plants as teachers

Introduction - i and We

My work sits at the intersection of ecological restoration, critical ecology, herbalism, and a love ethic that understands Land and more-than-human beings as relations and disrupts colonial conservation. When I use “we,” I speak from my positionality, multiple identities and communities of practice. That is how I imagine ways of caring for Land that support collective liberation in a warming world.

Valuing the contributions of non-native species 

Sax, D. F., Schlaepfer, M. A., & Olden, J. D. (2022). Valuing the contributions of non-native species to people and nature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 37(12), 1058–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.08.005

Heavy Inspiration for the talk and many hours of rumination about the topic comes from this paper. The authors discuss a shift in perspective regarding non-native species. Traditionally, research has focused on their negative impacts, but this paper suggests considering non-native species' positive consequences. The authors present a framework to assess these positive outcomes, including benefits to social cohesion, cultural identity, mental health, food and fuel production, clean water regulation, and climate change mitigation. They argue that past biases against non-native species have hindered scientific progress and policy development, emphasizing the importance of studying both the costs and benefits of these species in future research. Also see episode IPM & medicinal weeds.

Where I Am Coming From as an Ecological Restoration Practitioner

Gann, G. D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C. R., Jonson, J., Hallett, J. G., Eisenberg, C., Guariguata, M. R., Liu, J., Hua, F., Echeverría, C., Gonzales, E., Shaw, N., Decleer, K., & Dixon, K. W. (2019). International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration (2nd ed.). Society for Ecological Restoration. Restoration Ecology, 27(S1), S1–S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13

The SER International Principles and Standards provide a globally accepted framework for ecological restoration. This talk focuses on and critiques the 1st four: principles: 1) engaging stakeholders, 2)  draws on many types of knowledge, 3) disrupting nostalgic native reference ecosystems, and 4) how to support ecosystem recovery in novel ecosystems. This document is one-of -a-kind, but relegates or neglects stewardship of urban ecosystems and environmental justice to less than optimal "ecosytem recovery."

Climate Impacts to Forests and Communities

Climate change is not a future scenario. We are already being observed through hotter days and nights, more extreme heat, heavier rain, warmer and more acidic oceans, and reduced snowpack. At around 1.5°C of warming, these patterns intensify, pushing ecosystems and communities into new conditions that many plants and infrastructure were never designed for. By the end of the century, rising seas, stronger storms, more flooding, and increased fire risk become part of the baseline we’re managing land within, not exceptions. 

What I Mean by Climate Adaptation

Brown, A. M. (2021). Holding change: The way of emergent strategy facilitation and mediation. AK Press. Honestly, read everything from amb https://adriennemareebrown.net/ 

adrienne maree brown’s Holding Change explores how we relate well to change by attending to connection, conflict, and coordination with others as a dynamic and evolving process rather than a static endpoint. Her work emphasizes being in right relationship with change. This means engaging with uncertainty, embodiment, and mutual shaping, which resonates with how we might approach ecological change and habitat management as ongoing, relational work rather than something to be controlled.

Lynch, A. J., Thompson, L. M., Beever, E. A., Cole, D. N., Engman, A. C., Hawkins Hoffman, C., ... & Wilkening, J. L. (2021). Managing for RADical ecosystem change: applying the Resist‐Accept‐Direct (RAD) framework. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 19(8), 461-469.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2387  

The Resist–Accept–Direct (RAD) framework helps people caring for land decide whether to try to hold conditions where they are, allow changes that are already happening, or intentionally guide landscapes toward new possibilities as the climate shifts. This framing encourages honest choices about change while asking who is making those choices, whose values are centered, and how care for land and people can move together. 

Our Mental Health and Range of Climate Emotions

Pihkala, P. (2022). Toward a taxonomy of climate emotions. Frontiers in Climate, 3, Article 738154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.738154 

We are exposed to a lot of "climate grief porn" in popular media. This this publication is incredible for exploring the wide range of emotions people feel in response to the climate crisis and how climate disruption stirs up "positive" emotions of /influence actions, resilience, and well-being. I think it is important to have an awareness of how emotional responses to habitat care (like feeling overwhelmed or inspired) are part of a larger pattern, and how naming and validating those feelings can support collective care. Also see episode all the feelings under the sun. 

Novel Urban Ecosystems - Terrain Vague & "Abandoned" Places

See episodes justice in novel ecosystems and empty lots 

Critcal Ecology of Urban Ecosystems

Nelson, R. K., Winling, L., Connolly, N. D. B., Ayers, E. L., & Marciano, R. (Eds.). (n.d.). Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America. Digital Scholarship Lab, University of Richmond. Retrieved January 2026, from https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/

City of Tacoma. (n.d.). Urban Tree Canopy layer [GIS dataset]. Tacoma Open Data. Retrieved January 2026, from https://data.tacoma.gov/ (Urban tree canopy percentages, land cover analysis)

City of Tacoma. (2018). Urban Heat Island/UHI Index 2018 (Portland State University) [GIS Dataset]. Tacoma Open Data. Retrieved January 2026, from https://data.tacoma.gov/datasets/b8f00e7aa8cc453bbd56825af6c1afa1_0/explore?location=47.238907%2C-122.456224%2C11.70 

A critical ecology perspective who shaped that story, under what conditions, and who benefits from it. Examples draw on redlining (the practice of categorically denying access to mortgages not just to individuals but to whole neighborhoods) in the Seattle/Tacoma area. Intentional disinvestment in multicultural neighborhoods menas those places experience higher surface temperatures, demonstrating how racist policies created uneven tree canopy that subsequently produce persistent heat disparities within many metropolitan cities in the United States. Also see episode urban heat.

Defintions of terms - native, invasive and adaptive

“Native” usually refers to species that were present in a place before large-scale colonial disturbance, but the exact baseline is often unclear and value-laden. “Invasive” is commonly used to describe species that spread autonomously and cause concern, yet the term often mixes ecological observation with fear-based or moral judgment rather than focusing on conditions driving that spread. “Adaptive” shifts the focus away from where a species came from and toward what it can tolerate or contribute under current and future conditions, helping us make more practical, context-aware decisions in a changing climate. 

"Non-Native" & Degraded" Forests Cool the City

Crown, C. A., Pregitzer, C. C., Clark, J. A., & Plitt, S. (2023). Cooling cities: Harnessing natural areas to combat urban heat. Natural Areas Conservancy. from https://naturalareasnyc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/NAC-Cooling-Cities.pdf

“Degraded” is a management label, not an absence of value. In this study, degradation is defined by metrics like alienated species presence, canopy gaps, and understory condition - not by loss of cooling function. The data show cooling persists even under disturbance. Labeling sites as “degraded” can obscure their ongoing ecological roles, cultural meaning, and adaptive potential; especially in urban contexts shaped by redlining, disinvestment, and rapid land use change. Even the places we call ‘degraded’ are doing real climate work. The problem isn’t that they exist. It’s that we’ve underfunded their care. 

Ciecko, L., Tenneson, K., Dilley, J., & Wolf, K. L. (2012). Seattle’s forest ecosystem values: Analysis of the structure, function, and economic benefits. Green Cities Research Alliance, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Although the Seattle report does not explicitly use the word “degraded” as a formal category, it does clearly describe conditions that are often treated as degraded in practice, especially when compared to Natural Area Parks. The report itself notes that both native and non-native species contribute to ecosystem services, including pollution removal, carbon storage, and energy savings. So, instead of asking whether a site is degraded, we might ask: Degraded for whom? Compared to which moment in time? And what kinds of life are already making do here?  

Plant Monographs

A plant monograph is a focused profile of a single plant that brings together ecological, medicinal, cultural, and political knowledge. It describes who the plant is, which parts are used for medicine, and its herbal actions (how the plant works in the body) along with health benefits, cultural considerations, and how the plant is regulated, valued, or contested. Monographs help us move beyond seeing plants as problems and instead understand them as complex beings in relationship with people and place.

Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima)

Ailanthus altissima has been used in traditional Chinese medicine and was one of the earliest Asian trees introduced to Europe (1740s) and North America (1780s). Matthew Gandy uses Tree of Heaven as an example of how urban plants reflect cultural and historical narratives - appearing in marginal spaces not because they are inherently harmful, but because they can survive where others cannot and force us to question inherited notions of belonging.

English Ivy Monograph & Example

See episode ivyland 

Bias Shapes How We Judge Species 

Bias shapes how we judge plants in the same way it shapes how we judge people. We may use shortcuts based on familiarity, fear, and dominant stories rather than context from our local situation. Naming these biases helps us slow down, question our assumptions, and make more thoughtful habitat decisions - especially as climate change pushes ecosystems beyond what we expect. So, let's stay in conversation even when it’s uncomfortable, invite minority/dissenting perspectives.

Why Language Matters

“Most Wanted” posters for so-called invasive species borrow directly from law-enforcement and propaganda traditions, framing unwanted plants, insects, and fungi as criminals to be hunted, controlled, or eradicated. This trope echoes the violent history of Wanted posters - from enslaved people who liberated themselves to wartime enemies - and turns ecology and conservation into a policing narrative that encourages fear, exclusion, and even vigilante harm rather than understanding, care, or responsibility. Also see episode invasive resistance and the Just Language blog post.dominant narratives, welcome uncertainty, and treat plants as teachers.

Just Language in Habitat Care in a Warming World

Just Language in Ecology Education begain during the era of the COVID pandemic. The group examines and attempts to shift the way people talk about ecology, especially language rooted in fear, war, or exclusion, so that ecological education and stewardship can be more inclusive, equitable, and culturally aware. The Conversation Guide helps people understand why ecological language matters, how traditional terms like “invasive” can carry violent or xenophobic connotations, and what questions to ask as you explore more intentional alternatives. The Language Guide offers suggested terminology alternatives and invites practitioners to consider how different words can foreground human involvement, ecological context, and relational understanding rather than fear or blame. Also see episode words about weeds. 

Many Types of Knowledge

Rayne, A., Tadaki, M., Crowley, S. L., Farr, A., Gibbs, L., Kitson, J. C., Rodgers, R. P., & Reo, N. J. (2025). Renegotiating species belonging in a changing world. Progress in Environmental Geography, 4(4), 412–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/27539687251388150 

This article explores how debates about whether a species “belongs” in a place are shaped by different registers - such as nativeness, wildness, contributions, and right relations - and by the values and worldviews that underlie them. Incorporating this framework helps move beyond simplistic labels like “invasive” toward more nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to habitat management and climate adaptation, which aligns with today’s emphasis on listening to plant signals and centering relationships over rigid categories

Species Reshuffling - Questions for Value Transparency

Lundgren, E. J., Svenning, J.-C., Schlaepfer, M. A., Wallach, A. D., Andersson, A. L. A., Marris, E., Rohwer, Y., & Ramp, D. (2025). Many pasts, many futures: Navigating the complexities of species reshuffling to help prevent extinctions. Cambridge Prisms: Extinction. https://doi.org/10.1017/ext.2025.10010 

1. Is this species doing something different from similar native species?
   If we didn’t know its history, would we even notice it was “introduced”?

2. Is there any way this species could be seen as not harmful?
   Are we measuring harm in a way that allows the answer to be something other than “bad”?

3. What’s really causing its impact?
   Are its effects driven by bigger changes like lost predators, pollution, land use, fire suppression, or climate change rather than by the species itself?

4. Which claims are really about values, not just facts?
   When we say things like “healthy,” “invasive,” or “degraded,” what beliefs about how nature should be are shaping our science?

5. What would change if we cared about different things?
   If we prioritized other values (like preventing extinction, cultural use, or autonomy of ecosystems), how would our goals and measures of success look different?

6. Whose values are shaping this project - and who is affected?
   Which values agree or clash in this work, and which ones best fit the people and communities who live with the outcomes?