This post is in response to the extremist anti-introduced plants and trees campaign that many partake in. Forestry research in India has gone on scientific lines for much longer than scientific natural-history. And to say that you can just demean every introduced plant is well, being biased without reason.
To call every plant invasive is silly. A species becomes colonising only if it is able to integrate into existing conditions and often provides resources to pollinating and dispersal agents which help it adapt better and spread. And it is able to do that because there are vacant niches to be filled, ecologically speaking. Which also means that they are not facing competition form other species. It is is often the non colonising 'equilibrium' species that are more competitive, since they are the ones which survive in species rich seral stages and late communities during succession.
Plants were introduced for very specific reasons, and lower 'pest' attacks mean lesser pesticides need to be used. So is it with fungal and other infection and its cure.
There is nothing wrong promoting native species, but not with the arguments used. To say that only native plants and trees are good and every introduced plant is bad is being shortsighted.
A coconut tree palm is an exotic in the inland areas it is planted. It is a littoral species which grows in areas with abundant water and very high humidity. A coconut tree consumes as much water as an elephant does every day, and mass planted, can desertify areas much more effectively than any other introduced species in our conditions. Just look at the Arsikere area for example.
Still, the coconut is not exotic for all the biased campaigners out there. But for much of the inland habitats, it is alien. It may be from the same political construct, but certainly a species adapted to a totally different habitat. But it does not become an exotic for people. The coconut actually spreads much more since humans as dispersal agents are more effective than a myna dispersing the seeds of say a fig. So why is it acceptable? Just because of usefulness, in this age of transporting resources?
It is therefore necessary to get the right ideas in, and not get carried away by misinformation.
Posted on Facebook on
June 13, 2016 at 1:47pm
-
E&OE,
KRISHNA MB.
making free time is culture!
To call every plant invasive is silly. A species becomes colonising only if it is able to integrate into existing conditions and often provides resources to pollinating and dispersal agents which help it adapt better and spread. And it is able to do that because there are vacant niches to be filled, ecologically speaking. Which also means that they are not facing competition form other species. It is is often the non colonising 'equilibrium' species that are more competitive, since they are the ones which survive in species rich seral stages and late communities during succession.
Plants were introduced for very specific reasons, and lower 'pest' attacks mean lesser pesticides need to be used. So is it with fungal and other infection and its cure.
There is nothing wrong promoting native species, but not with the arguments used. To say that only native plants and trees are good and every introduced plant is bad is being shortsighted.
A coconut tree palm is an exotic in the inland areas it is planted. It is a littoral species which grows in areas with abundant water and very high humidity. A coconut tree consumes as much water as an elephant does every day, and mass planted, can desertify areas much more effectively than any other introduced species in our conditions. Just look at the Arsikere area for example.
Still, the coconut is not exotic for all the biased campaigners out there. But for much of the inland habitats, it is alien. It may be from the same political construct, but certainly a species adapted to a totally different habitat. But it does not become an exotic for people. The coconut actually spreads much more since humans as dispersal agents are more effective than a myna dispersing the seeds of say a fig. So why is it acceptable? Just because of usefulness, in this age of transporting resources?
It is therefore necessary to get the right ideas in, and not get carried away by misinformation.
Posted on Facebook on
June 13, 2016 at 1:47pm
-
E&OE,
KRISHNA MB.
making free time is culture!
No comments:
Post a Comment