Ecology has long been, and continues to be, terminologically challenged. 16 years ago several of us (Fauth et al. 1996) made what we felt was a valiant attempt to bring some clarity to a set of terms that would seem to lend themselves to a degree of precision, or at least clear functional definition, and that had existing definitions in the literature. These included such staples as community, guild, ensemble, etc. The initial impetus for this was our observation that the term "community," a rather central term in ecology, was being essentially used to describe "the stuff I am studying, " rather than anything truly definable. So, we had "bird communities", "bat communities", "zooplankton communities," "larval anuran communities", and things like "benthic fish communities," "herbivore communities" and "pollinator communities," etc. etc. Obviously, NONE of these amalgams met any existing definition of community, but they did fit definitions of guild, assemblage, ensembl! e, etc. We thought, well, this should be easy enough to fix! Just lay it out clearly, in a logical structure, using existing definitions, and voila! The idea was picked up by John Lawton and has also appeared in several texts, but has to a large extent fallen on deaf ears. Why?? Go ask Alice - people DO apparently want a word to mean "just what I choose for it to mean - no more, no less."
So, 16 years later, an admittedly brief, unscientific, nonrandom survey of titles in ecology journals actually surprised me a bit, in that the ubiquitous use of the term "community" seems to be somewhat reduced in favor of more precise terms such as assemblage, or more detailed descriptors of what people are actually working on. Nonetheless, many of the old favorites are alive and well, "mammalian communities," "seabird communities," "herbivore communities" and of course "plant communities," to mention but a few. Change comes slowly, if at all. My point in the current context is that words matter, and precise definitions for words used in science matter even more. The concepts may indeed be fuzzy (post oak itself is a construct based on one or many definitions of species - communities may or may not exist as discrete entities), but when two people use the word "species" or "community" or "native" in an ecological context it should mean the same thing, or involve sufficient modifiers to make the differences in usage clear. If the word cannot be strictly defined or a definition agreed upon, then we must follow Ian's advice and use whatever combination of words necessary to make ourselves and our information clear. The statements "brook trout are native to North America" and "brook trout are native to Eastern North America" are both true, I would think, under any reasonable definition of native. One is simply more precise (and hence has less potential to mislead). In reality the terms "native" and "non-native,"! by their very nature, have no real meaning without some further historical context and it is this historical context that informs conservation and restoration. On 3/16/12 10:48 PM, "Ian Ramjohn" <ramjo...@msu.edu> wrote: I think we're missing the point here. The problem isn't with the definitions of native - it's an English word that's always going to have a range of meanings. In other words - it's a poor term for science. "Is post oak native to Texas?" is a less than ideal question, because the answer is binary - yes, or no. If you're really going to answer that question - as a scientist - you'd say that (some or all) of Texas lies within the (pre-settlement, historical, or whatever term you want to define) range of the species _based_on_[certain]_data_. With the obvious caveats, in the case of the US and Canada, that species ranges reflect ongoing migration since the end of the last ice age. Or, "no, data suggest that TX is outside the native range of the species". Fighting over semantics or values is pointless. If the term is "squishy", let's use more precise terminology, and be explicit about the uncertainty. Unless you're speaking to politicians, in which case you need to find a way to somehow convey an amount of certainty that can't be misconstrued, while still being nuanced enough that they can't (easily) turn what you say around to try to discredit you. And even then, the media will simply what you say, and the THOSE words will be used to discredit you. Quoting Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net>: > Honorable Forum: > > Anybody who has any "sense" knows that words are imperfect, and > anybody who has read "Alice in Wonderland" (or was it "Through the > Looking Glass?" I just don't remember) knows that a word means "just > what I (or the Red Queen?) say it means." Words are communication > tools, and for them to work at perfect pitch, the parties to the > communication have to understand and mean exactly the same thing, > especially if it is to be considered "scientific." > > Ecology is a "squishy" subject, so it follows that there may even > NEED to be a certain amount of "squish" in its terms. It has > apparently endless variables that are in a constant state of change. > So ecologist simply have to come to common agreement what "native" > means (and does not mean). Izzat "ad populem?" > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Pierce" <mindi...@gmail.com> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:58 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" > > > While the definition you provide might be a suitable working definition, it > is not a suitable scientific definition. As a counter-example to your > claim "it > was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated > there prior to human record keeping" there are species that the first > humans brought to North America; these species violate the either-or > construction of your definition because we don't even 'know' all of the > species that came to North America this way. > To further push the envelope, what about species that were moved around by > other hominids (*Homo habilis, H. erectus*) or neandertals? Are they native > because they weren't moved by *H. sapiens*? Or are the non-native because > they were moved by agents? > What about species that were introduced by humans and then evolved into new > species? Is the introduced species non-native, but the evolutionary > descendant is native? Appeals to the crowd (*argument ad populum*) do not > invalidate these critiques and neither do *ad hominem *attacks. > Finally, the point that 'native' is a definition that eludes us still > stands. While local and pragmatic definitions of it might exist, a global, > scientifically defensible definition of it does not exist. > > Andrew D. Pierce, Ph.D > Post-Doctoral Research Associate > Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management > University of Hawai'i > USFS-Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, David L. McNeely <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > >> well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to. >> Whenever most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place, >> they mean it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there >> or migrated there prior to human record keeping. Pretty simple. The other >> constructs you mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define the >> concept of a species being native to a locality. The multiple maps of >> native range for ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or >> they may be based on different definitions of the species. Those matters >> do not alter what is meant by a species being native in a location, they >> just illustrate that we don't always have all the information, or that >> sometimes we disagree on the data. >> >> mcneely >> >> ---- Matt Chew <anek...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom" >> is >>> precisely false. >>> >>> I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent >> the >>> native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by >>> different authorities. They can't all be correct AND mean the same >> thing. >>> >>> What "native species" denotes actually varies quite a bit, and no > wonder, >>> since it includes three explicit degrees of freedom (specifications of >>> place, time, and taxon) at least two tacit ones (who counts as a human, >> and >>> what counts as human agency) plus an authority claim. >>> >>> Authority claims alone entail ad hoc redefinitions of "native"; e.g., >> USGS >>> NAS roils the waters by calling _Micropterus_salmoides_ a "native >>> transplant" in the United States outside a particular set of hydrologic >>> units. That is a political calculation. >>> >>> What "native species" connotes also varies, but recently, typically >>> indicates the idiomist is making or ratifying a judgment that some >> organism >>> has a moral claim to persisting in a specified place because no human is >>> known to have physically moved it - or its forbears. But we relax >> various >>> aspects of that as easily as we apply them. >>> >>> As is (remarkably) typical of ecology's idioms, we have no calibrated >>> conception of this supposedly fundamental characteristic. Blaming the >>> shortcomings of language for our failure to formulate a coherent concept >> is >>> a red herring unless our consensus "native" really is an inarticulable >>> intuition. If it is (and nothing I've read so far suggests otherwise) >>> there's nothing to calibrate, much less recalibrate, and we're not doing >>> science. >>> >>> Matthew K Chew >>> Assistant Research Professor >>> Arizona State University School of Life Sciences >>> >>> ASU Center for Biology & Society >>> PO Box 873301 >>> Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA >>> Tel 480.965.8422 >>> Fax 480.965.8330 >>> mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com >>> http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php >>> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew >> >> -- >> David McNeely >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4874 - Release Date: 03/16/12 >
