Timothy Lee Scott

I was already convinced that our nation’s approach to plants had serious problems, and didn’t need to be convinced by Scott so I skimmed through most of this book. His introductory sections were a joy to read, as Scott challenges our idea of the way the earth is, our idea of a static state. His basic premise is that organisms do not become invasive because of some negative quality they have but because there is an imbalance in the habitat (often caused by human actions such as mining, use of toxins, agricultural practices which deplete soil nutrients, or denuding existing plant cover) in which these plants can survive and in which their presence can eventually remediate the habitat and bring it back to a healthy condition (his summary chart on pp. 112-3 of environmental benefits is a good stimulus toward rethinking our attitude). From a human point of view, however, we are attached to our conception of a pre-existing wilderness and we don’t have the patience to wait for the decades it may take for these “invasive” plants to do their work and make room for the next set of plants.
The best “ah-ha” I got from this book is his look at the history of America’s war on invasives, and identifying who benefits from this (as any good detective would do in solving a crime). His answer is: the chemical companies who produce the herbicides which our nation is purchasing by the billions of dollars. They are the ones who, by sleight of hand, shift our focus from the real causes (which I summarized above) to the “alien” plants. We need to pay more attention to the negative impacts of herbicides on human and ecological health.
Scott presents a non-traditional view of plants as messengers, of an intelligence which brings the healing plants we need even before we are aware of a need for them. In addition to the environmental remediation many provide by breaking down pollutants, absorbing heavy metals, and cleaning our waterways, some plants are specifically effective against Lyme disease and MRSA, and can chelate heavy metal toxicity in humans. A small criticism of his chart (pp 148-9) showing the pathogens a plant is effective against-- those effects which have been scientifically proven should be in bold rather than the ones Scott assumes would be effective.
Pages 178-318 dealt with 24 specific plants, giving first an impressionistic view of the plant, then detailing uses in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Ayurveda, and Western Botanical Medicine; listing chemical compounds identified in the plant and pharmacological actions (simply by label, e.g. antiviral, diuretic, anodyne); and summarizing scientific studies, other uses, and ecological importance. Although he has an extensive bibliography and references for each of the 24 plant sections, they are not all from peer-reviewed scientific sources and not all his statements have backup. For example, even on my quick read, I noticed his claim for dandelion in his section on scientific studies that it has shown antimicrobial activity against 8 different disease organisms yet none of the references dealt with that. As a book for the general public, it is fine to cite inspirational sources, but someone reading for scientific verification would want to do more follow-up.
Some of his claims I question because they contradict what some of my scientific friends have claimed—tho I haven’t asked them yet if they base their statements on data or just impressions. For example, that phragmites habitat is used by a number of species and a diversity of plants coexist with it (p.62, no references given for his statement “in most field studies”& p 265). We have a massive phragmites growth in my area and university professors here state that birds do not use it for nesting as they did the previous cattail/sedge growth, & it does not readily decay so other plants have difficulty sprouting thru the dead mat.
Scott does not deal with how to preserve those native plants that we love. It is beyond the scope of this book. He does mention that he is restoring the ecosystem around his home, and points out an example from the 2006 Dep’t of Ag budget which had only $42 million spent on habitat restoration while $722 million was spent on invasive control (herbicides/pesticides).… (meer)