When I first entered my PhD program I remember asking a few of the biology and geography faculty why they thought conservation biology and invasion biology were important fields of study. I was having trouble understanding why it was important to make sure a given ecosystem/community continued to function in the same way given what I knew about natural selection, niche differentiation and 'evolution at short time scales' (I would call that ecology, but that's a different debate!). Going hand-in-hand with this, why do we need to manipulate the 'natural' world to maintain biodiversity? The line of reasoning I received was generally, we don't know if a given ecosystem/community will continue to function in the same way when species' start to be removed/added, there might not be any 'fixing' that ecosystem after the fact by adding/subtracting species, which is scary both for the ecosystem/community/species in question and for humans if that particular ecosystem/community/species provides us with some 'service'. Taken to an extreme, all ecosystems probably provide humans with a 'service', so it makes sense for us to conserve them as a best practice, with ecosystems/communities/species that we perceive as being more important to humans (whether in a material sense or nostalgic sense) getting the most attention.
Another line of reasoning offered to me was that we have a moral obligation to preserve species. This is a much more entangled issue, which I think Miles was at least in part alluding too, that is rife with conflicting ideology. If we have a moral obligation to preserve species that are impacted by humans, we should protect all species, big and small, and down to the smallest of levels. Put away your hand sanitizer! We shouldn't just be concerned with a loss of biodiversity of birds in HI, but also the loss of biodiversity (and ecosystem function) as a result of the introduction, for instance, of earth worms to North America. Granted, there are folks that care about the earth-worm issue, but the birds in HI get a lot more press by virtue of being a heck of a lot more charismatic, leading to disproportionate effort being put into their conservation. Is that a moral dilemma? If we don't put equal effort into conserving pandas and freshwater clams, are we hypocrites? Which species are worthy of being 'saved'? Should we focus primarily on species that provide a direct 'service' to humans? Leaving the issue of preserving species aside for a moment, is it morally right to interfere with a speciation event that may or may not be about to occur, but that probably won't occur if the species is being managed to conserve it? At what point does a species need intervention to 'save' it? Are humans simply accelerating natural selection? How do we balance species preservation with human lives... at what point does preserving rare Amazonian fish become more important than an isolated Amazonian Indian village eating a fish dinner as their ancestors have for generations? Lots of food for thought here... and lots of room to debate varying view points! Nate Ruhl PhD Rowan University ________________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas J. Givnish [givn...@facstaff.wisc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:02 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Merits of invasion science Miles – "ridiculously futile managerial adjustments"? "often make more of a mess by trying to set things straight"? "sentimental nostalgia"?? "nature will adjust, with or without us"??? Are you kidding us? Are you saying that, if a brown tree snake appears on the tarmac at Honolulu (it's happened several times already), we shouldn't do anything about it? Are you saying that you aren't willing to judge whether, say, the introduction of the emerald ash borer or the balsam wooly adelgid were or were not "good for the ecology"? Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 10/29/13, Miles Medina wrote: > I don't think the question is whether invasives are a problem. The > criticisms the article raises are rather easily refuted. Sure, invasives > are a problem for industry or national security (i.e. our species), and if > we are generous perhaps for the integrity of some ecological system as we > understand it. But who is to judge what is "good for the ecology"? Or is it > more often just some sentimental nostalgia? My point is that whether we > claim the motivation to control invasives is selfless preservationism or > reduce it to economic loss or other self-interest, it is ultimately > anthropocentric, because our management actions rely on our own limited > data and understanding of ecology and are given direction by our own > limited judgments about what is best for some natural system. The truth is, > nature will adjust with or without us, and life will go on. Perhaps our > efforts would be better spent figuring out how to better conduct our > civilization than on making ridiculously futile managerial adjustments. The > real question to my mind is whether we should continue on such a path > knowing we so often make more of a mess by trying to set things straight. > Reading the authors' justification for invasive management reminded me of > Bush the administration rallying support for the Iraq war.. What we already > know is scary, so imagine how terrifying the uknown unknowns might be! When > will we learn to just leave things alone? > > Miles > On Oct 28, 2013 11:54 AM, "lisa jones" <lajone...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A quick and interesting editorial piece from Richardson & Ricciardi > > "Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field guide" in Diversity and > > Distributions (2013, 19: 1461-1467). > > > > A link to the article can be found here on the Canadian Aquatic Invasive > > Species Network (CAISN) website (listed near the bottom of the page): > > http://www.caisn.ca/en/publications > > > > I am sure there will be a response from those who see no value in invasion > > science but as one reviewer pointed out "when invasions are driven by us > > (ballast waters, trade, aquaculture, you > > name it) and overcome wide ecological barriers... well, I would be very > > careful in saying that there is no problem." > > > > Lisa > > > > > > > > > > --
