Matt Chew has presented an interesting perspective on how the Nature editorial (Davis et al. 2011, Don’t judge species by their origins) came into being. I have significant concerns about the paper, which while certainly interesting and provocative, does not live up to the standards of Nature. While this may be in part a product of the editing process and limitations that Matt described, responsibility for the commentary remains with the authors. Nature informed me that the piece was not peer-reviewed. While peer reviewing would not be appropriate for the message of any editorial, it should help ensure that facts are correct and interpretations are fairly presented. I won’t comment here (until the bottom) about the message, but I will comment about facts and what is best described as unfortunate presentation that should have received the attention of an editor or the self restraint of the authors, assuming they all read the final product. This is a scientific commentary. Words like “vilified” and “beloved `native’ species”, “pervasive bias”, “apocalyptic” and “rightful” are best left to bodice rippers or American talk radio. “Classifying biota according to their adherence to cultural standards of belonging, citizenship, fair play or morality does not advance our understanding of ecology.” It does seems to be advancing an argument that plants have a consciousness that makes them capable of culture and ethics. Tomkins (1973: The Secret Life of Plants) advanced this hypothesis but it has not really received scientific support until this editorial in Nature. Poor editing or ? Six of ten references are by co-authors. There is a near absence of literature from the “invasive species biology” that they are commenting on, the sole exception being a 1998 paper, while all the others are from 2009-2011. Fairness should have called for citing one or more current references about how invasive species biology and management are actually practiced, rather than presenting their one sided picture. Again poor editing? They give an example of a long term eradication effort in Australia involving devil’s claw plant (Martynia annua). They claim “There is little evidence that the species ever merited such intensive management”, quoting a paper by one of the co-authors (Gardner et al. 2010. Rangeland J. 32: 407-417). In reality, this species is considered a pest because of its “clawed fruits cause injury and discomfort to animals having been know to work their way into soft body parts” (Smith 2002, Weeds of the wet/dry tropics of Australia, Environment Centre NT.) and Gardner wrote that it is “of moderate annoyance to the cattle industry” (Gardner et al. 2010). As we know from the Yellowstone/Montana wolf situation, what is “little evidence” to academics but a moderate annoyance to cattlemen can trigger control and eradication efforts. The authors ask whether the “effort is worth it?” for this eradication effort. They ignore the conclusion of co-author Gardner (et al. 2010), that the effort was a valuable training exercise for 200 or 400 participants (both are given), especially for 82 “Aboriginal Rangers” from “Traditional Owners” of the land who subsequently took over management of the area. Did Gardner actually read the final draft or did the other authors not read Gardner’s paper? Similarly for tamarisk in the western U.S., the three references are problematic. Two are by co-authors. In the third, they reference Aukema et al Bioscience 60: 886-897 in support of their statement that “Tamarisks. . .arguably have a crucial role in the functioning of the human modified river bank environment”. Unfortunately Aukema et al wrote on the historical accumulation of nonindigenous forest pests in the Continental United States and I can find no reference to tamarisk, much less documentation for the statement. Finally, tamarisk management is not settled science in the West, so a more balanced selection of literature might have been helpful. The reference to the number of successful plant eradications in Galapagos has no citation. The authors cite the Ring-necked Pheasant as one among “many of the species that people think of as native are actually alien.” It isn’t clear who “the people” are. Most ecologists know the pheasant is introduced if they work in the area. In any event the pheasant is irrelevant. It is managed as a game bird, not controlled as an invasive species, unless there are local efforts which the authors do not mention. Editing should have removed this whole section. Finally, the authors use straw dog arguments which, while effective propaganda, are poor writing. Claiming that the “native versus non-native dichotomy in conservation is declining and even becoming unproductive” they cite Flieschman et al. (Bioscience 61) as proof that “many conservationists still consider the distinction a core guiding principle”. The paper in question lists 40 top priorities for science to inform management. As Davis et al. admit, invasive alien species can have negative effects, so it is a straw dog to complain that these principles actually consider the impact of non-native species. A better reference might prove their point, or not. Better editing or better writing might have helped. Here are the priorities that mention non-natives: 35. How will changing levels of human activity in the Arctic that are enabled by climate change affect Arctic ecosystems? Cli- mate change has already resulted in the relocation of native villages along the Arctic coast and will enable expansion of human activities, such as transportation (van Loon 2007) and development of energy sources, in terrestrial and marine ecosystems in the Arctic. Unintended movement of nonnative species also is likely to increase. 31. How will changes in land use and climate affect factors that facilitate the spread of nonnative species? Changes in land use and climate will affect modes and rates of introduction of nonnative species, which may complicate efforts to achieve ecological and agricultural targets. Among the many fac- tors likely to increase rates of pathogen transmission and colonization by nonnative species are increases in air travel and increases in sea traffic in Arctic regions (facilitated by melting of sea ice). The introduction and spread of nonna- tive species may require developing and implementing new strategies for screening imports, assessing the potential for ballast water and hull fouling on ships to introduce species, detection, rapid response, and restoration. 25. At what threshold values of abiotic or biotic attributes do ecosys- tems change abruptly in response to species extirpations or species introductions? Changes in species composition affect ecosys- tems at multiple levels, from mutualisms or predator-prey relations to disturbance regimes. For example, the invasion of nonnative annual grasses has changed fire dynamics across the western United States (Knick et al. 2005). Few methods exist to detect impending threshold events. Knowledge of thresholds at which changes in ecosystems are irreversible would help prioritize responses to declines or introductions of species by management agencies. 9. How do population dynamics respond to the independent and interactive effects of multiple Stressors? The responses of particular species to a given Stressor, such as habitat loss, drought, invasion of a nonnative species, or harvest, often are fairly well known. By comparison, mechanistic under- standing of how species respond to the cumulative effects of multiple Stressors and their interactions is limited. Lack of knowledge constrains robust assessments of cumulative effects required under policies such as the National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for public and private organizations. Another straw dog: “Clearly natural resource agencies and organizations should base their management plans on sound empirical evidence and not on unfounded claims of harm by non-natives.” Do they really think managers would knowingly base their efforts on unsound empirical evidence? Of course if we scientists haven’t provided any such evidence, managers just have to muddle through. And “We must embrace (more bodice ripping -DCD) the fact of “novel ecosystems” and incorporate many alien species into management plans, rather than try to achieve the often impossible goal of eradicating them or drastically reducing their abundance”. Isn’t that what we call agriculture, a field where which invasive species biology springs, in part? Good editing might have produced a little less high horse and a bit more dirt under the fingernails. In sum, this commentary could have used a good edit and the authors should have exhibited some professional restraint, in the absence of peer review. **** Now I going to make my own comments about the content of the paper, as opposed to its presentation, facts and writing. I suspect this commentary will appear to managers of real time/real world situations as yet another demonstration that academic science is about publishing papers, not about actually helping. Given limited resources, managers prioritize constantly, so telling them to start doing so is more than a bit fatuous. Given the frequent absence of scientific studies about a particular species, managers will continue to make the best decisions they can with the information they have. Being lectured to by academics, managers will be less likely to listen in the future. Of course this will give future academics the chance to publish a similar commentary in a decade or so, but meanwhile the same problems will continue. Finally good science in alien species biology or whatever the authors wish to call it will be futile in terms of the real world unless it considers people. People decide if species are a problem, and science is only part of that decision. The tamarisk issue is probably more about visions of what the West should be, or value judgments about native plants versus Willow Flycatchers, than about water flow. The devil’s claw eradication effort appears to have always been more about culture and education (and, yes, winning a case of beer!) than about concerns over nutrient cycling. Commentaries like this that lambast the real world for not living up to the authors’ scientific standards are the proverbial one hand clapping. To be blunt, often the best thing we academics could do is sit down, shut up, share a beer with a manager, and listen. And yes I too need to follow my own advice. David Duffy University of Hawaii
David Cameron Duffy Ph.D. Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany University of Hawaii Manoa 3190 Maile Way, St John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Tel 808-956-8218, FAX 808-956-4710 http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/
