JSAS paper revised

This is edited text, unformatted, with no illustrations. For the full, final version please see the book Invasive and Introduced Plants and Animals as cited below: Please cite as S. Pooley, ‘Fire and Loathing in the Fynbos’, in I. Rotherham, R. Lambert (ed.s), Invasive and Introduced Plants and Animals: Human Perceptions, Attitudes and Approaches to Management (Earthscan, 2011) available at: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415830690/ Fire and Loathing in the Fynbos: Notions of indigenous and alien vegetation in South Africa’s Western Cape, c.1902-1945 Simon Pooley Introduction In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, botanists in South Africa’s Western Cape felt hard pressed to popularise and protect the unique indigenous Fynbos flora of the region. They saw themselves ranged against the extensive transformations of the landscape being undertaken by farmers and foresters, the expansion of urban areas and infrastructure, and the depredations of flower pickers. The introduction of a suite of invasive alien plants into the region in the nineteenth century, notably a range of Australian species well suited to the poor nutrients and rainfall and fire regimes of the region, presented a physical but also a symbolic focus for their advocacy. In the early twentieth century this was played out in the context of political attempts to build unity among the English and Afrikaner populations after the South African War ended in 1902. The new science of ecology was consciously used as an integrative influence. However, the ecological theory imported with the experts arriving from Britain in the period of reconstruction, as influential a biological invasion as the earlier wave of alien plant imports, had unfortunate consequences for scientifically-informed research and management of the local flora. Naturalising a ‘state without a nation’ William Beinart uses used the phrase ‘a state without a nation’ to described the period of South African history from 1888-1948 (Beinart, 1994, p7). After the South African War of 1899–1902, Saul Dubow argues, the ideology of South Africanism ‘emerged to inhabit the space left by a retreating imperialism and a temporarily broken republicanism’ (Dubow, 2006, p5). In this context, Dubow argues that science was used to express universality and progress within the imperial ‘chain of civilization’, and was regarded as a means of uniting moderate Afrikaners and British colonials in a positive and progressive patriotism (Ibid.) Preservationist and conservationist movements led to the founding of the Kruger National Park in 1926, and a patriotic pride in the South African landscape was evoked, with Table Mountain as the ultimate symbol of national unity.

In 1913, the National Botanical Gardens were founded at Kirstenbosch in Cape Town, on the southern slopes of Table Mountain, with Harold Pearson (1870–1916) as the first Director. The purpose of the garden was to combine useful research with the cultivation and display of the newly unified country’s indigenous flora. The Botanical Society of South Africa was founded in the same year. Kirstenbosch’s second director, (Robert) Harold Compton, would use the rhetoric of patriotism to mobilise support for the protection of the country’s ‘natural wealth’, its indigenous flora. One of the reasons he gave for encouraging South Africans to grow indigenous flowers in their gardens ‘is because they are South African’ (his emphasis) (Compton, 1927, p3). Compton and the founding of Kirstenbosch are discussed by Dubow (2006). Van Sittert has described how what he calls ‘floral nativism provided both a sense of identity for emerging White settler nationalism and a justification for evicting the underclass from the commons’ (Van Sittert, 2001, p113). It is worth recalling that the National Botanical Survey, which was initiated in 1918 under Illtyd Buller Pole Evans, director of the Department of Botany at the Department of Agriculture, and whose patrons included the first Union Prime Minister, Louis Botha, and then his successor Jan Smuts, was made possible by the establishment of the Union of South Africa in 1910. Botany became professionalized in this period, and was explicitly seen by Smuts as a way of promoting unity in the country. As Peder Anker puts it: Unity through diversity was the new approach, and the means to achieve it was ecology. The ecologists could – armed with the science of botanical relations and succession – unite environments that formerly were divided by topography and climate. (Anker, 2002, p65) Botany, patriotism and the politics of national unity were closely bound up, and in his guide to undertaking ecological work, the influential Natal-based botanist and ecologist John William Bews (1884–1938) made these links explicit, recommending that ecologists use the language of sociology to describe relationships in the plant world (Ibid., p62). Northern Hemisphere ecology invades Bews, one of the most influential South African ecologists of the first half of the twentieth century, was at this time importantly influenced by, and disseminating, the Nebraskan ecologist Frederic Clements’s idea of succession. Clements’s ecology, influential since the publication of his Research Methods in Ecology (1905) and summed up in his book Plant Succession (1916), might best be described as ‘dynamic’. Bews discussed Clements’ research methods and his influence on plant ecology in this period (Bews, 1935, p3). He Clements argued that vegetation progresses linearly through a series of increasingly complex stages towards a stable climax community, which is in equilibrium with the prevailing environmental conditions. In the initial stages of succession, soil is more important, but ultimately it is climatic factors, rainfall, temperature and winds, which determine the nature of the climax community. Climate thus drives a linear unidirectional succession towards a single vegetation type

(monoclimax), though a variety of disturbances (notably fire) may inhibit or temporarily reverse this progression (see Worster, 1994, pp208–236Clements, 1916). While Anker has noted the ‘South Africanisation’ of botany in the early decades of the century, imputing nationalistic motives, it is also simply the case that the field was dominated by British men trained in temperate climes who were influenced by soiloriented notions of phytogeography. As Bews, Professor of Botany at Natal University College (from 1910–38), pointed out in an address to the South African Association for the Advancement of Science in 1920, botany was mostly taught by imported teachers using syllabi drawn up on northern hemisphere lines and using foreign textbooks: ‘even now we have no satisfactory South African textbook of Botany’ (Bews, 1921, p65). In 1916, six years after his arrival in Natal from Edinburgh to take up the province’s first professorship in botany, Bews had sought to remedy the lack of an ecologically-informed overview of the region’s vegetation in his paper ‘An Account of the Chief Types of Vegetation in South Africa, with Notes on the Plant Succession.’ Bews frames his overview of the main vegetation formations of the region within the concept of vegetative succession advanced by the American ecologists Henry Cowles and Frederic Clements. It followed from their work that if climatic and geological conditions remain stable, then climax vegetation formations should be resistant to invasion (Bews, 1916, p131). Bews bases his description of the ‘Sclerophyllous Formations’ (now collectively known as the Fynbos Biome) of the winter rainfall region of the Western Cape on his own fieldwork and the publications of the famous Cape botanist Rudolf Marloth. These winter rainfall formations show a succession, he argues, through lichen associations, lithophilous mosses, chomophytic vegetation, to heath. What he terms ‘Macchia’ (Fynbos vegetation) is ‘another sclerophyllous formation, much more extensive,’ which is ‘the climax type for its own climatic habitat’ (Bews, 1916, p137). Unfortunately, this influential linear, synchronous explanation of the dynamics of Fynbos vegetation proved to be disastrously misleading. There was little room, in the interpretation of Clementsian ecology adopted in South Africa, for the role of disturbances such as fire in the functioning of the ‘natural system’. Rather, there was a strong tendency to interpret fire as an anthropogenic disruption of the ‘natural balance’. This is particularly unfortunate as Fynbos is a highly fire-adapted vegetation type. It is not possible to understand Fynbos ecology without investigating the complex range of plant strategies for coping with and taking advantage of stochastic variations in fire frequencies and behaviour. The idea that fire degrades the natural vegetation of the region led to some regrettable misinterpretations which had negative consequences for environmental management for decades to follow. Further, the idea of the climax community of plants as an integrated organism, as argued by Clements, further obscured the ecology of Fynbos plants. According to recent interpretations, it is in fact the different (unsynchronised) strategies evolved by various plant species to a variety of kinds and frequencies of fire events that accounts, in part, for the sustained diversity of plants in the vegetation type. Variation in fire regimes prevents

the long-term dominance of any one species, thus maintaining the coexistence of numerous species. The structure and species dominance apparent in a Fynbos community at any one time is likely to be highly influenced by the intensity of the last fire, and time elapsed since it occurred, confounding attempts to recognise a stable climax community (Rebelo et al., 2006, pp82-85). A remarkable (though not unique) feature of the period was the preference of botanists for studying ecosystems in a ‘natural’ and ‘undisturbed’ state, notably excluding the influence of human beings on the landscape. This resulted in a tendency to denigrate ‘secondary’ vegetation types perceived to have been interfered with by humans, and vigorous campaigns to preserve ‘virgin’ indigenous vegetation against invasion by alien interlopers and damaging practices such as veld burning. Rebelo et al. (in Mucina and Rutherford (eds.), 2006) address issues of fire in ‘Fynbos Biome’. On the question of plant invasions, Bews remarks that in the formations of vegetation he identified in South Africa, no one species dominates. He observes that the Australian wattle species Acacia mollissima, extensively planted in Natal, has had spread naturally and where it has had established itself ‘hardly any native species is able to exist.... An introduced species therefore is apparently able to assume complete dominance, while our native species of trees are not.’ However Bews argues that on the whole ‘the vegetation of South Africa ... is resistant to invaders’ (Bews, 1916, 157). Under ‘natural’ circumstances, then, the advanced, complex, climax stage of indigenous vegetation must be resistant to invasion as it is the best adapted possible vegetation formation for the circumstances. It is only if this natural state of affairs is disturbed by human activity that invasion can occur. This was a view that was to persist until the 1980s, and is central to Oxford ecologist Charles Elton’s important text on biological invasions, The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Such confusions of ‘natural’ (or ‘native’) with ‘best adapted’ have subsequently been eloquently dismantled by evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould, who noted that in Darwin’s conception: Natural selection is only a “better than” principle, not an optimizing device … many native plants, evolved by natural selection as adaptive to their regions, fare poorly against introduced species that never experienced the local habitat. Further: …….since organisms (and their areas of habitation) are products of a history laced with chaos, contingency, and genuine randomness, current patterns (although workable, or they would not exist) will rarely express anything close to an optimum… (Gould, 1998, pp6, 7) Indigenous and alien invasions Late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century agricultural literature on invasive plants in South Africa reveals a focus on the invasion of productive agricultural land (particularly grazing lands) by unproductive or poisonous plants. These plants prospered

on disturbed lands, and as a result of selective grazing (livestock removed their more palatable competition). Although the bulk of the research covered alien plants, notably Prickly Pear (Opuntia spp), Port Jackson Willow (Acacia saligna), Blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon), Lantana camara, Tumble Weed (Salsola kali), various species of Hakea, and Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), the question of whether these invasive species were alien or indigenous appears not to have been a focus. (Moran (19820 1982) provides an overview of what was researched.) It was, rather, their negative effects which were of consequence. Indigenous species such as sweet thorn (Acacia karroo), Silver cluster-leaf (Terminalia sericea), sickle bush (Dichrostachys cinerea), Rhenosterbos (Elytropappus rhinocerotis) and Helichrysum argyrophyllum, or even vegetation formations such as rhenosterveld, were identified as problematic invaders of productive farm land, just as harmful as alien invasive species (see for instance Scott, 1935, p105; on Rhenosterbos and H. argyrophyllum, and see Schönland, 1923, pp102–104). In his highly influential Veld Types of South Africa (1953), agricultural researcher John Acocks (1911-1979) would identify even the much prized indigenous Fynbos as an ‘invader that threatened the local grassveld’ (Acocks, 1953, pp14, 17). He did so because he was writing a description of the vegetation of the country from the perspective of livestock farmers wanting to assess its grazing potential. Acocks’s vegetation units were conceived as units of vegetation homogenous enough to facilitate equivalent farming potential. He divided Fynbos (which he called Macchia) into lowland and montane Macchia, and he divided the latter into ‘mountain’ and ‘false’ Macchia. ‘False Macchia’ included all the Fynbos on the Cape Mountains from the central Swartberg and Langeberg all the way to the eastern limits of these ranges near Grahamstown. It was ‘false’ because he argued that it was derived from natural forest or grassland through human intervention: overgrazing, clearing or burning. Fynbos ecologist Richard Cowling has shown that this influential classification is inaccurate, and in the long term has proven harmful in its influence on the beliefs and land management practices of the agricultural community in the region (Cowling and Holmes, 1992, pp 41–42). Many non-native species were recommended by the agricultural authorities for specific qualities which in some cases made them more suitable to the farmers’ purposes than indigenous plants, notably hardy succulent species such as Agave and prickly pear (Opuntia species) which could be used for fencing, shelter, soil stabilisation and fodder in arid and semi-arid areas of the country. Even Port Jackson Willow was recommended as a ‘sluit stopper’ to help prevent erosion (for Agave, see du Toit et al. (eds.), 1923, p67, and for Opuntia species see Beinart, 2003, pp266–303). Even Port Jackson Willow was recommended as a ‘sluit stopper’ to help prevent erosion and (see Benke, 1908, p652). (Many of these species would subsequently be declared alien invasive plants (Wildy, 2006).) Agriculturalists did however draw attention to the alien nature of invasive vegetation in the case of exotic timber plantations. This was partly a turf war with the Department of Forestry; many of these trees were being planted in river catchment areas, deemed most

suitable for the imported species favoured at the time. Pastoral farmers wanted access to these mountain pastures as back up in times of drought, and further argued that the trees were drying up the water supplies. Eucalypts in particular were regarded as ‘thirsty’ trees which used more water than indigenous species. Early conflicts over this issue came to a head in the British Empire Forestry Conference held in South Africa in 1935 (see below) (Fourth British Empire Forestry Conference, 1936, pp3-6). Many of the species regarded as harmful invasive aliens were imported by foresters from the 1880s onwards. South Africa has very little indigenous timber, and the indigenous hardwoods are slow growing. For a country with a large and growing mining industry, developing its railway and telegraph networks, this was a serious lack. The drought commission report of 1923, while noting some potential drawbacks of planting exotic tree species en masse, pointed out that some 50% of South Africa’s irreplaceable imports (‘raw materials needed for continuous expansion and progress’), valued at £3,045,008, consisted of ‘timber, wooden manufactures and paper’. The timber famine experienced during the First World War had emphasised the fact that the country had no option but to afforest (du Toit et al. (eds.), 1926, p67). Foresters worked assiduously to see which tree species were best adapted to cultivation in the local conditions, in the process experimenting with numerous species of pine from Europe and the Americas, and eucalypts, wattles and others from Australia (Brown, 2003, p350). The stabilisation of dunes and drift sands has a longer history, with numerous species (notably species of Acacia, Hakea and Casuarinas) being imported (the majority from Australia) to the Cape from the 1840s (Avis, 1989, p57). The afforestation, particularly of mountain catchment areas, with exotic plantations, proved controversial. In addition to the concerns of farmers, botanists complained of the invasion of indigenous plant communities by introduced species, notably species of pine, eucalypts, Acacia and Hakea. South Africa’s Chief of Forest Management J.D.M. Keet, speaking at the British Empire Forestry Conference held in South African in 1935, acknowledged that there had ‘been a large agitation recently in South Africa against afforestation’ (Fourth British Empire Forestry Conference, 1936, pp48, 109, 115). He noted a variety of arguments advanced against afforestation, including the view that it destroys the natural flora, and that it spoils the natural beauty of the country. He relates that ‘It is our plantations, especially, that stand suspect. They are accused of being ecologically foreigners to our climate...’ (Ibid., p117). Keet grumbled that ‘there are South Africans … who cannot see any beauty in an exotic tree’ (Ibid., p49). He made the point that afforestation with exotics paid for the protection of much larger areas of indigenous flora (Ibid., pp48-49). At the same conference, South Africa’s P.C. Kotze noted that General (Jan) Smuts had called for ‘a compromise between the forester and a nature lover’. He recalled seeing a picture in: ……..one of the illustrated papers [in which] the General was shown on the slopes of Table Mountain on a hot day, sitting down on a bed of pine needles under the shade of Pinus pinaster. In the picture one could see what appeared to

be a patch of wag-’n’bietjie [the thorny Acacia caffra (Thunb.)] and protea bush, but the General did not take advantage of the seat of the wag-’n’bietjie, nor of the shade of the Fynbos, but sat under the pine trees. What better compromise could have been reached?. (Ibid., p178) This is certainly a powerful image of such a compromise and eloquent plea for tolerance, showing Smuts the well known botanist who liked to pose as the philosopher on the mountain, and is also a sly poke at the selective nature of complaints against exotics. The Jonkershoek Forest Influences Research Station was established in the upper catchment of the Eerste River near Stellenbosch in 1935, on the recommendation of the Fourth Empire Forestry Conference. The Conference concluded that the proposed studies of ‘the effects of forests on climate, water conservation and erosion’ would be ‘of inestimable advantage both to it and the world at large’ (Wicht, 1948, p4). This research was also deemed necessary in order to address the fears of ‘the public’, quite understandable in light of the narrative of desiccation of the country long propounded by experts, that ‘plantations of exotic pines, eucalypts and wattles might dry up water supplies, exhaust the soil and even promote erosion’ (Ibid.). These concerns are still prevalent, and form the rationale for the nationwide Working for Water Programme in South Africa today. (See Noemdoe, 2001, pp121–125 (Ibid.)). It was through these burning experiments, conducted as part of the forestry hydrological research programme, that foresters became particularly interested in the indigenous Fynbos. Further, in the 1930s large areas of mountain veld were bought and put under the control of the Department of Forestry, to conserve the vegetation and water resources (Wicht and Kruger, 1973, p8). This legitimated research on indigenous vegetation within forestry, alongside their focus on exotic timber trees. Defending the Realm: the Cape Floral Kingdom What was the nature of this indigenous Fynbos vegetation that made it worthy of such sustained botanical interest? The Cape Floral Kingdom (CFK) is the smallest of the world’s six plant kingdoms, comprising the southwestern corner of South Africa, a winter rainfall region experiencing long, hot, dry and windy summers, and relatively short, wet winters. For a discussion of ongoing attempts to classify Fynbos vegetation, see Rebelo et al., 2006, pp69–72. The CFK is astonishingly biodiverse, supporting nearly 9,000 species of plants, 69% of them endemic – thus 44% of southern Africa’s plant species, on 4% of its area (Rebelo et al., 2006, p91). Most of these species occur in the Fynbos (‘fine bush’) biome. Fynbos has evolved (and continues to evolve) in the context of nutrient poor soils, complex topography, pollinator specialisation, fire, and in response to the Mediterranean-type climate dominant in the region since the establishment of modern circulation patterns between 33 and 3 million years ago (Ibid., pp67, 93). The vegetation is highly adapted to fire, the natural occurrence of which was significantly boosted by fire-stick farming (to encourage natural fields of carbohydrate-rich geophytes) since the late Pleistocene Epoch

(