Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology and Range Management Compatible? (Tyson on Davis)
To summarize and second Wayne's statement, it has been and remains politically expedient to blame the indicator for rangeland degradation rather than blaming 150 years or more of short-term extractive profiteering. Sometimes the research that funding agencies willingly underwrite isn't actually worth doing; but it gets done because they'll pay for it, and they'll pay for it because no US Senator will be on the phone to a Cabinet Secretary's office telling them to stop. Modeling the spread of GB plants like pinyon, juniper, cheatgrass (and mesquite, snakeweed, red brome and 'Mediterranean grass' farther south) into appropriate habitat is academically interesting — to a point — but it seems to promise little problem-solving relevance. This isn't a whine, it's a provocation. I invite ECOLOG-L members to post examples of demonstrably effective management solutions that were instituted as a result of ecological modeling. If any can be found, we need to understand why they worked and what, if anything, they have in common. If none can be found, perhaps we need to reassess the value of modeling. Complex quantitative busywork is still busywork. 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 https://cbs.asu.edu/people/chew-0http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
[ECOLOG-L] Introduction dates for plants alien to the US
Christina- I'm afraid the information you're looking for is indeed hard to find. Many species and varieties were introduced commercially without government participation or notice, especially before about 1900. Old seed and nursery catalogs are potential sources of information, but they are ephemeral and have been preserved in scattered, hit-or-miss fashion; they rarely state accurately whether the plants are new to the continent. If a plant had any conceivable agricultural or horticultural application, it may have been introduced by the USDA Office of Foreign Seed and Plant Introduction. See http://specialcollections.nal.usda.gov/products/conservation for an entree into their papers and related material. More may be available through the National Archives. I look forward to seeing what you come up with, but it's definitely going to require some legwork. 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 https://cbs.asu.edu/people/chew-0http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
[ECOLOG-L] Visualizing functional diversity
This has been an interesting conversation. Ecological functions entail putative benefits to some population or individual. It doesn't have to be a human population, so it doesn't have to be anthropocentric, but that is the second most common centrism. Biocentrism and ecocentrism are generally proxies for the most common one: idiocentrism. Biocentrism and ecocentrism involve benefits to things that benefit the author of the argument. If this seems dubious, how many times have you seen discussions of functions without benefits, such as the function of mass extinction or the function of acid precipitation? That suggests ecosystem function and ecosystem service are fundamentally identical concepts. Processes are more benefits-equivocal than functions. A designed system (e.g., a farm) includes processes more and less beneficial from various points of reference, but has a designed function benefiting the farmer. An accumulated system (e.g., an ecosystem) likewise includes processes but lacks a designer or a function—if your metaphysics will allow. 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 https://cbs.asu.edu/people/chew-0http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
[ECOLOG-L] Invasive Rat sp. vs. Henderson's Petrel...(etc.)
Yesterday's belated decontextualization of previous comments provides an opportunity to recontextualize them. Human activity generates resources for many taxa. Regardless of their intentions, researchers traveling to and entering areas otherwise unfrequented by humans are agents of change: vectors of species introduction and providers of resources for human commensals. My *rhetorical* question about whether rats on Samoa would follow humans was intended as a reminder that efforts to closely observe mau nests -- even if limited to locating nests, then installing and maintaining instrumentation -- might inadvertently lead predators to them. If so, the study could have a net negative effect on mau conservation. Since, by definition, the productivity of unmonitored mau nests cannot be recorded for comparison, this 'observer effect' cannot be accurately accounted for. Apologies for not stating the obvious more obviously the first time. The problem is not new. In a marginal note scrawled on a copy of a conservation philosophy memorandum during World War Two, Charles Elton revealed (to Aldo Leopold) that he (Elton) had once oversampled an island mouse population, possibly to the point of extinction. His research presumably generated robust information regarding a subspecies that may have ceased to exist as a result. A good outcome or a bad one, and why? For his dissertation research, Daniel Simberloff exterminated the animal (mostly arthropod) populations of entire mangrove islets to document the subsequent process of colonization (or re-colonization). E.O. Wilson was his mentor; Robert MacArthur (Wilson's mentor) was also on the committee. Would you do that today? Why or why not? If not, what has changed? In the case of the mau, is it better to leave remote nests unmonitored or to risk the complications of invasive procedures needed to generate further information? What if the best guarantee of population persistence is zero penetration by humans into habitat? If so, the 'safest' populations are the undocumented ones. Non-documentation conflicts with the basic goal of science, but putting a population at risk conflicts with the basic goal of conservation. I'd like to hear from anyone who made such a choice, either way: How did you decide what to do? Why? When did it come down to the very practical matter of letting 'the money' decide? 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
[ECOLOG-L] Unsustainable sustainability (reply to WT)
One of the ways people become prominent in a profession is by listening to what others are saying, then saying it louder, in more auspicious settings. Leaders in that sense aren't likely to make waves, but they're very good at riding them. Reflecting the common wisdom is the source of their popularity, power and authority. Some folks toe the lines pretty carefully until they feel immune to criticism for one reason or another, then have their say. More than one of my co-authors on Don't Judge Species on their Origins last year in Nature fits that category. Joan Ehrenfeld knew our paper would be her final word on ecology. But you can't count on anyone being willing and able to make any particular case in their swansong. Then there are people like me who find themselves in the midst of naked emperors, but have no ambition to take their places. To take a literary/cinematic tangent, we are the ones more eager to smelt rings of power than wear them, more concerned with breaking elder wands than wielding them. So I'm not the kind of person you were hoping for in this case, but I'll say this anyway: life on earth has never been about sustainability. It's always been about individuals of the current generation--of the moment, in fact--surviving under prevailing conditions. Every generation (of every population) is born into a different world. Sometimes slightly different, sometimes profoundly different, sometimes favorably different, sometimes fatally so. Domesticating that uncertainty and aspiring to negotiate a fair deal with the ghosts of generations yet to come seems appealing at first glance. But it's naive to project our values, preferences and capabilities (maybe even our anatomies and physiologies) into an unknowable future and seek to impose them on our successors. Consider how much trouble we have wrapping the US Constitution around today's issues only nine or ten generations down the pike. Most of us are so decoupled from even the previous two or three generations to have much more than the most general idea what futures they were hoping for on our behalf. It isn't clear what ought to be sustained. It's even less clear what CAN be sustained. It's never too late to act, because it's always too early to decide. Matthew K Chew 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
[ECOLOG-L] Yesterday's (26 July) Science Now live chat
The transcript of Science Magazine's Science Now live chat on invasive species is available at http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/live-chat-invasive-species--thre.html Matthew K Chew 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
[ECOLOG-L] a vision
There are many potentially devilish details to identify and consider. It's not clear to me from David's scenario that founding a university is a good investment. The chance that a developing country can begin producing competitive academic-theoretical expertise in petroleum or hard mineral extraction, processing or marketing seems remote. That expertise is already for sale. Ecotourism and cultural tourism aspirations aren't necessarily best served by instituting degree programs. Before attending to structural and curricular details, I'd want the powers that be (and/or those willing to finance a university) to explain in very clear terms what THEIR vision of the country's future looks like, why they think founding a university would help them realize that vision, and how long they expect their heirs and assigns to remain in charge. Matthew K Chew 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
[ECOLOG-L] coevolution of native plants exposed to an alien invasive species, garlic mustard
The introductory statement of the quoted *Science Daily* item (these typically are institutional press releases reproduced verbatim) leads with unexceptional confused hyperbole but ends on a truly alarming claim: ...until now, scientists had little reason to believe that native plants could mount a successful defense. Noting but otherwise ignoring the sociomorphic martial metaphor, whom among ecologists believes that evolutionary processes grind to a halt when environmental conditions take a minor, unprecedented turn? Granted, minor is context dependent, but the fact that every invasion is a unique, historically contingent event (rather than a generic anthropogenic impact) means they will differ in progression and outcome. Garlic mustard is allelopathic, but we should expect that allelopathy to be a variable trait, one affected by local soils; and further expect that sensitivity to it would vary as well. That sounds like a recipe for coevelution. There is every reason to expect that someone could demonstrate coevolution between 'neophytes' and 'archaeophytes' if they went looking for it. I'm a little surprised at the claim that this is the first such demonstration. After all, unlike Blanche DuBois, life on this planet has hardly depended on the kindness of strangers. With regard to garlic mustard in general, we will also see more findings of interest about its ever-increasing participation as an object of non-human herbivory in North American ecosystems. Something to watch for. In case you don't have access to PNAS, following is the pointy end of the results from R. A. Lankau. *Coevolution between invasive and native plants driven by chemical competition and soil biota*. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 2012; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1201343109 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201343109 Many theories of invasive success posit that exotic species gain ecological advantages due to their lack of coevolutionary history with the native community, for example, benefiting from enemy release because native consumers lack the necessary traits to efficiently use the new species. This idea has been considered especially important for invasive plants that produce secondary compounds that are novel to native plant, insect, and microbial communities. However, novelty cannot last forever, and the high invader abundance created by these evolutionary mismatches may in turn lead to the development of new coevolutionary relationships that, over time, act to integrate exotic species into native communities. I hope you're not surprised, either. Now if we can just get over 'the native thing' -- the idea that redistribution of biota by humans is categorically unnatural or unecological -- we'll be doing some real science. Matthew K Chew 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
[ECOLOG-L] Free video of invasive rat predating a endangered bird
The link I received in the digest included extra characters. Here it is without them (unless the server is inserting them after the = character) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y38B8aDfPjQ According to the species (Gymnomyza samoensis) recovery plan (see www.sprep.org/att/IRC/eCOPIES/Countries/Samoa/53.pdf), deforestation, including that attributed to major cyclones, is thought to have had the largest effect on these birds. They also have a traditional reputation for being harbingers of death due to their unusual calls. Traditional risk management has included the familiar 'kill the messenger' approach. The executive summary of the recovery plan mysteriously suggests that the birds are feeding on the nectar of introduced trees, although I can't find that claim elsewhere in the document. Also according to the recovery plan (citing ISSG data), Samoa's three rat species are considered to have arrived before 1924. One of them, Rattus exulans, has presumably been pan-Polynesian for many centuries; the others for perhaps one or two centuries. I can find no data suggesting their ranges or populations are still increasing in Samoa, rendering the invasive label somehow even less meaningful than usual. In summary: Two years ago, some kind of rat made off with a 'mao' egg. Maybe it happens all the time, maybe only rarely. It would be interesting to know. Knowing either way would not necessarily improve conservation efforts. Actually, let's just cut to the chase. At YouTube we learn the video was posted to raise money for a PhD project on the putative basis that introduced rats are having an enormous impact predating chicks and eggs in the nest. Since the student wants money for (among other things) additional cameras to document this predation, it remains unclear whether predation by introduced rats is a major issue. But it already seems to be more than a hypothesis. Given the strong, a priori rat indictment, it is also unclear whether any other finding would be acceptable to the investigators. Skip the extraneous free video YouTube step and decide on the merits whether this proposal inspires you to chip in: http://www.petridish.org/projects/saving-an-endangered-bird-the-mao I wonder if rats could learn to associate human activity with food sources. 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
[ECOLOG-L] Despite lurid journalism and impatience, Macquarie Island has been restored
Since the scientific history of Macquarie island extends a bit further back than we have seen so far, here is a supplement to David Duffy's chronology. There are many other sources, but these five capture some interesting moments. First, Notice in regard to Macquarie Island by Thomas Raine, Edinburgh Philosophical Journal (1824) http://books.google.com/books?id=HhgxAQAAMAAJpg=PA46#v=onepageqf=false This is an early description, but still made over a decade after the island came to the attention of commercial sealers and penguin hunters. Second, Macquarie Island by John H. Scott, from Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand (1882). http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_15/rsnz_15_00_006250.html Third, Notes on a Visit to Macquarie Island by A. Hamilton, from Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand (1894). http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_27/rsnz_27_00_004370.html A year later, in summary: Macquarie Island was discovered in 1811 by a sealer, who procured a cargo of 80,000 skins. Sealing on these islands was at its height from 1810 to 1820. In two years 300,000 skins were obtained, one vessel carrying away 100,000. Now Morrell, who visited those regions in 1830, reported that the sealers had made such complete destruction as scarcely to leave a breed, not one fur-seal being found by him. A few, however, survived the general slaughter, and, in recent years, under the protection of the Government of New Zealand, a small annual catch of from one to two thousand fur-seals is now taken. –Paris Tribunal of Arbitration (Fur Seal Fisheries)15:245 Washington:GPO (1895) http://books.google.com/books?id=6k0uYAAJpg=PA245#v=onepageqf=false Finally, for a review focused on factors related to one particular extinction, see Taylor, R.H. 1979. How the Macquarie Island Parakeet Became Extinct. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 2:42-45. (*extinct*- website.com/pdf/NZJEcol2_42.pdf). Restoration is in the eye of the beholder. 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
[ECOLOG-L] invasive truffles
We don’t need to have a linguistic discussion, because labeling a process consisting of unintended arrival, survival and successful reproduction of organisms an “invasion” is a conceptual, categorical error. That makes it a philosophical discussion, but hardly an arcane one. I'll only use a few terms borrowed from philosophy, and then only because they precisely represent the necessary concepts. Whether deliberately or reflexively applied to biota, “invasion” denotes biogeographical anomaly and connotes reprehensible, willful misbehavior. More importantly, it always elides description or explanation and rushes to judgment. There are understandable reasons for doing that; either we feel threatened, or we sympathize with someone else who feels threatened, or we project those feelings onto things that can’t feel threatened and feel threatened on their behalf. All very human. The trouble, for present purposes, is the space where the science of ecology can add anything unique or valuable to the discussion is limited to the descriptive, explanatory steps we skip over in the rush to judgment. Returning to cases, nobody who suddenly finds they can’t depend on all locally procured truffles to be equally valuable needs an ecologist to explain commercial value or truffle sorting. Folk taxonomy and practical business acumen is sufficient to the task. Nor can an ecologist improve the situation by simply echoing and reifying the truffle hunter/dealer/buyer’s lament. Worse yet, claiming from a stance of (supposed) scientific authority, “Chinese truffles are invading Europe” makes that statement out to be a scientific assessment. It isn’t scientific at all. It neither describes nor explains any actual phenomenon. It does, however, vaguely (and yes, pejoratively) lump the European advent of Chinese truffles together with a broad range of reputedly deplorable cases likewise labeled “invasive species.” It also incidentally serves to distinguish the bad invaders from useful species celebrated for economically or aesthetically comporting with proximate human objectives. That's pretty ironic, because field crops are the only plants that effectively occupy and hold territory while completely excluding all others. Our mutualists are not called invasive, even when cultivating them arguably meets defensible criteria for description as a biological invasion. Nobody needs ecologists, ecology or an ecological education to draw such categories. That's why the basic ideas involved were already worked out in the 1830s. Explaining why they are still current among ecologists is more of a puzzle. It all could have ended with Darwin, and certainly should have ended with the modern synthesis. No so-called “invasive” species is doing anything anomalous. None has any capability to persist where it is unfit. None has any responsibility to perish where it is fit simply because it is novel there by human standards. None is responsible for issues of time or distance. Ecologists may, retrospectively, be able to work out the details of why particular cases proceeded in particular ways in particular places at particular times. What we cannot say, in our roles as ecologists, is whether the dispersal events leading to those cases should have occurred. We can, of course, apply personal preferences to cases and announce whether we like them or not. But (contra the implications of Aldo Leopold’s ‘world of wounds’) our preferences do not arise from an ecological education. Neither does any privilege of holding or expressing them. If you prefer to maximize beta diversity, fine; you may know what that shorthand means because of an ecological education, but preferring it doesn’t follow from knowing precisely how ecologists describe it. All you need to know is that you like different “places” to be as different as possible. As an ecologist, you should realize that the amounts and types of rapid traffic bringing formerly isolated locations into practical contact renders such a preference increasingly unrepresentative of the real world real plants and animals live in. Beta diversity means nothing until you learn its definition. Lacking that knowledge, you might envision something, but there is a low possibility that anyone would randomly hit upon its accepted ecological meaning. Unlike beta diversity, “invasion” is not a legitimate ecological term, or even a useful shorthand. Invasion is a common concept with a longstanding military meaning. It is useful as a metaphor because its meaning is stable. Ecologists who protest that “invasion” has a specific, ecological meaning wholly divested of its common metaphorical associations are mistaken. Perhaps they are rationalizing our inability or unwillingness to (a) construct a coherent, defensible ecological category or (b) abandon the advantages of investing their personal valorization preferences with scientific authority. Several times I have been warned by thoughtful,
[ECOLOG-L] invasive truffles
In response to Richard Plate’s question about neutrality: first, I suggest that you have a look at Colautti and MacIsaac’s “neutral terminology” proposal in Diversity and Distributions 10:135-141 (2004). I think their attempt was commendable, but it ultimately failed for the same reasons the hodge-podge they were critiquing failed. You could also look at my own “Rise and Fall of Biotic Nativeness…” and “Anekeitaxonomy…”, both available via academia.edu (last link below) to get a further sense of how the current situation developed and some of its inherent weaknesses. The primary difficulty with all categorization attempts to date has been their anthropocentricity. It’s clear that many families and genera of plants and animals are represented by species on multiple continents and islands, or in multiple, recently disjunct watersheds or distantly separated seas. Things got well around long before human agency provided means of transport. Descriptions of that process tend to default to a gradualist approach, giving some number of arrivals per unit time as if that represented either a typical, normal, or good state of affairs. It’s more reasonable to assume that dispersal events happened in clusters when conditions favored certain kinds of transport. It’s also clear that whole assemblages or communities are not equally transportable; some taxa are just more so than others under a given set of conditions. Our traditional reaction has been to sort such events into two categories: natural and unnatural, with unnatural being synonymous with human facilitation. Coastal marine organisms, domesticated plants and animals and perhaps pests of stored foodstuffs were certainly being transported quite early on, but dependable accounts begin appearing around 1600. I haven’t found any clear evidence of the distinction in ancient texts, but that may be as much a matter of limited taxonomic capability at the time as anything else. Unfortunately it is now practically impossible to recognize a “natural” long range transport event. Even the few celebrated cases (like the historically documented arrival of cattle egrets in South America) cannot be reliably disentangled from human agency (in that case, the inception of forest clearing and cattle ranching in Atlantic coastal colonies). We tend to assume, these days, that the sudden appearance of locally unfamiliar organisms anywhere in the world is human induced, therefore unnatural (and by implication “wrong” as an affront to either god or nature)—unless it was done on purpose and produced a more or less intended benefit. That distinction had been codified by 1855. Every scheme envisioned from the first to the most recent has used human history or human experience as a basis for sorting biota into nominalist (i.e., convenient) categories like natives, aliens and invasives. That might be fine if everyone understood nominalism and adhered to its limitations. However, we are more readily inclined to view the world in essentialist terms--as if apparent categories automatically correspond to natural kinds. Any biologist who has studied or practiced taxonomy without being made aware of this issue has been done a disservice. I have never encountered a successful essentialist approach to the kind of sorting we’re discussing. There is, for example, no objectively defensible threshold rate of spread separating normal from abnormal dispersal, in other words, distinguishing (by any terminology) establishment from invasion. Richardson, et al (Diversity and Distributions 6:93-107, 2000) tried to do just that, but their standard was arbitrary. Invading is called invading because somebody feels the rate at which a population is growing or diffusing is uncomfortably rapid. How rapidly should a population increase or spread? Your answer will depend on your personal basis of comparison. If we choose the rate at which poplar seedlings colonize a damp sandbar, it’s pretty quick. If we choose pond eutrophication or deciduous forest succession it’s slower. But no standard is ever neutral, because the cases that attract attention and study are those already labeled “problems” according to some human assessment of value. The change is altogether unwanted, or happening at a (mentally) disturbing rate. So not only am I not denying that people are having problems as a result of some species introductions, I’m explaining that our concepts are entirely based on human judgment that a problem exists. It is a taxonomy of problems, period. Colautti and MacIsaac (2004) decided that a history of coevolution was more valuable than the absence of such a history. That is a way of “smuggling” in the natural/unnatural distinction. The absence of such a history, being unnatural, constituted a problem for them. Richardson, et al (2000) actually put a single number to the threshold rate at which any plant population diffusion becomes a problem, to similar effect. Neither engaged
[ECOLOG-L] invasive truffles
The dust has settled a bit, so it's time to respond. Jane Shevtsov raised some interesting points in her rebuttal of my analysis of her post. Most of them further exemplify the conceptual confusion and questionable communication practices I was highlighting. First, she reminded us: I was speaking casually Of course she was, and obviously so. Why, having admitted to speaking casually, try to defend it as if that casualness had formal underpinnings? It any case it is a poor justification. Does 'casually' mean carelessly, vaguely, imprecisely or misleadingly? Is this an appropriate forum for casual remarks? For that matter, should any conversation between ecologists about the objects we study be shorthanded either ambiguously or misleadingly? Jane's based her rejection of anthropomorphism primarily on what a person may do or be described as doing. That underlines my point. Truffles aren't persons. Appealing to the fact that doctors may speak of invasive cancers doesn't have anything to do with whether truffles can invade or species are invasive. (Species aren't cancers, although that broad metaphor of reflexive fear and loathing has been applied to them as well.) Appealing to what we often say hardly implies that what we often say has been well said. Ecology's 'house' of casually applied metaphors (see Science 301:52-53) accumulated like a woodrat midden. It's stable the way any heap of miscellaneous material can be stable, but it isn't much of a structure. Volition is important because invading is purposeful. Invading isn't a synonym for diffusing or dispersing or being moved along a gradient or by an applied force. We say species are invading because we mean to be pejorative, not merely descriptive. It's a revealing category error. Any research project that has ever set out to compare 'natives' to 'invasives' (there are MANY such) carries a casual tacit presumption that those twp categories are ecologically meaningful. They aren't (see Chew and Hamilton's 'The Rise and Fall of Historical Nativeness…). That's why the results of those studies are broadly inconsistent. So yes, Jane, research has been significantly undermined. It's not a problem of comparing apples and oranges. It's a problem of comparing mermaids and hippogriffs. In her rebuttal Jane appropriated my point about causality and suggested it was her own. Hardly so. She (originally, casually) claimed truffles were causing a problem. Finally, Jane wrote One of the reasons I highlighted this article is that it describes concrete harms arising from an exotic species… But it doesn't do that. The presence of two superficially similar (to casual inspection) fungi in the same place doesn't cause concrete harm. It may violate someone's sense of place or require them to learn to differentiate between the two. Change is not harm. Demanding the world to conform to prior expectations or beliefs (especially while expecting to be able to manipulate it to one's own advantage) seems naive. David McNeely doesn't like brown tree snakes or Phytophthora ramorum. He casually failed to contextualize either. Charitably assuming that he meant brown tree snakes on Guam, and further assuming that by social damage he meant the climbing instincts of brown tree snakes are incompatible with the way people have traditionally strung electrical wiring, we still can't say the snakes caused a problem. David apparently assumes that humans should be free to do things the way they always have even when newly prevailing conditions render those habits ineffectual. Eradicating brown tree snakes on Guam may or may not be possible. Changing the way electricity is distributed is an engineering exercise. Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results indicates the usual results are actually more acceptable than the costs of adapting. David's ecological damage to Guam was caused by humans acting on naive and tacit expectations that a remote island could be industrially militarized—with all the coming and going that entails—without fundamentally and practically altering its connectivity to other ecosystems. Guam has been only hours away from many islands and several continents since the 1940s. Focusing on brown tree snakes and blaming them for happening to have survived inadvertent transport there seems intentionally myopic. Calling them invaders when they are evidently established and occupying virtually all usable habitat on the island is another category error. The advent of P. ramorum in North America produces effects more troubling to more people than than power outages or ecosystem restructuring on Guam. But P. ramorum is doing what it always has, necessarily without reference to continents or forests or even trees, for that matter. Fungi aren't moral actors and they aren't morally accountable. If a P. ramorum spore arrives in suitable habitat (on, but without awareness of a tree) it grows and reproduces. But that isn't
[ECOLOG-L] invasive truffles
Sadly, everything about Jane Shevtsov's brief referral is wrong in important ways. Now this is an invasive that causes problems! http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/adventure/2012/05/truffle-trouble-in-europe-the-invader-without-flavor/ Labeling a fungus as an invader it is an absurd anthropomorphism. It is a further, even less supportable one to call a fungus invasive as if invading is an essential trait or characteristic of the taxon. It's a fungus. It has no apparent sense of place, no motivation to relocate, no volition to accomplish relocation. Maintaining biogeographical propriety is irrelevant to fungi. No Chinese truffle found growing in Italy has ever been Chinese except in name, and possibly as a spore—unless a person knowingly moved it from Asia to Italy— in which case the motivation and volition were the person's, and the relevant action was translocation, not invasion. If there was ever any intention to invade anything as a result, it was only and entirely a person's intention. Claiming this (or any) fungus causes problems violates any rational conception of causality. The problem discussed in the article (one species of truffle being mistaken for or misrepresented as another) is one of unethical conduct by truffle dealers and/or taxonomic error by dealers and or buyers. Truffles aren't causing anything. The intuitive appeal of biological invasion is obvious, but even brief reflection reveals the concept to be a reflexive category error. Careless metaphorical misconstruction and blaming organisms for arriving and persisting in unexpected places actively undermines ecological understanding, communication, effective research and appropriate conservation action. We should be interested in working out why any specific translocation event results in a viable population (or not)…unless ecology's primary purpose is to declare, We hate this change, so we hate this species! 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
[ECOLOG-L] Sarewitz on Systematic Error
Everyone should take a minute to read this Nature 'world view' piece. http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20120515 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
[ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
My general views on this are a matter of detailed record here and in several publications, all available at http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew . (By the way, views of all my papers there now total over 3,200 – with 'The Rise and Fall of Biotic Nativeness' alone at nearly 2000 – thanks again!) Nobody has yet published evidence to support the idea that native - alien - invasive - invasible and their ilk are actually ecological conceptions, much less characteristics of species or populations or communities. That is why, as Moles, et al 2012 (doi: 10./j.1365-2745.2011.01915.x) pointed out, invasion biology's (or invasion ecology's, if you prefer) results continue to be idiosyncratic. We very practically prefer predictability to unpredictability and stability to change—particularly to unforeseen or unintended change. Sometimes it's a matter of psychological comfort, nostalgia, regret, a sense of fairness or justice or powerlessness… and sometimes it's a matter of survival. But wanting things to be other than they are, even to the extent of organizing a majority opinion or a putative consensus on the matter, doesn't automatically mean we've agreed on the right idea. It certainly doesn't confer the ability to make any particular desired future happen. Nor does it make our intended ecological outcomes better than the unintended ones. As usual, what CAN happen IS happening, whether we like it or not. The history of biology is characterized by defaults to normative vitalistic and teleological arguments that aren't susceptible to empirical evaluation or demonstration. Ecology is still loaded with them. Even the 'more is better' and 'different is better' commitments of biodiversity-based conservation philosophy are no better grounded in reality than preformationism, evolution via striving for perfection or deterministic succession to climax communities. We haven't come much closer to 'truth' than Charles Lyell did in 1832, when he wrote (in the idiom of the day): We may regard the involuntary agency of man as strictly analogous to that of the inferior animals. Like them we unconsciously contribute to extend or limit the geographical range and numbers of certain species, in obedience to general rules in the economy of nature, which are for the most part beyond our control.” I hope to see you in Portland at Symposium 22, Conservation In a Globalizing World; Session ID 7614, Friday, August 10, 2012, 8:00 AM - 11:30 AM Matthew K Chew Assistant Research Professor Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
[ECOLOG-L] Thanks
The Rise and Fall of Biotic Nativeness: A Historical Perspective has (as of this email) been viewed 1242 times via my academia.edu page. Amazing. Thanks. Andrew Hamilton and I have begun scoping a follow-up, what now? paper, and we will try to take less than 5 years (or even 5 months) to complete it. 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
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology
I am pleased to see this discussion continuing and expanding. Ecological terminology can be no more definite than ecological conceptions; both have been challenged many times during our history, and none of those challenges have ever been wholly resolved. The fact that even our most basic objects remain debatable should be taken as a major challenge to ecology, perhaps especially now on the run up to the BES (2013) and ESA (2014) centennials. The most famous, perhaps, is A.G. Tansley's The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms (Ecology 16:284-307, 1935). If you've never heard of him, or of it, or have heard of them but never actually read the paper, this might be a good time. It is available for download via the journal website, but a quick search revealed alternative sources as well. Like most of its kind, Tansley's paper did a better job of identifying problems than solving them; but that's part of the point. They weren't easily solved. They still aren't. I will identify some other essential readings in this regard here in coming weeks, and (of course) I encourage others to do the same. Meanwhile, The rise and fall of biotic nativeness: A historical perspective has now been viewed nearly 600 times via my academia.edu page alone ( http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew/Papers/450641/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Biotic_Nativeness_A_Historical_Perspective). If you want to understand why anyone would worry about the meaning and applicability of nativeness in ecology and conservation, we wrote this to give you a place to start. It was a five-year project, with many drafts and many pauses to review cases, gather comments, and reflect on the difficulties involved. 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of native
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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of native
The general definition of 'native' is 'not introduced'. It is a historical criterion, not an ecological one, and it rests entirely on absence of evidence for introduction. That definition has not changed at all since it was first fully codified in England in 1847. David McNeely's claim that Post oak has been in Texas probably for much of its existence as a species suggests that Texas has been Texas for a very long time indeed. But Texas, as a place identified by various sets of boundaries, is itself post European by the standard David provided. By 1847 Texas was already flying the fifth of its six European-derived flags, during the Mexican-American War. And of course, post oak certainly isn't endemic to any version of Texas, no matter how expansively imagined; most post oaks have not been in Texas in any way. The tree hasn't even been called 'post oak' for much of its existence as a species. Whether it was a species at all before being described and named _Quercus_stellata_ by Friederich Adam Julius von Wangenheim late in the 18th century is arguable, but it is certain that _Quercus_stellata_ translates more literally to star oak than post oak. Very Texan. While this is all good semantic fun, it also draws attention serious conceptual weaknesses in our vague ideas and ideals of place-based belonging. For more, see http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew/Papers/450641/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Biotic_Nativeness_A_Historical_Perspective a.k.a. chapter 4 of Richardson's Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The Legacy of Charles Elton. 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
[ECOLOG-L] best tree species for carbon sequestration
This thread often employs 'natural' and 'ecological' as proxies for 'good' or 'proper' or 'appropriate' or 'desirable'. Using some past condition to exemplify a desired future is commonplace, but that past is always poorly documented and most of our 'knowledge' of past conditions is selectively conjectural or inferred. That is the standard recipe for nostalgic yearning. It is also clear that 'sequestering' carbon as biomass does not override concerns the commenters have about belonging, structure and longevity, also invoked – again vaguely – as proxies for 'good' or 'proper' or 'appropriate' or 'desirable'. It remains arguable whether ecological communities are much more than an instantaneous reflection of the contingencies of the story of life on earth so far. That story from here on out will likewise entail whatever happens next. But apply any metaphor you like (restoration, turning the clock back, putting the toothpaste back into the tube, putting Humpty Dumpty back together again) what happens next is not going to be a repeat of what happened before, and we can never look forward with clarity or confidence beyond simple, proximate causes and effects. To paraphrase a non-ecologist, life is happening while we make other plans. Meanwhile, ESA's finest minds make plans framed primarily by fear and loathing of certain change in uncertain directions. To paraphrase another non-ecologist, how's that workin' for ya? 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
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
It's nice to see signs of life. Right now responding to one in particular: Defining ecology is much harder than Liane Cochran-Stafira's hopeful assertion suggests. She favors The scientific discipline that is concerned with the relationships between organisms and their past, present and future environments, both living and non-living. which may well have been mentioned during the 2000 ESA meeting but can't easily be traced there; it does appear on the ESA website at http://www.esa.org/education/resources_teachers/generalEdu/ecologyEducation.php. That document cites only two draft documents produced by the ESA Education Committee in 1991. What's wrong with Liane's definition? Much of current ecology explicitly avoids dealing with organisms. Only past relationships can be described because they are all past by the time data are recorded, and very much past by the time research is published. Futures can be modeled, and model outputs can be studied, but the future cannot be studied. Finally, the elephant in the room: concerned allows for a wide range of interpretations. Meanwhile, there are other definitions of ecology lurking in the current ESA website: ** Ecology is the study of the relationships between living organisms, including humans, and their physical environment; it seeks to understand the vital connections between plants and animals and the world around them. Ecology also provides information about the benefits of ecosystems and how we can use Earth's resources in ways that leave the environment healthy for future generations. (http://www.esa.org/education/LME/ecologyANDme.php) Ecology is *the study of* interconnectedness. ( www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/coralreefs.pdf) [Ecology, in its simplest form is] the study of the interactions between organisms and their environment ( www.esa.org/seeds/pdf/2011%20AM%20Report.pdf) ECOLOGY: from Greek oikos = house (place we live) logos = (study of) · the scientific study of organisms and their environment, addressing: · the distribution and abundance of organisms · how living things interact with each other and their environment · the fluxes of matter and energy through the living world · the full set of relationships between organisms and their environment, for example: · the ecology of the tropical rainforest · the ecology of the malaria mosquito · a disciplinary field, a profession, a community of scientists of which you can be a part! (www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/careers-undergrad.pdf) Spreading the net slightly wider, if we take ecology to be what ecologists do, we can add: *E*cologists study oceans, deserts, forests, cities, grasslands, rivers, and every other corner of the world.(http://www.esa.org/ecologist/) *Ecologists... * - conduct research outdoors and in the laboratory - by asking both theoretical and practical questions that can be investigated using scientific techniques in exotic places or close to home. - teach students and the general public -at universities or colleges as well as at high schools, museums, and nature centers. - apply ecological knowledge to solve environmental problems - by investigating ecological issues, interacting with affected communities, writing environmental impact statements, and designing sustainable practices. - help manage natural resources - by monitoring, managing, or restoring populations and ecosystems. - advise students and local, state and federal policy makers - by recommending course work and research, working on committees, and providing the best available scientific information to politicians. - communicate with co-workers, students, and the public - by writing articles and research papers, giving lectures and presentations, participating in discussions, and conducting outreach in their local communities. (http://www.esa.org/education_diversity/webDocs/undergraduate.php#first) ESA does not clearly define or explain its E. BES has no such problem. You can find the BES definition of ecology one click away from their main website: Ecology is the study of the distribution and abundance of organisms, the interaction between organisms, the interaction between organisms and their environment, and structure and function of ecosystems. This definition has its problems (e.g., ecology…is the study of ecosystems) but at least the definition is there to be debated.( http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/about_ecology/) Ecology has been defined, debated and redefined many times since the 1860s (when it existed largely in prospect). Today there are over 50 other national and regional organizations of professional ecologists defining ecology. There is no real likelihood that all ecologists could ever agree on either a narrow essential definition or an expansive description. Does that matter? That, too seems to depend on who you ask. Matthew K Chew Assistant Research Professor Arizona State University School of Life
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of boundary work to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are inside (therefore also outside') of the group. So, what's in and what's out of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at quite clip for the last 40 years or so. As an -ology, is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. Is ecology a thing to be studied? We speak of the ecology of a place, of a geographical feature, of a species, of a population, of an assemblage, of a community (whatever that is) of an ecosystem (whatever that is) or of a landscape (etc.). Is ecology a method, a philosophy, an ethical stance, a moral commitment, a religious belief? Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? Recycling stuff? Organic gardening? Watching a TV show? Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or TNC (etc.)? Taking a class? Two classes? Earning a certificate? An Associate's degree? A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other accredited degree? Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years? Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do ecology be considered an ecologist because they call themselves one? If so, why does ESA have a certification process? Does that process exclude anyone who seeks certification? If so, can excluded individuals still call themselves an ecologists? Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves ecologists? Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely that you're using the right words? If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them? The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and of ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this. I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me. Just respond to the list. 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
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Wayne, et al- It is simple to ask what ecology is (and isn't) but that doesn't make it easy to answer. By definition and tradition it's a pretty broad concept. If you have access, look at the OED entry. If we're trying to pin down what ecology SHOULD be, well, good luck with that. For example, if we exclude prescriptive philosophical approaches, we'd have to lose conservation and restoration (along with a slew of inspirational authors including such as Aldo Leopold and Ed Wilson). 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
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it?
Wayne, et al: The manifesto has been cited, e.g., by: Patrick Curry (2006) Ecological Ethics. Cambridge UK: Polity Press. J. Anthony Cassils (2007) Some Reflections on Human Rationality (or the Lack of It) and the Way Ahead. Proceedings of the Canadia Association for the Club of Rome 3(11)19-27 Robert Burke (2011) The Rise and Fall of Growth: The Inappropriateness of Continuous Unchecked Growth. Journal of Futures Studies 16(1)79-100. There may be others, but I've used up the 10 minutes I had available. A link to the manifesto and some promotional text were posted to ECOLOG-L in March 2004 (see Digest #2004-83) by one of its authors. It has also been cited and linked to by various websites. Why has it not been cited in ISI indexed journals? Perhaps because (like many manifestos) it seeks to close discussion rather than open it. Perhaps because it isn't practical. Any other thoughts? 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
[ECOLOG-L] More from the ivory tower
Well, that was interesting. Comments on a few highlights: - The “hand in glove’ analogy for species in environments is archaic and teleological. Assorted appendages in a bucket is probably a better analogy, but still useless for practical purposes. - I haven’t seen an attempt to sort out introduced and native agricultural weeds, but the question is effectively a non-sequitur. Regardless of geography, very few plant taxa could be considered native to agricultural operations unless we expand the usual criteria of nativeness. That expansion would open nativeness to both introduced crops and introduced “weeds” typical of various cropping systems (Alphonse De Candolle worked that out in 1855). But native and alien can’t do the work asked of them, either. There is no objective standard of ecological or biogeographical belonging beyond expressed evolutionary fitness. Sense of place is not universal among humans, much less across taxa. Most organisms don’t know they ‘are here’ and they certainly can’t conceive of being anywhere else at any other time. - Quantifying invasiveness has been attempted, and it comes across as fundamentally arbitrary (and a bit silly). It is not clear to me that we need the metaphors of invasion and invasiveness at all in order to make sense of introduced species. I think they obscure more than they reveal, which is what recommends this exercise. - It isn’t necessary to acknowledge native invasives because all that does is reduce taxa to membership in a foursquare classification (native noninvasive, native invasive, alien invasive, alien noninvasive). But that classification changes for every set of coordinates in the biosphere and every timeline point for each coordinate set. It is perfectly subjective. - If we agree to call humans megadispersers that still tells us nothing about dispersed taxa other than that they were prone to dispersal via human agency under some set of conditions. It certainly doesn’t move us away from being megadispersers. Should it? - Were we not all invaders? No, I don’t think we all were. It’s a mistake to lump dispersal with invasion. Doing so evidences a sort of intellectual entropy. - Are there meaningful difference between an organism that evolved with[in] an ecosystem and one that evolved outside it? Yes (drop a kangaroo into the middle of Lake Michigan and watch) but the difference is not meaningfully generalizable much beyond the obvious. I find it curious, for instance, that we acknowledge the similarity of ‘Mediterranean’ ecosystems on several continents but complain when other organisms confirm our judgments by occupying more than one. Even then each case is different, and we have been quick to overgeneralize with hopelessly broad categories. 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] a non Ivory Tower view of invasive species
Howdy folks- The assertion that affiliation with university-level research renders a finding suspect or an opinion dubious should interest members of this list. We can compose effectively endless lists of cases where human agency has redistributed biota and thereby affected pre-existing populations, ecological relationships and traditional or potential economic opportunities. Those are indisputable facts. But what those facts mean is disputable. At the most fundamental level I can think of, the dispute is about human identity. Are we part of nature or separate from it? And I think that matters here, even 'on the ground' (which is where the questions occurred to me). The facts of biotic redistribution suggest to me that humans (however unique) are inextricably part of nature. The same facts suggest to others that we are irreconcilably separate from nature, and that our separateness is contagious to some biota via transportation. I see effects; they see impacts. I see change; they see damage. I see population dynamics; they see invasions, enemies, wars, explosions, conspiracies, meltdowns-- and espouse a doctrine of original sin disallowing any 'alien' population or its progeny from 'belonging', no matter how much co-evolution and ecological integration with the 'natives' ensues. Unwanted change is one major 'kind' of problem. Inability to effect desired change is another. Because we are limited and self-interested organisms, we engineer narrowly effective solutions. As a result, the changes that made it possible for you to read this were accompanied by changes you didn't expect. There is, for example, no free shipping. How we go about addressing those problems depends on how we are able to conceive them. Declaring the existence of an 'un-nature' requiring war on human-associated biota generates fear and loathing and supports another(?) military industrial complex. Blaming and demonizing the biota promotes a particular set of narrow engineering responses benefiting an identifiable sector of technologists and associated bureaucracies. It maintains, at best, a gradually deteriorating but locally and temporarily profitable arms race. We are all nobly despairing knights of the Red Queen. But that's what the science of ecology is all about, right? I look forward to your responses, on or off list. But either way, please take a moment to delete unneeded quoting of previous messages in the thread. Preventing unintended invasions starts at home. 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
[ECOLOG-L] Don't judge species discussed on CBC radio
Marine Biologist Jim Carlton and I debated the merits of invasion biology yesterday on Canadian Broadcasting Corp's live Radio 1 morning show, The Current If you like that sort of thing you can stream it at http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/08/04/biological-bias/ About 25 minutes long, including introductory stuff 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
[ECOLOG-L] Nature: 'Don't Judge Species…
I'm surprised that no one has commented here on the fact that ESA president elect Steward T.A. Pickett is one of the authors. 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] EcoTone: Speaking of species and their origins
Hi all– One point regarding Neahga Leonard's observations: Tamarisks (like cottonwoods and cattails) are primarily anemochores, so seed dispersal doesn't strongly depend on their position in any particular watershed. They may spring up in any damp patch, often many miles from a seed source, up, down or across elevational gradients. Our 'Nature' essay cites two papers regarding tamarisk, one describing what we know about tamarisk introduction and identifying the moment and the reason tamarisks were recategorized from being a solution (to accelerated erosion) to being a problem (by the Phelps Dodge Mining Co.); the other reviews the more recent literature and draws attention to a variety of shortcomings in traditional tamarisk-related science. Both can be downloaded at my Academia site (below) 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
[ECOLOG-L] EcoTone: Speaking of species and their origins
An observation or two: an opinion paper with 19 authors effectively receives 6 times as much peer review in the process of its drafting and revision as any typical research paper receives under normal circumstances. The authors included journal editors quite familiar with the scientific publication process, very practiced writers and meticulous reviewers. Nature was under no obligation to publish the piece if it failed to meet their standards. We were under no obligation to submit one that didn't meet our standards. Our purpose in writing was to expand a conversation already well underway by presenting our views formally and in the most accessible and noticeable forum possible. That is readily distinguishable from trying end a conversation by telling you what to think. Indeed, we are encouraging you to critically examine issues that are most often presented as axiomatic. Some of you are doing just that. We appreciate your efforts, and we are paying attention. 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
[ECOLOG-L] Don't judge species on their origins cont'd
Here, for those interested in matters of substance, is the introduction to one of the publications cited in the recent Davis, et al Nature commentary. The full citation is: Chew, M.K. and A.H. Hamilton. 2011. The Rise and Fall of Biotic Nativeness: A Historical Perspective. in D. Richardson, ed. *Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology. *Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 35-47. INTRODUCTION: THE NATIVENESS PROBLEM Nativeness is an organizing principle of numerous scientific studies and findings, and the sine qua non invoked by many management policies, plans, and actions to justify intervening on prevailing ecosystem processes. In recent years, leading invasion biologists (for example Richardson et al. 2000; Pyšek et al. 2004, 2008) have revisited and subtly revised categories, concepts and defiitions related to nativeness to promote increased taxonomic rigor and improve the field’s data collection and analysis. Others (for example Klein 2002; Bean 2007) have relied on, applied and extended these revisions. Critiques have emerged from within and without examining invasion biology’s concepts and practices (for example Milton 2000; Subramaniam 2001; Sagoff 2002, 2005; Theodoropoulos 2003; Colautti MacIsaac 2004; Brown Sax 2005; Gobster 2005; Larson 2007; Warren 2007; Davis 2009; Stromberg et al. 2009). Most of these questioned the appropriateness of the native – alien dichotomy to some degree and some have argued against its continued use (see especially Coates 2003 ; Aitken 2004; Townsend 2005 ) whereas others were content to explore its cultural influence (for example Trigger et al. 2008 ). Given the significance attributed to the distinction between native and alien biota and the growing concern over its quality, it is important to be clear about what these concepts mean. Is nativeness conceptually defensible? Does it accomplish any theoretical work? Pyšek et al. (2004) argued that ‘The search for a precise lexicon of terms and concepts in invasion ecology is not driven by concerns of just semantics’ . In that spirit, this chapter reviews the categories underpinning science and policy from historical and conceptual perspectives, not the labels that ecologists and policymakers use. Nevertheless, when scientists describe categories, we must credit their choice of words with meaning, and they must allow us to evaluate their categories by the descriptions they provide. We address several interpenetrating questions: 1 How did the conception of biotic nativeness develop in historical context? 2 How is nativeness diagnosed and applied? 3 What theoretical considerations does nativeness embody? 4 What rights or privileges does biotic nativeness confer? In answering, we conclude that its categorical meaning and signifi cance both dissolve under scrutiny. Biotic nativeness is theoretically weak and internally inconsistent, allowing familiar human desires and expectations to be misconstrued as essential belonging relationships between biota, places and eras. We believe much well – intended effort is wasted on research contrasting ‘native’ and ‘alien’ taxa, and by conservation projects focused primarily on preserving or restoring natives. 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
[ECOLOG-L] EcoTone: Speaking of species and their origins
As one of the authors of the 'Nature' article in question, I am pleased to see it under discussion here. Writing a 19-author paper requires a great deal of close coordination and numerous drafts over several months. This one is derived from many lifetimes of experience. Most of the authors are very well-known and individually have had active research careers longer than the entire history of invasion biology. None of us took the project lightly, because it would offer no advantage to do so. Please read the paper, not just the blogs reacting to it or comments reacting to the blogs. By editorial decree it is less than two pages long. I suggest that you also read the cited references. There are only 10, and they were chosen carefully because that's all we were allowed to use. Some are easier to access than others, but none are impossible to find. One is Mark Davis' 2009 Oxford University Press book 'Invasion Biology', which can probably be had in any University library. If other methods fail, the rest can be procured by contacting their authors. If you have access to 'Nature' online, all of our names have live email links. Some of you might be interested to learn that producing a 'comment' for 'Nature' involves an unimaginable amount of negotiation with the journal's editors, who begin by completely re-outlining it and then repeatedly re-title the paper and its sections, change photographs, and make insertions for their own purposes: getting eyes on the page and generating buzz. That's their job. 'Nature' didn't get to be the leading science journal by accident. By the way, 'comment' authors are paid; divided 19 ways it came to about US$6 each. Thanks 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
[ECOLOG-L] Science Ecology Terms Definitions Invasive etc.
'Native', 'alien' and 'invasive' are not really scientific or ecological terms, which is why they have been problematic for ecologists. The following paper (due out this month) outlines the derivation and history of significant attempts to standardize the definitions of these categories. Chew, M.K. 2011. Anekeitaxonomy: Botany, Place and Belonging. in I.D Rotherham and R.A. Lambert, eds. *Invasive and Introduced Plants and Animals: Human Perceptions, Attitudes and Approaches to Management. *London: * *Earthscan. 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
[ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis testing (Darwin)
A couple of gaps can be filled in and misconceptions cleared up here. Darwin was not employed as the ship's naturalist on the Beagle. He was invited to travel at his own (that is, his father's) expense as a social class-appropriate companion to Captain Fitzroy, who feared the isolation of a long voyage because suicide ran in his own family, and long voyages were hard on officers (the Beagle's previous captain had killed himself, and his son was still aboard as an officer. He and the Beagle's other officers took to calling Darwin the 'ship's philosopher' and he shared their cabin space.) Later on, after a brief, undistinguished stint as Governor of New Zealand, but an award-winning career as a proto-meteorologist, Fitzroy indeed ultimately took his own life. Darwin had various ideas when he set out, but nothing terribly organized. Under the influence of Robert Grant, Lamarck and Lyell he started putting some ideas together based on his experiences. He was a good naturalist, but (e.g.) not good enough to recognize the Galapagos finches as such until John Gould reported on his own examination of the specimens. Still, by 1837, the year after the voyage ended, he had begun keeping a notebook on the transmutation of species, and had, in effect, an early version of the 'descent with modification' hypothesis to work from. 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology
Ecology without hypotheses has been dismissed (sometimes derided) as natural history, but even natural history requires one hypothesis. Reporting an observation requires 0 confidence that an observation is meaningful, can be communicated, and can be interpreted. There are also tacit hypotheses inherent in scale, including the duration, extent and complexity of natural history observations. Hypothesis testing is a particularly relevant topic in US ecology at the moment because choices made in establishing the NEON program involve numerous hypotheses about ecosystem identity, composition, extent and location, the relevance of potential instrumentation and particular scales. However, the term 'hypothesis' is absent from NEON's website ( http://www.neoninc.org ). Explicit hypothesis testing done under NEON auspices will be subject to an array of tacit hypotheses, none of which have been articulated (or, it seems, even considered) by NEON's creators and promoters. Any supposedly non-hypothetical work conducted under NEON will face the same challenge. 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening?
Jason, et al- The purist position is untenable. If human agency marks the difference between wild and managed, as soon as we take any action to change (+/-) the fitness of any population or species we move it from the roster of wild biota to the roster of managed biota. Even dividing wild from managed along the lines of intentionally vs unintentionally affected becomes problematic; that puts unintentionally subsidized fitness (e.g., weeds) into the wild category. Attempts to parse all this began in the 1830s. Natural historians then were distinguishing natural history from human history based on evidence of human agency. Absence of such evidence was all that made natives native or wild things wild. This remains the case. In short, ecologists need to 'get over' such distinctions. They aren't ecological. They're cultural. Human agency, intentional or otherwise, now affects everything, and will for the foreseeable future. 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Defining biodiversity, and does the term capture the public's attention?
This has been an interesting thread. I may have missed something, but I don't recall anyone mentioning David Takacs' book 'The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise' (Johns Hopkins, 1996) which includes interviews with then-prominent (mostly still active) ecologists and conservation biologists and examines most of the conceptual points made here so far. As an inspiration or motivation, biodiversity still appeals to those who consider it more scientifically substantial-sounding than 'nature'. However, our various attempts to define it in 2010 echo those made 15 years ago, both in their earnestness and futility. It cannot be made simultaneously comprehensive and precise. If biodiversity is all-inclusive, it is useless in scientific practice, and we must conceptually pull it to bits to work with it. In 1996 Takacs paid relatively less attention to the second part of the original question here: Does the term capture the public's attention? Well, how can we know? Using the popular but admittedly fraught 'Googling' method, a Google News search done just now returned 2,625 hits for 'biodiversity' but 60,249 for 'nature'. As a term, biodiversity, like free market, sounds appealing. The devil is in the details. 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
[ECOLOG-L] history of biology
Several of you responded to my comments about history of ecology and biology with specific queries. I will respond as soon as I can but I'm (unexpectedly) developing another course 'on the fly' this semester so my time is limited. What I will do–when I can–is gather some syllabi from various versions of the ASU HofB course and put together a briefly annotated bibliography of various books that address the history of biology in general and ecology in particular. As soon as that is available I'll post another notice here. Meanwhile, if you sent me a message and I haven't responded, I will do so when I can. Thanks for all the interest 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Spontaneous fermentation
It has been politely suggested that the Franklin bacteria quotation is dubious. It is worse than that, in two ways. First, the salient facts are readily available but were apparently never checked or even questioned before they were posted. Such naive and incurious assertions should not be emanating from ESA email addresses – no matter how useful they seem for promotional purposes. Second, as the instructor for an upper-division undergraduate (BIO-) course in the History of Biology, I regret to report that ecology students (and the professionals they become) share today's generally profound historical illiteracy–and apathy. This is a pity in a field whose motivations, hypotheses and conclusions are so deeply affected and occasionally even determined by cultural and intellectual fashions. If you don't know the history of ecology, you don't know ecology. 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
[ECOLOG-L] Peer review, again
Controversial issues in science practice have often been controversial for years, decades, or even centuries. There is an extensive literature on peer review that addresses everything under discussion here, and more. It has previously landed close to home, and pretty recently, too. For example: After circulating a pilot questionnaire at the British Ecological Society meeting in Hertfordshire in 2005, I sent a questionnaire on peer review to two large, well-known e-mail discussion groups for ecologists and evolutionary biologists, ECOLOG-L and EVOLDIR. ( C. Smit. 2006. Peer Review: Time for a change? *BioScience *56:712-713. ) Matthew K Chew ASU Center for Biology Society Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
[ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of environment
Fans of (and participants in) our continuing conversation on misanthropy, etymology and environment might find the following background readings useful: An article on Ludwig Wittgenstein at the International Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/#H2 . Wittgenstein explored the difficulties of language and demonstrated (perhaps inadvertently) that using language was an insufficient means for solving the problems of using language. An article on P.D. Ouspensky at the Gurdjieff International Review http://www.gurdjieff.org/ouspensky3.htm . Aldo Leopold cited Ouspensky as his inspiration for concepts underpinning the idea of 'land health' and Ouspensky's thinking remains perceptible in various aspects of modern environmentalism. And please remember that replying without deleting the message you replied to results in unnecessary reposting. Matt Chew ASU Center for Biology Society Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
[ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Well, we're approaching the end/beginning of the loop now. But to answer Wayne's last question first, you can buy such a thing whenever you like via outlets such as http://www.1worldglobes.com/ecospheres.htm . Still, no one has escaped from the need to stipulate the ecosystem of interest, which can be any set of interacting abiotic and biotic objects and an energy source to drive it. So it might be the components of the 'biosphere' plus solar and geothermal energy inputs and some minerals, or it might be a few shrimp, some algae, seawater, air, and miscellaneous microorganisms in a glass ball. Whether it's 'functional' depends entirely on the needs or expectations of its participants or observers. Function and purpose are stipulative, too. Matt Chew ASU Center for Biology Society mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:00 PM, ECOLOG-L automatic digest system lists...@listserv.umd.edu wrote: There are 7 messages totalling 655 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Physiology Productivity Promises and BS Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology 2. Possible contact for sea turtle gulf restoration project 3. Humans in the definition of ecosystems (2) 4. Arid Lands Restoration Specialist 5. Short-Term Position: Science Curriculum Design 6. Job: Senior Research Assistant, Jornada Basin Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) -- Date:Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:29:25 +0100 From:Anna Renwick anna.renw...@bto.org Subject: Re: Physiology Productivity Promises and BS Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology I think there are two issues here: 1) GM crops 2) massive biotech companies like Monsanto Perhaps it may be better to look at each of these separately. Dr Anna R. Renwick Research Ecologist British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU, UK Tel: +44 (0)1842 750050; Fax: +44 (0)1842 750030 Registered Charity No 216652 (England Wales) No SC039193 (Scotland) Company Limited by Guarantee No 357284 (England Wales) Opinions expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the BTO. -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Annemarie Kramer Sent: 01 July 2010 12:40 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Physiology Productivity Promises and BS Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology I am only joining the discussion now, but enterprises like Monsanto do raise concerns. There is a documentary on you tube that critically shows what is behind them and makes you think you don't want these kind of enterprises controlling our future agriculture market (and this is what they are after). It is scary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hErvV5YEHkE Annemarie Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:23:28 -0700 Von: Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net An: Betreff: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Physiology Productivity Promises and BS Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology Wayne Tyson wrote: What's the irrigation efficiency component of those statistics? Are there any actual experimental data that compare strains under laboratory controls? I'm talking strictly about actual water consumption per unit biomass or seed volume/weight, not field observations loaded with variables and open to manipulation. But beyond that, upon what theoretical foundation is the assertion that GMO alone performs these miracles, without any change in water and nutrients? Wayne, the biotech companies have not claimed GMO alone will double yields in 30 years while at the same time consuming fewer resources (water, fertilizer, fossil fuel, land) and producing less carbon dioxide. Monsanto explains the doubling of yields of corn, soybeans, cotton and canola in 30 years can reasonably be accomplished via using a combination of advanced Plant Breeding, Biotechnology and Agronomic Practices http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/sustainable-ag/new_vision_for_ag.asp The American Soybean Association gets into some specifics in it's brochure on Ten Reasons US Soybeans Are Sustainable http://www.ussoyexports.org/resources/USSEC_sustainability.pdf Examples from the brochure: a) Herbicide tolerant [GMO] soybeans enable farmers to practice no-till production. b) The no-till production method enables farms to reduce deep plowing and multiple soil cultivation operations with heavy equipment. c) The reduction in deep plowing reduces the loss of soil and moisture. d) No-till allows the residue from the previous crop to be left in the field which eventually degrades and thus increases the amount
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
Under the terminology and definitions promoted by leading invasion
biologists including David Richardson and Petr Pyšek, 'alien' species and
their subset 'invasive' species are not routinely identified by their
ecological characteristics. Aliens are identified by subtracting historical
local biotas (meaning species lists) from recent local biotas, then deciding
which positive bits of the difference can plausibly be attributed to
dispersal via human agency. Invasive species are a subset of aliens: those
with the capacity to spread, identified simply by having done so,
somewhere.
Native species are literally those for which we have no record or
'suspicion' of a history of human dispersal. The sole criterion of
nativeness is therefore absence of evidence. Nativeness has nothing to do
with relative fitness, complexity of interactions, diversity yielding
stability, stability yielding diversity or anything else ecological. It has
only to do with reifying a particular view of humans and 'nature'.
On that basis, numerous studies have concluded that 'natives' and 'aliens'
are ecologically different (or not). At best they have shown some ways that
two different species or populations are ecologically different (or not) in
a specific context. That context is often barely defined in ways that
mainly reiterate the labels 'native' and 'alien'.
Comparing 'invading' species with established ones ('native' or 'alien')
confirms that a population new to some context is measurably growing and
spreading, while one less new isn't. The new one is exhibiting fitness under
prevailing conditions. That might (or might not) affect the fitness of
longer established species in in a discretely measurable way. There's no
reason they should be similar.
If we manage to demonstrate a strong effect, we still have to compare it to
a stipulated preference before declaring it desirable (or not). Even claims
about changing rates of change require stipulations. Departure from an
inferred previous rate carries no message in itself. Deciding change is
happening too fast for comfort is more about comfort than ecology.
Consensus on that score is still consensus about comfort.
Endorsing the general claim alien invasive species threaten [something]
stipulates a preference. Such endorsements routinely appear in the
introductions of peer-reviewed papers. Anthropologists or sociologists of
science might call the phrase a disciplinary talisman or password meaning
something besides the sum of its parts. Unfortunately, it also indicates
that the authors and reviewers of such articles share a significant
confirmation bias.
It isn't my place to dictate how anyone should feel about the current (or
any historic) array of human influences on biogeography - but those
influences are prevailing facts of life on this planet. Nor is it mine to
dictate whether anyone should promote fear and loathing of 'aliens' or
'invasives' with inflammatory caricatures. But it is my place to warn that
the bulk of modern peer-reviewed literature regarding the outcomes of
human-mediated dispersal is 'tragically flawed'– by the fact that invasion
biology's currency is vehement, almost competitive antipathy to its objects
of study. The defining anti stance makes invasion biology intuitively and
emotionally (thus politically and bureaucratically) appealing. But it also
makes it scientifically unsustainable.
The situation is becoming so obviously silly and overblown that
environmental journalists have begun contacting me to discuss their
misgivings and explore the issues, rather than asking for quotable quotes.
Think about it.
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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Terminology and associated phenomena Colonizing species etc
Okay, I've taken the bait - or at least, I'm nibbling at it. Earlier today Jim Crants pretty accurately summarized the points I made off-list, for which I thank him. Here I'm responding to his paragraph regarding 'moral grounds' and to his numbered paragraphs (1-4). In order to minimize repeated replies, I've deleted previous material, leaving only specifically relevant passages. I apologize for the inconvenience of having to look up the rest, but it's probably still in your inbox. JC: Initially, my argument was on moral grounds: whatever negative effects invasive species have on native species are the fault of our species (unless a non-human disperser was responsible for the intial long-distance-dispersal event, which very rarely happens), and, as moral agents, we are obligated to try to undo or mitigate the harm we cause to others. That's my Catholic upbringing speaking, I guess, and it's apparently not a compelling argument to someone who hasn't already reached the same moral conclusion on exotic invasives. MC: I think it's safe to assume many or most ecologists feel similarly duty-bound, regardless of their particular religious or ethical training. I suspect (but cannot bring data to bear) that (again) many or most of us now active became ecologists partly because we were already convinced that ethics extend beyond human-human interactions. As a child of the 60s and 70s, I can say that fits my experience, and seems to apply to almost every ecologist I've talked to. Relatively fewer of us have tried to articulate our moral convictions in ways philosophers or theologians would consider to be 'principled', and in my view none of us have really succeeded. Whatever else we are, we're animals with limited capacities. To be very 60s indeed, 'there's nothing [we] can do that can't be done', and evidently quite a lot we can't do. Still, human activity has reconfigured the biosphere. Topologically, it's like wadding up a map of the Earth so that places once all but completely separated are now in all but direct contact. Every major port city touches every other. Every major airport likewise. It's not just the world we live in, it's the world everything else lives in, too. Fundamentally redrawing the map by creating wholly new 'currents of commerce' while expecting former 'rules' of dispersal to persist seems naive. Either our morals are outdated, or our actions are immoral. But neither has much effect on global commerce, and the distinction doesn't matter to anything else entrained in our wake. JC(1) Exotic species, on average, interact with fewer species than native species, and their interactions are weaker, on average. In particular, they have fewer parasites, pathogens, and predators, counted in either individuals or species. This is especially true of plants, and especially non-crop plants. I suspect, but have not heard, that exotic plants also have fewer mycorrhizal associates than native ones, but I doubt that they have significantly fewer pollinators or dispersers. Meanwhile, back in their native ranges, the same species have the same number of associations as any other native species. MC(1) Natural selection only produces interactions good enough to persist under prevailing conditions; there is no gold standard. By definition, 50% of all species interact with fewer species than average, and 50% of all interactions are weaker than average. Preferring stronger, more complex interactions means preferring more tightly-coupled (and therefore) 'riskier' systems with a higher likelihood of failure. JC(2) Very-long-distance dispersal by humans confers a fitness advantage over very-long-distance dispersal by other agents, on average, for two reasons. First, humans often disperse organisms in groups, such as containers of seeds, shipments of mature plants and animals, or large populations contained in ballast water, allowing them to overcome the Allee effects (lack of mates, inbreeding depression) their populations would face if introduced as one or a few individuals. We also often take pains to maximize the establishment success of organisms we disperse, by shipping healthy, mature plants and animals and propogating them when they arrive, while non-human dispersal agents usually introduce small numbers of organisms, often nowhere near their peak fitness potential (e.g., seeds, spores, starving and dehydrated animals). MC(2). JC appears to be arguing that once rare occurrences are no longer rare. I agree. But I draw the opposite conclusion, because he is arguing that to generate such changes is morally wrong, while I am just saying: when these conditions prevail, long distance dispersal becomes normal. JC(3) Although the population dynamics of invasive species do not differ by what agent introduced them (whether humans brought them, some other agent did, or they evolved in situ), it is ecologically consequential that human activities are generating so many more invasive species than
