• 🏳️‍⚧️she/they🏳️‍⚧️

hi ima trans kittygirlthing, ask me if you wanna know anything about me and i'll answer if im comfy with sharing :3

i have a lovely girlfriend, she's @aluria-sevhex
go check her page out too! :3

profile from https://picrew.me/en/image_maker/2219859


vaudevilleghost
@vaudevilleghost

A while ago (probably several years now), an article went live on the internet about rethinking the label "invasive species"; I think it was this one in the Smithsonian. I could be mistaken, but the timbre is correct and anyway the contents of the article aren't really the point here. It was, in my lay estimation, interesting, thoughtful, and nuanced, and the Twitter link to it that I saw featured almost exclusively people arguing with the arguments they imagined it was making based on the headline. Several people repeated a form of the quip: "I guess kudzu is just misunderstood, huh?"

The thing is: literally yes. Kudzu was not something I was familiar with, never having spent any amount of time in kudzu territory, so I googled it, and found this article (also in the Smithsonian), and, like, the long and short of it is that kudzu really only flourishes along unmanaged roadsides but has been built up in the cultural consciousness as this monstrous unstoppable plant that would drown out all native biodiversity if left unchecked. But the truth, apparently, is that it really only grows along roadsides: it only appears universal because we seldom leave the road.

When I think about this I'm always reminded of the word "jungle", which is often used to just mean "tropical rainforest" but comes with it these connotations of the wild, the savage, this dense unnavigable tangle of plants. It's a word with a problematic history and it only really exists, especially with those connotations, because Europeans only ever explored the rainforests by river, and of course plants grow in a thick tangle by the banks of the river.

It is easy to forget, I think, that the world we perceive is not the world as it is; sometimes it's hard to even grasp the way the structures by which we interact with the world shape our perceptions. The world is unfathomably and fractally vast, filled with depths and nuances that we can spend entire lifetimes studying and still only scrape the surface; we don't have time to waste arguing with headlines.


Moo
@Moo

Huh. As a Kudzu Seer, I never really considered this. It reminds me of when I learned to identify Tree-of-Heaven how I noticed what a large percentage of roadside trees it makes up.


jayrockin
@jayrockin

It's true, humans often spend most of our time in disturbed areas, so we disproportionately see opportunistic invasive plants that thrive in disturbed areas. When I worked in conservation spaces I would even hear the term "native invasives" to refer to native species that would take over areas after disturbance and create unbalanced secondary ecosystems. Invasives in general tend to be less of an issue in old, undisturbed habitats because their quick weedy strategies only work when they aren't competing with an ancient preestablished system. This is why preserving undisturbed habitat is so important.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @vaudevilleghost's post:

(have not read the article; have experience in ecology and invasive species removal) a lot of the major invasive plant species, at least in my area, thrive in “disturbed” environments — highway on-ramps, old agricultural fields: places where the soil profile has been stirred up, salinated, compacted — in short, where an existing native ecosystem has been gravely injured. these places are easy for invaders to colonize and monopolize, and difficult for natives to reclaim on their own, and accordingly, they require the most labor to restore to their historical makeup. by contrast, undisturbed “remnant” sites are much more resilient to colonization by non-natives, and while these species certainly have the potential to run rampant, the upkeep is far less labor intensive: it’s much easier to prevent invasives from taking over a site with a robust, established ecosystem than to prevent them from taking over an unstable habitat. now, the major caveat here is that this is speaking only of plants in my region — not predators or diseases, not geographic isolates — but my impression in spite of this is that “invasive” as a category can often be largely defined by what is economically or aesthetically damaging. i mean for petes sake, most states’ noxious weeds lists are written by the department of agriculture, not the EPA. i think i’ve lost the plot with this comment so i’m gonna stop writing before i really go off on a tangent but: these have been my thoughts. thanks for reading!

There's this whole weird angle with non-native species as well that it's one of the few aspects of ecology and environmentalism that nobody argues against the idea that human beings are directly at fault for, not even unscientific conservatives. A lot of the motivation to deal with them outside of the world of agriculture and capital comes from a genuine desire to do good and right past wrongs. This makes it especially hard for people to think critically about something as ephemeral as language or whether some "invasive" species are perfectly benign, because it asks them to reconsider something they feel is a moral good. I don't really have any answers or insights, but it's a shame that nuance is basically anathema to public education.

in reply to @jayrockin's post:

i heard some interesting talk once about how, well. america killed its native parrots, drove them to extinction, which left their home turf here a bit off balance, and now through changing migratory patterns as a result of climate change, parrots are returning to florida america in more than a just "improperly released pet" manner

i know that florida's ecology is an intensely disturbed environment in places, maybe even in the everglades as a result of drastic drainage of their extents through geoengineering. the glades used to range as far north as Sanford!

we have all sorts of difficulty here with cuban brown anoles outcompeting the native florida green anole because they're so similar in role. oh. and the pythons. there was a reptile breeder in south florida that got hit by a hurricane and all the burms got out and have taken a serious foothold in the everglades since then

but i'm not familiar enough with ecology or conservation on a personal level to be anything other than vaguely aware of all this, definitely not to hold an opinion on it past "wow, that's a whole thing isn't it"

and "the state of florida has state-sponsored python bounty hunting" is just a very preposterous and florida thing to exist

trying to digest the idea that the everglades once ran up to Sanford just. breaks my brain slightly. And the python hunting is very Florida- it's also pretty ineffective, as far as I know, due to its limited scope.

To give some plant examples, from my occasional falls down rabbit holes and local observation, the major asshole is the Brazilian Peppertree. Grows like absolute nuts, can grow back if "simply" cut down, and the sap is an irritant that only gets worse if you try and burn it- speaking of, it grows so dense it makes areas a fire risk. Lantanas are also a common invasive; Florida has native species, but the commercially grown variant from Central & South America is what you'll find at Home Depot, and so its what people plant and it goes nuts from there.

do you have any links about parrots properly establishing themselves? I've heard of plenty of established escaped pet colonies, but never any actual migratory changes.

I'll have to find it again, I'm not sure it's actually happening yet in florida specifically, I was talking with a bird person and they specifically stated:

lovebirds, quaker parrots, red crowned parrots and even Amazons are moving into the US now. We're their climate refuge, more or less. You'll see them all over eventually.

so maybe the general US so far.

and yeah, learning that fact, that powers up to and including the army corps of engineers were responsible for the network of drainage canals that reduced the original extent of the everglades by more than half before environmental protests could save the rest... it's wild.