Potentilla dilemma

[cohan]

I have a Potentilla in my garden which I collected in B.C. when I was in my teens, and grew in my rock garden for a few years till I left home; when I moved back, there was no sign of the plant (or most others of course, with a couple decades of neglect--it was mostly weeds, grass and native plants grown in), but after I redug parts of the garden, it reappeared presumably from seed..
I'd been trying to figure out what it was, unsuccessfully, and finally did, today--only to realise its P recta (one reason I did not consider this is that Royer/Dickinson show a bright yellow flower, and mine is much more of a creamy yellow)-- a problem invasive in B.C.! Its Alberta status is a little unclear to me--certainly I have never seen pale flowered plants like mine, though they may exist elsewhere in the province, if it can have strong yellow flowers then it would be harder to separate from native species....

Anyway, my dilemma is-- should I dispose of the several plants I have? Or keep it, watchfully... the fact that it died out except for in ground seed when the rock garden became overgrown suggests that it may not be able to compete with the local vegetation.... I was thinking it was biennial (recta is supposed to be perennial), will have to watch more closely, but I have not found any other species with the pale yellow flowers.... If someone can name it as something other than recta that would be cool too 

[McDonough]

Cohan, here Potentilla recta is one of my favorite tolerated weeds, not-overly-aggressive, one that I allow on the borders of my property as I love the largish flowers of a "soft moonlight yellow" color.  As far as I'm aware, it is always that soft luminous yellow, which I have a soft spot for, a cooling vision on hot summer days.  This plant is an alien from Eurasia.  As I've frequently encountered this plant in New England, eastern USA, it is always the same color, a light pale yellow.  Here's a link that shows the color:
http://www.missouriplants.com/Yellowalt/Potentilla_recta_page.html

I do notice when "googling around", that some sources have misidentified plants listed as P. recta, such as with B&T World that describes the flowers as cream-yellow, then shows a picture of a completely different densely-flowered bright yellow Potentilla.

On this page, for a county in Washington State, it is listed as a noxious weed.  I wouldn't consider it a noxious weed here.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious-weeds/weed-identification/sulfur-cinquefoil.aspx

This site gives more comprehensive coverage of the species, again, describing in more detail the serious invasive threat it poses particularly in the Pacific Northwest; here's an except: "Potentilla recta, an herbaceous forb native to Eurasia, is well established throughout much of the United States and Canada, and is found in a wide range of natural and agricultural habitats. It is particularly problematic in the drier climates of the Pacific and inland Northwest where it invades grassland and open-forest communities and displaces native vegetation. Of particular concern is the impact of P. recta on native Potentilla species in the Pacific Northwest. A single plant can produce thousands of seeds annually which allows for its rapid spread."
http://wiki.bugwood.org/Potentilla_recta

[cohan]

Cohan, here Potentilla recta is one of my favorite tolerated weeds, not-overly-aggressive, one that I allow on the borders of my property as I love the largish flowers of a "soft moonlight yellow" color.  As far as I'm aware, it is always that soft luminous yellow, which I have a soft spot for, a cooling vision on hot summer days.  This plant is an alien from Eurasia.  As I've frequently encountered this plant in New England, eastern USA, it is always the same color, a light pale yellow.  Here's a link that shows the color:
http://www.missouriplants.com/Yellowalt/Potentilla_recta_page.html

I do notice when "googling around", that some sources have misidentified plants listed as P. recta, such as with B&T World that describes the flowers as cream-yellow, then shows a picture of a completely different densely-flowered bright yellow Potentilla.

On this page, for a county in Washington State, it is listed as a noxious weed.  I wouldn't consider it a noxious weed here.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/noxious-weeds/weed-identification/sulfur-cinquefoil.aspx

This site gives more comprehensive coverage of the species, again, describing in more detail the serious invasive threat it poses particularly in the Pacific Northwest; here's an except: "Potentilla recta, an herbaceous forb native to Eurasia, is well established throughout much of the United States and Canada, and is found in a wide range of natural and agricultural habitats. It is particularly problematic in the drier climates of the Pacific and inland Northwest where it invades grassland and open-forest communities and displaces native vegetation. Of particular concern is the impact of P. recta on native Potentilla species in the Pacific Northwest. A single plant can produce thousands of seeds annually which allows for its rapid spread."
http://wiki.bugwood.org/Potentilla_recta

Thanks, Mark--I sort of was thinking similarly--that it was probably a bigger problem in drier areas.. thus far there has never been a seedling outside of cultivated soil...

[Tim Ingram]

I have Potentilla recta too and it seeds pretty freely; nice in the right spot. Here it is with Digitalis parviflora.

[cohan]

Nice vignette, Tim! Mine have never made large multistemmed plants so far.. I really feel like they have been acting biennial/monocarpic, but can't say I have closely enough tracked the few plants I have

[cohan]

I decided in the end I will get rid of it... it might be different if I were in an urban area, but here in the country, the risk is too great that I might transfer seeds to a pasture, field or roadside (eg--walking around the yard, then going for a walk or bike ride into the bush or down the road, seeds could easily be tracked on shoes/boots) and perhaps establish the plant in an open area where it would be too successful...
On the plus side, I think there is a plant of P gracilis just outside my property, and I will collect some seeds or divisions (I say think because I'm not sure if there is any sp that could be confused with it..)

[Kelaidis]

I hope you didn't remove your potentilla: I believe you might have actually had P. concinna, which is usually a paler color.

Most of those "weed" lists are rather subjective, and all are highly local in their relevance. One man's weed is another man's treasure. The fanatacism of the invasivists is ultimately self defeating.

I have grown Potentilla recta over the years in quite a few gardens in Colorado (a climate not unlike Alberta): I do not think it is one tenth as invasive as Potentilla argentea, for instance. Like I said, take those lists with a giant grain of salt!

[James McGee]

"The fanaticism of the invasivists is ultimately self defeating."

That comment seems rather disrespectful to the people who work tirelessly to preserve our natural heritage.  Certain species do displace native ecosystems.  Controlling these species is the only way to preserve these irreplaceable treasures.  Invasive species are causing huge economic losses too.

We all need to be responsible and take necessary precautions to prevent the spread of these highly damaging species.  It is not only what is best for our economy and environment, it is also in our own best interest too.

James

[Lori S.]

I imagine the height alone would help to distinguish whether it is/was P. concinna or P. recta, no?  P. concinna is a very compact little thing around here where it grows out in the grasslands (under 10cm according to Flora of Alberta).

[Kelaidis]

Potentilla concinna in my experience can be 10-15" tall...

I am sorry if I offended you, Jim, with my pointed remark about "nativists": it is an unattractive epithet, but blaming horticulture for weeds is like blaming kids who shoot cap guns for Mexican gang warfare: the relationship is tenuous in the extreme. So called "invasives" are just weeds, and they are due to massive disturbance by farming, mining, urban and suburban development. Horticulture is the solution to weeds, not the cause. I believe that many in the Environmental movement have chosen the path of righteousness over effectiveness and the wellsprings of the movement lie more with Calvinism than with the truth. The proof is that they have taken on innocent gardeners rather than those really causing the problem. I assume most rock gardeners get this, but I was obviously wrong! the last thing I want to do is be righteous about weeds and their unwitting codependents: the nativists! I hate 'em more than anyone (the weeds that is: I just am annoyed with the people!). Hope this makes a tad more sense?

[RickR]

There are fanatics in every genre.  I think there is extra terrestrial intelligent life, but I don't believe a tin foil hat will save me. 

No one here denies that certain invasive species do displace native flora, fauna and ecosystems.  Most (if not all) of us have examples of it in our own nearby wild lands.

[James McGee]

Kelaidis,

     I am really surprised that someone of your vast experience would know so little about invasive species issues.  I will try to address your statements point by point.

*"blaming horticulture for weeds is like blaming kids who shoot cap guns for Mexican gang warfare"

The fact is, the horticultural industry has introduced many species that have invaded undisturbed natural areas and require control efforts.  I will list some below.

Common Buckthorn - Now the most numerous plant in the Chicago Region.  No habitat has escape invasion by this species.  It was brought here for hedges.
Burning Bush
Japanese and European Barberry
Autumn Olive
Privet
Asian Bush Honeysuckles
European Cranberry Viburnum
Oriental Bittersweet
Wintercreeper
Moneywort
Crownvetch

For a more comprehensive list please view the following link.

http://www.chicagobotanic.org/research/conservation/invasive/chicago/

*"So called "invasives" are just weeds, and they are due to massive disturbance by farming, mining, urban and suburban development."

Many invasive species have completely dominated undisturbed natural areas.  Unlike native disturbance adapted species, invasive species are not out competed by more conservative native species over time.  Invasive species cause damage to ecosystems that is difficult, if not impossible, to mitigate.  They also have cause significant economic problems.  For example, Common Buckthorn is the winter host for an introduced insect pest of soy bean.  This raises food costs for everyone.

Giving the audience, I will also mention that I have observed nonnative species dominating the extremely limited (a few dozen acres at most) alpine areas in New York State.  Specifically, on the ridge as one hikes to the summit of Whiteface Mountain.  Having a future opportunity to grow cherished alpine plants will likely be dependent on preventing the introduction of species which can take over their wild habitats.

*"Horticulture is the solution to weeds, not the cause."

Regarding mitigation efforts for invasive species, I do not believe any effort has yet successfully eliminated an invasive plant from a continent.  In natural areas we can locally eliminate invasive species, but we must then continually monitor for new infestation from surrounding properties.

Also, horticulture cannot save a plant forever if we have altered its home to the point that it can no longer survive.  

*"The proof is that they have taken on innocent gardeners rather than those really causing the problem."

The fact is, many of the invasive plants I have listed continue to be sold by nurseries.  Natural area managers must be ever vigilant for new infestations from seed that is often spread from a neighboring landowner's garden.

"the relationship is tenuous in the extreme"

I understand that people want to be free to grow or sell any plant they desire.  It just is not fair for everyone to pay a steep price for the damage that is caused when an agricultural or garden plant escapes and takes over everything.  This is the reason I think all gardeners should only grow plants that are not invasive in their area.  It's just the responsible thing to do.


Sincerely,

James  

[Tim Ingram]

We had a similar debate on the AGS website about the use of peat in horticulture. Such discussion seems very quickly to polarise even though presumably we all have similar interests in plants and environmental conservation. Societies like the NARGS and AGS, with many thoughtful and educated (in the broadest sense) members, can only benefit such debate, even if it does get heated at times. The more people who develop a stronger understanding of plants the better, which is is why such specialist societies are so important.

Here in the UK we are probably fortunate in the relatively few plants that have become a menace despite the vast number of species grown. Plants do (usually) have quite specific ecological requirements, so each case needs to be taken on it own merits. Gardening does seem a more benign activity than many of the other more foolish things we get up to!

[James McGee]

Tim,

     Actually gardeners have played an intricate role in helping our parks and native species.  Each weekend volunteers meet and work in the Chicago region's preserves.

http://www.fpdccvolunteers.org/roles_stewardship.html

     It is an excellent community that loves to talk about plants, birds, and all other aspect of local natural history.  Some people have become so involved that they become Stewards who lead the efforts of volunteers at their site.  This program makes all the difference for these parks.
     Here is a link to one of the most involved groups.

http://www.northbranchrestoration.org/

     One activity that is not mentioned in the FPDCC link is seed gardening.  Home gardeners take local ecotype seed and grow plants at home.  They then collect seed from their home gardens for use in restoring natural communities.  Many plants in our parks have been significantly impacted by an exploding deer population.  Often, plants grown and protected by home gardeners are the only source for species that have been decimated by deer or over taken by invasive species.


Sincerely,

James 

[Kelaidis]

I give up, James! You have a great deal more energy than I have. And Tim is right: we really do agree 99.999%. But I am cussed and stubborn too!

I don't deny that we do have culpability as horticuturists, and that there are serious issues impinging upon us...I also agree with your flattering remark about my "vast experience": I'll share just a smattering of that experience with you...

For approximately 17 years that I have lived in my current house I have been dumping the seed leavings from my pretty extensive seed collecting (I often gather up to 1000 kinds of seed from the wild, from my own garden, from friends gardens) on to the empty fields around my house. Now, don't panic! I am almost exactly in the middle of the Denver/Aurora metroplex (almost 4 million people) and despite that the five or so acres of more or less derelict and severely abused prairie around my house is totally isolated from "nature" so that if any of the seed I scattered there became established and weedy, I would not be polluting the great out of doors. [if indeed any of the seed I scattered did in fact become a potential pest, I would certainly clean them up pronto, believe me!] But I hasten to point out that in 17 years of scattering these leavings (which I would not doubt come to millions if not billions or perhaps even trillions of seed) I have had only a handful even germinate to the extent that I have noticed them in these said fields. And none of these has persisted. It apparently takes a lot to become established as a weed here. Albeit that in my own garden I manage to grow rhododendrons, azaleas, hundreds of cacti, thousands of alpine plants and plants as diverse as Lithops, Meconopsis, Aloes, Eritrichium, Sarracenia and Nerine on the godforsaken plains of Colorado.

Although we do have an abundance of weeds, practically all of which came with the Red Durum wheats brought by the 19th Century immigrants from the Volga when the dryland farming was established on the Great Plains. No wheat to weeds. No weeds, no wheat: that paradox (that we continually generate the problems concomintant on our survival) a paradox that Western Science and environmentalism just don't get. But we latter day Taoists grok immediately.

The most "notorious": of our local horticultural invaders are Russian Olive and Tamarisk (which I must admit, I have a grudging admiration for). I am not so perverse as to plant these, although I believe the reaction against them is overblown and misdirected. The riparian areas that these "horrible invasives" have colonized are really new ecosystems humans have created by damming innumerable streams (if you fly over the Great Plains of Colorado you will see hundreds, if not thousands , of impoundments..ie.e. lakes and ponds. NONE of these existed in pressettlement times.  Countless millions of dollars have been spent to eliminate these "menaces" only to discover that they have become superb bird habitat, and that an endangered native bird (Southwestern Flycatcher) is dependent on theim for its survival. Get rid of the Eucalypts in Southern California and bye bye Monarch butterflies. Nature works in strange ways. In the pre-human days these "invaders" would have long ago been scraped away by our frequent and devastating floods we have obviated (who is mourning for those floods, by the way? as natural and wonderful as any thing in Nature: obliterated by the hand of man as surely as we sow weeds). It would take a REAL environmentalist to take a stand for those floods. I don't see anyone raising their hand!

Your concern for horitcultural impact on the landscape, Jim, is valid. I am distressed that you do not acknowledge that the REAL impact on our landscapes are due to other land abuses which CREATE the habitats for weeds . It is a question of emphasis and scale. I aver that our impact is really trivial in the big picture, and it is the big picture that concerns me. 
And I am especially concerned that this imbalance of emphasis is causing people to be turned off of horticulture on the one hand (which is the most powerful link the average person has to connect with nature now that over half humanity is urbanized) and therefore becoming "desensitized" to the problem all the mre. That is a subtle argument, perhaps, but one I believe has merit.

I end by saying that the Tallgrass prairie (and Oak glades) is indeed the greatest ecological tragedy that humanity has inflicted on almost any ecosystem I am aware of, and the work that has been done by Midwesterners to restore these prairies wherever possible and raise awareness about them is one of the great success stories of both Horticulture and environmentalism. I do honor your commitment to preserving and protecting your regional ecosystems with your genuine and fierce and admirable passion! I salute you from the bottom of my heart and from the depths of my soul! (And hope one day you will forgive me for being an unrepentent gardener who perhaps loves many weeds just a tad too much).