Of course, if burning bush is not invasive in Vermont, or if the invasion is still in its early stages, Kelly will not find it crowding out the natives in the local woodlands. What, exactly, would that mean? Is there an invasive species that's found to be invasive absolutely everywhere it's introduced? Why invasive species are not invasive everywhere is one of the major questions in conservation biology, but it's foolish to dismiss the entire concept of biological invasions just because there are cases where a notorious invader fails to invade.
Millions of people with HIV don't have AIDS. Most smokers never get lung cancer. Most of the time, when someone drives somewhere drunk, they arrive safely at their destination. Should we conclude that HIV, smoking, and drunk driving are all harmless? On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:21 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I won't get involved in the larger philosophical questions in this > discussion - there are too many nuances, and I don,t have the time right > now, but I do want to say something about burning bush. > > Are there any woodlands near the burning bushes you mention? If so, take a > walk through them this fall and you should see lots of burning bushes where > they don't belong, crowding out native species which should be there > providing food and shelter for wildlife. Burning bush is not the worst of > the exotics (Bradford pear, English ivy, bamboo, Japanese honeysuckle, and > oriental bittersweet are far worse around Reston, VA) but it is among the > top ten. > > -- > Bob Mowbray > > "Nature has shrugged off countless > species in the history of the > earth--and she will one day shrug > off Homo sapiens sapiens with no > more concern than she has with any > of the others. And, the sooner > she does so, the sooner the earth > can get back to normal." --Louis > B. Ziegler > > -------------- Original message from Kelly Stettner < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -------------- > > Hmmm...I want to begin by emphatically agreeing that tardigrades ARE, in > point of fact, adorable. I want to make a calendar of them, actually. > *grin* > > Now...onto your post! > > You said that "Human introductions occur at a higher rate than > "natural" ones." Darwin noted many introductions in his time, from viable > seeds encased in dirt of the rootballs of trees adrift on the ocean to tiny > mussels attached to a duck's feet. I've seen water beetles with freshwater > mollusks adhering to their shells, and creatures from crocodiles to > dragonflies have been seen a hundred miles or more out at sea. There are > records of storms dropping all manner of creatures into new territory, > including seeds, worms, snails, frogs, eels, ants, and more -- nevermind > that moss spores can be recovered from rain drops and > > germinate, thousands of miles from their origin. Amazing! > > The article I was thinking of that discusses how our biases frame our > choices of > > research topics is in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment and is by > John > > R.U. Wilson et al: "The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests > of > > society" in Volume 5, Issue 8, pp. 409-414. > > > > One quick funny ~ here's a good visual for those who have a hard time > picturing > > a mollusk invasion: > > http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm120/brodyfairlane/Clams.jpg > > > > Okay, back to seriousness. Instead of "invasive" species, why aren't we > calling > > a spade a spade and calling them "harmful" species? There are relatively > few of > > them, we both agree. Here is a for-instance: burning bush is considered > an > > invasive species. Yet I have six different neighbors who have them on > their > > front lawns, plus our local shopping center has liberally peppered them > > throughout the property -- I've lived here for over ten years, and never > seen > > anyone sweating blood over the Battle of the Burning Bush. Where, > exactly, and > > how, exactly, are they invasive? To whom? Under what circumstances? > > > > Another question: if "natives" are so well-adapted to their "niche" in > their > > home territory, how can a newcomer "outcompete" them? This article in > the NY > > Times touches on a few of these ideas, but (more importantly, in my > estimation) > > points to scientific studies of Dr. Dov Sax, Dr. James Brown and others. > It > > also points to specifics, like the fact that 40 new species of freshwater > fish > > have been introduced to Hawaii, but the 5 native species have not become > > extinct. The article is here: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/science/09inva.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slog > > in&oref=slogin It is from the September 9, 2008 edition on page F1. > Those few > > "invasives" who do cause actual extinction do so locally, and also are > usually > > active predators, not competitors, according to the article. > > > > Also, conservation biology worries about conserving every species on the > > planet. Yet we don't even know how many there are, and dozens of new > species > > are being discovered every day, from mammals to mollusks, lichen to > lizards. > > Just look at the Great Barrier Reef recently, or Suriname. I gotta ask, > what do > > you consider a "unique" ecosystem, since ecosystems are constantly > changing? > > > > Your argument against allowing EVERY kind of change is one addressed in > > Theodoropoulos' book; there must be common sense and a serious > stewardship > > attitude -- but it must be an honest one. We can't and shouldn't protect > every > > species -- against what? Extinction? Adaptation? Evolution? > Extinction is a > > resource in and of itself and shouldn't be mourned; "loss" of one species > means > > more resources for others, and gives other species the opportunity to > adapt and > > to expand their range. > > > > Evolution can handle "snap-shots" -- look at Germany's Lake Constance and > the > > fact that Daphnia changed their feeding behavior to adapt to and eat > toxic > > cyanobacteria from phosphorus pollution. This adaptation happened in > less than > > 30 years. Now that's a snap-shot! > > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept99/rapid_evolution.hrs.html > > > > Here's another thought...whales have been protected and conserved for, > what, > > thirty years or a little longer? How are the world's fish stocks? Ask > around > > and the answers are looking pretty grim. There are some common themes: > in > > crisis...crashing...seriously degraded. At what point will we "allow" > whaling > > to resume, to "conserve" the precious herring and other fish that the > whales > > eat? > > > > America has been through so many ecological paradigms over the past 400 > years > > that it should be of no surprise that science progresses -- every answer > we find > > should pose more questions, and our paradigm ought to shift with our new > > knowledge and understanding. Human values sure are valid; every organism > on the > > planet uses resources, sometimes to ruination of the resource. I would > love to > > hear of another creature who intentionally repopulates a resource. > > > > Thank you all for your discussion, your patience, and your gracious > objectivity. > > > > Sincerely, > > Kelly Stettner > > From: Peter Coffey > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu > > Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 5:12 PM > > > > > > > > Kelly, > > Thanks for your speedy reply. I agree that actions based on fear are > often > > futile and rash, however I don't thing that conservation should only be > applied > > to cases where something of "value" is in danger--unless you consider > unique and > > variable ecosystems to all have value, which I do, and thus it always > applies. I > > agree, human introductions do not outnumber "natural ones"--all > introductions > > before we evolved are obviously "natural"-- what I was referencing is the > > frequency with which these introductions occur. Human introductions occur > at a > > higher rate than "natural" ones. I agree that without change there is > > stagnation, but evolution works at a rate that sometimes cannot handle > the > > effects of our "snapshot in time." To argue that all change is good > simply puts > > you in a position of defending anyone's right to do whatever...why stop > > pollution, urban sprawl, or strip mining? They're all just change... > > I agree that conservation efforts are "dependent" on our > heartstrings--that is > > why red wolves and pandas adorn our calenders. However, is there any > point to > > conservation, does anything have any "value," except from an emotional > point of > > view? Is human utilitarianism a valid method of ascribing "value" to > anything? > > > > -Peter > > > > P.S. I think tardigrades are so freakin' cute! > > > > > > > -- James Crants PhD, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Michigan Cell: (734) 474-7478
