By now you all must know that I have a problem with the continued planting and sale of invasive plants, which destroy native habitat and reduce wildlife biodiversity. I tend to rant a little (understatement, of course) because if we stopped the sale of these plants and stopped putting them in our gardens, we would stand a chance of being able to restore native habitat for wildlife (yes I do continue to hope).
I just found the following comment in my spam folder. (Sorry Sam, I have no idea how long it was there). It came as a result of a Most Hated Plant rant about Paulownia trees, which are highly invasive and dangerous to native wildlife habitat. I realized my reponse to this would be quite long, so please indulge me while we discuss it in full here in annotated form.
To those thinking non-native Paulownia is invasive, I am a plantation grower.
So you’re growing Paulownia trees as a crop, like a farmer.
I will agree that a truly natural forest provides the very best habitat for wild life, but as far as plantations go just look in your back yard. You will find millions of acres of pine trees in plantation settings. Thus where have all of the native trees gone?
Yes, that is a wonderful question, where HAVE all of the native trees gone?
You can’t drive down a country mile without seeing pine groves. The pine is the most planted tree in America.
At the very least, some of those pines are native and do support some wildlife.
And for good reason, we require housing, furniture and even paper. We are the invasive species. As such we require more and more from the earth.
Yes, I agree. We are the invasive species, and as our population spirals ever upward there will come a time when we will outgrow the Earth’s ability to support us. But it isn’t polite to talk about that, is it?
I am a proponent of saving what we can. We have done things like slow down and even stop timber harvesting in the Adirondacks. We have saved some of the Redwood forest (not enough).
I am thrilled that you are a proponent of saving what we can, but usually profits win out over saving anything. We could all be doing much more. In fact I say we aren’t doing nearly enough.
But when it comes to the destruction of the forest, this is climbing at an alarming rate. For instance; the energy business is in the early stages of totally destroying the remaining forest. i.e.; Panicle pellet Co. of Vancouver Canada recently brought on line their 5th pellet plant. This newest one will work 24/7/365 making wood pellets for the energy business. They will require in the range of 16,000 acres each year to accomplish this. It takes up to 10 years before they can re-cut the first 16,000 acres. So in 10 years they will eat over 160,000 acres of timber. More and more pellet companies are being built and commercial wood based ethanol has come on line just this year. This is all due to our need to overcome dependence on fossil fuels. Again we are the invasive ones.
Yes, until we have the courage to address our own consumption individually and as a country, we will continue on our path of destruction. Do any of us really have that courage?
Here is a great solution. The invasive complaints of Paulownia can be harnessed to benefit both man and beast. The regrowth feature of paulownia is one of the reasons some consider it a problem. In the plantation, regrowth is a virtue, for example the Paulownia can produce an equal amount of feed stock for the pellets mentioned above, on 4,000 acres that a pine forest will do on 150,000 acres. Thus more land can go to a natural state. The beast will have their home back.
But the “beast” will not have their homes back if invasive plants continue their rampant spread through all natural areas, suppressing the growth of native plants, and providing nothing of value for wildlife.
The quick growth of Paulownia is a double-edged sword. For you, the plantation manager, you get to turn a profit much more quickly on a smaller plot of land. But the return of land to any semblance of a natural state anywhere near your plantation is not at all likely, because of the prodigious amount of seed that Paulownias produce, which is then spread far and wide by the wind, water, and animals.
To me, the seed from your crop is every bit as dangerous to the environment as Monsantos GM corn is to organic farmers. You cannot control the spread of the seed and therefore all natural areas are in danger.
There are many eco benefits that the Paulownia offers. It isn’t the demon that some think it to be. It is mans responsibility to find the value in all without waste. I for one seek all to join me in this quest. Rather than complain, let’s seek solutions.
Yours truly
Sam Sewell
I would love to see each and every one of us seeking solutions and taking responsibility for our own actions. Paulownia may indeed offer some benefits, but does that short-term gain outweigh in any measure the long-term destruction of the environment, the simplification of ecosystems, the reduction of biodiversity? I tend not to agree.
But the important thing is, what do you think? Is short-term gain worth long-term harm? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
© 2010, Carole Sevilla Brown. All rights reserved. This article is the property of EcosystemGardening.com If you are reading this at another site, please report that to us
About Carole Sevilla Brown
I think you’ve made an interesting comparison Carole. I’d love to see us move away from “band-aid” solutions to problems, environmental and otherwise. It’s my opinion that the whole political system is stuck in “band-aid” politics and I wish I had a solution. There are rarely black and white answers. How about having Paulownia crops in the part of the world where they are actually native? I’m not a fan of monocultures, but at least they are less destructive in their own native habitat.
.-= Alison Kerr´s last blog ..Gardening Step by Step =-.
Sounds like an obvious solution:
Develop a sterile planatation species by breeding or gen eng that produces as much wood as possible with the smallest footprint and as a society use as little wood as possible!
.-= Matt´s last blog ..Strange Maps =-.
I hope Monsanto isn’t reading this! We don’t need more genetically engineered crops contaminating soils and species… How sad that in order for so many to realize the cost of destroying nature they will literally have experience it for themselves. Science didn’t end hunger and it won’t stop invasive plants, it merely puts another face on the challenge. We need to accept that WE’RE the change that’s needed!
.-= Lisa´s last blog ..It’s Not About Love… =-.
All of us, including Monsanto, need to learn to be responsible for our actions. I totally agree, WE are the change. And it’s high time we got down to business.
I would be curious to know what native trees might be able to fill this fast-regrowing niche. Surely we have something worthwhile.
.-= Michelle Clay´s last blog ..I failed my saving throw against plants. =-.
Sadly, that is why we have so many pine plantations. But the simplified ecosystems that result from monocultures do not do much in the way of supporting wildlife.
Non native plants that become invasive are highly destructive, competitive and difficult to control. It is a world wide problem. In Northern British Columbia Canada, where I live, Hieracium aurantiacum is one plant I would love to eliminate from my garden. Educating the public that it is not a pretty orange flower and is definitely not native, is the first step.
.-= melanie watts´s last blog ..Nitrogen Fixation =-.
I always understood that once you start coppicing (isn’t this how this plantation crop would be managed?) a paulownia tree, you forsake blooms, and therefore also seeds. Is this not correct?
Can you answer a question for me: by what process did the assembly of plants you’re labelling as ‘native’ come to exist in your area? Surely not all at once: and most assuredly, as a part of an ONGOING process that involved constant new arrivals, some of which would doubtless have ‘invasive’ tendencies. I find it curious that you’ve arbitrarily declared the present plant community as ‘native’, and thus made it static, and divorced it completely from the ongoing (that word again) ecological processes that gave rise to such a diverse system in the first place. Plant evolution, climate-change adaptation, and the ongoing health of ecosystems have always depended on the rather constant (and, in biological terms ‘sudden’) arrival of novel species. Your position is, in fact, profoundly unecological: you deny the necessary role of novelty and change in system resilience. Just because a human being defines a system as ‘native’ doesn’t diminish the essential role of dynamism. Keep a close eye on your precious ‘native plant’ communities: as the climate increasingly changes, they’ll become maladapted, and those who have been propagating and breeding alternatives will be the ones who save the day. Thank God some of us actually grasp ecology, and dont’ fall into the trap of nativism, and the entirely subjective, culture-based realm of defining ‘good’ and ‘bad’ species. The surest indicator of ecological ignorance there is.
Yes, plants and animals have been moved around by natural forces, but that happens over extremely long periods of time. That amount of time allows for adaptation. We however, have been moving these plants around with such speed that insects and other wildlife have not had that period of adaptation time. Therefore plants that would normally have biological controls in their native environment do not have them in new environments, and that is how we’re having such a problem with these plants. It’s a totally human-made problem. So my goal is to help people learn how to make healthier choices for our gardens. Just because Home Depot sells these plants, doesn’t mean they’re the best choice for our local wildlife. There are so many other plants that provide actual value to wildlife.
So Johnny Appleseed was an ECO criminal?
Man and all his good and bad judged choices is part of the ecosystem. WE have always changed our local habitats good or bad to suit our desires. Usually for our own gains. But who is to say our extinction or survival will be bad for the environment? Human is the animal this planet has naturally grown. Let the Earth decide our fate and we should quit being so selfish about our survival over the rest of the planet, from it’s dust we came, and unto we shall return again. Or maybe Humans participation on this planet is the evolution that is normal for it. Maybe the dinosaurs and us are just the preamble for the next something to come along.
Nothing remains the same. All must change and we cannot stop it. When change stops all life dies!
Personnaly I want to see the stink bugs gone!
LB, yes humans have made some very poor choices when it comes to protecting the wildlife and ecosystems of our beautiful land. We can also learn to make more responsible choices in our gardens and in our communities. That’s the point of this site.