Invasive in what sense? Do you mean species that naturalize/reproduce in areas where they are not native?

yes there is..

juniperus virginiana is such in some areas

though native in others...

learning the latin names is very important in the conifer world ...

none of this cedar this .... and cypress that.. for 80 different plants ..

and.. they are not rabbit proof .... lol ... and not unlike burning bushes.. free conifers that pop up in your garden.. gratuitously.. are usually NOT good ones ... lol .. sorry.. i cant help myself ..

ken

Invasive in what sense? Do you mean species that naturalize/reproduce in areas where they are not native?

Yes, I want to make sure that the conifers I plant aren't invasive.

I doubt there are any truly invasive conifers in NY. Pinus sylvestris is naturalized in some areas, but it isn't displacing native vegetation. And even if it were, if you are planting in a typical suburban lot, you won't be making the problem worse. In some places, certain pines are invasive - i.e. in Hawaii Pinus elliottii and P. patula have invaded disturbed natural areas. Again, unlikely to be an issue in NY.

Yes, there is. Here's some invasive conifers in New Zealand - this whole forest is composed of them.

As for New York, I'd suspect Picea abies has slightly higher invasive potential than Pinus sylvestris. But as Salicaceae says, not a high risk.

Resin

Non-native conifers that have successfully naturalized in eastern North America would generally have a low invasive potential because:
1) they are generally shade intolerant and quickly yield to more shade tolerant native (& non-native) species.
2) growth rate and competitiveness is similar to native shade intolerant conifers.
3) many of the same insect pests and diseases that affect native conifers also impact non-native conifers.

I think the biggest risk may be the creation of hybrid native/non-native varieties that begin to displace the native parent.

As for Juniperus virginiana...it's success is facilitated by fire suppression policies, forestry practices that omitted replanting programs, and abandoned agricultural land.

To each their own but nonnative and invasive are simply words used to make plants (in this case) somehow unwanted, not in their place etcetc. That of course is a human take on what should and should not be somewhere. Nature does not mind at all. You just survice or you don't. Where you came from, who came first etc: that does not matter. It is so strange to me that many people just seem to have hopped on this ultraconservative train, which is just another version of what we do in a cultural sense too. Because it is a human trait to be weary of newcomers. To claim some land or when they themselves came their first. And we apply the same thought on nature. If you ever look at the facts and compare them to the suspiscion you'll soon notice the many similarities when it comes to cultural xenophobia.
Invasive species do only exist if you think that nature somehow cannot handle nerwcomers and must be eradicated or prevented to establish somewhere. Nature handles newcomers just perfectly well. In fact: 50% of all species you see anwyhere on Earth are not local developments and this seems to have been the case ever since all parts of the world became inhabited by plants and animals.Mass exchanges have never caused big extinctions and that is not the case nowadays either. What has happened is that many newcomers simply got established elsewhere and with the lack of extinctions we see that the number of species per area has increased drastically. If you like diversity, newcomers are good and not bad at all.

Nice pieces on this, to my mind, can be read if you look up Dov Sax or Matthew Chew. Or this one, of Nature (2009) which I liked a whole lot: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090722/full/460450a.html.

@jorginho

That's a long post to simplify a complex issue. :-)

I agree that the term 'invasive' is far over used but there certainly are situations where a species (plant, animal, fungus, etc) makes a real mess of ecological systems where all the pre-existing species have co-evolved. Those messes can have a serious and cascading impact on regional bio-diversity.

Granted, those messes may originate from a non-anthropogenic source or resolve on their own. It would seem though, that if we have the ability to trigger or prevent an ecological mess, we shouldn't be so cavalier about the whole issue of invasive species.

semi-duplicate post

This post was edited by jimbobfeeny on Wed, Nov 6, 13 at 21:21

Jorginho, Jorginho, Jorginho...

Comparing Native Plant Protection and Invasive Plant Prevention to Xenophobia is a bit of a false analogy. Because plants do not have feelings nor reasoning capabilities, they don’t have the ability to coexist in peace (Come to think of it, Humans barely do!). Invasives displace native species - Many times a single invasive species will take over the habitat that is held by 5 species of native plants. Therefore, we have to analyze any exotic species for invasive potential.

And, saying that it is part of nature - It certainly isn’t . Most of the time, humans had a role in introducing invasives - Norway maple and Burning Bush were deliberately imported as ornamentals. To bring in exotics with reckless abandon is to greatly hamper the biodiversity that makes the North American landscape so beautiful. From the forested hills of Appalachia to the rolling Tallgrass Prairies, from the Sand Barrens along the Atlantic to the parched Great Basin, North America has an astounding variety of trees. In fact, just the Great Smoky Mountains alone contain more tree species than all of Europe! And, to sit back and let invasive species take over all that is really a gross portrayal of our callous, heartless attitudes.

Hi Jimbo,

The analogies to my mind are rather strong. Most people do not know a whole lot about the facts and simply reiterate the message they have seen time and time again. A perfect way to make a lie a fact.

1) not a single plant was to blame for any extinction in America, Europa, Asia, Australia or Africa. On Islands it could have happened but it is very very rare. NEw Zealnd lost 4 out of 2069 plants. It gained 2068 newcomers. The diversity has doubled at very little loss as a price

2) Scapegoating: we use 72% of the worlds land. 36% is for agriculture, the other half for cattle, cities, infrastructure etc. This habitatloss, our hutning, global warming etc ARE the cause of massextinctions.
But pointing the finger to ourselves does not feel so good when it means we actually should exterminate ourselves rather than others. And it feels very good when we think we are doing something about it..

3) Scientists can only determine whether a species is new or not by history. Not their behaviour. Their behvaioru is no different. You are not aware of this may be, the reason is that there are no books on native invasive species. These are not called by that name. We call them pioneers: that sounds a whole lot better. The endresult of those pioneers is the same. Pines, Firs etc are cut down inspite of their nativeness because they threaten local biodiversity when they invade heath and alpine meadows...Mountain Pine beetle wreaks havoc economically in the NW pacific. The scale is immense. But no one now turns to native species. Our double standards do not allow us to do that. It is like only focussing on the crimes of immigrants and not on the very same crimes of the natives.

So it is based on assumptions, double standards and villifying behavuour that is indistinguishable from the behaviour of the so called natives....How is that not xenophobic?
Don't want to plant a possibly succesfulll newcomer? Don't. I happen to like 'm a whole lot and I plant them on purpose. It is a fact. Because I like change, I like diversity and I think I am 100% part of this world just like they are.

There is one constant in the Universe: change. It seems better to accept it than to fight it. as a rule of thumb.

I guess what I always figure is that I have so many choices from native plants that I honestly can find one to fill every single niche. I really don't mind mild-mannered exotics (Ones that don't choke out EVERYTHING); However, I, more often than not, can find a native alternative that, TO ME, is more beautiful than the exotic treasure. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - Think of it more as Cultural Preservation than xenophobia. Me and my crazy notions, I just like the looks of a forest of native trees with hundereds of species of native wildflowers, rather than a sweep of garlic mustard. That's just me, though - People sometimes do think I'm crazy...

Garlic Mustard only temporarily takes over an area. Think of it as a pioneer. It the area were left alone other plants would grow there until finally it would be a mature landscape consisting of a variety of plants, exotic and native, that would be considered a climax plant community. And even that changes, albeit slowly, considering the time scale it took to achieve it.
Mike

@mikebotann

Garlic Mustard is somewhat alleopathic and quite shade tolerant.....it has quite a detrimental effect on ephemeral forest wildflowers

Conifers sometimes definitely can be invasive.

Here is an interesting webpage about invasive species in Southern Africa (South Africa, Zimbabwe & Zambia).

In Southern Africa only about 21'110 ha of P.pinaster was planted and now there is 325'600 ha of them.

Sure I like conifers (a lot!) but I don't want them to outcompete native species when being planted by humans. There is always a natural evolution going on though, but in my opinion some people force a (r)evolution and call it a "natural" evolution.
The fynbos in SA I'm referring to was the product of milions of years of evolution which is now being replaced by pine stands in a miniscule fraction of that time; which doesn't feel right to me.

Here is a link that might be useful: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac846e/ac846e06.htm

I fail to see how the Pinus pinaster and human dispersion would be unnatural. We and what we do is a product of our own evolution.The term "unnatural" has no meaning. It is making an distinction that is not there for everything is a prodcut of nature. We create things that weren their, but we only can because our brains evolved that way through natural selection.

The reason for protecting the Fynbos is an emotional one, not based on logic. When someone says it has been around here for millions of years and now it will be gone quickly that counts as a loss. However: we also should look beyond human timescales to see what we get back. Otherwise it is pretty clear we are only doing this for our selves and our view on nature. Already, these pineforests are very biodiverse. Many of the animals living there already have made it their home. No doubt this will continue. So we get somehting new something that will be unique to that part of the world too. And there is little doubt the Fynbis, sooner or later, will dissapear. As will Pinus pinaster.

I also aw that so called restoration prgrams have left barren landscapes with nothing that grows. No Fynbos, no pines and a lot of erosion. I don't know if that was what they wanted, but I guess not.

Native- nonnative is another dichotomy that has plagued our culture with many times the same outcome: the newcomer is bad. it has no vlaue, it is obnoxious. it is somehow worht less than we who came first. So we can eradicate the immigrant (man or other species). I am totally against this senseless killing that is nothing more than a fitting nature into our cultural ideal. Another thing it does is that it adds another typical human attribute to nature: morallity. We do, nature does not have it. Again, when we introduce that we are soon trapped in yet another endless row of double standards. Should we also prevent lions to kill cubs, as this is cruel? Cannibalism where possible among frogs?

On many occasions this is regarded as stupid. Many people I know can only believe and hear their own truth, are no longer critical.

Finally, I looked uip the Fynbos and found a long story that indicated the aaproach to the pines was...xenophobic. http://www.coolforest.org.za/kasriel.htm/ It does not mean that I am right and others are wrong, but I am certainly not the only one seeing this rather strong similarity.

it also seems that the most invasive humans, NW European whites, are the very same people blaming other species for the demise of nature. Are we feeling guilty and do we want to correct things to our liking, again at the expense of other life??

If growing native plants counts as xenophobia, allowing invasive weeds to run all over the native habitats mounts to genocide. Xenophobia also can come from the side of the "new" party - How about the clash between the Spaniards and the South American Natives? There are two sides to every opinion, two sides to every form of reasoning. To me, it just makes sense - Why try and 'improve' a highly efficient infrastructure? Many times, whenever a "new" plant is introduced into horticulture, I can look at it and say, "Well, to me, the similar native plant looks prettier and grows better anyways." Exotic doesn't just mean foreign - In this country, the natives are more "new and exotic" than the new and exotic, in that they aren't commonly found in the landscape. Many people like my landscape of natives (uncommon ones, mind you) over the typical landscape of introduced ornamentals, because it is different, unusual, and unique. My "boring native plants" are much more uncommon in the cultivated landscape than everyone elses "garden-worthy exotics".

Hej Jimbo,

Xenophobia is fear of strangers (in a nutshell). So it depends what the reaosn is. If the reason is that you fear all things that are new in a certain area for the reason that...they are new and might cause all sorts of things? It is xenophobic. If not, it is not.
But I still think it is rather strange, at least to me. It is like: "I like Native Americans more than anything else, I only want to be around Native Americans because they are native."
I wonder: what does nartiveness add to being good or bad if we cannot distinguish anything in behavioru etc based on it? It is like black is better than purple, because most people think black is better than purple..Etc.

If you introduce others with the reason to eradaicate species that are already there, it would be something like genocide. It is not my personal goal, but if there are people out there it seems very odd to me.

The native plant looks prettier? So that would mean that America's plants are more beautiful than those from other places in the world. Oke. regardless: evologists and biologist cannot determine where a plant or tree comes from based on beavhiour, looks etc. Nothing about it tells it is native or not. they can only do so when they know the pollen record.

I never said anyhting negative about your plants. Go ahead, do what you like. I do not believe for one second that you can tell an unknown plant to you and tell me or anyone whether it is native or not.

Well, native vs. non-native aside (it's kind of diverting the original question anyways), there really are no "Invasive" conifers in this part of the continent. However, I have read accounts of Norway spruce being somewhat invasive in the Boreal Forest in Canada - I've never seen it volunteer around here, though. And, yes, even the native Juniperus virginiana can be invasive in certain situations - Especially in dry, limestone soils. Around here, it sprouts in abandoned fields, but is quickly overcome by oaks and other hardwoods. (We don't have much native conifer cover in our area)

Another side of introduced species is disease and pests. Most (if not all) of the truly destructive pests in this country were introduced. We now have Hemlock woolly adelgid, Balsam woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust - And that's just on conifers. Balsam and Hemlock adelgids have proved most destructive, decimating millions of acres of native firs and hemlocks. We don't have American chestnuts anymore, nor many American elms. The future of North American Ashes is questionable as a result of the Emerald Ash Borer, and oak wilt is affecting Red oak in the North. Beech scale is killing many of the native beeches, rose rosette virus is killing most of our roses, Phytophthora is killing everything from Rhododendrons to Fraser firs - The list is endless. All I am trying to stress is that it proves due dilligence to examine the possible ripple effects of introducing a species.

By the by, I wasn't trying to imply that "all American plants are more beautiful than plants from other countries", I was merely stating that TO ME, they are more beautiful. I wouldn't want to force Europeans to grow our trees, nor would I want to force everyone else to grow what I like. Like I said, Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

Also, to re-stress my original point, it is impossible to analogize plants and humans. While humans have reasoning capabilities, they can co-exist (for the most part!). Plants either grow or die, there is no "making friends" or "peacefull co-existance". Each plant has its own niche, and introducing new variables can have many-fold further reaching effects than we may have dreamed of.

To compare plants to people is to personify the plants, which is scientifically impossible, not to mention petty and ridiculous.

I gotta admit, I only read the first couple of jorginho's post all the way through, but, from what I did read, he seemed like someone that had very little understanding of the science and was much more interested in some political agenda. I think he is one of those people that refuse to let the facts get in his way.

Ah..a political agenda? What kind of a political agenda would that be? Regardless, let's not get ad hominem. Useless. Let's stay on topic. If you read climate research, another kind of global change that evokes strong emotions you will rarely if every come across judgmentality. Whether warming is good or bad is not proven. you cannot do that. However: what you can prove is that global warming is antropogenic. Caused by humans. You cannot prove it is unnatural. What people think about it, is not up to a scientist. It is up to themselves. I don't like it at all and am all for action. The facts here are very clear. Within the climate research, which can be found in nature and Science, there is no doubt.

The same cannot be said when it comes to invasive species. There is ample peer reviewed research, done by ecologists themselves, that shows what I say. The lithany of judgemental and value laden wording does not have any place in science, yet it is almost a constant in ecology. And it has a strong influence in the perception of people to what is simply a living organism and at times, a sentient being.

I have read many scientific research on it and my point is precisely the opposite: I think most people are simply reiterarting what they have been hearing time and time again without reading on the subject. Niot from outsides, like you see in climate sience, but ecologists working in the field.
What bothers me is that this ideology has all the signs of what we see in human culture. That the ideal of some system is worht more than life. That individuals have no value, have no meaning and should be killed. This also has a strong aching to what we see (and tend to fear and despise) in antisocial people, who fail to acknowledge that other people matter, have intrinsic value. That other people have rights, emotions and feelings. Hence extreme antisocial people kill people without a second thought and do not mind one bit.
I have seen this been propagated in nature towards various animals. And they are sometimes killed in the most painfull way imaginable. Like the GRey Squirrel in the UK, which is killed by using warfarine so it slowly dies a painfull death from internal bleeding. An alternative is clubbing the pups and, if they ca catch thhem, their parents to death. That is what extremism and hatecampaigns can do.

Another thing I have seen in Scotland when I was there and in The Netherlands is the propaganda that is genetically inspired. The Scottish Red dear, which is not a subspecies at all and is not threatened in any way worldwide, is now at the "threat" to be mixed with Sika deer. They have fertile young, which do just fine. Seem happy. Nothing is wrong. But the Scottish Landscape Trust (or what is called) says that "pure blood" Scottish Red Deer are at the verge of extinction. There is nothing wrong with the mix, the calfs are not sterile..Nope. But they have no rights and need to be killed. Wrong blood, wrong place. LEts shoot 'em...
In Nl there are quite a few who want to use pure Dutch Beech trees which seeds have been selected an stored, to repopulate the country. Foreign beech trees are no good...
The White Tail Duck and the Ruddy Duck have fertile offspring. They are as dissimilar as blacks and whites among people. Yet the Ruddy Duck needs to be killed, because the White Duck would be extinct. And it is unnatural. However, a passerine is naturally hybridising in Europe now. That is okey, it is nature...

Now I do understand these are extremes but they are the direct result, again like we have seen in culture so many times, of the thought that nature should be pure and that bastards are no good. Foreign species are somehow worse than native species and need to be eradicated when possible or when they threat our ideal view of the world....

So to me, saying that native is somehow better than nonnative is not as innocent as it looks. I find it very strange actually. I think a species is in its place where it can survive on its own. It seems well adapted, at least for some time, to the place it now occupies. Ceertainly in times with rapid change (climate change) an inflexible attitude towards these seems not feasable. If climate change starts to shift climate zones more and more, you might end up with nothing or very little native things that can grow where they used to...

Native and nonnative is a dichotomy that has no meaning in the natural world, only in human culture. It puts evberyhting in a historical context and not in a contemporary one. It seems to be aimed to freeze thing in atime (the past mostly) and on many occasions involve the killing of sentient beings on massive scales as it devaluates their lives based on their origins. and on may occasions without any sight on some final result. Finally, it also puts makind in the position to decide what should and hsould not live somewhere, again making nature and the natural world dependant on us and at times halting processes continuously. Like the spread of Juniperus virginia to the prairie or Pinus sylvestris in NL to occupy the heath again. As this is a continuous proces, this kind of management (which is certainly not unique) means large areas are dependant on economy. If economy fails considerably and there is no more money for maintenance, all the work to keep the landscape in some personally preferred state was in vain.

That is my gripe with this. I find it unethical at times, not based on natural but human preferences and strongly based on prejudice rather than facts.

I actually think this a pretty good discussion. There's room for Jorg's view. As far as I'm concerned-and this is probably based on my own aesthetic sense-each would-be invasive plant species must be judged separately, on its own terms. In this system, common buckthorn quite simply has no value. It would be infinitely better across the part of the world where I live if this thing had never been released into the wild. It can and does easily outcompete numerous native, and even some other non-native species, resulting in a much simplified ecosystem. Back to my aesthetic sense, this is also a much less interesting scene.

Norway spruce is one of my very favorite trees. You might've seen me write that before! If a few-and that seems to be about the extent of it-are able to naturalize, I consider it an enhancement of the landscape. Would a native white spruce otherwise have occupied that spot? Not likely, I'd say. And even if the answer to that question is yes, what is the harm? The two can easily coexist.

There's a third leg to this discussion, one which only a few of us geeks have gotten around to: Because of introduced pests, be they fungi, insects, mites, etc. some of our native biota is threatened. Take Canada hemlock in the east. Me and at least one other Norway spruce enthusiast have agreed that perhaps the latter species could in some ways take over the niche now emptied out by the adelgid. Maybe that idea is full of holes, but you get my drift. Maybe Asian ash species will need to be planted in N. America if we want representatives of that genus to be present. Or take my own acreage up north. If the hybrid larch I've planted there by the thousand are ever able to produce viable seed, I will consider that a positive development. Might they "invade" some open field up thataway? Sure, and I hope they do!

Ilove, you have so little to worry about. Scots pine...maybe, just a bit. It does reproduce quite handily here in WI. Have I ever seen a problem (In my own estimation) due to this? Nope. But my own local DNR has spent real money eradicating them from the sandy shores of Lake Michigan. I think that's both a waste of resources and a damn shame. they were adding to the scene, not detracting from it.

I guess there's no right answer to this conundrum. BTW, I work primarily in native restoration! We put forth a great deal of effort towards controlling "invasive species". Mostly, I think the work we do is justifiable, but here and there, it kind of galls me. The funniest part-we do this more than anything else so that an entire plant community-prairie-one that never existed in my area before, can grow unmolested! Such is life.

+oM

I will admit that we do have quite a few Norway spruce on our property! However, I will also restate that I have never seen them volunteer around here. I think we need to differentiate between exotic and invasive. While I would certainly plant more Norway spruce (They really don't look bad!), I would NEVER plant a Norway maple. (Totally different species, I know) Sure, Norway maple grows excellently around here - In fact, TOO excellently. Norway maples do not add any real biological value - They are not harmed by disease or insect pests around here, which is a nice way of saying that nothing can feed on them. I'd much rather have a grove of Sugar maple, which I can make Maple syrup from, than Norway maple, which has poisonous sap and thick roots that block ANYTHING from growing under them.

What I feel is that we need a voice of moderation in this debate - It seems pretty simple to me to see that plants with invasive tendencies should be kept out of gardens, and that plants that have thrived in an area should be used in landscaping wherever possible. I agree with +oM - If an exotic plant has good form, growth potential, and is utilizable by the native wildlife, why not plant a few? Norway spruce offers cover and shelter, and in 200 years, has never shown invasive tendencies in our area. However, plants like most introduced Honeysuckles can completely fill the shrub layer of an area, blocking out even tree regeneration. It is easy to eradicate honeysuckle from an area, so why not? Once the biological "log jam" is cleared, it allows a larger variety of shrubs to regrow, especially ones that provide a food source all year long.

Exactly, Jimbob^^^, moderation, or discernment. This topic is far too complex to be easily encapsulated in a few short statements. Even the word 'invasive' is problematic to me because it carries with it the wrong-headed idea that one species "invading" another's territory is necessarily a bad thing. For an example, one dear to my own heart (And sense of aesthetics!), seeing forest tree species-white pine, Thuja o., aspen, birch etc. "invading" an old field is one of the true delights of the north country where my land is, or many other areas. That is true invasion, but it is 100% a part of the natural process. So things can get sticky pretty fast, especially if one considers the entire context!

+oM

Also, the difference there, is that it's not a monotypic 'invasion'. With the truly 'invasives', a single species can take over an area to the prevention of further development/growth.

Actually, those 'pioneer' and second-growth forests are a unique habitat that offers excellent conditions for a large group of animals, including coyotes, grouse, turkeys, chestnut-sided warblers, etc.

Native vs non-native...

Thanks to the internet, I don't have to attend college classes to learn about anything but can learn a lot at home on my own these days. I try to look at the big pictures without getting emotion involved.

I got very interested with human nutrition pretty early on (in high school) but no internet at first. It eventually spread out into several areas in college and after college with trees/plants being latest area to look at (nutrition/adaption wise).

The truth is that the more I learn, the less I realize I actually know about anything. There's so much to cover to tie everything together. It's just impossible...

Homo Sapiens have been around for only 200,000 years (plus or minus 50,000 years) and I only could find oldest civilizations maybe as early as 15,000 years ago in Peru. Actually, there may be one in northern Mexico 200,000 years ago but that was too controversial to be taken seriously of back in the old days because of dating. Mainstream archaeologists tend to have their rather narrow narrative of how things should look like back then and very slow to accept radical changes. No surprise as it is like that elsewhere in mainstream academic as I've learned early on in college. My nutrition professors didn't agree with what I had to write. Turns out I was right about several things after all these years. All I had to look at the big picture and really think about it.

Who is to say what is native and what is not native? How do we know we haven't moved plants/animals continent to another continent for 200,000 years? What I've learned what they did in the old days were pretty remarkable. I think they may have been much more advanced than we've led to believe.

Jorgihno, I have some honeysuckle and kudzu sprouts you probably want to plant in the redwood national parks to improve short term diversity.

Is that what you are saying?

At my kid's daycare they have no lions. Introducing lions would improve diversity. Should we?

Answer the questions at least in your mind.

Some good points, Lou. I too think that early man was doing more of this moving stuff around than we sometimes credit them with. There were some major civilizations in the Americas many thousands of years ago.

Another point, @ Jimbob, some "native invasions" do indeed yield more or less monotypic stands. Here I'm thinking of my beloved Thuja o. That;s one of the things that me and a bunch of other people find so endearing about this tree, it's pure stands scattered about in the ladnscape. Right now, on my property, are some mid-aged stands, all having begun following the same disturbance event, probably fire, that are solid 100% Thuja o. and as thick as hair on a dog. But I get what you're saying, and over a larger area, true, we don't exactly see natives doing what, say, common buckthorn is doing.

+oM