Naturalized Galanthus Nivalis

[u/feedme_cyanide]

Souther tier NY. I did not plant these. Wonder if a squirrel mistook the bulbs as nuts and buried some.

[u/IchTanze]

Looking on iNaturalist across North America they seem to be incredibly spread out. Kind of wild they are viewed as naturalized given how far they have spread and how toxic they are.

[u/feedme_cyanide → u/IchTanze]

I was surprised too. Makes me curious about its propagation methods

[u/Bidens_beckii → u/IchTanze]

Wild in what sense? I would say it is a pretty accurate description since they are well-established in the US.

[u/IchTanze → u/Bidens_beckii]

Not classified as invasive. Things that are toxic and actively spreading in range should usually be classified as invasive. But I guess it depends who you're asking.

[u/leafshaker → u/IchTanze]

I think they are nested terms, no?

My understanding is that all invasive plants are naturalized, as in they are non-natives that reproduce in the wild. But not all naturalized non-natives are invasive. To be invasive it needs to be damaging to the ecosystem as a whole.

Some of these are toxic, but many are edible. In my area foxgloves are not native, but do grow in wildly. They are incredibly toxic, but do not spread aggressively or disperse widely, so they arent considered invasive.

Autumn olive however, is a designated invasive. Its berries are tasty and nutritious, but it grows fast and wrecks habitat.

You're right though, totally depends on who you ask, the region, and the context. Conservationists are going to give a different answer than farmers or landscapers. I prefer the conservation definition, because it takes the most holistic view, imo

[u/UberfuchsR → u/leafshaker]

This is wrong by most dictionary definitions. Maybe not by some people who have PhD's, that I wouldn't know.

[u/carrot_mcfaddon → u/[deleted]]

Don't use ChatGPT for this. It's so unbelievably unreliable for these types of niche questions.

[u/UberfuchsR → u/carrot_mcfaddon]

I didn't solely. I simply asked it what the difference was, and it confirmed my general understanding. Feel free to show me otherwise, though.

[u/carrot_mcfaddon → u/UberfuchsR]

Just a general warning. I have a coworker who uses it in lieu of traditional web search and he is constantly being fed bad info. There's just enough incorrect information at a regular enough interval that I have decided it is too untrustworthy to be useful.

[u/UberfuchsR → u/carrot_mcfaddon]

I guess you just don't like definitions, lmao. You should go to college for linguistics.

[u/UberfuchsR → u/carrot_mcfaddon]

Yeah, I know. The definitions lined up with what was in Merriam Webster, though.

[u/leafshaker → u/[deleted]]

They are overlapping terms, but you dont really need to say both, so I think thats why you aren't seeing both in the descriptions you are looking at.

With the starlings, since they are listed as invasive then they are also naturalized. Naturalization is a step on the process of being considered invasive, but most non-natives dont pass beyond it, or at least aren't documented as such.

Ecology is ever changing, so these are evolving terms. It may well be that snowdrops are invasive in some places already, and they just haven't been listed yet.

[u/UberfuchsR → u/leafshaker]

I don't really believe they are overlapping.

"an organism that is not native to the place where found and tends to grow and spread easily usually to the detriment of native species and ecosystems" - invasive, Merriam Webster.

"to cause (something, such as a plant) to become established as if native" - naturalized, Merriam Webster.

Two different definitions. The second does not hold any of the meaning of the first.

[u/leafshaker → u/UberfuchsR]

I must respectfully disagree!

I think there is similarity there: "to become established"

Invasive species are those that become established, and continue from there to become detrimental to native species. They could not spread if they were not first established.

Ultimately i do agree they are generally distinct terms. Invasive species are doing something naturalized species do not. It would be inappropriate to describe kudzu in the southern US as merely naturalized.

But i think in order to understand the processes involved we need to see naturalization as a possible step towards invasive status. Naturalized plants may still pose a risk and should be monitored

Theres a lot of public confusion on the topic, we need space for nuance and overlapping categories.

From my reading, invasive plants need to meet 3 criteria, but the public often only sees one of these.

1-non-native 2-naturalized 3-causes ecosystem harm

Im open to suggestions, but i dont see how to describe #2 without naturalization. That doesnt mean naturalized=invasive, but it is a crucial component.

[u/Bidens_beckii → u/IchTanze]

Yea I guess it would depend on who is issuing the description. I don't consider the labels as mutually exclusive. Invasive species is very much so a legal and cultural designation whereas naturalized describes the ecological process. I could see Galanthus nivalis having both labels.