"invasive" species Archives - Macska Moksha Press

A Clear-cut is a Clear-cut

March 6, 2025 by Kollibri terre Sonnenblume

As regular readers know, critiquing the “invasive plant” narrative is one of my main themes here. The name of the Substack is, after all, “Speaking for the Trees, No Matter Where They’re From.” Usually I choose to approach the topic in of two ways: 1) scientifically, drawing on the peer-reviewed literature, often from the field of invasion biology itself, to bust popular myths, and 2) culturally, pointing out how the current and historic prejudices of our society shape our worldview, saddling us with mistaken impressions about how nature really works and how we should be relating to it. This is basically how I talk about “green” energy too.

I use those two approaches because I hope they might be effective at reaching people, and not because they’re the whole story for me personally. For me personally, emotions also play a part. Namely love; love for plants particularly and for all life on the planet more broadly. And rage; rage at those humans who kill things needlessly.

So no matter how I choose to communicate about these issues, love and rage are what motivate me, and they are intertwined. In the early 2000s, when I was involved in the forest defense movement in the Pacific Northwest, I was inspired by my love for the breathtakingly beautiful old growth trees I met, and by my rage for those who cut them down. Likewise, my opposition to lithium mining in the Great Basin (at Thacker Pass and elsewhere) is driven by my love for the Sage Brush Sea, and all its flora and fauna, and by my rage at the people and the industries that want to tear it up. Anywhere I go at any time, I feel love for the plants I see, regardless of their origins, and I feel rage for people who treat them like inanimate objects or like enemies to slay.

So when I focus on the science and the culture, I’m being diplomatic. More diplomatic than I want to be all the time, I will admit. Perhaps someday I will grow weary of this soft pedaling and take more direct action in defense of mother earth. We’ll see.

The damage done by “invasives”—the word, not the plants

January 1, 2025 by Kollibri terre Sonnenblume

Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), as observed along a rural road in an agricultural zone in Yamhill County, Oregon, a species considered “invasive” by some.

The widespread use of the word “invasive” to describe certain plants has done great damage to the public’s understanding of plants and ecology, more than any other narrative in the last generation I would argue.

The word “invasive” is at odds with the reality of what plants are and of how life on the planet works. A vast world of complexity is flattened into a grossly oversimplified drama of good vs. evil. The multifaceted, nuanced interplay of response and adaptation among countless species with each other and their fluctuating conditions is reduced to a single perceived side effect misrepresented as a cause. Worst of all, the word manufactures a perspective that distracts us from threats to biodiversity that are, in contrast, unequivocal (with habitat destruction at the top of that list).

“Invasive Plants”: Immigrants Who Nice People are Allowed to Hate

November 11, 2024 by Kollibri terre Sonnenblume

A Salt Cedar / Tamarisk tree (genus Tamarix, species unknown) at an undisclosed location in southern California. (Photo by the author)

When I first started hearing the rhetoric of the “invasive plant” narrative in the early 2000s, I was living in the progressive bastion of Portland, Oregon. I was taken aback by the vitriol being dished out by people who were otherwise prided themselves on being accepting and nonjudgmental. I concluded that many secularists, lacking a religious dogma, needed a Devil to hate, and “invasive plants” fit the bill.

I find that conclusion overly simplistic now, but it certainly contained a big nugget of truth. Through my research into the topic of “invasive plants” over the last few years—which has included a deep dive into the scientific literature, my own field observations, and many discussions with other people with varying views on the subject—I’ve come to see that the “invasive plant” narrative is more a product of culture than it is of science.

Ep. 2: Eugenics & Conservation: Too Close for Comfort

August 19, 2024 by Kollibri terre Sonnenblume

YouTube

In this episode, Kollibri is joined by co-host Nikki Hill for a conversation with Calyx Liddick, founder of the Northern Appalachia School. Calyx has taken a deep dive into the common origins of the eugenics and conservation movements in the US in the early 20th Century, and what she has found is alarming. The boosters of race science, white supremacy, forced sterilization of “lesser” people and other now discredited concepts were the same who founded conservationism, and their odious residue remains. Conservationism must now be re-thought so that what is good can be kept and what is bad dismissed.

In our far-ranging discussion, we talked about all this history plus “invasive species” (a central pillar of eugenics as expressed through anti-immigration sentiment and law); the futility of “fortress conservation”; how the wilderness ideal erases Indigenous people and their relationship to ecology; the importance of reciprocity, integration and coexistence in our interactions with nature; our disagreement with the characterization of “invasive plants” as agents of settler-colonialism; climate change, and more.

Calyx Liddick is a bioregional herbalist, ethnobotanist, holistic nutritionist, wildcrafter, writer, wildlife tracker and a mother of two. She is strongly interested in exploring the relationships between plants and people. Find out more about her and the school she runs at:
northernappalachiaschool.com

Subscribers to Kollibri’s Substack or Patreon enjoy early access to all episodes in their full length. (Public episodes are edited for length and clarity.)

What’s “invasive” in this photo? Let’s take a close look

July 11, 2024 by Kollibri terre Sonnenblume

Hay field as observed from within a wetland reserve, with so-called “invasive” plants in foreground

The other day I went into the nearby town of Sebastapol to do grocery shopping. In no hurry to return to the sweltering heat of the farm, I went to a wetland reserve on the edge of town to seek some shade by water. I found a good spot to enjoy and on the way I stopped to take this photo to share with my readers.

Between the path and border of the reserve is mostly Himalayan Blackberries and Poison Hemlock, both much maligned as “invasive” plants, as well as a collection of other “weedy” plants below them, at least some also categorized that way. Beyond the border is a huge irrigated field of what I assume is a hay crop because it’s grass (or grasses). Beyond that is a line of trees, mostly native Oaks. I don’t know what’s on the other side of the trees, but the landscape of Sonoma County is dominated by agriculture, vineyards more often than not. Indeed, I was surprised to see a crop that wasn’t wine grapes. Oaks also grew along the path, and their branches are hanging down in the top of the photo.

The very first Blackberries were ripening, and no flowers remained. The clusters of berries, resembling loose bunches of grapes, dangled invitingly towards the path, but most were still green, only a few were red, and precious few dark purple. I’m happy to report that I got to enjoy a single, perfect juicy one, sweetened by the sun. I’m looking forward to more!

The Hemlock was past flowering but its fruits were not yet dried into seeds. The foliage was drained of its vibrant green but was not yet desiccated. Given that they are not perennial, I was seeing these plants near the end of their lives, at their peak of maturity, fulfilling their raison d’être: to reproduce.

Competition between Plants: What Biology Says

June 3, 2024 by Kollibri terre Sonnenblume

Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) foliage and berries, as observed on a tree growing by an irrigation ditch in Fruita, Colorado

The following is a draft chapter from the book that Nikki Hill & I are writing, tentatively entitled, “Don’t Blame the Messengers: A critique of the ‘invasive plant’ narrative.”

The most common accusation leveled by the “invasive plant” narrative is that introduced plants “outcompete” native species. As the story goes, they “aggressively” and “ruthlessly” “encroach on,” “choke out,” “push out,” “bully,” and “displace” native plants and that they “take over” ecosystems, thereby “degrading,” “disrupting” and “destroying” them, causing “ecological havoc.” The human response must be a declaration of “war” in which we “push back,” “stem the influx,” and “turn back the tide” by “fighting,” “battling,” and “combating” them, in order to “wipe out,” “purge” and “eradicate” them. We’re presented with a picture of horrible monsters we must slay in order to save helpless victims from being gobbled up. As an image to incite fear and enmity against supposed villains, it’s very effective, but how does it stand up as way of understanding ecological interactions?

Turning to science, let’s look at how biologists define “competition.”

James B. Grace, ecologist and senior research scientist with the US Geological Survey, says:

Any attempt to define competitive success must begin with a definition of competition. The variety of possible definitions of competition have been discussed numerous times and it is safe to say that there is no universally accepted definition.ⁱ

Okay, so we can see right away that this subject is not going to be cut-and-dry.

Seven Reasons Why I Critique the “Invasive Plant” Narrative

March 25, 2024 by Kollibri terre Sonnenblume

Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), along roadside in Yamhill County, Oregon. Yes, Oxeye Daisies are considered “invasive” though not a threat to intact native habitat.

I’ve been getting new subscribers at a steady clip lately, so I want to explain why I often write critically about the war on “invasive plants.” Much of my work here is excerpted from, or inspired by, the book I’m currently working on with Nikki Hill, which is tentatively entitled, “Don’t Blame the Messengers: A critique of the ‘invasive plant’ narrative.” (Paying subscribers at my Substack or Patreon will get excerpts from the book-in-progress, and a full electronic copy of the full draft when it’s done.)

“What is perceived is largely preconceived.”
—Ashley Montagu, from his 1952 book, Darwin, Competition & Cooperation

Before I get into the reasons, let me say what I mean by “the ‘invasive plant’ narrative.” A “narrative” is a cultural manifestation; it’s a story that provides a lens for viewing the world and interpreting our own observations of it. Narratives manufacture biases and thus shape what we believe to be true. All social or political narratives (and there are many!) are comprised of facts, misinformation (errors), disinformation (purposeful errors), and ideology (both trumpeted and unacknowledged). Each narrative has its own degree of fidelity to the facts on the ground, some more than others, but none is wholly accurate. Because we’re human.

(For more on the power and role of narrative in shaping our perceptions, see this, by Caitlin Johnstone.)

Anyone who’s been paying any attention to environmental issues the last couple decades is familiar with the “invasive plant” narrative. To pull a quote from the book-in-progress:

The narrative claims that “invasive” plant species “outcompete” native species; that they “aggressively” and “ruthlessly” “encroach on,” “choke out,” “push out,” “bully,” and “displace” native plants and that they “take over” ecosystems, “degrading,” “disrupting” and “destroying” them, causing “ecological havoc.” Our response must be a declaration of “war” where we “push back,” “stem the influx,” and “turn back the tide” by “fighting,” “battling,” and “combating” them, in order to “wipe out,” “purge” and “eradicate” them. We’re given a picture of monsters we must kill in order to save helpless victims from being gobbled up.

There’s a lot to be critical about with this narrative and its repercussions. As an image to incite fear and enmity against supposed villains, it’s very effective. But as a way of understanding ecological interactions, it’s not so useful. As a starting point for making intelligent and respectful choices about how we interact with nature, I believe it’s dangerous.

Why?

Read More…

The Widening Gap between Popular Belief & Science on “Invasive Species”

March 24, 2024 by Kollibri terre Sonnenblume

First Dandelion flower of the season where I am

This is just a quick reflection I want to share.

As I’ve been mentioning here, my main winter project has been working on a book with Nikki Hill, tentatively entitled, “Don’t Blame the Messenger: A critique of the ‘invasive plant’ narrative.” As part of that effort, I’ve been reading lots of scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals from invasion biology and other fields, and it’s been really eye-opening.

The popular narrative of “invasive plants” is really black and white. These are bad plants. They don’t belong here. They cause harm to native plants. They’re upsetting the balance of nature. They must be eradicated. It’s a scary monster story and a militant call to arms rolled into one.

But the science is far more nuanced. The amount of debate and the lack of consensus within the field is quite striking, actually, and has been growing over time. Invasion biology as a distinct area of study only goes back to the early ’80s and didn’t really take off until the ’90s. Given this short history, it’s possible to get a picture of where it was and where it’s going, and where it’s going is further away from the heroes and villains trope.

As I said, this is just a quick reflection, so I’m not going to provide a bunch of links and citations—that’s what the book is for, after all!—but I want to throw a few things out there that I’ve been reading about lately.

A landscape dammed by beavers, grazed by elk, monitored by wolves and shaped by fire

February 10, 2024 by Kollibri terre Sonnenblume

Aerial view of Willamette Valley, Oregon [Oregon Department of Transportation, CC BY 2.0]

An excerpt from the book Nikki Hill and I are working on, working title, “Don’t Blame the Messengers: A critique of the ‘invasive plant’ narrative.”

Let’s picture ourselves in a hot air balloon, floating over a valley. Below us is a patchwork of agricultural fields, encompassed by straight lines and precise angles, crisscrossed by ribbons of asphalt and gravel; a landscape of human geometry continuous except for the wends and bends of rivers and streams. The hundreds of fenced polygons vary in hue over the season as different crops bloom: yellow Canola, Camelina or Mustard; white Meadowfoam; blue Flax; crimson or pink Clover.

Every crop is planted with the goal of maximum density: Wheat is drill–seeded in crowded blocks. Wine grapes hang on trellises hundreds of feet long. Hops climb wires held 15-20’ high by tall pols. Peppermint, purple-stemmed and glossy-leafed, is packed into wide files. Sunflowers stand shoulder to shoulder. Hazelnut orchards are as precisely laid out as military cemeteries. Close rows of Christmas tree march up the slopes where the soil is rockier. Nurseries raise hundreds of species of landscaping plants in thousands of plastic pots set out in the sun, under shade cloth, or in hoop-houses. Animal agriculture is also here, and a few pastures hold cows, goats or sheep, being raised for meat, milk or fiber, and some long sheds cruelly confine chickens and pigs. The feed grain for these unhappy creatures is imported from other regions.

Only here and there do we see plots of vegetables bound for farmers markets and grocery stores, such as Kale, Cilantro, Summer Squash, Beets, Radishes, Sweet Corn, and Pumpkins.

The biggest crop by far in this valley is grass seed, as in grass for lawns and golf courses. Virtually the entire US production of Annual Ryegrass, Perennial Ryegrass, Bentgrass, and Fine Fescue comes from here.ⁱ Over 50% of the total farmland is planted in grass seed.

This is the Willamette Valley in the US state of Oregon, one of the most ideal locations for agriculture in the lower 48 due to its fertile soils, abundant water, mild winters and reasonable summers.

The elusive meaning of the term, “invasive species”

January 31, 2024 by Kollibri terre Sonnenblume

The following is a draft chapter from the book that Nikki Hill & I are writing, tentatively entitled, “Don’t Blame the Messengers: A critique of the ‘invasive plant’ narrative.” So far, I’ve only been posting these draft chapters for paid subscribers on my SubStack and Patreon, but this one’s for everyone, first because the concepts are important, and second because it makes a good teaser as it refers to so many other chapters in the book. Paid subscribers will be getting more chapters, plus a PDF of the completed draft. (At which point we’ll be seeking a publisher.)

Alien species seem practically designed to excite public concern. Almost by definition they are most abundant, and most visible, in the most highly human-modified habitats, such as towns and cities. Personal encounters with aliens are routine, so everyone has an opinion, and it’s often ‘obvious’ that aliens are actively supplanting natives, even if that isn’t what’s happening at all. It’s equally ‘obvious’ that something must be done, even if it’s not clear what that should be, and even if ill-judged intervention might only make things worse.ⁱ ~Ken Thompson

What is an “invasive plant?” Colloquially, some gardeners call any plant that thrives and spreads with little or no care “invasive.” They will cast the term on both “weeds” (which are often native plants) and ornamental nursery plants that spread outside their apportioned area. Such gardeners are seeking to uphold a particular aesthetic and their impulse to direct and control yields results ranging anywhere from elegant to cloying. If this were the only way that people used the word, “invasive,” it would be harmless, and there’d be no need for this book.

Navigation