A new book mysteriously showed up in my mailbox a few weeks ago from Missouri Botanical Garden Press. Love Them to Death: Turning Invasive Plants into Local Economic Opportunities is a collaboration of many authors, scientists, researchers, and artisans all bent upon a theme when it comes to the non-native and/or invasive species in our North American landscape: Joy over Anger. Adaptation over Resentment. Curiosity over Condemnation. I highly recommend it.
Forgive the coffee stain and the finger holding down a well-thumbed copy – but it means I actually read it.
Between Taxes and Taxus, I have precious little time in April to devote to the pleasures of reading, but my cursory flip-through rapidly turned into a deep dive as I recognized that this was no lightweight, gimmicky volume; and that the underlying premise of each of the book’s many sections (edited skillfully by scientist and taxonomist, Wendy L. Applequist) was not a nihilistic rejection of man’s place on this planet, nor another treatise on past offences and conceits, but a call to recalibrate with natural systems and cycles in an economically, ecologically, and spiritually meaningful way.
From ‘Invasive Species’ to ‘Abundant Species’
From cattle forage to high-end kitchen ingredients to medicinal compounds, the authors studied the use of invasive and/or exotic flora through the efforts of people like fiber artist ‘LB’ of Kudzu Culture in western North Carolina. She works with two partners to educate her local community on the many uses of the [often high value] plant that never truly ate the South.
LB terms invasives “abundant species” to circumvent the growing stigma (and hazier cultural definition and application) of the word, and feels that “the vilification of abundant plants at this stage of the Anthropocene is missing the point.” [my emphasis] One of her partners in Kudzu Culture, Justin Holt says “We’re trying to increase the awareness of their value and help people develop a different kind of relationship, one that we think is more life giving.”
After vanquishing competitors, two abundant species meet on the field of battle — invasive butterbur and native but aggressive ostrich fern.
His term “more life-giving” resonated with me. I think it will also resonate with readers who are quite literally sick and tired of the life-diminishing message of Us vs. Them so prevalent and so promoted in everything from politics to plants. Ironically, a quick peek into Kudzu Culture’s blog, brings you right back to that angry political rhetoric, but I give them credit (or at least Applequist’s abilities as editor) to avoid it for the greater message of this book.
A life-giving observational relationship values curiosity and adaptation over anger and condemnation – harnessing the openness of childhood as we seek to adapt to new climate patterns, new species, and a new normal with positive solutions. As contributors Katie MacDonald and Kyle Schumann put it in their chapter on using invasives as building materials, it is an “additive approach” not a subtractive one.
Harnessing the benefits of invasive species
The book spans many additional disciplines and areas of interest in that quest. Here are just a few:
- An experienced grazier works with homesteaders and ranchers across the US and Canada to ‘train’ their cattle and sheep herds over time to eat weeds such as Canada thistle and Japanese knotweed (nutritionally comparable to alfalfa).
- An overview of many invasives used in Chinese medicine is given by a Massachusetts herbalist, followed by a chapter by Applequist herself, collecting available data on compounds used in Western medicine.
- A basket weaver collects oriental bittersweet and wisteria and leads classes that not only produce beautiful baskets, but conversations that connect attendees with each other and the many species that make up a vibrant, ever-changing world.
- Similarly, a textile artist utilizes invasives to create rich dyes in earthy tones of green, rust and ochre.
- Two associate professors at the University of North Carolina highlight successful culinary applications for some of the region’s toughest invasive species.
Can we realistically love invasive species to death?
Of great interest is Applequist’s chapter on the complexities and challenges of reducing invasive species – flora or fauna – through regulated and commercialized means.
She is honest in her concerns that giving people a taste for invasives could lead to further expansion and commercialization of that market (and therefore of the species themselves) even as she is realistic of the ability to profoundly change patterns of consumption in America.
Though popular, “win-win” scenarios where invasive species are vanquished and human beings are nourished, clothed, sheltered, and amused, are “elusive”, says Applequist and other authors in the book.
If the stated object is to eliminate a species AND create a new market for that species, common sense agrees. But if the win-win is not impossibly couched in terms of zero sum, and instead unapologetically framed as adaptive use of resources without elimination agendas, surely it is achievable?
A Changing Climate Warrants a Changing Approach
Whether we like it, or agree with it, or want to blame someone for it, our changing climate is making it harder for many of the species we have termed ‘native’ to compete with those we have termed ‘invasive’. Surely the best approach by a wise people is not to “love them to death”, by waging perpetual war on one’s land and in one’s heart; but to “learn to love them?”
This philosophy – one centered in curiosity and observation – does not box plants into ‘good’ or ‘evil’. It helps us remain open to all of the innovative approaches outlined in this book – and many yet undiscovered – for future co-existence with the species who have also found a way to adapt to difficult circumstances.
It guides us to manage them where agricultural, economic, and to some degree, aesthetic concerns warrant intervention; but keeps us from falling – however virtuously – into new conceits as ecological puppet masters.
Our premise needs to change, and thoughtful, innovative books such as “Love Them to Death” are excellent steps towards that goal. -MW
Thanks for this – it’s very affirming for my always uncomfortable feeling around ideologically rigid native plant purists. I will definitely be reading this, especially as a secret admirer of one of North America’s most vilified invasive – the common dandelion! So far this week I have tossed the greens into salad and roasted the roots for tea. I am looking to make dandelion bread and jelly from the happy yellow flowers, too!
It sounds like a step toward at least open mindedness if this book “values curiosity and adaptation over anger and condemnation”. It’s difficult to access the gradations of truth that may exist if information is only presented within the constructs of good versus evil.
Plus, I like to avoid controversy, so it sounds like a good book for me.
This looks like a welcome addition to the literature of invasion biology. I wasn’t surprised by the positive tone of the book because it was published by Missouri Botanical Garden. Peter Raven was the executive director of the garden for decades before his retirement.
I had the pleasure of hearing Peter Raven speak twice in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he began his botanical career. He made his reputation as the finder of an endangered species of manzanita, Raven’s manzanita, named for him. (50 years later, it is still endangered because no one has figured out how to germinated it.) He is revered by native plant advocates in California.
Peter Raven’s presentation was magnanimous, kind and gentle. Native plant advocates weren’t happy. They peppered him with rhetorical questions that exhorted him to condemn those who find value in non-native plants. He was not to be deterred from his mission, which was to welcome all plant lovers.
It was a great pleasure to speak with him after he spoke, to thank him for his appreciation of all plants, regardless of their origins.
The publication of this new book, continues his legacy.
Thanks for sharing that Mary – and so beautifully. – MW
When I began my successful bamboo eradication project of several years duration, I was aware that in Asia the plant is used extensively in building, fabrics, etc. I did frequently give away the bare stalks to gardeners for stakes, fences, trellises.. Of course it has practical uses. The problem is when it shows up in suburban yards where its strong, unrelenting, rampant and powerful growth is simply not manageable. A dandelion is to bamboo as smallpox is to a common cold. Isn’t the problem demonizing plants that are at best minor annoyances which actually do no harm? Dandelions have never upended a concrete slab, for example and the flowers are visited by pollinators. And they are edible. I look forward to reading this book to see if bamboo is mentioned
Whether native plants or alien plants, as gardeners we must sort them out according to our wishes, needs, hates, preferences and tolerances. We are the governors of our own managed spaces aligned with giving us personal joy. Hopefully we do this with a sensitivity aimed toward the environment’s wellbeing. Be proud that you planted something that was not there before and be proud when you leave something to grow that benefits some life form. Let the democracy of gardening prevail!
I dont know Marianne, this feels awfully woke.
I’m fairly sure you’re being tongue and cheek Steve, but just in case you’re not, or others think it’s serious, it does bring up the politicization of the native/non-native issue, and I’ll make a quick point if I may.
In my opinion, one of the absolute worst developments of the last thirty years in our political lives is to categorize complex issues in terms of teams. Consequently we can’t think straight about any issue, and look to our team captains to tell us how to think. Failing that, we look to the opposition team captain for their stance on the issue and do the opposite. The disciplines of horticulture and ecology are not immune. We should refrain from labelling and boxing and argue every hypothesis, theory, concept, and back of coffee shop conversation, on its merits or lack thereof. Not what our team says is correct. Sports teams don’t build civilizations, wise and thinking people do. I’m thankful for this book offering a different, apolitical approach to the native/non-native/invasive debate, and that’s why I decided to review it here. – MW
Excellent!
My reply to a friend in the pro Dandelion camp was: It’s a weed in MY garden, your can treat it how you please
I cannot agree with this premise at all. I’m a State biologist in California. I have worked hard to reduce Arundo donax, and yellow star thistle. These species wipe out natives (use of quotes is not appreciated) and create a world to of less diversity and ecological damage that ripples out to pollinators, and other flora and fauna. Is it an impossible to task to eliminate, probably. Is it worth the effort to save those niche species being extirpated because of humans. Definitely!
Thank you for your comment and thoughts Paul. I well remember the spiny, yellow star thistle of my childhood and I often think about it as my introduction to the concept of invasive species and how much that definition and framing has changed over time.
At that time, the invasive debate had not been overwhelmingly couched in easily digested terms of native-good, non-native-evil, and instead focused on the economic/agricultural costs of pasture/rangeland lost to massive swathes of this highly competitive plant. A plant that (however inconveniently) is a source of nectar and pollen in ruderal environments, and a soil builder where other species struggle. This was typical of the time – thinking primarily in terms of obstacles to human endeavor – but it is wise to remember that we were also concerned with feeding a population, and the higher costs of doing so. Now sadly, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction.
If we could set aside human concepts of time, and our (often unconscious) desire to play puppet-master and/or savior in battles that you yourself admit are impossible to win, would we see instead a pioneer species doing exactly what needs to be done in areas of devastating disturbance? Controlling it where necessary for human subsistence, but allowing ourselves to study – without agenda – a process that is much, much bigger than us?
You are right to pick up on my use of quotes around the words ‘native’ and ‘non-native’, though too quick to take offence. In doing so I wish to highlight a very human definition applied to a planet that does not think in anthropomorphic terms of nationality or chronological events, but in geological and geographical limitations and opportunities, climatic and geological events, and ecological succession. It is a fascinating process of reclamation, but one we are [ironically] doomed to miss if we dogmatically think in terms of human control — however nobly applied this time around.
Again, thank you for your comment. – MW