Which native landscape is really right?

I copied this thread from invasives so Guy could share his opinion on it.

I live in an area of the southeast that was dominated by longleaf pines prior to European settlement. The reason it was dominated by longleaf pine was because the native Americans used to start wildfires that would kill off the hardwoods. Longleaf pine is fire resistant. When white settlers arrived in this area they found open forest of pure longleaf pines and it's own ecosystem.
The Europeans did not like wildfires and stopped them. The result was forest that were increasingly taken over by oaks,maples, etc. because longleaf pines don't compete well against them.
So my question is, is the longleaf pine ecosystem what nature intended? It was an ecosystem created by humans. Or is a forest of hardwoods nature's intentions, because it's what happens when mankind leaves things alone? If one were to think of the forest back about 400 years ago, hardwoods would almost be considered invasive, even though they are native.
Kathleen
Panama, NY
Zone 5a
May 12, 2006
10:07 AM
This is an interesting question and I think it's one that bears some thought. Strictly speaking, when the Europeans (raising my hand as one who's family came both early and late in the history of the US) stopped the burning, they allowed nature to move back in and reassert herself. However, the longleaf pine being a native, has its claim on at least part of the ecosystem. The fact that we now fight wildfires rather than letting them run their course probaby efffects that area where the pines would survive.
escambiaguy
Atmore, AL
Zone 8b
May 12, 2006
11:15 AM

Edit

Well my own personal theory is this, a lot of the hardwoods of the southern coastal plain have evolved to be fast growing and early seed producing. Trees such as water oak, laurel oak, red maple, etc. There purpose is to live long enough to produce seed before the next fire comes through. However when fire is excluded these species can become quite weedy. Even though they are native to the area, does one consider them invasive because they are now thriving more than they were meant to? My theory may be wrong but it is a question that stays in my mind.
dodecatheon
Wauconda, IL

May 12, 2006
10:08 PM
The hardwoods are probably what was there originally...but, not only did native americans control the hardwoods by fire..so did mother nature. Some areas are more prone to fires than others.

I personally think your theory makes a lot of sense, Escambiaguy.

There's a great article in this month's discover magazine about fire and fire suppression, and what each of them do to the environement. Though it deals with fires in the Amerian West, the basic principals apply most places in the US.
ViburnumValley
Scott County, KY
Zone 5b
May 13, 2006
3:24 PM
The fast growing and heavy-seed-producing-when-relativel y-young species probably have some evolutionary stake in surviving through any type of disturbance (is this a spot-on definition of a pioneer species?). Fire is just one; you could include drought; hurricanes; flooding; heavy predation by exploding insect populations; and there are probably others in the coastal plain.

Elsewhere, it might include tornadoes, volcanic eruptions/lava flows/ash falls, tsunamis, and other natural events. OK, some of these happen seldom enough that "evolution" may not be a fit description, but I think you get my (continental) drift.
joepyeweed
Peoria, IL

May 15, 2006
11:34 AM
I am a bit confused by this thread. Perhaps its geography, but in this area Hardwood forests thirved with and were created by fire (not killed of by it) Hardwoods like Oak and Hickory have thick deep bark are fire resistant.
gooley
Hawthorne, FL
Zone 8b
May 15, 2006
12:36 PM
In north Florida, it's not merely pine versus hardwood. The slash pine (P. elliotti I think) and the loblolly pine (P. taeda) are competing species. Loblolly is much more sensitive to fire than slash pine. Slash pine also does worse in shade when young, and isn't as tolerant of soggy soil. Gainesville, Florida is full of big loblolly pines that would never have grown to maturity in the fire-driven ecosystem natural here. (There is some evidence of pre-Columbian natives torching forests in the Midwest to extend the range of bison, but down here there is usually a natural wildfire every 50 years or less in just about any spot, including swamps if there's a drought.) On my ex-farmland there are patches of solid sweetgum, with some laurel and live oaks at their fringes, but the usual pioneer tree is the loblolly pine. When lumber companies plant pines on cleared land (former farmland, freshly-logged land) around here, it's almost always the native slash pine, the naturally dominant tree except in swamps, where red maple and baldcypress or pondcypress tend to predominate. I'm not sure how usual the red maple would be without human interference, and I don't know where all these sweetgums came from either.

ViburnumValley
Scott County, KY
Zone 5b
May 15, 2006
6:33 PM
Quoted:
and I don't know where all these sweetgums came from either.



They are on the run from the wrath of Lucky_P, their sworn blood enemy.
escambiaguy
Atmore, AL
Zone 8b
May 15, 2006
7:32 PM

Edit

Way to go Gooley, you know your stuff! Slash pine is also commonly planted here instead of Loblolly, I have a slash pine forest next my house (which is invaded with privet by the way). I have just always been intrigued with the Longleaf ecosystem and how so many species of wildlife depended on fire for survival, not to mention how beautiful it is (or was).
Equilibrium
Mid West, IL
Zone 5a
May 15, 2006
8:03 PM
Oh he just looooves Liquidambar styraciflua.

Dode, would you please cut and past what Discovery magazine wrote about fire. Quoted:
There's a great article in this month's discover magazine about fire and fire suppression, and what each of them do to the environement.
Either that or e-mail it to me. I'd be interested in reading it.


joepyeweed
Peoria, IL

May 16, 2006
3:40 PM
In the midwest, the prairies and savannahs burned frequently.... started by lightning prehistorically for milleniums .... then later they were burned almost annually by natives....

The savannah trees were predominately hardwood oak and hickory because of the frequency of fire.

I just found this, having been away for a couple of days. IMHO the original question is a conundrum with no incorrect answer. There is no "wrong" native landscape. Nature is a constant state of flux and adjustment, and while many species thrive on and encourage stability, ohers thrive on and encourage disruption. Grasses burn and release allelopathic chemicals to kill trees; trees cast broad shade to suppress grasses; pines drop straw and foster wiregrasss that burns to kill young hardwoods; maples cast dense shade to disrupt oak reproduction; oaks survive fires that kill maples, and live for centuries to await a suitable recruitment scenario. This is the basis for the study of autecology -- how each piece fits into a fluid puzzle.

The oaks versus maples / pines versus hardwoods / prairie versus woodland epic struggles often find human allies rallying on one side or the other, for reasons important only to our own species. If we humans value or derive benefit from one natural landscape or successional stage more than another, we tip the scales in favor of that favored landscape. Nature doesn't care either way, because the randomness of her (or his!) actions and the scale of the resource base generally will ensure that all are represented in the ebb and flow of succession. When the situation changes enough that a species no longer can find a suitable niche, it becomes extinct and is supplanted by others.

In the extreme, we find collateral damage in the effects resulting from excessive tinkering and meddling by our own species. Examples inlcude the privet mentioned by Escambia; the Albizia of which Equil is so fond; the callery pears still embraced by a few slow learners; the extermination of passenger pigeons by overhunting and forest manipulation; the introduction of Dutch elm disease and chestnut blight; and the unsustainable (native) deer explosion resulting from human alteration and manipulation of our environment. Those are the true insults to nature, and the only situations which are not "right" in my view.

Reading back, I think this is pretty much what some of you others already have said, in different ways.

Guy S.

That was so beautifully said, Guy! The random ebb & flow of nature is the thing I think. And we are trying to control that, an unfortunate display of pure human arrogance. If one goes back even further, say the fossil record, one sees a totally different picture of who our "natives" really are. Some of these, such as Paulownia tomentosa, are now considered "invasive exotics" in the US, where they actually originated.

Our current obcession with native gardening does seem to me to be a "point in time" approach to gardening similar to what dead house museums try to do to keep the house just as it was when the famous person died. It can't really be done, of course, because paint fades and the walls must be repainted, and thus integrity is lost - it is no longer real but a fabricated replica without the odors and ambience of the time intended to be replicated. Because the pollinators don't have a clue about what the humans have decided to do, point in time gardening really doesn't work very well either. New species of wildlife have wandered in and old ones have left. So when you replace your exotics with native plants, you are actually disrupting nature - the wildlife that use the plants you have removed are suddenly without habitat and the ones you hope to feed and shelter may be gone.

If one lives for example, in the middle of Manhattan, a typical wildlife garden will not feed and protect the wildlife it means to. A more logical approach would seem to be to note the wildlife in the area, and then use those plants that serve your wildlife. In S TX, I would not use plants for bears but rather for wild pigs (Russian boars, an introduced sp!).

Another point is the insistance that humans are spoiling everything, made more lucid by the discussion of the amerindins' use of fire, resulting in long leaf pine forests. I don't like the wholesale distruction of wildlife habitat by acres of concrete either, but there is a balance I believe. And I really hate the assumption that anything the humans have done is wrong. We are after all part of nature too.

As for "insults to nature", may I mention the USDA introduction and dissemination of Rosa macractha as a hedgerow crop in the 1920's 0r 30's, now a wicked weed, and their seeding of the Everglades with Casuarina, I suppose an effort to dry the place up. But some invasiveness is only regional while still being considered as a national problem. Casuarina is an example - it is not at all invasive here in S TX, and is probably only a weed in FL. The bottom line, though, is that human beings cannot control the "ebb & flow" of nature, be it animal or plant species fighting it out, or some private in the Army pocketing a few bulbils of Amorphophallus bulbifer to carry home from the Viet Nam War on the military transport.

Again, thank you Guy for describing so well your refreshing perspective on all this.

Rosemary

While eloquently stated, I think the last post missed Guy's point. He reflected that native landscapes do flux, from pioneer after disturbance, to successional, to climax, and the resulting composition varies with climate, fire, flood, etc. and frequency of these kinds of disturbances. I don't think he was supporting or excusing thoughtless human disruptions. Forgive me if I've misread the previous points, but I have some thoughts to contribute.

The unconsidered mass manipulation of plants, completely avoidable with some forethought and study, is what leads to unnecessary invasions of exotics. That poor choices and actions were made in the past (by humans) is no justification for today's whimsies when more knowledge about the subject is available. No more than pouring used motor oil down the storm drains, applying lead-based paints, or throwing trash out the car window ought to be allowed.

Harkening back to the fossil record necessitates harkening back to the former alignment of the continents. Match up the point in time when Paulownia, Ginkgo, Metasequoia and others were inhabitants of this land mass, and you may just find that this land mass occupied a different point on the planet. Geologically spoken in time, of course. Additionally, the floral/faunal communities that these genera were paired with don't resemble current North American communities, either.

I appreciate the "museum" comparison, but it's misapplied in that plants have a fourth dimension: time. It's one of the great mistakes many designers make that have no plant training. They have a static image of "what a tree should be" and want to force it into whatever condition happens to be found. Doesn't work well. Nor does the museum characterization, unless the native gardener wants to keep every plant exactly the same size/shape/season/sun/shade as it was originally planted, and to have no interaction with climate or other flora/fauna.

I'm not a wildlife ecologist, but I think that there are others here that can respond to the statements about that aspect. The Manhattan example is a bit extreme, but birds do fly through this and other areas during migration patterns, and can take advantage of plants/forage that are presented. The fact that animals take advantage of invasive exotics is no more reason to preserve these plants than it is for people to continue to leave food laying (lying?) around because cockroaches and rats are sustained by it. I can't speak for what Russian boars imbibe.

I absolutely agree that humans/people are part of nature, and even better, we are capable of what is called rational thought (and recognition of self-serving behavior, and hindsight, and planning!). We study history, so that maybe we can avoid some of the mistakes of the past. We create statistical and predictive models, to take a stab of what might be the consequences of our actions. And sometimes, we put our heads in the sand and refuse self-examination. It does make the world go round, and yields dramatic debate on these threads.

Invasiveness of plants is absolutely regional! I don't know any serious proponent of invasives elimination that believes otherwise. And, since humans often move plants around rapidly without this consideration, it is the reason that I would promote the idea of not growing some of the most serious problem plants anywhere just to set a good example.

I would propose that while mere humans cannot control the ebb and flow of nature, we can contribute less to destroying its harmonies. Thoughtful choices, based on sound science and not solely on emotions, are the basis for many good things. Especially gardening.

Worth adding that prior to human arrival in the region, there was a large assortment of megafauna which would have had a major effect on species composition. Things like eating sufficient plant material to make an open savanna habitat with trees too widely spaced for wildfires to occur easily

Since all the mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths, etc, have all been killed off, it isn't going to be easy to restore the natural ecosystem. You could try (re-)introducing elephants, but I doubt it would be too popular with the general public!

Resin