Discussion of definitions used by Wildlife Gardeners

[trillium]

Originally Posted by Stoloniferous

That's great. . . but it doesn't answer my question.

Another example. A glacier retreats, leaving a landscape that nothing nearby has adapted for. But nearby plants and animals start moving in. (A succession of plants are established first in lowlying watersheds; these plants break the stones and decay, causing a buildup of soil in the lowlands, allowing other plants and animals to move in. The "tree line" slowly creeps uphill. Etc etc etc.) None of these animals are, strictly speaking, adapted to this glaciated environment. Instead, they adapt the environment. Are they considered "native" when they move in? Are they considered "native" once they have been there a certain number of years? Does any of this take into account that such glaciated areas are still, to this day, being slowly colonized upwards, as evidenced by the tree line?

I'm okay with perpetually qualifying "native" with "native to bla", but something is sorely wrong with the definition if it can't cover the natural flux of species ranges.

I guess I would just consider this succession. I beleive in letting nature take it's course in that regard, instead of managing for one ecological type. In other words,a sedge meadow becomes a prairie, becomes an oak savannah, becomes an oak forest, gets hit by fire and returns to prairie, or savannah. To me, that is just nature's way, and I don't beleive in stopping succesion. I see agencies struggle to maintain one system,and for what, when the land will do what it is supposed to when left to it's devices. Soils change, weather changes, plants evolve, that is just a normal part of what the land does.

[hazelnut]

I think traditionally humans have managed ecology to intercept succession - for example, keeping the forest "young" by burning it off every so often allows a greater diversity of plants and animals than if the forest were allowed to follow its own succession into a climax phase.

[Stoloniferous]

Originally Posted by biigblueyes

Is the little one OK?

We all had the flu. No big deal, just a long and yucky weekend. Thanks.

[joepyeweed]

Originally Posted by Stoloniferous

I would like to apologize to everyone for being so short-tempered today. I should have known to stay away from the forums when I was so short on sleep.

I don't think you need to apologize. You had questions, you had thoughts. We have to keep asking questions until something makes sense.

I think some of us have been through so many of the "how do we define native" discussions for so long, sometimes we take the accepted definition for granted. It wasn't easy to get to consensus on that definition, as your questions proved.

[NEWisc]

Excellent idea to put together a definitions thread! It's really helpful to have a common reference point.

[Dirty Knees]

Naturalized doesn't mean they're native plants but the exact opposite? News to me and news to all my family and friends.

[hazelnut]

Naturalized plants - landscaping glossary definition of NATURALIZED PLANTS

More definitions.

Definition: Naturalized plants are plants established as a part of the flora of a locale other than their place of origin. When a plant naturalizes in an area, this can be either a "good" or a "bad" thing, depending on your opinion of the particular naturalized plant.

[TheLorax]

Naturalized doesn't mean they're native plants but the exact opposite?

Correct. Naturalized means the exact opposite. It means non-native. Hopefully this won't be such a well kept secret.

hazelnut, Umm, that's an About.com landscaper's definition and take on naturalized. It might not work well for us.

[Stoloniferous]

Originally Posted by joepyeweed

I think some of us have been through so many of the "how do we define native" discussions for so long, sometimes we take the accepted definition for granted.

This explains a lot! Thank you.

Thank you.

[hazelnut]

LORAX:

hazelnut, Umm, that's an About.com landscaper's definition and take on naturalized. It might not work well for us.

What's the problem with it?

Stoloniferous: I don't see any reason why educated people cannot have a discussion.

There is no reason for misunderstandings and paranoia. The whole point of a discussion is to clear the air, people learn something and respect other peoples'
point of view as well as have a chance to present their own.

I hate being pounced on just because I enjoy other people's ideas. I think a person is more likely to leave if they feel they cannot speak freely or they have to conform to some preconceived format. (I used to write Air Force Check Lists: They are NOT interesting) And anyone is free to leave at any time, aren't they? I would rather some one leave because they didn't agree with a definition, than because the whole content of the site was mediocre - because we didn't want anyone to be offended.