Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading - Burning Bush
in less than 30 years. Now that's a snap-shot! http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept99/rapid_evolution.hrs.html Here's another thought...whales have been protected and conserved for, what, thirty years or a little longer? How are the world's fish stocks? Ask around and the answers are looking pretty grim. There are some common themes: in crisis...crashing...seriously degraded. At what point will we allow whaling to resume, to conserve the precious herring and other fish that the whales eat? America has been through so many ecological paradigms over the past 400 years that it should be of no surprise that science progresses -- every answer we find should pose more questions, and our paradigm ought to shift with our new knowledge and understanding. Human values sure are valid; every organism on the planet uses resources, sometimes to ruination of the resource. I would love to hear of another creature who intentionally repopulates a resource. Thank you all for your discussion, your patience, and your gracious objectivity. Sincerely, Kelly Stettner From: Peter Coffey Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 5:12 PM Kelly, Thanks for your speedy reply. I agree that actions based on fear are often futile and rash, however I don't thing that conservation should only be applied to cases where something of value is in danger--unless you consider unique and variable ecosystems to all have value, which I do, and thus it always applies. I agree, human introductions do not outnumber natural ones--all introductions before we evolved are obviously natural-- what I was referencing is the frequency with which these introductions occur. Human introductions occur at a higher rate than natural ones. I agree that without change there is stagnation, but evolution works at a rate that sometimes cannot handle the effects of our snapshot in time. To argue that all change is good simply puts you in a position of defending anyone's right to do whatever...why stop pollution, urban sprawl, or strip mining? They're all just change... I agree that conservation efforts are dependent on our heartstrings--that is why red wolves and pandas adorn our calenders. However, is there any point to conservation, does anything have any value, except from an emotional point of view? Is human utilitarianism a valid method of ascribing value to anything? -Peter P.S. I think tardigrades are so freakin' cute!
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
I have some real concerns about the negative perception of conservation biology and invasive species management that I'm seeing. Kelly Stettner asked some questions I'd like to address: Okay, back to seriousness.=A0 Instead of invasive species, why aren't we calling a spade a spade and calling them harmful species?=A0 There are relatively few of them, we both agree.=A0 Here is a for-instance: burning bush is considered an invasive species.=A0 Yet I have six different neighbors who have them on their front lawns, plus our local shopping center has liberally peppered them throughout the property -- I've lived here for over ten years, and never seen anyone sweating blood over the Battle of the Burning Bush.=A0 Where, exactly, and how, exactly, are they invasive?=A0 To whom? Under what circumstances? We call them invasive because they are able to colonize an area to a degree and speed far beyond that of other exotic species. It is their invasiveness that is harmful, their ability to disrupt ecosystem functions and community assemblages. I doubt any resource manager is ever going to suggest the attempt to exterminate all exotic species in an area. As one such resource manager, I can say that most of us hardly have enough time, money, and energy to deal with the harmful species, let alone the dozens/hundreds of other exotics that get along with their native neighbors just fine. In North Carolina, particularly the mountains, burning bush is highly invasive and excludes other native bushes. States pay attention to the invasions going on in neighboring or nearby states, as it's better to address invaders in small populations as they appear, rather than allowing them to reach a state of being a nuisance or truly noxious. Northern states on the East Coast of the US reasonably pay attention to the invasions in more southerly states, partly because the climatic tolerances of these species are not always known, but also in anticipation of changing climate and the opportunity for further population expansion. I don't particularly want kudzu, English ivy, tree of heaven, burning bush, green bamboo, and privet to expand their ranges here in NC. I doubt most of the animals that live in our forests could survive a forest composed entirely or even mostly of those species, which is what we would get if we allowed them free rein. But that's what we're talking about when we talk about invasive species. Not just the loss of one or two species - that's happening just through conversion of habitat to agriculture or cities. It's the exclusion of many species and conversion of whole ecosystems to something completely different. Also, conservation biology worries about conserving every species on the planet.=A0 Yet we don't even know how many there are, and dozens of new species are being discovered every day, from mammals to mollusks, lichen to lizards.=A0 Just look at the Great Barrier Reef recently, or Suriname.=A0 I got ta ask, what do you consider a unique ecosystem, since ecosystems are constantly changing? Ecosystems don't naturally experience these severe shifts in species assemblage as fast we have enabled them to. Change on the time scale of natural invasions makes for ecosystems that are stable long enough to be classified as unique by people. And yes, I know we're part of the natural world, but only in the past few centuries have we had the extraordinary mobility that allows us to transport a species from halfway across the world past many climates and conditions that would otherwise kill them, to enable invasions that would not have happened without our help. Not knowing all the species that might exist does not negate the need to conserve the ones you know that exist. Just because change is inherent to ecosystems does not mean that rapid change is good or even better for us. Your argument against allowing EVERY kind of change is one addressed in Theodoropoulos' book; there must be common sense and a serious stewardship attitude -- but it must be an honest one.=A0 We can't and shouldn't protect every species -- against what?=A0 Extinction?=A0 Adaptation?=A0 Evolution?=A0= Extinction is a resource in and of itself and shouldn't be mourned; loss of one species means more resources for others, and gives other species the opportunity to adapt and to expand their range.=A0=20 The problem with the kinds of change we instigate is that it proceeds at a rate far beyond the rate of evolution for long-lived organisms (especially ones we economically value, like chestnuts and sea bass). At the same time, we're seeing massive numbers/kinds of ecosystems being changed, not just one here or there as you would get without human involvement. And there's no guarantee that the species we value the most *can* evolve fast enough for their kind to weather these changes, forget about the ones we're only learning that might be very valuable. Your example of Daphnia evolving to new conditions proves my point very
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
If I understand this argument correctly, it sounds as though some call conservation biology a pseudoscience on the grounds that it has objectives that are based on emotional responses to natural realities. Of course, to even mention that the Nazis were at least as concerned with removing exotic species as any conservation biologist can hardly reduce the emotionalism around the subject. If you really wanted to promote cold rationalism, you could hardly do worse than to compare your opponents to the Nazis. But, more to the point, I have to question the definition of pseuodscience that says that any interpretation of data that has emotional weight behind it makes the research in question pseuodoscience. Face it: you can't get published if nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't care about the answer. The result is that there is emotional weight behind all scientific research and all interpretations of results. True pseudoscience (nice phrase, eh?) involves unfalsifiable hypotheses, failure to consider alternative hypotheses, or cherry-picked data. Conservation biologists tend to ask questions like, does the population density of this native mussel species decline as the density of zebra mussels increases? They do not deliberately set up their studies so that the results will favor their hypotheses, they try to consider alternative hypotheses, and other ecologists try to find the holes in their studies, just as in any legitimate science. Interpretations of results will certainly be biased against exotic species; at best, the exotic has no significant effect, and any effect it does have will most likely be viewed negatively. But if conservation biology is therefore a pseudoscience, then so is all research into human diseases, where every result is either an advance or a setback in defeating the disease in question. The motivation behind disease research is to find treatments and cures for diseases. I'm afraid to assert a simple motivation behind conservation biology (because then we can all argue about THAT), but it has something to do with preventing anthropogenic extinctions and preserving or restoring ecosystems to a condition similar to what would be seen with less or no human-caused disturbance. If you don't value the conservation of species and habitats, you'll take issue with any interpretation of data by someone who thinks biological conservation is important. That does not mean that the science that produced the results being interpreted is badly done. Regarding whales, I would very much like to see the evidence that the declines in our fisheries are attributable to whales. Is it just a negative correlation between whale population sizes and fish stocks in the past 30 years or something? How many replicates do you have? Do you have any control groups, where whale populations have been held constant? Have you tested the alternative hypothesis that hunting by humans, not by whales, cause declines in fisheries? Have you controlled for habitat destruction by humans (e.g., damming of spawning rivers)?
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading - Burning Bush
recently, or Suriname. I gotta ask, what do you consider a unique ecosystem, since ecosystems are constantly changing? Your argument against allowing EVERY kind of change is one addressed in Theodoropoulos' book; there must be common sense and a serious stewardship attitude -- but it must be an honest one. We can't and shouldn't protect every species -- against what? Extinction? Adaptation? Evolution? Extinction is a resource in and of itself and shouldn't be mourned; loss of one species means more resources for others, and gives other species the opportunity to adapt and to expand their range. Evolution can handle snap-shots -- look at Germany's Lake Constance and the fact that Daphnia changed their feeding behavior to adapt to and eat toxic cyanobacteria from phosphorus pollution. This adaptation happened in less than 30 years. Now that's a snap-shot! http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Sept99/rapid_evolution.hrs.html Here's another thought...whales have been protected and conserved for, what, thirty years or a little longer? How are the world's fish stocks? Ask around and the answers are looking pretty grim. There are some common themes: in crisis...crashing...seriously degraded. At what point will we allow whaling to resume, to conserve the precious herring and other fish that the whales eat? America has been through so many ecological paradigms over the past 400 years that it should be of no surprise that science progresses -- every answer we find should pose more questions, and our paradigm ought to shift with our new knowledge and understanding. Human values sure are valid; every organism on the planet uses resources, sometimes to ruination of the resource. I would love to hear of another creature who intentionally repopulates a resource. Thank you all for your discussion, your patience, and your gracious objectivity. Sincerely, Kelly Stettner From: Peter Coffey Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 5:12 PM Kelly, Thanks for your speedy reply. I agree that actions based on fear are often futile and rash, however I don't thing that conservation should only be applied to cases where something of value is in danger--unless you consider unique and variable ecosystems to all have value, which I do, and thus it always applies. I agree, human introductions do not outnumber natural ones--all introductions before we evolved are obviously natural-- what I was referencing is the frequency with which these introductions occur. Human introductions occur at a higher rate than natural ones. I agree that without change there is stagnation, but evolution works at a rate that sometimes cannot handle the effects of our snapshot in time. To argue that all change is good simply puts you in a position of defending anyone's right to do whatever...why stop pollution, urban sprawl, or strip mining? They're all just change... I agree that conservation efforts are dependent on our heartstrings--that is why red wolves and pandas adorn our calenders. However, is there any point to conservation, does anything have any value, except from an emotional point of view? Is human utilitarianism a valid method of ascribing value to anything? -Peter P.S. I think tardigrades are so freakin' cute! -- James Crants PhD, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Michigan Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading - Burning Bush
Hello everyone, The problem with the non native invasive plant species is not just physical displacement of native species and competition for resources, but also the change in the soil chemistry and therefore soil ecology. Some non native invasive species change the soil pH or have allelopathic features that make the location inhospitable to the native vegetation. A plant like burning bush is a prolific berry and seed producer that is easily spread by birds. Once it is in the new ecosystem it is virtually impossible to completely remove because the transport mechanism is not limited by a physical barrier. Sharif Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 05:21:49 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading - Burning Bush To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU I won't get involved in the larger philosophical questions in this discussion - there are too many nuances, and I don,t have the time right now, but I do want to say something about burning bush. Are there any woodlands near the burning bushes you mention? If so, take a walk through them this fall and you should see lots of burning bushes where they don't belong, crowding out native species which should be there providing food and shelter for wildlife. Burning bush is not the worst of the exotics (Bradford pear, English ivy, bamboo, Japanese honeysuckle, and oriental bittersweet are far worse around Reston, VA) but it is among the top ten. -- Bob Mowbray Nature has shrugged off countless species in the history of the earth--and she will one day shrug off Homo sapiens sapiens with no more concern than she has with any of the others. And, the sooner she does so, the sooner the earth can get back to normal. --Louis B. Ziegler -- Original message from Kelly Stettner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- Hmmm...I want to begin by emphatically agreeing that tardigrades ARE, in point of fact, adorable. I want to make a calendar of them, actually. *grin* Now...onto your post! You said that Human introductions occur at a higher rate than natural ones. Darwin noted many introductions in his time, from viable seeds encased in dirt of the rootballs of trees adrift on the ocean to tiny mussels attached to a duck's feet. I've seen water beetles with freshwater mollusks adhering to their shells, and creatures from crocodiles to dragonflies have been seen a hundred miles or more out at sea. There are records of storms dropping all manner of creatures into new territory, including seeds, worms, snails, frogs, eels, ants, and more -- nevermind that moss spores can be recovered from rain drops and germinate, thousands of miles from their origin. Amazing! The article I was thinking of that discusses how our biases frame our choices of research topics is in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment and is by John R.U. Wilson et al: The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society in Volume 5, Issue 8, pp. 409-414. One quick funny ~ here's a good visual for those who have a hard time picturing a mollusk invasion: http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm120/brodyfairlane/Clams.jpg Okay, back to seriousness. Instead of invasive species, why aren't we calling a spade a spade and calling them harmful species? There are relatively few of them, we both agree. Here is a for-instance: burning bush is considered an invasive species. Yet I have six different neighbors who have them on their front lawns, plus our local shopping center has liberally peppered them throughout the property -- I've lived here for over ten years, and never seen anyone sweating blood over the Battle of the Burning Bush. Where, exactly, and how, exactly, are they invasive? To whom? Under what circumstances? Another question: if natives are so well-adapted to their niche in their home territory, how can a newcomer outcompete them? This article in the NY Times touches on a few of these ideas, but (more importantly, in my estimation) points to scientific studies of Dr. Dov Sax, Dr. James Brown and others. It also points to specifics, like the fact that 40 new species of freshwater fish have been introduced to Hawaii, but the 5 native species have not become extinct. The article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/science/09inva.html?_r=2ref=scienceoref=slog inoref=slogin It is from the September 9, 2008 edition on page F1. Those few invasives who do cause actual extinction do so locally, and also are usually active predators, not competitors, according to the article. Also, conservation biology worries about conserving every species on the planet. Yet we don't even know how many there are, and dozens of new species are being discovered every day, from mammals to mollusks, lichen to lizards. Just look at the Great Barrier Reef recently, or Suriname. I
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
Hi, James. I don't think anyone is calling conservation biology a pseudoscience; it's 'invasion biology' that is in question. To me, conservation is different from preservation -- we can't possibly know what a landscape or ecosystem would look like without humans, but we can be responsible with the planet, use resources wisely with an eye toward the future and the overall ability to prosper of the organisms we interact with. I'm looking at invasion biology and wondering if it does, in fact, deal with (as you phrased it) natural realities. Perhaps it deals instead with what we think we know or perhaps what we fear -- and we all have a level of fear and trepidation toward what we don't know or understand. As far as the whales, if you look back at my original post, I was asking questions, looking for that data: ...what impact is preserving the whales having on other species? Are we going to see population crashes of humans in fishing communities? There are, as you point out, foreseen and unforeseen consequences of things like damming rivers, culling predators (like wolves in Yellowstone), and deciding to preserve one species over another, for whatever reason. Not 'bad' or 'evil,' just foreseen and unforeseen. You make an excellent point, James: Face it: you can't get published if nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't care about the answer. The result is that there is emotional weight behind all scientific research and all interpretations of results. You also can't get published if no one will fund your research, so you have to MAKE somebody care about what you want to study, whether it's a cute, anthropomorphic mammal or a microscopic water flea. Someone has to decide it is important enough to study, and that IS, you are correct, an emotional response. A human value. Again, thank you for continuing this discussion and bringing your ideas into the forum. Respectfully, Kelly Black River Action Team (BRAT) 45 Coolidge Road Springfield, VT 05156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackriveractionteam.org ~Making ripples on the Black River since 2000! ~
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
Hi Kelly, We conservationists and ecologists can see the many many examples of biological wastelands and irrevocably altered ecosystems that humans have wrought, through many activities, an important one of which is introducing new species. Introductions do, as Sax and colleagues have found, increase diversity in ecosystems on average. However, we don't care about the average - there is still a net loss of global diversity, and severe losses in many ecosystems. Many extinctions are of endemic species. Introduced species are typically common and widespread, and it is almost totally unpredictable at this point which invasives will be harmful. We would rather not have the earth become a homogeneous human habitat, but would rather preserve as best as possible the variety of ecosystems that are the result of millions of years of evolution and slow natural colonization. Does this make us human haters? No, it makes us people who think that people can do better. This value system does not make invasion science 'pseudoscience,' as James pointed out so well with the comparison to medicine. Your statement about the whales equates human self-regulation of our impact (invasions) with killing whales to increase fish stocks (ignoring the fact for now that most whales don't eat fish and an incredible amount of data show that fisheries are collapsing because of overfishing). This does not fit into a non-anthropocentric value system. Some people do believe that killing a non-native rat is the same as killing an endemic bird that is endangered by the human-introduced rat. I believe that is a myopic view that ignores the big picture. best, Bob On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 8:22 AM, James Crants [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I understand this argument correctly, it sounds as though some call conservation biology a pseudoscience on the grounds that it has objectives that are based on emotional responses to natural realities. Of course, to even mention that the Nazis were at least as concerned with removing exotic species as any conservation biologist can hardly reduce the emotionalism around the subject. If you really wanted to promote cold rationalism, you could hardly do worse than to compare your opponents to the Nazis. But, more to the point, I have to question the definition of pseuodscience that says that any interpretation of data that has emotional weight behind it makes the research in question pseuodoscience. Face it: you can't get published if nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't care about the answer. The result is that there is emotional weight behind all scientific research and all interpretations of results. True pseudoscience (nice phrase, eh?) involves unfalsifiable hypotheses, failure to consider alternative hypotheses, or cherry-picked data. Conservation biologists tend to ask questions like, does the population density of this native mussel species decline as the density of zebra mussels increases? They do not deliberately set up their studies so that the results will favor their hypotheses, they try to consider alternative hypotheses, and other ecologists try to find the holes in their studies, just as in any legitimate science. Interpretations of results will certainly be biased against exotic species; at best, the exotic has no significant effect, and any effect it does have will most likely be viewed negatively. But if conservation biology is therefore a pseudoscience, then so is all research into human diseases, where every result is either an advance or a setback in defeating the disease in question. The motivation behind disease research is to find treatments and cures for diseases. I'm afraid to assert a simple motivation behind conservation biology (because then we can all argue about THAT), but it has something to do with preventing anthropogenic extinctions and preserving or restoring ecosystems to a condition similar to what would be seen with less or no human-caused disturbance. If you don't value the conservation of species and habitats, you'll take issue with any interpretation of data by someone who thinks biological conservation is important. That does not mean that the science that produced the results being interpreted is badly done. Regarding whales, I would very much like to see the evidence that the declines in our fisheries are attributable to whales. Is it just a negative correlation between whale population sizes and fish stocks in the past 30 years or something? How many replicates do you have? Do you have any control groups, where whale populations have been held constant? Have you tested the alternative hypothesis that hunting by humans, not by whales, cause declines in fisheries? Have you controlled for habitat destruction by humans (e.g., damming of spawning rivers)? -- Robert J. Miller Marine Science
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
I haven't seen any suggestions for literature on invasive species with climate change as a real or potential motivator for wildlife moving (or in some cases, plants, too) to another range that is more closely suited to its previous habitat. If anyone knows of a publication that looks at climate change and invasive species, I'd like the title(s), please. Thanks. Leah Stetson, M.Phil Human Ecology Writer-Editor Association of State Wetland Managers -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kelly Stettner Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 10:13 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:49:36 -0400 From: Peter W. Houlihan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Summary: Undergrad Class in Biodiversity I do not recommend using: Theodoropoulos, David I. Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience. It does not provide an unbiased view of the field and reads like a polemic. Actually, my own reading of Theodoropoulos' book was that he was attacking the polemic views that refuse to see invasions as anything other than evil. In point of fact, the Nazis did extirpate all non-native organisms from their Fatherland, from plant to human. Theodoropoulos makes sound arguments, and I have heard from other authors that introduced species do largely and ultimately benefit biodiversity. The number of species that become invasive after introduction to a new range is a mere fraction of the total number of introduced species. Also, why is it bad if a human introduces a species to a new habitat, but it's just fine when, for instance, flocks of migratory geese bring microscopic zebra mussels to a new waterbody? This is the emotionalism that Theodoropoulos is arguing against. I disagree with Mr. Houlihan; Critique would be a valuable source of discussion for your class. Science is about objectivity (as much as we can manage, since we are always, inevitably, part of our own observations and biases), so take every book you read with a grain of salt and a heavy swig of history. Kelly Stettner Black River Action Team (BRAT) 45 Coolidge Road Springfield, VT 05156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackriveractionteam.org ~Making ripples on the Black River since 2000! ~
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
With all due respect, you can get published even if no one pays for your research, as long as you are willing to pay for it yourself. Dave Kelly Stettner wrote: You make an excellent point, James: Face it: you can't get published if nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't care about the answer. The result is that there is emotional weight behind all scientific research and all interpretations of results. You also can't get published if no one will fund your research, so you have to MAKE somebody care about what you want to study, whether it's a cute, anthropomorphic mammal or a microscopic water flea. Someone has to decide it is important enough to study, and that IS, you are correct, an emotional response. A human value. -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
Good point, Bob. Although an introduction of invasive species somewhere may increase net biodiversity in that place, which simply means the number of extant species in a particular location, this is not necessarily good in the eyes of conservation biologists, who are more concerned with preserving the global diversity of life. Naturally, simple mathematics dictates that introducing five invasive species (only distinguishing them from natives) to an ecosystem will increase biodiversity by five. And over time, the natives may not go extinct, and therefore they would still count towards this total. However, their populations may be decimated, and their ranges lessened, and their influence over resources weakened. And as we know, if the invasives outcompete the natives, the ecosystem dynamics would become severely altered, the effects of which may be difficult to predict. Further, from an anthrocentric viewpoint, we may also not know whether or not a higher density of invasives would be beneficial to us, in any number of ways (practical, emotional, etc.). But what I am trying to say is that just because biodiversity goes up does not mean native species are existing in similar densities to conditions before the invasion. -Jamie Kass 2008/10/3 David M. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] With all due respect, you can get published even if no one pays for your research, as long as you are willing to pay for it yourself. Dave Kelly Stettner wrote: You make an excellent point, James: Face it: you can't get published if nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't care about the answer. The result is that there is emotional weight behind all scientific research and all interpretations of results. You also can't get published if no one will fund your research, so you have to MAKE somebody care about what you want to study, whether it's a cute, anthropomorphic mammal or a microscopic water flea. Someone has to decide it is important enough to study, and that IS, you are correct, an emotional response. A human value. -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
Dave, You can get published if no one pays (I would point to some of my own research, but I haven't actually published it yet), but it's harder if no one cares. One way biologists try to convince people to care is tie their research to something valued by the larger society. Not that I imagine that this point has escaped you; it's just closer to what I was trying to say in the first place. Kelly, Even if someone is only calling invasion biology a pseudoscience (not all of conservation biology), they'll have some work to do trying to convince me. How is pseudoscience defined, if it includes invasion biology? Intelligent design is pseudoscience because its central hypothesis (that there is some high degree of complexity, evident in some biological systems, that can only come about if there is an intelligence designing it) is completely untestable. Homeopathic medicine is pseudoscience because the methods used to test homeopathic treatments lack nice, rigorous things like controls and replication, and because there is no testable mechanistic hypothesis behind homeopathy. I haven't read a very large proportion of the literature in invasion biology, and I've read even less of the work of its outside critics, but what I've read in invasion biology so far seems to be as scientific as anything else in ecology. We know that not all exotics are invasive, that a species that's invasive in on location may not invade another, apparently similar location nearby, and that natives can sometimes act like invasive species, rapidly coming to heavily dominate a habitat, and we investigate why these things are true. A classic question in invasion biology is whether it's possible to predict an invasion based on the biology of the introduced organism and the biology of the community to which it's introduced. A pseudoscience bent on demonizing certain species would, I think, ignore all this messiness by excluding results that contradicted its position. It wouldn't put its energy into exploring the messiness. Regarding whales, some of your questions led me to believe you had already concluded that whales are causing the collapse of fisheries. Why even ask about whether we should start hunting them again to benefit fisheries unless we've already got reason to think their current populations are problematically large? Jim On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:22 PM, David M. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With all due respect, you can get published even if no one pays for your research, as long as you are willing to pay for it yourself. Dave Kelly Stettner wrote: You make an excellent point, James: Face it: you can't get published if nobody cares about the results of your studies, and you can't muster the energy to properly address a scientific question if you don't care about the answer. The result is that there is emotional weight behind all scientific research and all interpretations of results. You also can't get published if no one will fund your research, so you have to MAKE somebody care about what you want to study, whether it's a cute, anthropomorphic mammal or a microscopic water flea. Someone has to decide it is important enough to study, and that IS, you are correct, an emotional response. A human value. -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan -- James Crants PhD, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Michigan Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:49:36 -0400 From: Peter W. Houlihan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Summary: Undergrad Class in Biodiversity I do not recommend using: Theodoropoulos, David I. Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience. It does not provide an unbiased view of the field and reads like a polemic. Actually, my own reading of Theodoropoulos' book was that he was attacking the polemic views that refuse to see invasions as anything other than evil. In point of fact, the Nazis did extirpate all non-native organisms from their Fatherland, from plant to human. Theodoropoulos makes sound arguments, and I have heard from other authors that introduced species do largely and ultimately benefit biodiversity. The number of species that become invasive after introduction to a new range is a mere fraction of the total number of introduced species. Also, why is it bad if a human introduces a species to a new habitat, but it's just fine when, for instance, flocks of migratory geese bring microscopic zebra mussels to a new waterbody? This is the emotionalism that Theodoropoulos is arguing against. I disagree with Mr. Houlihan; Critique would be a valuable source of discussion for your class. Science is about objectivity (as much as we can manage, since we are always, inevitably, part of our own observations and biases), so take every book you read with a grain of salt and a heavy swig of history. Kelly Stettner Black River Action Team (BRAT) 45 Coolidge Road Springfield, VT 05156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackriveractionteam.org ~Making ripples on the Black River since 2000! ~
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
Hi, Peter, thanks for the reply! You're right, just because the Nazis did something it is bad. That would be a blanket statement. I'm saying that trying to exterminate any non-native is not only a practice usually based on fear but is often an effort in futility. Now, if we accept that an introduced species is causing damage to something of value, let's be honest about that and look at possible management of the newcomer. And, no, zebra mussels aren't 'hunky dory' just because a duck dropped some...you picked up on that, as well. I'd be extremely surprised if human introductions actually outnumbered 'natural' ones. Theodoropoulos simply suggests that humans are an agent of change in this world, and that nature, diversity, and life in general thrives and depends upon change. There are serious things to consider, but there are other scientists out there who agree with this. I'll get the citations you asked for, about 'invasion' and biodiversity. Happy to provide those, just am at work and don't have them in front of me. I think sometimes we humans get caught up in the microcosm of the immediate landscape and the snapshot in time we occupy that we don't think about geologic history and how nature often depends upon disturbance and change. Yes, I do think that conservation in many cases is dependent upon our heart-strings; you don't see anyone running a campaign to save the tardigrades, do you? ;-) Polar bears are much cuter. See the recent article in ESA's Frontiers in Ecology. I can look up the citation...all about how science and conservation issues are based largely on personal and cultural biases and not so much on facts. Respectfully, Kelly
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
I haven't read the book, but I disagree with your arguments. Firstly, I think your statement about Nazis removing non-native species is a blatant appeal to pathos...the kind of emotionalism you later argue against. Surely you can't think that just because the Nazis did something that it is bad--everyone likes VW bugs. You say that introduced species do largely and ultimately benefit biodiversity. I would love to see a citation for this, since it seems to contrast everything I know about invasive species... Surely you can't be claiming that the often-observed movement of a house cat or brown rat into an island habitat increases biodiversity despite the loss of animals native only to those islands. Perhaps you're trying to suggest that the biodiversity that might evolve from a new selective pressure outweighs the immediate loss caused by that introduction, but I hardly find that a convincing argument. It seems foolish to kill existing species in exchange for potential ones... I agree that only a fraction of introduced species become invasive, but those that do have a serious impact on the environment, i.e. the zebra mussel. I doubt anyone would describe the introduction of zebra mussels to be fine, in fact I think they are considered one of the most invasive animals in the world... However, it is possible that you're trying to compare a natural invasion with a man-made one. The obvious difference being that artificial invasions happen much more frequently that natural invasions, thereby culminating into larger effects on the ecosystem. These effects are not necessarily bad, in the same way that extinction is not bad, except from an emotional point of view... Are you attempting to argue that conservation is useless except from an emotional point of view? -Peter On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Kelly Stettner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date:Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:49:36 -0400 From:Peter W. Houlihan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Summary: Undergrad Class in Biodiversity I do not recommend using: Theodoropoulos, David I. Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience. It does not provide an unbiased view of the field and reads like a polemic. Actually, my own reading of Theodoropoulos' book was that he was attacking the polemic views that refuse to see invasions as anything other than evil. In point of fact, the Nazis did extirpate all non-native organisms from their Fatherland, from plant to human. Theodoropoulos makes sound arguments, and I have heard from other authors that introduced species do largely and ultimately benefit biodiversity. The number of species that become invasive after introduction to a new range is a mere fraction of the total number of introduced species. Also, why is it bad if a human introduces a species to a new habitat, but it's just fine when, for instance, flocks of migratory geese bring microscopic zebra mussels to a new waterbody? This is the emotionalism that Theodoropoulos is arguing against. I disagree with Mr. Houlihan; Critique would be a valuable source of discussion for your class. Science is about objectivity (as much as we can manage, since we are always, inevitably, part of our own observations and biases), so take every book you read with a grain of salt and a heavy swig of history. Kelly Stettner Black River Action Team (BRAT) 45 Coolidge Road Springfield, VT 05156 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blackriveractionteam.org ~Making ripples on the Black River since 2000! ~ -- Peter Coffey UNC Asheville 828.773.8138
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
Kelly, Thanks for your speedy reply. I agree that actions based on fear are often futile and rash, however I don't thing that conservation should only be applied to cases where something of value is in danger--unless you consider unique and variable ecosystems to all have value, which I do, and thus it always applies. I agree, human introductions do not outnumber natural ones--all introductions before we evolved are obviously natural-- what I was referencing is the frequency with which these introductions occur. Human introductions occur at a higher rate than natural ones. I agree that without change there is stagnation, but evolution works at a rate that sometimes cannot handle the effects of our snapshot in time. To argue that all change is good simply puts you in a position of defending anyone's right to do whatever...why stop pollution, urban sprawl, or strip mining? They're all just change... I agree that conservation efforts are dependent on our heartstrings--that is why red wolves and pandas adorn our calenders. However, is there any point to conservation, does anything have any value, except from an emotional point of view? Is human utilitarianism a valid method of ascribing value to anything? *-*Peter P.S. I think tardigrades are so freakin' cute! On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Kelly Stettner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Peter, thanks for the reply! You're right, just because the Nazis did something it is bad. That would be a blanket statement. I'm saying that trying to exterminate any non-native is not only a practice usually based on fear but is often an effort in futility. Now, if we accept that an introduced species is causing damage to something of value, let's be honest about that and look at possible management of the newcomer. And, no, zebra mussels aren't 'hunky dory' just because a duck dropped some...you picked up on that, as well. I'd be extremely surprised if human introductions actually outnumbered 'natural' ones. Theodoropoulos simply suggests that humans are an agent of change in this world, and that nature, diversity, and life in general thrives and depends upon change. There are serious things to consider, but there are other scientists out there who agree with this. I'll get the citations you asked for, about 'invasion' and biodiversity. Happy to provide those, just am at work and don't have them in front of me. I think sometimes we humans get caught up in the microcosm of the immediate landscape and the snapshot in time we occupy that we don't think about geologic history and how nature often depends upon disturbance and change. Yes, I do think that conservation in many cases is dependent upon our heart-strings; you don't see anyone running a campaign to save the tardigrades, do you? ;-) Polar bears are much cuter. See the recent article in ESA's Frontiers in Ecology. I can look up the citation...all about how science and conservation issues are based largely on personal and cultural biases and not so much on facts. Respectfully, Kelly -- Peter Coffey UNC Asheville 828.773.8138
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading
: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 5:12 PM Kelly, Thanks for your speedy reply. I agree that actions based on fear are often futile and rash, however I don't thing that conservation should only be applied to cases where something of value is in danger--unless you consider unique and variable ecosystems to all have value, which I do, and thus it always applies. I agree, human introductions do not outnumber natural ones--all introductions before we evolved are obviously natural-- what I was referencing is the frequency with which these introductions occur. Human introductions occur at a higher rate than natural ones. I agree that without change there is stagnation, but evolution works at a rate that sometimes cannot handle the effects of our snapshot in time. To argue that all change is good simply puts you in a position of defending anyone's right to do whatever...why stop pollution, urban sprawl, or strip mining? They're all just change... I agree that conservation efforts are dependent on our heartstrings--that is why red wolves and pandas adorn our calenders. However, is there any point to conservation, does anything have any value, except from an emotional point of view? Is human utilitarianism a valid method of ascribing value to anything? -Peter P.S. I think tardigrades are so freakin' cute!
