Where does Star Magnolia belong?
Where does Star Magnolia belong? And for that matter, how do we decide where a plant "should” and “shouldn't” be?
My hot take? We don't. Nature has an intelligence far beyond our human intellect- which is just one measurement of intelligence- not to mention that on the evolutionary scale, compared to plants, humans are BABIES. Magnolias are over 90 MILLION years old. And yet we love to position ourselves as the experts. To me this is human hubris in its highest form. And when I say "hot take" really it's tongue in cheek because this is something I've been thinking and talking about for a loooooong time and I’m not here to push dogma. Rather, this is in invitation into nuance.
Star Magnolia has a story to tell about this fraught binary way of thinking around non-native and so-called “invasive” plants...
I recently discovered a grove of about a dozen young Star Magnolia/Shidekobushi (Magnolia stellata) growing in a corner of wet woods at my new home, after having noticed one growing deep in a Skunk Cabbage-Spice Bush-Red Maple swamp in the woods behind my home just earlier that day. Of course, I was elated to find these in my yard. The tree is gorgeous, and these were babies from a neighbor’s tree, undoubtedly spread by squirrels, who eat Magnolia fruits. In true herb nerd fashion, I began researching this plant and was shocked to learn they’re critically endangered in their native land of Japan, where they’re endemic to just one teeny tiny region of highlands around Ise Bay! And even in the tiny region Star Magnolia is struggling due to habitat loss. By some estimation there are just a few hundred individuals left in the wild
Of course, this got me thinking! “Should” I be letting this plant spread in the back edge of my yard where it becomes a woodland swamp? This is Star Magnolia’s preferred habitat in Japan. “Should” it be removed from the woods deeper behind my home, where I have since found at least one other growing? After-all, the field of invasion ecology is currently pushing the narrative that “not from here= bad” when it comes to plants…but if it’s critically endangered in its original range, isn’t there something undoubtedly beautiful and resilient about not just letting them stay here, but encouraging their growth? This is where I land. I spent the morning removing the Glossy Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) around the babies to encourage their growth, leaving the Spice Bush (Lindera benzoin) and Red Osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea L. ssp. sericea), two native wetland plants they seem to be getting along with beautifully.
And this is where the nuance comes in! I’m not above removing some plants for the benefits of others. I see this as a form of wildtending and at the end of the day of course some subjectivity comes into it. And before the native plant societies come at me, I would argue that the whole field of invasion biology is also subjective! It’s based on some scientific metrics but ALSO economics, to the extent to which now North American native plants are being labeled as “invasive” when it behooves industry interests to label them as so.
It's also anti-establishment to think about "invasives" in this more nuanced way. The state wholeheartedly backs this binary thinking and wants you to too. They are all in on the “war on invasives” and (no surprise) in bed with Monsanto and have been from day one when it comes to making this a conservation issue which is a distraction from very real concerns like habitat loss, pollutants, and industry lobbying groups such as the mining and cattle industries. Instead, we’re told that PLANTS are the issue and the solution is to buy the herbicide Round-up/Glyphosate from one of the most egregious corporations in the world to fix it, Monsanto. The National Invasive Species Council defines these plants as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.”
A plant doesn't even have to be non-native at this point to be labelled invasive...are you getting the picture?? We're being duped! Yes, we should exercise discernment when it comes to these things. I'm here for removal of plants from certain areas and have been removing Glossy Buckthorn in other parts of the land I inhabit to make space for the native Spice Bush and have done plenty of removal of Asian Bittersweet vine and more in my day. I’m just asking us to think critically about this issue and- if this isn’t too much to ask- apply an animist lens and zoom out for a minute. In a globalized world, with a rapidly changing climate, if we acknowledge and believe that no human is illegal, that borders aren’t real, and that all refugees deserve a safe home, why wouldn’t we extend this same thinking to the plants (and animals too)? And instead of applying a one size fits all xenophobic approach of “not from here= bad,” instead open up to a deeper and more nuanced way of thinking about such a complex and multi-layered. Indigenous scientist Dr. Jessica Hernandez has introduced the idea of calling these plants “displaced plant relatives” instead of “invasive.” How beautiful is that?
And many thanks to the glorious Star Magnolia for inviting us into this dialogue. The plants truly are our elders and teachers, always.
References, Resources & Further Reading
Weed Whackers: Monsanto, glyphosate, and the war on invasive species
By Andrew Cockburn
Harper’s Magazine
The Troubles of “Invasive” Plants: Issues of Identification, Control, Restoration, Climate Change & Culture
By Nicole Patrice Hill and Kollibri Terre Sonnenblume
Making a Star Magnolia flower essence
Many Indigenous languages lack a word for ‘conservation.’ Here’s why
By Jessica Hernandez, PhD
Fresh Banana Leaves: Healing Indigenous Landscapes through Indigenous Science
By Jessica Hernandez, PhD
The Continuation of an Indigenous Science
https://www.wakantipi.org
Introduced Megafauna are Rewilding the Anthropocene
By Erick J. Lundgren, Daniel Ramp, William J. Ripple, and Arian D. Wallach
From the Journal of Ecography; June 2018
Where Do Camels Belong?: Why Invasive Species Aren't All Bad
By Ken Thompson
Adjusting the lens of invasion biology to focus on the impacts of climate-driven range shifts
By Piper D. Wallingford, Toni Lyn Morelli, Jenica M. Allen, Evelyn M. Beaury, Dana M. Blumenthal, Bethany A. Bradley, Jeffrey S. Dukes, Regan Early, Emily J. Fusco, Deborah E. Goldberg, Inés Ibáñez, Brittany B. Laginhas, Montserrat Vilà and Cascade J. B. Sorte
From the Journal Nature Climate Change; May 2020
It’s time to stop demonizing “invasive” species: Climate change is forcing some animals to move. Don’t call them “invasives.”
By Marina Bolotnikova
The Invasive Ideology: Biologists and conservationists are too eager to demonize non-native species
By Matthew K. Chew and Scott P. Carroll
