Are you sure you're not seeing recolonization? The Texas of my boyhood was
largely spent camping out in the post-oak timber belt, and I personally
pulled stumps as my part of clearing them to plant alien pasture grasses,
goobers, hairy vetch, and other "crops" recommended by the county agent.
From the mid-ninteenth century until the present era, such clearing has been
tantamount to "doing God's will." Maybe God has something to do with the
recolonization of the post-oaks, the grass-burrs, the briar patches, the
poison ivy and all the other plants and animals that once populated that
region?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tacy Fletcher" <cay...@yahoo.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
From a land-manager's perspective regarding the post oaks of the Texas
region, most likely one would say that post-oaks havenaturalizedas many
introduced species do. Whether the species was introduced by animal or
weather phenomena is a debate not worth having. But for fun I thought I
would add the POV of a stewardship technician: that if it isn't running
amok, then I have more aggressive plant species to try to corral.
Cordially yours,
Tacy Fletcher (uses pseudonym "Cayt Fletch" on facebook) also
tflet...@pnc.edu
Fletch
________________________________
From: Martin Meiss <mme...@gmail.com>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Even if we agree as to what "native" means, phrases such as "native to
Texas" are problematic, and not just because, as Matt Chew points out,
human political constructs vary with time. If a tree is native to one
little corner of Texas, then the statement "native to Texas" applies, but
what does it mean? It might be politically significant, for instance for
state laws governing exploitation of the species, but biologically not very
useful. It seems to me that for biological purposes, the concept of
"native" should be tied to some biologically oriented construct, such as
Holdridge's life zones.
Of course, a person out for a walk my come upon a species and wonder
if it is found in the area because of human intervention. Phrasing the
question as "Is this species native to this area?" would probably be
understood, but perhaps it would be better to ask in terms of human
intervention, i.e., "Is this species introduced?" Sometimes it is easier
to account for what humans do than for what nature does.
Martin M. Meiss
2012/3/13 Matt Chew <anek...@gmail.com>
The general definition of 'native' is 'not introduced'. It is a
historical
criterion, not an ecological one, and it rests entirely on absence of
evidence for introduction. That definition has not changed at all since
it
was first fully codified in England in 1847.
David McNeely's claim that "Post oak has been in Texas probably for much
of
its existence as a species" suggests that Texas has been Texas for a very
long time indeed. But Texas, as a place identified by various sets of
boundaries, is itself "post European" by the standard David provided. By
1847 Texas was already flying the fifth of its six European-derived
flags,
during the Mexican-American War. And of course, post oak certainly isn't
endemic to any version of Texas, no matter how expansively imagined; most
post oaks have not been in Texas in any way.
The tree hasn't even been called 'post oak' for "much of its existence as
a
species". Whether it was a species at all before being described and
named
_Quercus_stellata_ by Friederich Adam Julius von Wangenheim late in the
18th century is arguable, but it is certain that _Quercus_stellata_
translates more literally to "star oak" than "post oak". Very Texan.
While this is all good semantic fun, it also draws attention serious
conceptual weaknesses in our vague ideas and ideals of place-based
belonging. For more, see
http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew/Papers/450641/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Biotic_Nativeness_A_Historical_Perspective
a.k.a. chapter 4 of Richardson's "Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The
Legacy of Charles Elton."
Matthew K Chew
Assistant Research Professor
Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
ASU Center for Biology & Society
PO Box 873301
Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
Tel 480.965.8422
Fax 480.965.8330
mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4868 - Release Date: 03/13/12
