Does anyone have any photos of stories of palms Naturalizing where they should not, and causing a problem? I am wondering if anyone else has any experience or ever seen this happen. I am asking this because once I saw a whole field of Washingtonia robusta with thousands of little ones coming up everywhere in and around a field in South Carolina (zone 8b) and it, looked interesting, and kind of cool to be honest. But it seemed like a whole disaster. 

There is no place Palms should not be. There is no evidence that increasing the range of various Palms directly threatens any other palm species in the USA.

7 minutes ago, Yunder Wækraus said:

There is no place Palms should not be. There is no evidence that increasing the range of various Palms directly threatens any other palm species in the USA.

Yes! This!    Haha.  

 

I think that Phoenix reclinata would make a sensible addition to the category I invasives list. I've seen it displacing native mangroves, and it's difficult to remove because it's extremely spiny, seeds prolifically and comes back from the roots if cut down. It's also not that nice looking of a species IMO, especially when invading the wild.

I've also seen Livistona chinensis naturalizing in the wild to the point where it dominated in a fashion normally reserved for Sabal palmetto. It didn't seem to be negatively affecting the area in the way that P. reclinata does though, and it's not an ugly tree, so it's not as bad in my opinion. As long as the species doesn't negatively affect the net biodiversity of an area it's usually not something that should be worried about that much IMO.

South Florida is so unique.  What most of us struggle to grow are your invasive pests. Who else has problems with pythons, of all things?  

Edited October 21, 20169 yr by topwater

Being serious I have to agree with Zeeth.  Damaging invasives are never good.  Some palms can have at least some negative affects outside of their native range.  That said I can't think of any time I've seen palms be nearly as invasive and damaging as something like kudzu or casuarina (Australian Pine) or many other non Palm species.  I've never understood why casuarina is so tolerated in south Florida. It's everywhere. They're not even attractive trees.  

Speaking of animals, the green iguana comes to mind. However from much of what I have read they aren't actually damaging to the ecosystem / environment.  People just hate them because they at times eat valued plants and poop on pool and boat decks.  At my friends place in ft Lauderdale there are several small ones and one large one that live in the lush palmy yard and love to sun on the dark blue skirt of the pool.  The cleanining up is a pain sometimes but they are welcome there.  

Up here we have a bad problem with Northern Snakehead. Those things are nasty and get huge.  

1 hour ago, Zeeth said:

I think that Phoenix reclinata would make a sensible addition to the category I invasives list. I've seen it displacing native mangroves, and it's difficult to remove because it's extremely spiny, seeds prolifically and comes back from the roots if cut down. It's also not that nice looking of a species IMO, especially when invading the wild.

I've also seen Livistona chinensis naturalizing in the wild to the point where it dominated in a fashion normally reserved for Sabal palmetto. It didn't seem to be negatively affecting the area in the way that P. reclinata does though, and it's not an ugly tree, so it's not as bad in my opinion. As long as the species doesn't negatively affect the net biodiversity of an area it's usually not something that should be worried about that much IMO.

My question is this: is there any danger of any species of mangrove becoming extinct in the state of FL due to P. reclinata? I doubt there is, but I'm open to correction. If not, then I don't understand why it should be labeled an invasive. And as cool as mangroves are, I'd rather see palms anyway :-)

Just now, Yunder Wækraus said:

My question is this: is there any danger of any species of mangrove becoming extinct in the state of FL due to P. reclinata? I doubt there is, but I'm open to correction. If not, then I don't understand why it should be labeled an invasive. And as cool as mangroves are, I'd rather see palms any way :-)

Well, Florida currently lists it as a category II invasive, so someone doesn't think that it poses much of a risk at the moment. I it were another palm it probably wouldn't bother me as much, but the fact that it forms an impenetrable thorny mass doesn't help it much in my eyes compared to something like Ptychosperma elegans or Cocos nucifera. 

Aren't queens considered invasive in Central/South FL?

6 minutes ago, Zeeth said:

Well, Florida currently lists it as a category II invasive, so someone doesn't think that it poses much of a risk at the moment. I it were another palm it probably wouldn't bother me as much, but the fact that it forms an impenetrable thorny mass doesn't help it much in my eyes compared to something like Ptychosperma elegans or Cocos nucifera. 

I would definitely prefer some coconut palms :-)

Just now, Opal92 said:

Aren't queens considered invasive in Central/South FL?

Yeah but they're not that common outside of cultivation. I've seen them here and there in the woods, but not ever in any numbers that made me concerned. 

W. robusta and CIDP are in every drainage ditch in San Diego. I'll try to snap some pics as I'm driving around. Our city has spent a ton of dough removing and killing them. To me they look really nice, like a ton of palm oasis along the freeways. But I guess they block up the water and cause issues. 

Canary palms are hilarious in some parts of the bay area, bursting out of sidewalks and people's planter boxes because birds spread the seed everywhere. I never know where I will see he leaves peeking out next.

The only one I wouldnt mind taking over hillsides is that soft leaved hybrid in my other thread, as the normal ones are savage with their thorns.

33 minutes ago, Stevetoad said:

W. robusta and CIDP are in every drainage ditch in San Diego. I'll try to snap some pics as I'm driving around. Our city has spent a ton of dough removing and killing them. To me they look really nice, like a ton of palm oasis along the freeways. But I guess they block up the water and cause issues. 

I bet they're not hurting anything at all. There is this anti-"invasive" attitude that has completely taken over the mentality of folks who should know better. There is no scientific reason to privilege one species over another in nature. There is no such thing as an "invasive" species if we remove philosophical additions to what should otherwise be a strictly scientific argument. Evolution depends upon change. Change can come via weather or geological change, but it can also come via new dispersal of an organism into area through other means. The organisms which are best suited for an environment (whatever that environment might be) are those which survive to form the genetic basis of the future.

Humans are by default a part of nature. EVERYTHING we do is natural. The oil that was extracted from the bowels of the earth so that the plastic could be made for the computer on which I write this was extracted NATURALLY because NATURALLY occurring organisms (humans--us!) did it. If scientists want us to care about which species they label as "invasive," then they must admit that it is a philosophical discussion and not a scientific discussion once any species are privileged over another through public police. There is no inherent right or wrong here. And I fear that no one in the public eye has taken the time to define carefully which criteria must be met in order for us to choose to choose to save or destroy species in the wild.

We must understand that it is just as valid for folks to choose recently introduces species over those which were in situ before the introductions. Such a choice is, again, simply a philosophical difference. It is not one that goes against a scientific understanding of how species are formed through time. I have my own philosophy on such things: if a species is useful for for food or shelter, or if it is very beautiful and/or interesting, or if it is a vertebrate species of a size class that the fossil record shows can take tens of millions of years to be replaced (e.g. elephants and rhinos), then we should prioritize it over other things. Thus, in my philosophy, we should want as many wild coconut palms in the Keys as is possible (they're beautiful and useful) and we should be releasing hippos and elephants into South America as a safeguard against their future in Africa.

I find it disturbing that the same post-colonial mentality that rightfully insists that all humans are one and that there is nothing wrong with different races marrying also insists that pristine wilderness can only be obtained if the plants and animals that predated European expansion are restored. Dumb. Everything on earth is destined to mix and have its mettle tested at some point over the millennia. That's how we got here. That's how evolution works. If beautiful palm trees in drainage ditches in San Diego do a better job of surviving in the area and pleasing the eyes of locals, then let them be.

In Fairfield, there was an old house just over the hill from us that sat on acreage. The former owners had planted it with all sorts of fruit-bearing trees, palm trees, and ornamental trees. Many of these trees were well over 50 years old. The land had been donated to the city, and when we first moved there, we could walk it with our children. There was a creek running along one side, and we would routinely see deer and turkeys on the property, which was otherwise surrounded by homes. The real highlight, though, was the colony of wild peafowl. The peacocks would open their fans and the peahens would run about with their young. The animals loved the fallen fruit and nuts, and the old Washingtonia f. added that classic CA look. Well, the city got money to "restore" the property, and they brought in chainsaws and cut down every single fruiting tree and every single palm. They did so because of this misguided unscientific philosophy about native vs. invasive species. I estimate that they removed more than 50% of the food-producing potential of the site for wildlife. And the loss of palms which were over 50 years old was inexcusable. I hope this ideology dies in my lifetime.

I read an interesting book on the subject of invasive species recently. In the New World, it's fairly easy to determine which plant species predated European introductions (although there is of course the issue of plants that may have been transported by Indians), but in Britain it's more complex, because the island has been inhabited for many thousands of years and was, in cooler times, connected by land to mainland Europe. The book was written by an English ecologist and is recommended.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Where-Do-Camels-Belong-Invasive/dp/1771640960

1 hour ago, knell said:

Canary palms are hilarious in some parts of the bay area, bursting out of sidewalks and people's planter boxes because birds spread the seed everywhere. I never know where I will see he leaves peeking out next.

The only one I wouldnt mind taking over hillsides is that soft leaved hybrid in my other thread, as the normal ones are savage with their thorns.

Yep, along I880, in freeway cracks, naturalized everywhere really.

18 minutes ago, redbeard917 said:

I read an interesting book on the subject of invasive species recently. In the New World, it's fairly easy to determine which plant species predated European introductions (although there is of course the issue of plants that may have been transported by Indians), but in Britain it's more complex, because the island has been inhabited for many thousands of years and was, in cooler times, connected by land to mainland Europe. The book was written by an English ecologist and is recommended.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Where-Do-Camels-Belong-Invasive/dp/1771640960

Again, why are species which only colonized the island of Britain within the last 12,000 years not invasive? Though it's rarely overtly stated, "invasive" is code for "organism that has been introduced due to globalization since the triumph of European technology." Why should anyone accept such a definition? North America only got porcupines after the collision with South American more than a million years ago. Are porcupines invasive? If not, why not? Camels are virtually extinct in the wild, yet they were doing well in Australia. Why not let this wonderful animal run free in habitat it found suitable? Why is a camel non-invasive when it crossed a land bridge into new territory? (Camels evolved in the New World and crossed over to the Old World via a land bridge.) Why is a camel species invasive when it's brought to new territory by humans, who are just as much a part of earth as any land bridge? No one takes the time to question the ideological underpinnings of the the anti-invasive group-think that pervades biology at this time.

Queens are classified as invasive in FL and there actually are some that have naturalized in my area.  I'm sure there's a downside to that, but I can't say I really mind seeing queens grow in the wild. 

Edited October 21, 20169 yr by RedRabbit

2 hours ago, Yunder Wækraus said:

I bet they're not hurting anything at all. There is this anti-"invasive" attitude that has completely taken over the mentality of folks who should know better. There is no scientific reason to privilege one species over another in nature. There is no such thing as an "invasive" species if we remove philosophical additions to what should otherwise be a strictly scientific argument. Evolution depends upon change. Change can come via weather or geological change, but it can also come via new dispersal of an organism into area through other means. The organisms which are best suited for an environment (whatever that environment might be) are those which survive to form the genetic basis of the future.

Humans are by default a part of nature. EVERYTHING we do is natural. The oil that was extracted from the bowels of the earth so that the plastic could be made for the computer on which I write this was extracted NATURALLY because NATURALLY occurring organisms (humans--us!) did it. If scientists want us to care about which species they label as "invasive," then they must admit that it is a philosophical discussion and not a scientific discussion once any species are privileged over another through public police. There is no inherent right or wrong here. And I fear that no one in the public eye has taken the time to define carefully which criteria must be met in order for us to choose to choose to save or destroy species in the wild.

We must understand that it is just as valid for folks to choose recently introduces species over those which were in situ before the introductions. Such a choice is, again, simply a philosophical difference. It is not one that goes against a scientific understanding of how species are formed through time. I have my own philosophy on such things: if a species is useful for for food or shelter, or if it is very beautiful and/or interesting, or if it is a vertebrate species of a size class that the fossil record shows can take tens of millions of years to be replaced (e.g. elephants and rhinos), then we should prioritize it over other things. Thus, in my philosophy, we should want as many wild coconut palms in the Keys as is possible (they're beautiful and useful) and we should be releasing hippos and elephants into South America as a safeguard against their future in Africa.

I find it disturbing that the same post-colonial mentality that rightfully insists that all humans are one and that there is nothing wrong with different races marrying also insists that pristine wilderness can only be obtained if the plants and animals that predated European expansion are restored. Dumb. Everything on earth is destined to mix and have its mettle tested at some point over the millennia. That's how we got here. That's how evolution works. If beautiful palm trees in drainage ditches in San Diego do a better job of surviving in the area and pleasing the eyes of locals, then let them be.

In Fairfield, there was an old house just over the hill from us that sat on acreage. The former owners had planted it with all sorts of fruit-bearing trees, palm trees, and ornamental trees. Many of these trees were well over 50 years old. The land had been donated to the city, and when we first moved there, we could walk it with our children. There was a creek running along one side, and we would routinely see deer and turkeys on the property, which was otherwise surrounded by homes. The real highlight, though, was the colony of wild peafowl. The peacocks would open their fans and the peahens would run about with their young. The animals loved the fallen fruit and nuts, and the old Washingtonia f. added that classic CA look. Well, the city got money to "restore" the property, and they brought in chainsaws and cut down every single fruiting tree and every single palm. They did so because of this misguided unscientific philosophy about native vs. invasive species. I estimate that they removed more than 50% of the food-producing potential of the site for wildlife. And the loss of palms which were over 50 years old was inexcusable. I hope this ideology dies in my lifetime.

Funny I made a very similar argument in a post a long time ago. Humans like to think that we are separate from this planet. Had we been a bird or another primate who spread the same seeds it wouldn't be an issue. But since it's humans it's automatically a negative thing. We are simply just one of the many species on this planet. We are only special in our own minds. 

What makes us different is our use of fire, tools, and technology, which tends to cause massive, rapid changes that cannot be matched by evolutional adaptation by other species as it has been the case for millions of years. While the same rules of evolution still apply to us (we are of this earth after all, just like any other organism), our use of technology is to the disadvantage of all other species if we're not careful what we're doing, simply because they cannot adapt fast enough to the global environment that's changing by orders of magnitude faster than at any point in our world's history (excluding global disasters).

Birds or other animals don't ship seeds using airplanes or cargo ships. 

Edited October 21, 20169 yr by Pando

4 hours ago, Pando said:

What makes us different is our use of fire, tools, and technology, which tends to cause massive, rapid changes that cannot be matched by evolutional adaptation by other species as it has been the case for millions of years. While the same rules of evolution still apply to us (we are of this earth after all, just like any other organism), our use of technology is to the disadvantage of all other species if we're not careful what we're doing, simply because they cannot adapt fast enough to the global environment that's changing by orders of magnitude faster than at any point in our world's history (excluding global disasters).

Birds or other animals don't ship seeds using airplanes or cargo ships. 

Nope. Our use of technology is no more destructive or helpful than any other creature's adaptations. The viewpoint that we are uniquely destructive does not fit the data. Our practices can both destroy some species and elevate others. We have established symbiotic relationships with Eurasian megafauna (bovines, equines, swine, sheep, etc.), and we have done the same with hundreds of tree species. Our most industrialized cities have more wildlife per acre than most so-called wildlife refuges. I once drove 45 minutes to go bird watching in a famous wildlife refuge. Saw nothing. Drove back home and saw more rare species at a pond in a city park surrounded by concrete. Why? Because human technology allows us to secure and transport more nutrients than are to be found outside of human habitation. We are a dynamic part of the earth--we are like living fire!--and our niche is to extract and transport elements which would otherwise be trapped outside of natural cycles. (Remember that oil and coal are just organic waste that only exists because the earth's organisms weren't able to process the waste quickly enough. Now were on the job :-) )

This article is a great example of the disconnect between fact and philosophy. Notice that the author's words are dripping with unintended condescension to his non-specialist readers. Folks not in the know, according to this article, could not possibly do the right thing by planting any trees in habitat. According to this piece, Pseudophoenix sargentii only qualified for reintroduction because it was once found in habitat prior to American expansion into Florida and because this expansion had led to its reduction within its already limited range. Note that the reintroduction was to be limited to those islands where it had been found. WHY? Why not admit that this palm is strikingly beautiful and remarkably cold hardy and should be planted in as many parks and wild habitats across the state as might work? There are no good arguments against doing so. The presence of this beautiful palm in wild areas on the mainland will not cause harm to humans or habitat. Why not plant them in good spots from Merritt Island down to Key West? The self-righteous ideology that says only certain species from certain habitats in a certain idealized state (= pre-European expansion) are officially sanctioned will be the death of many species. http://www.palms.org/principes/1995/sargentii.htm

1 hour ago, Yunder Wækraus said:

This article is a great example of the disconnect between fact and philosophy. Notice that the author's words are dripping with unintended condescension to his non-specialist readers. Folks not in the know, according to this article, could not possibly do the right thing by planting any trees in habitat. According to this piece, Pseudophoenix sargentii only qualified for reintroduction because it was once found in habitat prior to American expansion into Florida and because this expansion had led to its reduction within its already limited range. Note that the reintroduction was to be limited to those islands where it had been found. WHY? Why not admit that this palm is strikingly beautiful and remarkably cold hardy and should be planted in as many parks and wild habitats across the state as might work? There are no good arguments against doing so. The presence of this beautiful palm in wild areas on the mainland will not cause harm to humans or habitat. Why not plant them in good spots from Merritt Island down to Key West? The self-righteous ideology that says only certain species from certain habitats in a certain idealized state (= pre-European expansion) are officially sanctioned will be the death of many species. http://www.palms.org/principes/1995/sargentii.htm

The fact that some species have become more widespread just because we find them attractive or useful is a great evolutionary trait for those species. Look at wheat. It was a lowly grass in the Middle East with a tiny habitat range. Now it's the most widespread plants in the world. Survival of the fittest.  

1 hour ago, Stevetoad said:

The fact that some species have become more widespread just because we find them attractive or useful is a great evolutionary trait for those species. Look at wheat. It was a lowly grass in the Middle East with a tiny habitat range. Now it's the most widespread plants in the world. Survival of the fittest.  

Exactly!

7 hours ago, Yunder Wækraus said:

Nope. Our use of technology is no more destructive or helpful than any other creature's adaptations. The viewpoint that we are uniquely destructive does not fit the data.

I respectfully, but completely disagree with that statement.

An asteroid smashing into the planet and wiping out most of the life on earth is completely natural, but probably not something that we want happening.

2 minutes ago, Zeeth said:

An asteroid smashing into the planet and wiping out most of the life on earth is completely natural, but probably not something that we want happening.

True. But what we want has little to do with how nature works. Mother Nature is completely indifferent if we are happy or not. 

Just now, Stevetoad said:

True. But what we want has little to do with how nature works. Mother Nature is completely indifferent if we are happy or not. 

The argument shouldn't be about if it's natural or not. The argument should be about whether or not something is objectively bad (decreases net biodiversity), and if so, can we stop it? 

And I disagree that mother nature is indifferent to our wants as long as we're able to use technology to put our wants into action to make a change.

22 minutes ago, Zeeth said:

An asteroid smashing into the planet and wiping out most of the life on earth is completely natural, but probably not something that we want happening.

An asteroid led to us, remember? Be careful what you don't wish for ;-)

13 minutes ago, Zeeth said:

The argument shouldn't be about if it's natural or not. The argument should be about whether or not something is objectively bad (decreases net biodiversity), and if so, can we stop it? 

But that IS the argument I'm putting forward! What makes "net biodiversity" good? How do you define it? What if you could save all palms and all vertebrate megafauna and 2,000 additional species of invertebrates and non-trunking plants or 10,000 species of invertebrates and non-trunking plants? Why would the "net biodiversity" be intrinsically better? And if you truly believe it would be better, for whom/what would it be better?

40 minutes ago, Pando said:

I respectfully, but completely disagree with that statement.

If you can prove otherwise, I'd be interested to see your side. 

Just now, Yunder Wækraus said:

But that IS the argument I'm putting forward! What makes "net biodiversity" good? How do you define it? What if you could save all palms and all vertebrate megafauna and 2,000 additional species of invertebrates and non-trunking plants or 10,000 species of invertebrates and non-trunking plants? Why would the "net biodiversity" be intrinsically better? And if you truly believe it would be better, for whom/what would it be better?

Net biodiversity is one of the fundamental markers for the health of an ecosystem because each species relies on many other species for survival when the whole ecosystem is a web. You seem to be arguing from a nihilistic perspective on this issue, so there's not much that I can say outside of giving the definitions used by biologists and offer some journals that discuss why biodiversity is important:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/314/5800/787

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00354.x/full

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/abs/nature11118.html

Let me know if you'd like me to PM you the full articles if you're unable to get access. 

8 minutes ago, Zeeth said:

Net biodiversity is one of the fundamental markers for the health of an ecosystem because each species relies on many other species for survival when the whole ecosystem is a web. You seem to be arguing from a nihilistic perspective on this issue, so there's not much that I can say outside of giving the definitions used by biologists and offer some journals that discuss why biodiversity is important:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/314/5800/787

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00354.x/full

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/abs/nature11118.html

Let me know if you'd like me to PM you the full articles if you're unable to get access. 

I am well aware of the concept of biodiversity. And I, too, love to see complex ecosystems dripping with different  species. What I am saying, however, is not that biodiversity is bad, but that biodiversity has become an ill-defined buzzword not only in popular usage but even among scientists. For example, the introduction of pythons and iguanas to South Florida has demonstrably increased the net biodiversity of the region. Popular claims notwithstanding, there is no one species in the Everglades that is in danger of immediate extinction due to the presence of pythons. And yet I hear both biologists and public officials proclaim that pythons in the Everglades are a threat to the ecosystem. You must understand that biodiversity as a buzzword has taken on the same connotations that the word diversity, another buzzword, has taken on in discussions of sociocultural situations. The same situation holds my own field, linguistics, where I have labored for most of my adult life to document and understand endangered and extinct minority languages. Indeed, I have made many of the same uncritical arguments that you're making in an effort to promote linguistic diversity. In truth, my philosophy on the artificial dichotomy between native and non-native organisms is actually a clarion call to promote greater diversity. Unlike biologists (and many officials), I am overtly admitting my bias and explaining the methodology behind my choices of which species deserve to be protected and to have their ranges increased. It is ludicrous to think that allocating resources to preserve a barely differentiated island subspecies of rat ( for example) rather than allowing an otherwise endangered and much more genetically differentiated reptilian predator to thrive on the same island should do anything better for humanity or the general trajectory of the earth as a life-sustaining planet. The ill-defined philosophy behind what on paper appears to be a well understood concept of net biodiversity is what I am attacking. It is not based in science. It is, perhaps unwittingly, an example of the scientific community mirroring powerful trends in the humanities.  The question, then, is not whether it is a good thing to have rich ecosystems with multiple species interacting with one another; rather, it is why scientists insist on labels such as invasive or native when such distinctions have no basis in the history of life on earth. There is no reason why we should not have kangaroos and jaguars and peccaries and elephants and rhinos and pythons and monitor lizards and all sorts of wonderful creatures running wild for our enjoyment in national parks within America. I 'm not advocating for a  free-for-all situation where any and all plants and animals are intentionally released everywhere on earth. However even that would be a more sensible policy than the current one wherein species are only allowed to officially exist in places where they were found prior to European exploration. Until we stop this faulty thinking and stop  anthropomorphizing species within a paradigm of colonialism versus indigenous rights, we will be headed in what I believe is a very bad direction.

 

 

 

 

As I've said before, it's not only the key largo woodrat or the wood storks that are affected by the pythons, but the fact that small mammal sightings as a whole have decreased by 88% to 100% in areas where the pythons flourish. Because the ecosystem is a web, this means that everything else that eats these animals will decrease in numbers, and everything that these animals eat in the wild will have their numbers go unchecked. In this way, it's very different from the disappearance of dead languages, which will have no effect on any other language in the world other than "it's too bad this language disappeared" (as far as I'm aware). It's all of the indirect effects that we don't really know much about yet that's scary, rather than the direct effect. Having said that, there are so many in the Everglades at this point that the effect of restoring water-flow to the Everglades from lake Okeechobee to allow the ecosystem to swing back into balance would probably be greater than trying to gather all of the snakes up and kill them, which is impractical at this point. 

As far as iguanas go, I don't have much to say about them. They seem to be more of a nuisance towards people than anything.

Sorry, I didn't cite my claim about the mammal decline:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/7/2418.short

1 hour ago, Yunder Wækraus said:

If you can prove otherwise, I'd be interested to see your side. 

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

Hey guys, this thread is veering into "OHANA NUI" territory. Perhaps we can all agree to disagree and keep the topic strictly to the question of "Which non-native palms are naturalizing in your area" to keep the thread from getting locked or moved?

Here is a list of species that I've personally seen naturalizing:

Phoenix reclinata

Queen palm 

Washingtonia robusta 

Dypsis lutescens

Caryota mitis

Livistona chinensis

Ptychosperma elegans (but not as commonly in Central Florida as in South Florida)

Elaeis guineensis (but only at the FIT campus in Melbourne, Florida)

2 minutes ago, Zeeth said:

Hey guys, this thread is veering into "OHANA NUI" territory. Perhaps we can all agree to disagree and keep the topic strictly to the question of "Which non-native palms are naturalizing in your area" to keep the thread from getting locked or moved?

Here is a list of species that I've personally seen naturalizing:

Phoenix reclinata

Queen palm 

Washingtonia robusta 

Dypsis lutescens

Caryota mitis

Livistona chinensis

Ptychosperma elegans (but not as commonly in Central Florida as in South Florida)

Elaeis guineensis (but only at the FIT campus in Melbourne, Florida)

good call. we had a case of posts naturalizing where they really should not be 

On 10/20/2016, 10:33:23, Yunder Wækraus said:

((("I bet they're not hurting anything at all. There is this anti-"invasive" attitude that has completely taken over the mentality of folks who should know better. There is no scientific reason to privilege one species over another in nature. There is no such thing as an "invasive" species if we remove philosophical additions to what should otherwise be a strictly scientific argument. Evolution depends upon change. Change can come via weather or geological change, but it can also come via new dispersal of an organism into area through other means. The organisms which are best suited for an environment (whatever that environment might be) are those which survive to form the genetic basis of the future." )))

I agree that some "invasive" species do little to no harm.   There are many occasions here that happens.   That said, there are also many occasions where a new species is introduced and damages or kills other species that were already naturally occurring there.  When that happens to the degree that it nearly or completely eradicates the endemic species, that is a negative impact that usually results in other negative consequences.  If it kills a species that another species of animal or insect or anything else relies upon for survival, that is a negative impact, and if that impact has a ripple effect to where it causes other species that rely upon each other to survive (food chain, pollination, etc) then the impacts become catastrophic and affect far more than just one species, and could endanger the health of the entire eco system that may be unique to that area for thousands or millions or more, of years.   That is what causes many to be anti invasives.   That said if a species is introduced and causes little to no harm, then I see no need to eradicate or even control it. Maybe even just do nothing.   I have to fully disagree with the notion that there are no aoch things as "invasives".  Things live and evolve and thrive for thousands or millions of years where they are for a reason.   I can't go into more detail than that without going into writing something very long.  

((("Humans are by default a part of nature. EVERYTHING we do is natural. The oil that was extracted from the bowels of the earth so that the plastic could be made for the computer on which I write this was extracted NATURALLY because NATURALLY occurring organisms (humans--us!) did it. If scientists want us to care about which species they label as "invasive," then they must admit that it is a philosophical discussion and not a scientific discussion once any species are privileged over another through public police. There is no inherent right or wrong here. And I fear that no one in the public eye has taken the time to define carefully which criteria must be met in order for us to choose to choose to save or destroy species in the wild.")))

I have to disagree.  While we may be "natural" in that we are endemic to earth, having evolved here, does not make everything we do or make "natural".   That is very dangerous thinking to me.   If what you say we're true (and not just your opinion) then everything we do would not have negative impacts.   Also wrong.   I would invite you to visit any place where the planet is being destroyed by human activities to see this first hand.   You can start with central and southern West Virginia where we blow up entire mountains, even ranges, to extract coal.   The practice  not only totally destroys some of the oldest mountains on earth, it destroys the environment, ecosystems, water supplies, flora, fauna...the list goes on, it's negative impacts are far more wide spread.  I've seen it first hand and it's some of the most gut wrenching and horrible things you can witness.  I know people living there in places where the water is not drinkable and rivers are on fire, thanks to toix chemical byproducts is these and other practices by man.    None of this is "natural" and it's all a product of man.   Man made materials (synthetic) are not natural nor are products made from naturally occurring things.   Plastic is made from naturally occurring things but it's not natural and it destroys our environment if not properly disposed of / recycled.  

((("We must understand that it is just as valid for folks to choose recently introduces species over those which were in situ before the introductions. Such a choice is, again, simply a philosophical difference. It is not one that goes against a scientific understanding of how species are formed through time. I have my own philosophy on such things: if a species is useful for for food or shelter, or if it is very beautiful and/or interesting, or if it is a vertebrate species of a size class that the fossil record shows can take tens of millions of years to be replaced (e.g. elephants and rhinos), then we should prioritize it over other things. Thus, in my philosophy, we should want as many wild coconut palms in the Keys as is possible (they're beautiful and useful) and we should be releasing hippos and elephants into South America as a safeguard against their future in Africa.")))  

No comment except to say that wild coconuts here are not damaging.  Can't comment on the rest as that's a whole other can of worms.

((("I find it disturbing that the same post-colonial mentality that rightfully insists that all humans are one and that there is nothing wrong with different races marrying also insists that pristine wilderness can only be obtained if the plants and animals that predated European expansion are restored. Dumb. Everything on earth is destined to mix and have its mettle tested at some point over the millennia. That's how we got here. That's how evolution works. If beautiful palm trees in drainage ditches in San Diego do a better job of surviving in the area and pleasing the eyes of locals, then let them be.")))

 In instances where ecosystems or environments are being damaged or destroyed ans species are being threatened, yes many of us prefer irradiation or minimum strong control of the invasive species responsible for it.  Case in point the hemlock woolly adelgid.  Introduced from east Asia it is now the threatening much of the hemlock / fir coud, alpine/ sub alpine forests (In specifically the eastern hemlock ( Tsuga Canadensis)) in much of the mid and southern applications.   So just because it can survive there itsnok we should just leave it and let it destroy this native, endemic ecosystem?  Again, I find that dangerous.   I'm all for prestine forests (at least in a controlled invasives manner, and in some cases      eradication, in order to preserve what was always there in the first place and to keep at bay what has no record of any kind of bring there prior.    All of these points sort of remind me of those that deny the science of climate change, or that it even exists at all, and espouse views that humans have no negative impact at all.   In my view, the earth isn't ours and doesnt belong to us. It's not ours to do with what we see fit.   It's not ours to destroy.  

((("In Fairfield, there was an old house just over the hill from us that sat on acreage. The former owners had planted it with all sorts of fruit-bearing trees, palm trees, and ornamental trees. Many of these trees were well over 50 years old. The land had been donated to the city, and when we first moved there, we could walk it with our children. There was a creek running along one side, and we would routinely see deer and turkeys on the property, which was otherwise surrounded by homes. The real highlight, though, was the colony of wild peafowl. The peacocks would open their fans and the peahens would run about with their young. The animals loved the fallen fruit and nuts, and the old Washingtonia f. added that classic CA look. Well, the city got money to "restore" the property, and they brought in chainsaws and cut down every single fruiting tree and every single palm. They did so because of this misguided unscientific philosophy about native vs. invasive species. I estimate that they removed more than 50% of the food-producing potential of the site for wildlife. And the loss of palms which were over 50 years old was inexcusable. I hope this ideology dies in my lifetime.")))                                

Nice story.  I do agree with you here for the most part in that in some instances things are not harmful and don't require much if any action.   In this instance I would have been against the action that the municipality took.   

In closing injage to agree with pando and Zeeth for the most part here.   I also hold my position that I don't see any real instances of non native palms being introduced to an area, and causing damaging / negative impacts on the existing flora / fauna / eco systems.   I also agree that we're getting way off topic so back to strictly palms it is.   

Responses included in the post quoted above   Original post marked with ((("     Only way I cold get that much text to work on a phone.  Please excuse any errors.  Typing on a phone is usually error laden .    Cheers