Ecolog,
I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions.
Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems to me
that the questions should be addressed and some conclusions concluded, even
if they are two-headed.
I suggest that everyone read the article to which Huang supplied a link. It
is not long, nor is it complicated. I suspect that there may be a
fundamental flaw in the article's premise, but I will leave that judgment up
to my betters . . .
Coincidentally, Joshua Wilson's original post (Invasion or progression?) did
not define "progression," nor has anyone else, and Wilson has not responded
to my request for a definition. I think it is essential that it be defined
before his question can be answered. If Josh was just joshing us, or he is
incapacitated, I may have to lower his grade from an A+ to, say, a "C" for
mediocrity, due to his unresponsiveness. Are you there, Josh?
I will await the responses from others on the questions by Huang:
1. (When) do invasives become native?
2. Can natives become invasive?
I hope that greater responsiveness will encourage Huang, the chemist, to
continue to take his cross-fertilization attempt seriously and not to give
up on ecologists.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "ling huang" <ling.hu...@prodigy.net>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
Hi
I am a chemist and not an ecologist but I'm very interested in this thread
since I enjoy the wetlands area close to Sacramento near the Davis Yolo
Causeway. I wondered and am interested in this invasive or progression type
question. I saw that there was a species called Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum
salicaria) that was introduced in the 1800s (?) and is a wetland flower that
has invaded wetlands. I suppose my question is how far do we go back to
determine if a species is invasive. Is there a time or case when an invasive
becomes a native? I did see this interesting online article where the
question asked was "Can native species become invasive?"
http://ipmsouth.com/2010/11/23/can-native-species-become-invasive/
Thanks. Ling
Ling Huang
Sacramento City College
--- On Sun, 4/22/12, Amanda Newsom <ajnew...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
From: Amanda Newsom <ajnew...@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Sunday, April 22, 2012, 3:40 PM
Very intelligent members of the public have asked me this question when
they approach me in the field and I have some time to chat. It's a great
question, because invasions biology is attacked politically on this front,
so it's one to which professionals really must craft a coherent response in
friendly conversation.
Another point to consider is the evolutionary history of native vs.
introduced (non-native) species in any particular system. One of the
reasons non-natives are of concern is that they do not share evolutionary
history with the native community, and this contributes to the
unpredictable biodiversity loss cited by other comments presented here.
This can also be discussed in light of the homogenization of life on
earth, because there are many species favored, facilitated, or directly
cultivated by humans that are now distributed worldwide. Some of these
species threaten regional biodiversity (Check out the book Ecological
Imperialism for a really interesting perspective on colonialism as an
ecological process via introduction of new dominant species). There's a
lot coming out now on evolution and invasive species as well that is, at
least in part, reasonably accessible to a general audience or the academic
in ecology/evolution who is wanting to step into invasion biology.
Related to this (somewhat tangentially) is that the buildup of introduced
and invasive species in systems like San Francisco Bay has also increased
the number and complexity of biological interactions, both
introduced-introduced and introduced-native. Increasing professional
interest in introduced-introduced interactions hasn't yet yielded a whole
lot of generalized hypotheses, but it has opened new windows to how complex
this issue is biologically and how best to protect species of interest as
well as local biodiversity.
That was a far longer and more convoluted comment than I originally
intended! Hopefully, Joshua, some of that is useful perspective. Thanks
for posing the question to ECOLOG! It can be intimidating to put something
like this out there as an undergrad, and I'm glad you took the initiative.
It comes up a lot, as you can see, and ECOLOG is a great forum for this
discussion.
A.
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Ruhl, Nathan <nr343...@ohio.edu> wrote:
I posed a very similar question to a group of graduate students and
professors during a theoretical ecology seminar a few years ago. The
central premise was that humans, by virtue of our innate-desire/ability to
alter our surroundings, have caused a general decline in biodiversity
globally. That is,humans are the primary vector for a loss of global
biodiversity, not the "non-native"/"invasive" species. The question was,
is reduction of biodiversity bad or is it simply evolution in favor of
species better adapted to live in a human-altered landscape?
After much debate, the consensus was more or less that we don't know what
all the ecological implications of a rapid global reduction in
biodiversity
will be and, because we have only one habitable planet currently, it would
be a good idea not to break it. Therefore, in the absence of a rigorous
ecological understanding that we may never actually achieve, humans should
be taking steps to promote the conservation of biodiversity whenever
possible.
N Ruhl
Ohio University
________________________________________
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Joshua Wilson
<joshua.m.wils...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> I know that invasive and non-native species have been getting a great
deal
> of attention lately, and justly. I understand the basic ecological
impacts
> and concerns invasive species cause, and the disruption of the native
> system. My main question is:
>
> Why are invasive species considered a nuisance, instead of adaptation,
> progression, or perhaps ecosystem evolution?
>
> Yes, human beings have been a main cause of the large majority of these
> invasions. But even so, I feel we are part of the natural system. If an
> invasive species exhibits more plasticity or is more competitive and
> adaptive than the present species in an ecosystem, does that necessarily
> imply catastrophic impacts? There are multiple arguments against this, I
> know, many of them strong and verified. I am not an advocate of invasive
> species dominated ecosystems, but am just curious why this change and
shift
> is considered so extremely detrimental. I feel that stable and
progressive
> change and adaptation is the basis of a strong ecological system.
>
> I would welcome any thoughts on this, or perhaps to start a discussion.
I
> am still an undergrad, so my question may seem farfetched and ridiculous
to
> some. Even so, just something to ponder on a lovely Sunday morning.
>
> Have a good day all,
>
> Josh Wilson
>
--
Gary D. Grossman, PhD
Professor of Animal Ecology
Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources
University of Georgia
Athens, GA, USA 30602
http://grossman.myweb.uga.edu/ <http://www.arches.uga.edu/%7Egrossman>
Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation
Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology
Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish
--
Amanda Newsom
Graduate Student
Bodega Marine Laboratory
``Life shrinks or expands according to one's courage'' -- Anais Nin
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2411/4952 - Release Date: 04/22/12
