Re: Native vs. non-native

["georg parlow" <georg@email-me.at>]

hi toby and all:

generally i would be (like toby?) an advocate of "use exotics" - for i tend
to believe, that it isnt the exotics that do the damage - but the sour rain
and the lead and the climatic changes and good knows what else we did to the
environs, that might not be obvious - but it destabilized existing "native"
systems to a point that newcomers (not aliens, newcomers that are natives a
few thousand years down the line) can go wild and rampant, not DOING damage
but MAKING the existing latent damage APPARENT. so what looks like damage to
us shortlived beings might mostly be natures longrange self-healing
measures.

so while i believe (personal belief) the above to be the rule, there are
certainly exceptions to that as well, so great care has to be taken.

> (careful!). I'd suggest using shade-intolerant species to minimize risk of
> escape. These mixes would self-destruct by being shaded out or otherwise,

good strategy, but there is (not literally) more than meets the eye. the
human eye easily adjusts to light differences 1:1000 and more, plants are
more touchy on this. in other words: shade isnt shade, lightwise. shade in
an australian grove might be more lightfilled than an open field in england
on an overcast day. add a little extra benefit like a slightly warmer
climate than what the plants genes are used to for the last few thousand
years, and you might find a plant go rampant even in the thick bush, that
isnt supposed to do that at all according to our observations in its native
habitat.

just to add a little to the already quite complex soup of species
migration...

greetings
georg