinctions. It leads to change. And change is a constant in the universe. It seems that ecologists are so conservative they cannot deal with change, deem it bad. It is only in their heads. As true scientists instead of using valueladen words (which cannot be proved), they should be impartial and study what happens and not try to interfer based on their ideals...

"Could one ecologist tell me what the outcome will be of Garlic M and others in 10-20-30 years? Because they fail with their predictions time and time again (always predicting a rampage)."

They faill with a track record equal to climatologists who, coincidently, have a similar rampage. ;-)

tj

How about the opposite question sort of... why are conifers so lousy at naturalizing/being invasive in many areas? In Ohio in the Midwest, all I ever see for the most part is the obvious Juniper "Eastern Red Cedar" which grows like a weed, though I don't think there is anything inferior about them.

Many species of conifers have been planted here, including trees over a 100 years old. The trees seem to grow decent enough planted by humans. Why do they do such a poor job of growing from seed naturally? The seeds need a specific climate at the right time of year for growth? Or the seeds cannot compete with the angiosperm weeds? Mammals bother the seedlings if they do sprout? The seedlings are much pickier than the trees?

Conifers have such a long history on the Earth, and such survivors over time... conifers can't compete anymore? Or the seedlings are less adaptable than angiosperms?

No, climatologists do firstof all not predicte disasters. They forecast significant warming. To get right on comparison: climalotogists in their work do not use valueladen wording. The warming si anthropogenic (which can be and is proved) vs. the useless "unnatural" (which ecologists use, you cannot prove humans are somehow unnatural).
The effect is "significant" (which it is is from statistics used throughout science) vs "detrimental", "Bad", "wreaks havoc" which is a personal stance on a certain development.

There is zero peerreviewed work that shows us globalwarming will be less than 1,5 K for a doubling of CO2, there is zero peerreviewed work that shows us greenhouse gasses are somehow not causing warming nor that they will not cause enhanced warming with ever rising levels. Etc. Scientifically speaking, the climate science is as steady as a rock.
Personal belief systems about what is true or not is something I won't get into, as it is not supported by any fact.

Now, ecology: there is ample peerreviewed work that shows a contrasting, factual view on newcomers. 1 in a 1000 does very well and become a significant part of their new found home. Research has shown that massive influx of newcomers do not lead to massextinctions and in fact this rarely happens. In sharp contrast to what has been said time and time again. Tamarisk has not lead to any extinction. Kudzu has not, the Cain toad has notLong Horned beatle has not. New zealand is named time and time again. ithas been researched: only 4 species outof 2065 have become extinct and this is not (solely) linked to newcomers (others than humans). 2069 have found a new home. 18000 others could not survive there....

Climatology isabout facts, nt abut emotion (in scientific literature, whatever personal views a scientists has is up to them). Ecology is about preference, abuses science as support for a stance even when faced with conflicitng or clearly opposing findings in that field.

Ecologist behave much like climate denialists and to me, that is a sad ting for a scientific field.

Well, it depends on where you live. North America seems much less welcoming to newcomers in nature than Europe. May be because some things of the niche theory are true )it has been demonstrated to be incorrect on many occasions). I know Norway spruce has a hard time, whereas Sitka spruce in my country and much more so in Oceanic climates in Europe, does very fine. In Scotland they can be found in the wild in so many places.

Doug Fir does very well here and is now considered native (finally some organisation wised up!). Hemlock does well, but is simply not a pioneer. Not here, not in the NW PAcific.
All sorts of Pines over here love the heath. I found Western Redcedar sprout on streets!!! between tiles!! I had a spruce, probably Sitka, growing between tiles in my garden. White spruce and even Lutz spruce can be found in Denmark on wetter parts of heaths and in open forests.
hemlock. Abies grandis is prolific in some coastal forests close to my home. The gound is littered with seedlings, even with lots of broadleeve seed sources growing there as well and sometimes with very few fullgrown Firs in the stand. They even grow under Norway spruce (but remain small).

Etcetc; Europe isreally a good place for many American conifers and sometimes Asian ones too (Japanese LArch).

Etcetc.

Heh, I may have overstated our degree of congruence on this matter! Nevertheless, I do indeed welcome fresh thinking. Where I happen to live, "native" landscaping has come to mean prairies. And prairies, while a beautiful and important plant community, were never more than a minor component, and an anthropogenic one at that. Indians were no dummmies. They knew that by periodically burning the landscape, they would improve conditions for hunting and even the gardening they did. No great surprise in that. Now of course, people want to freeze nature into what they see as the "proper" state, and to many, that's a grassland/forb community. I sometimes ask folks, "have you never heard of Paul Bunyan"? He's a Wisconsin/Minnesota legend, and I don't think that legend had to do with threshing grain.

Where do you live, Jorg? Sounds an interesting place. For my part, I think I'd be quite happy in some northern European or New Zealand place, growing "exotic" conifers to perfection. But my life is here, and this is a good place too. Man I gotta tell you, Norway spruce and hybrid larch just love the area of what is called here "the near north" where my land is. A little cold in the winter, but that almost always means reliable snowcover. No complaints from me on that score.

+oM

Well....I knew that about the prairies and they are, at least ion places, treating Virginia Juniper (??) much the smae way they treat Scotspine over here...They are continuously stripping them of our Heath (our prairie). And also strip it of the fertile toplayer. Heath, much like the prairie, was a small part and almost non existent. Our climate is more maritime than yours (easily). Our winters used to hover around freezing. Some have a continous snowcoer throughout winters, others like last one are way above average and no snowcover at all (very rare, but more frequent last decades I am afraid). We are worldchampions in iceskating ofr a reason, so our climate is less oceanic than the British Isles. Unfortunately. If you want to see the most interesting countries for conifers andmixtures of European and North American species. Scotland, Pineresins part of England and Wales are better places even though we share the same species and even though they regenarate here locally very well. Over there, it is not locally, but it is almost everywhere..milder, wetter climate with much cooler summers and somewhat warmer winters does the trick.

I went to Pucks Lodge and noted that it never got below -8 C ever. In The NEtherlands, where I live, the minimum is near -30 C. Also, they have easily 1500-2000 mm of rain. The wettest place over here, on higher ground now reach 1100 mm. But this is actually getting better (wetter) per decade. Soon, we will have 1500 mm or more if the trend continues.

So interesting? No..The NEtherlands is actually a boring place for anyone who loves true wiolderness. And the nature organisation are doing everything to keep it this way. Our major one simpoly says we do not have wilderness, only halfnature (I call that artificial) that indeed they want to extend at the cost woods (which we only have 10% of) as this is supposedly our treasure. They want to get rid of every "alien" where possible.

Now: the nice thing is that naturally there is no heath etc. So they make huge tracks of land depending on...men....depending on...money...depending on: economics. And here they went wrong. First of all most people do not care about them not getting money. Second point: most people like heath, but Woods are nr1. And it has been researched: out of 150 woodcompositions, one with a clear spruce and a beech AND one with another spruce and an Oak are by far the most popular. People, even not aquainted with the xenophobia that litters these orginations are strongly opposed the cutting of trees. Ecologist have become so astray from reality that they think people actually buy there xenophobia. I can tell you many people, when confronted with this, were furious! Now, really, our University of Wageningen is trying to see how they can change this attitude of them!! How about looking at yourself, as scientists?? Etcetc. Stop my rant here.

It is a sickness, that will be faced with something that will pose enormous problems for them: relocation of species because of climate change. It is already becoming a clash as it inevitably means that either a species will become extinct, or it will be an intruced aline in asutiable place. There are trials already in the US and Canada where they relocated MExican spruces and also Brewers spruce (now planted in nothern coastal British Columbia).

It is an ideology an extreme one, an intolerant one and not rarely filled with hatred. And, like such an ideology tends to do it renders some forms of life useless and therefor can be killed. Without any rights. This, surely when it comes ot animals, is confronted by another relatively new movement: animal right groups and even antiracist groups. It will die sooner or later either by ethics or by climate change forcing them to change their viiews...So I guess here my rant really ends!

There is an erstwhile member here, calls himself 'Spruceman', and he and myself make up the Norway spruce contingent on this board. While I should probably be letting Spruce speak for himself, I will say he once posited a notion that as we lose native tree species due to imported, non-native pests and pathogens, we may well wish to investigate whether or not suitable "exotic" species might not be purposely used to fill the now-empty ecological niche. Spruce, you there? Sorry if I'm mis-characterizing what you said, but in any case, I get it and I do agree. For one example-and thankfully this is not yet happening where I live-in the eastern US, Canadian hemlock is being decimated by the hemlock wooly adelgid. This insect is a non-native one having no natural enemies thusfar. Spruce once (I think
) suggested we may do well to purposely be introducing some other roughly equivalent conifer-naturally he suggested Norway spruce-in an attempt to fill the gaps created by the loss of the hemlocks. Now, before the peanut gallery goes nuts, I know such things are fraught with danger. Things like bringing the rabbit to Australia come to mind. But I do agree that things of this nature may well come to be needed in the not-too-distant future, as we continue to lose species.

Another example I can cite: In my state, several state parks and forests were established long ago on the sandy shores of Lake Michigan. These areas are dunes. Well, back a hundred years ago, folks weren't so worried about invasives and Scot's pine was planted in abundance. Now, many of these have become naturalized, and it's easy to find youngsters growing perfectly on the dunes. But the state DNR, in its "natives only" mission, is eliminating these perfectly healthy, happy pines as fast as possible, presumably because they're not native. So what fills in the gap? Pretty much nothing. I don't see the point of such activities, but they're increasing, not going away. I think it's much more than a waste of money. More like a waste of life itself.

Of course, generally, nobody cares what I think!

+oM

Yes I find Tsuga heterophylla seedlings
in my wood.

First of all: Norway spruce? I don't think so. hemlcoks from Eastern Asia resemble Canadian Hemlock more, have a similar climate in common and are not susceptible.
My main strategy: leave it alone and see what happens.

Second point: science shows us a net rise in local diversity with new species. In various ways. fast local development. Some species now grown in california but originating from Portugal and Spain are now already so far diverged they are incompatible (not breading!) with their current Iberian relatives. A new species has arised in California. It is a Californian native, nowhere to be found elsewhere in the world.
Second way: hybridisation. In England, about 90 species are now unique to the UK because of hybrids.
Third way: far less species become extinct than new ones enter/evolve.

The sum: at this rate in the UK only there will be 20% more diversity in a mere 15.000 years, not less. This number well probbaly vary from place to place.

But this is what science tells us. So removing so called aliens will lead to less biodiversity not more.

It is rather telltale that completely new species are simply not valued at all if they are reproductive hybrids. Only known species seem to have a value...And they call it science. Icall it ideology and the kind that has again very detrimental and extremist ways to take care of a personal rather than empirical problem...

This post was edited by jorginho on Thu, Oct 2, 14 at 9:02

Again, I want to make it clear that I agree with some of your major points. In my work, I come face to face with what I've sometimes labelled the "natives-only nazis". I do get where you're coming from. But..............there's always a 'but'......I think you go too far in your claims as to the ultimate trajectory. And for my example, I once again return to common buckthorn, a Eurasian species which is just plain clobbering the woods of my home area. Perhaps if you would see a woods around here with an invasion of common buckthorn, you might back off a little on your assertion that such invasion always leads to more, not less, diversity. Simply (And truthfully) put, once buckthorn gets into a patch of woods around here, it is able to completely take over, growing in the shade of the canopy, but more to the point, easily growing in its own shade. Once present, it has the ability to prevent sprouting of even such shade-tolerant native trees as sugar maple. This is complete takeover. True, we don't absolutely know what the future will bring. But from where I sit, it's terribly hard to see this as anything but an ecological disaster. No forbs, no sedges, no tree seedlings.......nothing but more buckthorn.

Essentially the same could be said for garlic mustard. I'm thinking that perhaps where you operate, these are not the typical invasives, and are indeed probably native. I'd love it if our major invasive plant problems were such things as Doug fir, or Norway spruce. That would be a hoot. What we've got going on here is much more menacing. I guess maybe you'd have to see it to believe it.

+oM

It is sure that some species can dominate for sometime. Over there it is buckthorn locally. What I have read it does so in forests that are already were disturbed.

Over here it is Prunus serotina. But what I see here is that constantly fighting Prunus, after 30 years has had this result: there is more Prunus serotina then ever in NW Europe.Because we constantly creatue new openings in the forest. And Prunus is the first one to sprout.

In complete forests, the Prunus also enters but like I said ti does nto dominate.

In other instances, such things have happened like inthe US. Leaving things alone eventually saw the population shrink and other species took over. Sometimes local species, sometimes globetrotters.Mostly a mix.

In anyway you show that your personal preference is not met so something needs to be done. And so others kill of Norway spruce, others Scots pine etc. And so nature (which I view as a place with much spntanity and little controled devlopment) becomes one big controlled thing. Is that what nature is: does it need to be like (some) humans prefer? Or can it just be what it is, somewhere sometime? And we just let go and observe.

Earth has done well without our control for billions of years. I think ti will do fine wihtout our control now.But it might not be to your liking.

I read an article on the buckthorn. And the very first sentences were that nonnative species were bad and big threat ot biodiversity...As always...

Yes, not to my liking, and largely because of the loss of so many great plant species. The time factor is still unknown-where will these things be in a hundred years? A thousand? But within the time frame of a person's life, I don't see a better situation with all that buckthorn. It isn't going to just go away on its own.

Back about twenty five or so years ago, we cleared a park hillside of buckthorn, and other non-native shrubs, mostly honeysuckles. These shrubs were forming a tight understory beneath ancient oaks. We cut and treated with Garlon and other appropriate herbicides. For a time,, it looked like we'd done some good. But today, that hillside is nearly 100% covered in buchthorn. The numerous seeds in the soil quickly sprouted and retook their space. Right back to where it was. Now if those oaks were to die, there is literally no chance that site will be recolonized by oaks. They have no chance of germinating in the heavy shade and allelopathic soil of that buckthorn stand. So yes, that is a situation "not to my liking". I'm not going to get into some abstract idea that whatever is surviving is therefor the most fit and proper vegetation for that site. It's simply the case that the invasive plant is making life impossible for the plant community which existed there before. And that is but one tiny example of something that happening on a mass scale. Even the very type of plant community is being forever altered. Not only can an oak forest not regenerate on that site, no forest type can, unless you consider the new plant community consisting of primarily one species-buckthorn-to be a forest. So this is wholesale conversion with virtually no remnants of the old community being invited into the new one. I'll bet big dollars that the ultra-important but little-understood mycorrhyzal associates become all out of whack too. So unlike disturbances which nature has been dishing out to forests forever, this type does not allow for much of any carry-over of anything into the new monocultural stand. And I'd also be willing to bet this conversion extends to the fauna of the site as well-the insects, birds, and other animals which are able to use the site for food or shelter. I'll bet that is pretty much completely altered as well. I don't think this picture is as rosy as you paint it.

+oM

Tom, I understand you emotions. I can fully empathise with your feeling of loss when that what you love is gone. I would probably feel the same, but not respond the same.

There is no problem for nature, that is clear I hope. Buckthorn most likely will change things forever, but nothing is forever. If it is not buckthorn, it will be climate change most likely and tis consequences will be much more visible in all likelihood than nuckthorn.

The problem is in your head or our human heads. We have preferences and at some point feel so entitled that our enivronment needs to comply to it. In this case: it must stay liek it is, preferably froen in time. Or more absurd: at least in OUR lifetime. Which is a bit complicated when there are 320 million Americans, 600 million Europeans etc....

The problem is not buckthorn doing anything else than what we humans did and do when we entered an area that was suitable to us: we started to live there and undoubtedly some regions were much to our liking. In other circumstances, some others were here first (liek NAtive Americans) but I guess that is no reason for you to go back where you belong (according to them: Europe I guess). Many Native Americans, who came here first!, would like to get their country back (as they see it). But such is life: nothing is for ever and nothing was given to you to keep forever.

You beloved countryside has the same faith. If it is not now, than it is in a century, a thousand years or at least an iceage. But more likely. Global Warming will be the real deal. The real changer.

Sticking to history as a guide and human preferences as a reason, it does not bode well for diversity and a resilient ecosystem. If you keep other species out and the ones you know do worse and worse yoiu end up with nothing...

Finally: these kind of things have happened many times in the past! Landbridges have formed, seastraits have formed. A huge influx from species once seperated happened. These things have been researched, by James Brown for instance (look it up) and biodiversity did not suffer. I believe a prehistoric horse ventured in from America via Bering 2-4 million years ago. Only a few years later it Arrived in Iberia and it was there in huge numbers.

Your reasoning about buckthorn seems to be based on fear. It is not based on knowledge because if so, you could tell us with certainty what would happen. The standard reaction is: kill it off! Nature will find its way: buckthorn is as native as you are, Tom. it is apart of your countryside, clearly, It is very very unlikely that a species in such numbers will not be found to be quite taste by others...I can give youc ountless examples where did happened. Just a few: Cain toad, Golden Rain tree, Abies nordmanniana... Several snakes have gone through rapid development since Cain toads were introduced in 1937. At least two eat it. Also: ants like them. Some birds know they have to put them on their backs and eat them. Zero species are known to have become extinct by the toad. And so, even this very poisonous creature is now a part of the Australian ecosystem. It eats and it is eaten.
The GoldenRain tree in the US...A European tree: several insects have developped in such a way they are no longer killed by its poison and eat it. You Prunus serotina in Europe had no diseases and very few insects. But it has happened a few years ago: a Prunus was no ill because of blight ( Ithink) changed a bit. It used ot be on Prunus avium but now it also infects P. serotina. And Abies nordmanniana....would you believe that in Denmark, broadleave specialised insects have now turned the much planted Abies n? THey now attakc it.

Buckthorn will meet the same faith. That is very likely. And it will become one of the many members of the American flora. it already is.

So calm down, stop judging based on your instincts and accept change. Like I always say: it is one of the persavie constants in our Universe, also yours.

I hate to bother Jorginho because his extraordinary amount of arm-waving must make him very tired, but in one small matter may I ask for some specifics? I would like to know what two Iberian conifers grown in California can no longer breed with their relatives in Spain and Potugal; and what is the newly evolved conifer in California that is not found anywhere else?
Curious people would like to know.

Well, let's keep it on subject and not on the person. Not conifers, but Centaurea species (there are quite a few of them). When you try to cross these with their Iberian ancestors, the viability of seed goes down with almost 50% showing their isolated evolution has lead to new pathways. In 100-200 years or so. In short: this plant is a Californian native now in the evolutionairy sense also. it exists nowhere else in the world. One would think....oh my..amrwaving again I guess :P

Well, for my part, I'd rather participate in such a discussion as this one, arms a-wave or not-than any number of others which grace this board! Jorg, just be careful not to pigeon-hole the person who is in this discussion with you. You know a lot, but you don't absolutely know where my views spring from, what inputs have formed my worldview to date.

But again, this is exactly the kind of stuff we should be talking about-the big picture stuff. If not here, somewhere on the web. And after all, once the big asteroid swings into view-with nowhere near enough time for we humans to react-all this will be meaningless! Evidently, that is more or less a certainty-that we will be creamed by an unsuspected and unstoppable chunk of space rock, and that once that happens, my battles with buckthorn will be relegated to their minor place in history!

+oM

Hi Tom,

I did not reads through all the things I posted so I don't know if I said that I know where your stance comes from. If I did: sorry, you are quite right that I don't know that.

Other than that one of my points is that when we stop judging, things tend to become nicer. He: I am on a coniferforum. Do you think I like PRunus serotina a lot? Basically I don't tjhink it is much to my liking. It is everywhere. Really. Just look it op. The name it usually gets over here is "Forestplague". Prunus serotina is never meantioned by its real name.

But I changed my view and started to respect it as a strong, tough plant which seems excellently suited to some environments. Mostly those that are a bit sunny and sandy/loamy. Its fall colours are nice too. So it is no my beloved spruce (I have seen managers cutting it down to give young Norway spruce some chance...but not me!).

I also think that some introspection can be helpfull, like: "Who am I to cut down some living thing and kill it only because it does not behave like I want it. Or because it does something to a landscape that I don't like. WHo am I???"

A more laid back attitude, more mindfull (It is how it is) seems better. At least that is how I feel. May be it helps a little.

Of course another line of thinking----What causes a man from wisconsin to kill the buckthorn---The mighty oak?
What makes someone plant 4000 spruce--- the tree?
jorge asks who am I.. maybe the servant not the master.
Who is the main culprit of an invasive plant?

Here is a link that might be useful: Botany of desire

Mankind is the main culprit it is the only species I know of with judgemental thinking and wording for how (other) species behave hence the wording.
But species that extend their range is nature. And they do so on their own, via the wind and via dispersal through species. Men is one of suc dispersers. No more, no less. The fact that man and the species with him now travel the world doesn't change this fact at all.

I've read a copy of that book, Qwade. Not bad.

Okay, one parting thought:
I simply and truly love wild land, wilderness, "natural areas", whatever you want to call it....but for me, the very finest landscapes have just a touch of humanity in them-the old, dilapidated shed, the abandoned bridge falling back into the water, the grove of Norway spruce that you know some person planted there(!), you get the picture? All too often when I read that some big chunk of land has been set aside as "wilderness", it turns out to be just the topmost, rocky peaks of some mountain range. Down lower, where all the plantlife is, is very often not included. This always strikes me as yet another cynical ploy by people lacking in environmental ethics to showcase how much they care, all the while planning the next giant timber sale on the rich slopes below. So I don't resent every intrusion of man onto the landscape. And yes, some of the species we've spread around are true assets in my scheme of things.

So what are we left with then? Each and every person holding their own view of what "nature" should look like and act like. This is where I think some of the "natives-only" ecologists do get it right, by looking behind appearances and into relationships between say, important insect species (pollinators, etc) and certain native plants, things like that. Otherwise, what are left with? If Jorg decides Black cherry is the greatest tree ever, and goes on to plant vast acreages with this tree, but somebody else hates the tree and goes on a campaign to eliminate it from Holland's shores..............heh, I guess that is pretty much where we're at!

+oM

ps: The lumber produced from the wood of Prunus serotina is highly values, perhaps one of the most valuable of hardwoods, in the furniture/cabinetry/gunstock markets.

Hi Tom,

You seem to seperate man from nature. Man is a part of nature. hence that whatever we do is per defintion natural. "Natural" simply is word with no meaning. It does not eman good, nor bad etc. HUmans cutting Scots pine is not wrong or right, but we both seem to dislike it. Etc.

My problem is that the reason behind it hurts living things and it is all based on a personal preference, but said to do it for nature or for easthetics or for future generations etcetc. You cannot know what future generations love. Just look at music: would the current generation really love to hear Presley and some Bacharach songs still, because someone in the past has deemed it ideal for them?
Or would we be pleased still eating only Dutch food (almost inedible to the mind of most) over Pizza, Curries, Mexican etc because someone in the past suggested its loss would be so bad for the diversity of food and the taste of future generations.
SOme others want to preserve a language, like French and liek some ecologists go to great lengths demonising their adversary (English) like what seems to happen in Montreal currently. Truely: would there be more than 1% of English speakers who have only spoken ENglish hate it because they would feel so much better speaking Fench, Italian or Spanish??? No. So why would someone in 2300 in Quebec be sorry french vanished 200 years earlier and English was now the standard? Probably 1% may be or so.

People who try to keep things liek they are are doing it for themselves mostly, not for others, not for future generations.

Jorg, I'm running out of patience with you and this discussion. Would you mind terribly to not characterize my thought processes? Did you note the " marks around the word nature and the word natural, in each and every case I used those words.
Were you a bit more nimble in your thinking and appraisal of the thoughts of others, you might have recognized that I was purposely showing this distinction to be artificial. Now I'm beginning to see you as one of a a number of people who hold themselves far above all others in your intellectual capacity. This is very distasteful. Simply put, would you please quit telling me (And any other poor soul who accidentally wandered into this thread) what I think, how I think it, and why? Your ego is out of control. I've had, and continue to have, the capacity for an extreme degree of deliberation and intellectual discernment. I think you just want everyone to see how smart you are, how original your thoughts are. Trust me, they aren't. Furthermore, your attempt to box me in to some kind of trite, consumerist wishful thinking is wildly off the mark. We're talking about no less than the future of life on this planet here, not some stupid wishlist somebody has. I'm out.

+oM

Hi Tom,

I am not telling you what you think. Therefor I write "seem". You seem. I am not writing "you do". From my side you seem to read a lot more in my words than I write and I do not mean nor feel superior to you or anyone else in any way. I never feel superior to any person. Simply never, I can disagree with someone on subjects, but not with someones person.

The rest: it seems to me very little is needed for you to portray me and in a bad way by most standards. I am fine with critique on my thoughts, my morals ON THE SUBJECT etc. But I fail to see any use to go for the person.

I think we have a lot in common on this subject, but also our differences. And our ethics are somewhat different it seems.

No reason to get angry about anything to my mind. Understand this is written, intonation is not here and may be you could ask what I mean.

I think in some earlier message I already told you I did not mean something the way you thought I meant it.

But okey, from my side no hard feelings. This is all too common on internet and rarely happens in personal contact so I blame the internet ;-) Have a good day!

This post was edited by jorginho on Wed, Oct 8, 14 at 12:53