Challenging Negative Views on Invasive and Non-Native Plant Species

When discussing plant life, terminology such as “fragrant” or “prickly” often comes to mind. However, terms that describe growth patterns, like “invasive” or “native,” spark contention. Liz Makings from the Arizona State University Herbarium challenges the use of these labels, suggesting they might carry unjust negative biases.

Makings expresses concern over the negative reputation attributed to plants labeled as non-native or invasive, and shared her thoughts on the matter in a conversation with The Show.

Plants and Their Labels: A Closer Look

MARK BRODIE: Liz, it appears you believe that plants not native to the Sonoran Desert are often unfairly criticized.

LIZ MAKINGS: Indeed, there’s a tendency to associate these plants with negativity due to the rhetoric surrounding them. Certain plants, like Oncosiphon, are quickly labeled invasive, which I find troubling.

Makings argues that instead of instinctively labeling plants as problematic, we should question their ecological role. “What it’s doing and how is it doing it?” she suggests, emphasizing a scientific approach over emotional reactions.

Reassessing Plant Nativity and Impact

BRODIE: Could you elaborate on the kinds of questions we should be asking about these plants?

MAKINGS: It’s vital to critically assess what we mean by terms like ‘native.’ Often, these labels are accepted without question, despite their potential roots in pseudoscience or outdated beliefs.

The desert’s unique environment prompts questions about plant adaptation. While some species might seem better suited due to their long presence, Makings points out that human actions often introduce new species. “It’s easier to point fingers than accept responsibility,” she remarks.

Rethinking Our Relationship with Plants

BRODIE: How should our perception of these plants evolve?

MAKINGS: We must rethink our adversarial stance towards plants, especially as the planet faces climate changes. A plant’s migration doesn’t inherently denote harm; it could contribute positively to the ecosystem.

Considering plants like buffelgrass, often criticized for fueling wildfires, Makings urges a balanced view. She notes that while some research may label such plants as harmful, they also offer benefits like soil stabilization and carbon capture.

BRODIE: Should we conduct a cost-benefit analysis of these plants?

MAKINGS: Absolutely. Scientific inquiry must remain unbiased to reveal both the negative and positive aspects of plant species. Engaging the public in plant appreciation rather than demonization could foster more constructive environmental involvement.

Makings advocates for educational approaches that highlight plant restoration and ecosystem studies rather than eradication. The focus should be on understanding and embracing plant diversity, rather than categorizing them as invaders.