Really? You want us to go from “invasive” which is already contentious because it attaches some anthropocentric value to an ecological process, to even more strongly negative value-laden terms like “noxious” and “weed”? What room is there then, on a planet dominated by humans (and our values), for any range expansions or distributional changes by any species in response to, say, climate change?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Madhusudan Katti Associate Professor, Department of Biology, M/S SB73 California State University, Fresno 2555 E San Ramon AVe Fresno, CA 93740 http://about.me/mkatti On Oct 29, 2013, at 12:09 PM, David L. McNeely <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > A better term than "native invasive" to apply to species that become pests > within their native geographic range (Eastern Red Cedar is an excellent > example in the southern plains and prairies) is "noxious." Or, we might > simply call them pests. "Invasive" makes no sense for such species. From > where have they invaded? Hence, your sugar maple example would be a noxious > weed species. The bull frog is a true invasive in that it did not occur in > the western part of North America prior to introduction. > > David McNeely > > ---- malcolm McCallum <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> wrote: >> Cattle Egrets were supposed to be a natural dispersal via anemochore >> as I recall, a one time event wasn't it? >> >> Invasive species need not be exotic species, at least from a >> continental perspective. >> For example, sugar maple is native to most forests in Illinois, but >> with changes in fire regimes it becomes invasive crowding out the >> oak-hickory. Sweetgum does a similar thing in southern wet forests, >> and there are a pile of other examples. these are NATIVE INVASIVES. >> Bullfrogs fall in between from a continental pespective. they are >> native to and widespread in North America, but they have been >> introduced into habitats in the west where they do not normally occur >> creating havoc. Technically, these are also exotic invasives at the >> regional or local level, but native invasives from a continental >> perspective. >> Lonicera japanicus is an exotic invasive in streams of North America, >> although some closely related Lonicera are NONINVASIVE EXOTICS, and >> some simply cannot even become established!! >> Likewise, asiatic mussels, zebra mussels, and an assortment of other >> species are EXOTIC INVASIVES. >> >> I don't know why we do it, but often we lump issues about exotics and >> those about invasives together under the same title. It really is not >> appropriate because the two overlap, but are not the same things. >> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Meg Ballard <mball...@udel.edu> wrote: >>> The difference is the scale of invasion, both temporal and spatial. >>> >>> There is a difference in moving from one pond to an adjacent one, where >>> your natural enemies and competitors are likely to exist, vs >>> intercontinental or oceanic movements that occur in short time scales >>> rather than evolutionary time scales. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:45 AM, malcolm McCallum < >>> malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I mentioned this correspondence to a friend who works a lot in this >>>> field. This is what he/she said (i'm leaving off the name since >>>> he/she is not available to ask permission to expose it right now!): >>>> >>>> "What I absolutely can't stand is the term "invasion biology". It's >>>> colonization theory pure and simple. Anything can invade. Painted >>>> Turtles or Green Frogs to a new farm pond. Besides being misused, I >>>> think that the term prejudices the research approach. As for the >>>> debate, the best arguments against studying exotic species and their >>>> impacts are embarrassing." >>>> >>>> What has caused us to move from using "colonization theory" and to the >>>> new term "invasion biology?" Are they really different? I don't see >>>> a difference either. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:58 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Malcolm L. McCallum >>>> Department of Environmental Studies >>>> University of Illinois at Springfield >>>> >>>> Managing Editor, >>>> Herpetological Conservation and Biology >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - >>>> Allan Nation >>>> >>>> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >>>> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >>>> and pollution. >>>> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction >>>> MAY help restore populations. >>>> 2022: Soylent Green is People! >>>> >>>> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) >>>> Wealth w/o work >>>> Pleasure w/o conscience >>>> Knowledge w/o character >>>> Commerce w/o morality >>>> Science w/o humanity >>>> Worship w/o sacrifice >>>> Politics w/o principle >>>> >>>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >>>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >>>> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >>>> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >>>> destroy all copies of the original message. >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Malcolm L. McCallum >> Department of Environmental Studies >> University of Illinois at Springfield >> >> Managing Editor, >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology >> >> >> >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - >> Allan Nation >> >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >> and pollution. >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction >> MAY help restore populations. >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! >> >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) >> Wealth w/o work >> Pleasure w/o conscience >> Knowledge w/o character >> Commerce w/o morality >> Science w/o humanity >> Worship w/o sacrifice >> Politics w/o principle >> >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >> destroy all copies of the original message. > > -- > David McNeely
