Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading - Burning Bush
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 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion biology reading - Burning Bush
Of course, if burning bush is not invasive in Vermont, or if the invasion is still in its early stages, Kelly will not find it crowding out the natives in the local woodlands. What, exactly, would that mean? Is there an invasive species that's found to be invasive absolutely everywhere it's introduced? Why invasive species are not invasive everywhere is one of the major questions in conservation biology, but it's foolish to dismiss the entire concept of biological invasions just because there are cases where a notorious invader fails to invade. Millions of people with HIV don't have AIDS. Most smokers never get lung cancer. Most of the time, when someone drives somewhere drunk, they arrive safely at their destination. Should we conclude that HIV, smoking, and drunk driving are all harmless? On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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
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
