Entry tags:
Wild Food Foragers vs Ecologists
Over the past month I've become slowly aware of a separation between two communities that should be closely aligned. It's similar to the division between cat-lovers and ecologists, but with its own distinctions.
Wild food foragers are excellent naturalists. The best can tell the difference between many different confusing plant species--the difference between life and death in some cases. They understand ecology--that is, they are aware of seasons and habitats, and know where and when to find their quarry. Their senses are honed by practicality. I love having foragers along on Urban Nature Walks--they are some of the best, most confident naturalists I've met, with a profound respect for nature and an obvious delight for being in the out of doors.
That's why it's so distressing to me that I have detected this separation. The issue is invasive species. Many invasive species are attractive targets for foraging--this makes perfect sense, since the usefulness of a plant is what makes it more likely to be brought to another continent to begin with. Ecologists who dabble in foraging (like myself) tend to tolerate a certain level of useful invasive species. I like that the cities are full of white mulberry, and I relish the Himalayan blackberry that plagues the Pacific Northwest.
But when it comes to species that create monocultures, that reduce biodiversity in the areas that they thrive, I am intolerant. Norway maple, black swallow-wort, Japanese knotweed, and garlic mustard are simply bad news. They are all admirable plants in their own ways--you must at least admire their ability to thrive in the most difficult urban ecosystems. I am able to appreciate them as beautiful plants--just go and read the entry for black swallow-wort from 2006, you'd think I was in love. And many of these are useful to humans in various ways.
But each of these and many others cause ecological damage. Phragmites replaces cattail and blackbird habitat is lost. Japanese knotweed moves in and there are no more frogs on the water's edge. A monarch lays its eggs on a black swallow-wort leaf and the caterpillar starves to death. Garlic mustard moves into the yard and begins exuding fungicide, making it more difficult for mycorhizzae to form.
The foragers cry "eat the invasives!" I'm all for it, make all the garlic mustard pesto and strawberry knotweed pie you want. Please try to harvest it until there is no more left. But eating is not controlling. Proper agriculture and proper wild foraging have one thing in common: you take measures to ensure the plant survives, through replanting or judicious harvesting. I don't think anyone is really worried that they will over-harvest Japanese knotweed until it is extirpated, and it may not even be possible at this time. I just worry that the foragers will stand in the way of sane control measures.
I detected a tone and philosophy regarding invasives in the new book Dandelion Hunter: Foraging the Urban Wilderness that unsettled me. Author Rebecca Lerner uses scare quotes when referring to "invasive species," "native species," and terms like "noxious" and "harmful." She states that "like people and animals, plants have been migrating around the world and always will," without distinguishing between those "migrations" (now I'm using the scare quotes, but she's talking about the spread of species into new areas, not actual migration which is a to-and-from movement) caused by humans and those which occur for other reasons. A species may move into a new environment because of a weather event, or because of continental drift, but these causes are very very very slow and gradual. In the past 500 years, humans have caused species to move into new areas, sometimes with little effect, sometimes however resulting in sudden extinction of native species. Can we really be so blase about species moving from place to place when some of those events are entirely preventable (in hindsight) and man-made like the mass extinction of birds from Hawaii due to the introduction of cats, mongooses, and mosquitoes?*
Another book (which I confess I have not read) called Invasive Plant Medicine: The Ecological Benefits and Healing Abilities of Invasives is even more troubling to me. The jacket copy offers "Most of the invasive plant species under attack for disruption of local ecosystems in the United States are from Asia, where they play an important role in traditional healing." So what? The issue isn't that the plants are or aren't useful--clearly they are. The issue should be--in terms of, you know, the sustainability of the maximum diversity of living things on earth--are they causing harm to an ecosystem?
It seems that the foraging community's objection to the control of invasive species doesn't derive from the worry that garlic mustard or Japanese barberry are going to disappear. The bigger issue seems to be the use of herbicides. I have no strong opinion on this--I agree that the extensive use of chemicals in the environment has been problematic in the past. I would prefer that the use of pesticides of all kinds be very careful and well thought-out, with lots and lots of environmental impact studies. I know that there are cases where invasive plant species are controlled with herbicides--can the use of herbicides be reduced? Probably. Should that reduction of herbicide use be accomplished by denying the science of harmful invasive species? I've got a problem with that.
*I've read statements by foragers and free-roaming cat advocates saying more or less "humans are the real cause of this problem, after all." I agree, which is why I think it's our responsibility to take firm sane measures to solve it (them).
Wild food foragers are excellent naturalists. The best can tell the difference between many different confusing plant species--the difference between life and death in some cases. They understand ecology--that is, they are aware of seasons and habitats, and know where and when to find their quarry. Their senses are honed by practicality. I love having foragers along on Urban Nature Walks--they are some of the best, most confident naturalists I've met, with a profound respect for nature and an obvious delight for being in the out of doors.
That's why it's so distressing to me that I have detected this separation. The issue is invasive species. Many invasive species are attractive targets for foraging--this makes perfect sense, since the usefulness of a plant is what makes it more likely to be brought to another continent to begin with. Ecologists who dabble in foraging (like myself) tend to tolerate a certain level of useful invasive species. I like that the cities are full of white mulberry, and I relish the Himalayan blackberry that plagues the Pacific Northwest.
But when it comes to species that create monocultures, that reduce biodiversity in the areas that they thrive, I am intolerant. Norway maple, black swallow-wort, Japanese knotweed, and garlic mustard are simply bad news. They are all admirable plants in their own ways--you must at least admire their ability to thrive in the most difficult urban ecosystems. I am able to appreciate them as beautiful plants--just go and read the entry for black swallow-wort from 2006, you'd think I was in love. And many of these are useful to humans in various ways.
But each of these and many others cause ecological damage. Phragmites replaces cattail and blackbird habitat is lost. Japanese knotweed moves in and there are no more frogs on the water's edge. A monarch lays its eggs on a black swallow-wort leaf and the caterpillar starves to death. Garlic mustard moves into the yard and begins exuding fungicide, making it more difficult for mycorhizzae to form.
The foragers cry "eat the invasives!" I'm all for it, make all the garlic mustard pesto and strawberry knotweed pie you want. Please try to harvest it until there is no more left. But eating is not controlling. Proper agriculture and proper wild foraging have one thing in common: you take measures to ensure the plant survives, through replanting or judicious harvesting. I don't think anyone is really worried that they will over-harvest Japanese knotweed until it is extirpated, and it may not even be possible at this time. I just worry that the foragers will stand in the way of sane control measures.
I detected a tone and philosophy regarding invasives in the new book Dandelion Hunter: Foraging the Urban Wilderness that unsettled me. Author Rebecca Lerner uses scare quotes when referring to "invasive species," "native species," and terms like "noxious" and "harmful." She states that "like people and animals, plants have been migrating around the world and always will," without distinguishing between those "migrations" (now I'm using the scare quotes, but she's talking about the spread of species into new areas, not actual migration which is a to-and-from movement) caused by humans and those which occur for other reasons. A species may move into a new environment because of a weather event, or because of continental drift, but these causes are very very very slow and gradual. In the past 500 years, humans have caused species to move into new areas, sometimes with little effect, sometimes however resulting in sudden extinction of native species. Can we really be so blase about species moving from place to place when some of those events are entirely preventable (in hindsight) and man-made like the mass extinction of birds from Hawaii due to the introduction of cats, mongooses, and mosquitoes?*
Another book (which I confess I have not read) called Invasive Plant Medicine: The Ecological Benefits and Healing Abilities of Invasives is even more troubling to me. The jacket copy offers "Most of the invasive plant species under attack for disruption of local ecosystems in the United States are from Asia, where they play an important role in traditional healing." So what? The issue isn't that the plants are or aren't useful--clearly they are. The issue should be--in terms of, you know, the sustainability of the maximum diversity of living things on earth--are they causing harm to an ecosystem?
It seems that the foraging community's objection to the control of invasive species doesn't derive from the worry that garlic mustard or Japanese barberry are going to disappear. The bigger issue seems to be the use of herbicides. I have no strong opinion on this--I agree that the extensive use of chemicals in the environment has been problematic in the past. I would prefer that the use of pesticides of all kinds be very careful and well thought-out, with lots and lots of environmental impact studies. I know that there are cases where invasive plant species are controlled with herbicides--can the use of herbicides be reduced? Probably. Should that reduction of herbicide use be accomplished by denying the science of harmful invasive species? I've got a problem with that.
*I've read statements by foragers and free-roaming cat advocates saying more or less "humans are the real cause of this problem, after all." I agree, which is why I think it's our responsibility to take firm sane measures to solve it (them).
no subject
(At which point feel free to say, Yes. Yes actually they do. And I'll believe you and back off, but let me explain why I wonder/doubt)
I was under the impression that Rosa multiflora was like that--and maybe it is? And yet it seems like a lot of birds like it well enough.... I guess that doesn't solve the problem of diversity of plants, and even if the birds are liking it, I understand that there are animals etc. that were dependent on whatever it's displaced that are hurting.
--In any case, I think it fine to want to preserve the biodiversity of an area the way it was before an invasive came/comes along. I think it's fine to *not* just simply roll over and accept invasives. But at the same time--and here I'm speaking not as a forager, but just as a, I don't know... Gaia oriented person? Whatever--things *do* change, and things *do* move around. "Yeah, but never in the past the way they do now thanks to container ships [etc.]" --and true. But that *is* the reality now. And on the one hand, we can fight it, but on the other hand, with invasives that are pretty well established, I think we have to acknowledge that while we might be able to eradicate them from, say, a nature preserve, we're not going to get them out of the entire ecosystem, so we might as well brace ourselves and look at what the ecosystem is like now that they're here. I'm thinking of things like, precisely, phragmites and knotweed and oriental bittersweet and so on.
.... Okay. I talked a lot. Sorry/thank you for listening.
no subject
At Drumlin farm, they chose a few species (knotweed, swallow-wort, and house sparrows (!)) and a few locations, and did a good job of drastically reducing if not eliminating the species from the 250+ acres.
I've argued for (on this blog) leaving ailanthus be in urban areas, since it's one of the few trees that will grow. I'd probably not do the same today, but I also wouldn't argue to remove ailanthus trees from an urban lot unless there was a good plan in place to replace them with something. (sumac? honeylocust?)
no subject
no subject
Invasive Permaculture
From a utilitarian standpoint, a useful plant is more welcome than one that isn't. (I know, ecological blasphemy.) In my flower bed, morning glories are treasured. In my corn patches, they're weeds. Seen this way, most natives are weeds, and the job of the ecologist becomes PR spokesperson, trying--usually unsuccessfully--to convince the farmer and forager that the natives are useful after all.
This utilitarian view is, of course, how we ended up with monocrops of plants that aren't fit enough to survive natural competition. Trying to shield them from competition leads to herbicide pollution and erosion (from mechanical cultivation). Wouldn't it be great if our crops were tough enough to defend themselves? Without genetic tinkering? Without dousing the fields in chemicals? Wouldn't it be great if we, like the native animals, could thrive just on what grows naturally around us? What would it mean for our civilization if anyone could just reach down, pull up a handful of whatever was growing there, stuff it in their face, and be well-nourished? Think of the economic and political implications of crops that could hold their own in nature.
That's what (some) invasives are. After all, let's remember that we're invasives on this continent. We need a food that's strong enough not to go the way of the dodo. It may be that the best way to do that is to import other alien species. Eventually, thousands of years from now, it'll work itself out to the point where former invasives become thought of as natives, and anything they displace to the point of extinction are just some of the countless species that got taken out by natural selection.
;)
"Japanese knotweed moves in and there are no more frogs on the water's edge."
Hmm. On my land, there's a patch of knotweed (for which I'm so grateful that I don't tear it out, despite the fact that it's right where I'd like to build a chicken coop). I also have a catchment pond and several vernal pools. The knotweed stays confined to its little spot and hasn't appeared anywhere near the water. I didn't see any tadpoles this year, but last year, my vernal pools were teeming with them.
Last year, I deliberately introduced cattails to a swampy part, hoping they'll go to seed and spread to other parts of the land. Do you think this will draw blackbirds? What's the relation between the two?
"Garlic mustard moves into the yard and begins exuding fungicide, making it more difficult for mycorhizzae to form."
Interesting! One of the places I see garlic mustard proliferating is on the edge of a stand of trees where I find puffballs growing.
I wonder if more mushrooms would grow if I brought goats into my woods to clear out the honeysuckle, multiflora rose, and garlic mustard.
I'm also curious now about using garlic mustard around the edges of outbuildings to prevent mold.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also, when you say young shoots, how big is too big, in your estimation?
no subject
I've been cutting stalks that are 2-4 feet high and eating the bottom foot or so. They are very fibrous, so I just chew them up to get the juice and a little bit of pulp out, then spit out the fibers. I usually peel off the outside first, or I split it open and scrape the inside off with my teeth.
no subject
no subject
If I ever get another cat it will be an indoor cat, I promise. So far I have only had "strays" who would not "commit". I know that killing cats used to be a human activity followed with gusto. My dad made change as a boy in the praires killing starlings with a sling shot. People can usually get over the need to destroy something that is invasive if they feel there is a good reason to do so. Maybe just better PR regarding the damage done by invasives?