Chris Owens wrote in message ...
I live in upstate NY within a mile of a beautiful marsh. Where
my local and state governments are engaged in an active [and,
fortunately, successful] effort to remove the purple loostrife.
Which crowds out the native plants; which reduces the
biodiversity, food, and habitat for the native animal / insect
species; which sort of screws all to hell the concept of
wetlands, y'know? In their native habitat, most invasive plants
are subject to natural ecological controls . . . there's
something that eats it or competes with it. The problem comes
when you introduce such a species to a non-native habitat . . .
then it is likely to crowd out something[s] else which are
crucial to the local food chain; without, mind you, providing
adequate replacement.

Chris Owens

Alan Watkins wrote:

As the owner of eight separate ponds, I regard this as a beautiful
plant which attracts countless myriads of insects and provides nectar
for most of them.

May be God intended it was "invasive" and maybe you lot know better,
in your organised fashion?

The most invasive things I have discovered in my lifetime are people,
not plants. I also believe that people do far more damage than
plants, even IF plants are invasive.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

I suppose it's just a different brand of ecology but beekeepers love
it because in time of drought or very dry weather it is one of the few
plants available to the hive. A question of balance, I guess, and one
where beekeepers probably don't figure much.

I repeat: people are more destructive and invasive than any plant.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----