Here's a Washie mutt that popped up a couple of years ago near my clothesline.

The Shoe^TM is 12.5" or 23 cm long.

 

I don't know or care if it's a native.

Why didn't I remove it earlier? Oy, such questions! Why did the Lincolns go and see "My American Cousin"? Why did Jack and Jill go up the hill, and drink too much swill? If not a thrill on Blueberry Hill, then where? I don't know.

But, the Blade of Doom is being sharpened (giggling demonically) on a grinding wheel for removal, soon.

1 hour ago, DoomsDave said:

I don't know or care if it's a native.

Why didn't I remove it earlier? Oy, such questions! Why did the Lincolns go and see "My American Cousin"? Why did Jack and Jill go up the hill, and drink too much swill? If not a thrill on Blueberry Hill, then where? I don't know.

But, the Blade of Doom is being sharpened (giggling demonically) on a grinding wheel for removal, soon.

Do you not want it there? I've got a large volunteer cabbage palm under the power lines on the property line on my west and another large volunteer cabbage palm under the cable line on the property line on my east. I know they both have to go, but I hate to kill them. The one on the eastern property line is especially attractive to me, and I'll be very sad once it's gone.

This has been an interesting and civil discussion about invasives. I would say that our opinions, as humans, whichever side we lean toward, are probably flawed to one degree or another because we humans tend to see things only within our personal perspectives.  That is, we measure changes as we see them in our adult lifetime, while some changes probably encompass multiple human lifetimes before the true loss or benefit of an invasive species proliferating unchecked can be fully understood.

Some changes happen quickly, under circumstances that happen to be ideal for the invasive.  For example, the coqui frog, purposely brought to Hawaii Island by humans.  In a relatively short span of time, the island went from silent nights to a deafening chorus of mate-seeking frogs.  People love them or hate them. Those who were on the island prior to the arrival of the frogs are most likely to be in the latter camp, having forever lost the silence of the night.  What other changes are wrought by the arrival of the frogs?  So far, inconclusive.  We can say with certainty that the frogs have not reduced the mosquito population, as may have been hoped.

I don't know the history of the arrival of Archontophoenix alexandrae on Hawaii Island, but it has proliferated unchecked in the many steeply eroded canyons along the northeast Hamakua coast and North Hilo.  Who knows what plants they may have displaced over time?  Some would say it was the sugarcane farmers who removed the original forests, and the opportunistic A. alexandrae moved in, but I'm postulating from bits and pieces I've read.  The native trees and Pritchardia palms are much slower growing and slower to reproduce than the A. alexandrae -- though at present they co-exist, I don't have to be a scientist to see how that equation works out over time.  Will you willingly watch a beautiful native palm die out just because another imported palm is faster?  They are both beautiful. Certain birds, evolved only on Hawaii Island, are scarcer and scarcer due to changing habitat.  They feed only on specific trees, whose numbers are diminished by human development. Then there are the mammals brought to the island that are said to interfere with the nesting birds:  rats, mongoose, pigs.  Paradise has forever changed.

Personally, I grow many rare and endangered exotic palms, and have been criticized by a few for bringing in "invasives."  My point of view has been that the palms I am growing are so rare as to be approaching extinction in their native habitat, and are so slow to reproduce that they do not really present a problem to the island.  Why not grow them in Hawaii and "rescue" the DNA for future generations? -- but over the longer haul, 3 or 4 generations from now, will the island be overrun with Lemurophoenix halleuxii? 

It's an interesting discussion.

53 minutes ago, Kim said:

This has been an interesting and civil discussion about invasives. I would say that our opinions, as humans, whichever side we lean toward, are probably flawed to one degree or another because we humans tend to see things only within our personal perspectives.  That is, we measure changes as we see them in our adult lifetime, while some changes probably encompass multiple human lifetimes before the true loss or benefit of an invasive species proliferating unchecked can be fully understood.

Some changes happen quickly, under circumstances that happen to be ideal for the invasive.  For example, the coqui frog, purposely brought to Hawaii Island by humans.  In a relatively short span of time, the island went from silent nights to a deafening chorus of mate-seeking frogs.  People love them or hate them. Those who were on the island prior to the arrival of the frogs are most likely to be in the latter camp, having forever lost the silence of the night.  What other changes are wrought by the arrival of the frogs?  So far, inconclusive.  We can say with certainty that the frogs have not reduced the mosquito population, as may have been hoped.

I don't know the history of the arrival of Archontophoenix alexandrae on Hawaii Island, but it has proliferated unchecked in the many steeply eroded canyons along the northeast Hamakua coast and North Hilo.  Who knows what plants they may have displaced over time?  Some would say it was the sugarcane farmers who removed the original forests, and the opportunistic A. alexandrae moved in, but I'm postulating from bits and pieces I've read.  The native trees and Pritchardia palms are much slower growing and slower to reproduce than the A. alexandrae -- though at present they co-exist, I don't have to be a scientist to see how that equation works out over time.  Will you willingly watch a beautiful native palm die out just because another imported palm is faster?  They are both beautiful. Certain birds, evolved only on Hawaii Island, are scarcer and scarcer due to changing habitat.  They feed only on specific trees, whose numbers are diminished by human development. Then there are the mammals brought to the island that are said to interfere with the nesting birds:  rats, mongoose, pigs.  Paradise has forever changed.

Personally, I grow many rare and endangered exotic palms, and have been criticized by a few for bringing in "invasives."  My point of view has been that the palms I am growing are so rare as to be approaching extinction in their native habitat, and are so slow to reproduce that they do not really present a problem to the island.  Why not grow them in Hawaii and "rescue" the DNA for future generations? -- but over the longer haul, 3 or 4 generations from now, will the island be overrun with Lemurophoenix halleuxii? 

It's an interesting discussion.

 The crux of the issue is that we must learn to separate the facts from our philosophies. And I honestly don't see anyone in power doing that. Of course, we must each decide on a philosophy. But how can we do that in an honest way if we have not first take knowledge the facts. In the case of Hawai'i, an island chain that has fascinated me since I was a young child, The world lost most of Hawai'i's unique species to the first wave of Polynesian invaders. Gone forever are flightless geese and flightless rails and numerous colorful birds, etc. If we measure this loss from a global perspective, which is what modern academia is wont to do, we can accurately say that the loss of endemic flora and fauna in Hawaii has been a net loss for world biodiversity. However, if we only measure the number of species in Hawaii, then the so-called invasives have drastically increased the net biodiversity of the area.  If we then honestly appraise the long-term effects that the loss of one species will have on the future of the earth, we must knowledge that an isolated volcanic island chain plays no role in the future of evolution on earth. From the moment that each plant and animal first reached those islands, they were doomed to become evolutionary dead ends in the long term. Those are simply facts. We know that isolated islands are not the source of species that go on to become successful on larger land masses because it doesn't happen and hasn't happened. The thylacine was never going to push the jaguar out of its place, and the fossa was never going to put the leopard out of its place, and the Puerto Rican boa is never going to reach the mainland and displace the boa constrictor of Central America.  With regard to the native palms of Hawaii, the issue is not so much speed of gross; rather, it is that Hawaiian Palms evolved in the absence of rodents. They are utterly incapable of surviving on their own in the presence of rats. Will rats be put extinct  on the Hawaiian Islands? I doubt it. And in cold, hard evolutionary terms, virtually everything that we consider native to Hawaii has no future. That does not mean that we should not seek to conserve and appreciate Hawaiian natives, but I think from a philosophical viewpoint, it allows us to discuss whether we want to conserve Hawaiian species to the exclusion of what we humans might consider to be more interesting species from other parts the world which are currently threatened solely by man and not by their inability to survive other natural forces. Therein lies the great philosophical debate that we can have once we acknowledge the facts.

In Malta Phoenix canariensis, Phoenix dactylifera & Washingtonia robusta have naturalised in the wild & Phoenix dactylifera has been present in the wild for so long it now has the same status as native plants & is protected.

Hmm.

The biggest invasive of all is us.

Every plant in Hawaii is an invasive, non-native intruder, having arrived either by human transit, by a wind or on the feet of a bird.

I'm with Kim; it's hard to imagine most of the palms she has becoming invasives, especially sometihng like Lemuriophoenix, which is going extinct in habitat.

I wonder if there is any record of a relative "pristine" island habitat being colonized by some new species that arrives on the wind and goes bananas and overruns everything in a few generations. I suspect Hawaii has had a few episodes like that over the millenia.

29 minutes ago, DoomsDave said:

Hmm.

The biggest invasive of all is us.

Every plant in Hawaii is an invasive, non-native intruder, having arrived either by human transit, by a wind or on the feet of a bird.

I'm with Kim; it's hard to imagine most of the palms she has becoming invasives, especially sometihng like Lemuriophoenix, which is going extinct in habitat.

I wonder if there is any record of a relative "pristine" island habitat being colonized by some new species that arrives on the wind and goes bananas and overruns everything in a few generations. I suspect Hawaii has had a few episodes like that over the millenia.

Coconuts

25 minutes ago, DoomsDave said:

Hmm.

The biggest invasive of all is us.

Every plant in Hawaii is an invasive, non-native intruder, having arrived either by human transit, by a wind or on the feet of a bird.

I'm with Kim; it's hard to imagine most of the palms she has becoming invasives, especially sometihng like Lemuriophoenix, which is going extinct in habitat.

I wonder if there is any record of a relative "pristine" island habitat being colonized by some new species that arrives on the wind and goes bananas and overruns everything in a few generations. I suspect Hawaii has had a few episodes like that over the millenia.

That basically describes what happened to island South America when it crashed into North America. Some South American endemics throve (e.g. sloths), but most were overwhelmed by the North American/Eurasian species (e.g. jaguars, wild dogs, deer, otters, etc.). That's how evolution works: species compete for resources, and only the most connected ecosystems can produce the most competitive species. Island endemics are SO cool, but they are almost always incapable of besting species from more connected ecosystems on larger land masses.

15 hours ago, Yunder Wækraus said:

Do you not want it there? I've got a large volunteer cabbage palm under the power lines on the property line on my west and another large volunteer cabbage palm under the cable line on the property line on my east. I know they both have to go, but I hate to kill them. The one on the eastern property line is especially attractive to me, and I'll be very sad once it's gone.

Well, I let it grow a bit to harvest the heart.

 

I was in Pinellas County over the weekend and I noticed a lot of washingtonia had naturalized. One of them was even growing on the bridge (through a crack in the concrete) between Tierra Verde and St. Pete Beach.

"... we must knowledge that an isolated volcanic island chain plays no role in the future of evolution on earth. From the moment that each plant and animal first reached those islands, they were doomed to become evolutionary dead ends in the long term."  Facts, yes, but the way they are expressed is really dismissive.  An isolated volcanic island chain is a treasure because it is unique.  It does not matter that they will not influence evolution throughout the world -- who cares?  They are so uniquely adapted to their isolated location.   Their importance and value is in their singularity. You may call them "evolutionary dead ends" while someone else may call them prime examples of nature's rich display of evolutionary variety.  Few will travel to California in hopes of getting a glimpse of a Washingtonia robusta, but people do spend lavishly and travel extensively to see these "evolutionary dead ends" in Madagascar, Hawaii, and the Seychelles. Why?  Because they are unique and special, and so incredibly mind-boggling.  

"That does not mean that we should not seek to conserve and appreciate Hawaiian natives, but I think from a philosophical viewpoint, it allows us to discuss whether we want to conserve Hawaiian species to the exclusion of what we humans might consider to be more interesting species from other parts the world which are currently threatened solely by man and not by their inability to survive other natural forces. Therein lies the great philosophical debate that we can have once we acknowledge the facts." In this sense, I think we agree.  I do not believe conservation of natives necessarily requires absolute exclusion of all other species. To me, that is an extremist position.  But I wouldn't mind eradicating rats on Hawaii Island!

Speaking of invasive, unwanted evil species ----

We all share equal loathing of the Red Palm Weevil.

We will all do what we can to stop it, yes?

We've seen what happens when you don't.

 

This is a great discussion.  It's also a very important one to be having.  Separating opinion from facts is key.   Discussions like these which are logical, civil, well thought out, are of great significance in that they do many good things.  Raising awareness, and hopefully sparking a lot of valuable thought and imparting some knowledge.  

I think some "answer" that we're all striving for, no matter rich side where on, is likely one that lies somewhere more in the middle.  It's not a black and white thing as most things aren't.  Some areas of science are in some levels, more multiple shades of grey.    That we all have this intrinsic, deep seeded (seated?) love of palms and plants in general shoes that we are keenly aware of the natural world around us, our environments, their inhabitants, and the interconnectedness of all of them, and the entire natural world on a whole.  We're more likely to be aware of and mindful of the fact that everything is interconnected, which should logically,(in my mind at least) make us all fall more in the environmentalist / conservationist side of things.  

I think that while monitoring and controlling things to keep them in natural  balance is best, we also learn that in some cases not allowing an outside species to take over new areas as they will destroy parts of what was a thriving system without its natural presence.  It's up to learn and grow in these ways and to clean up messes wenhelp to make as we all know how great our species is at creating / making those messes.  In terms of invasives it's going to take some levels of effort from everyone at every level. We learn as We go.  Things that are found to be toxically invasive, should be at minimum kept under extreme control, it not introduced at all.  Things that are not endemic and not invasive can be handled with a much more lax approach.    (remember invasive isn't just existing in an Area where it was introduced,  its when it escapes into the wild and in turn begins damaging that new area / environment/ ecosystem in some significant way.  At least to me anyway) 

In my mind Ramant and willful ignorance and disregard for any given areas natural existing systems, is the most damaging thing there is.  At the same time I feel like over doing it with attention and care can also be nearly as damaging.  Hence the term love it to death.

 If we neglect and ignore problems they will only get worse.  If we give too much attention we can kill what we're trying to protect with kindness.  

On 20/10/2016 23:53:16, 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.

Agree!!! haha

Here in Spain tons of thousands of CIDPs and P. Dactylfera are growing at the roadsides or in empty terrains as naturalised, and they add beauty to the landscape!

Edited October 24, 20169 yr by pRoeZa*

ive seen a large sabal palmetto planted in direct sand in SC with hundreds of young palmetto seedlings surrounding it, one was 4 ft tall.

Hmm. I wonder how often a "native" species runs amok with, perhaps human or other intervention? Maybe a local posy suddenly runs wild with the increase of habitat, from, say, forest clearing, or breaking the tough deep rooted sod of the prairie?

I've tried to find instances of that, and haven't found anything. Natural enemies maintain balances, though balances can suck if you are the one that's sacrificed to maintain that balance. (Humans aren't exempt either.)

 

Do palms create any downside to naturalizing, I can't think of any palm being a bad invasive species?

Don't they benefit birds and reptiles with seeds or if they have skirts they can hide or use to make nest, I know washingtonias spread like weeds and can make a mess from what I've seen but does ecosystems react negatively to them?

I've seen deciduous trees and plants take over palms but never the other way around 

Edited October 23, 20214 yr by ZPalms