[ECOLOG-L] Ecology Competition as a concept and a phenomenon Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
Ecolog, Joshua, and David: Competition is a cultural tag we hang on observed phenomena to which we can relate. Suppression is another one, and I have been known to use both. I still use suppression, but I have at last eschewed the use of, nay, the very thought of, competition. Organisms are not at war with each other, they're just ebbing and flowing with the tides and winds, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune as it were, jes' a lookin' fer a home, as the old boll-weevil song goes. Methinks too many doth proclaim too much. WT - Original Message - From: David Duffy ddu...@hawaii.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. native (albeit weaker) species I am not sure there is much evidence that ecosystems progress towards a more complex and stronger state, even if we do not ask whether if competition is beneficial or even a dominant force. Nor is there evidence, with a few exceptions, that ecosystems are cyclical, much less self regulating and then only if you carefully pick your scale. One might argue that much of ecological theory has been a repeat of the Gleason-Clements debate, an argument between those who seem life dominated by random events and those who see homeostasis and orthogenesis, perhaps with a pinch of Nietzchian der Wille zur Macht thrown in. This colors current discussions of invasive species, probably far more than any confusion over what invasive means. David Duffy On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Joshua Wilson joshua.m.wils...@gmail.comwrote: Good evening, First off, thank you for the wealth of responses, a number of them helped to solidify and clarify ideas on this issue. I had been waiting for all responses before I replied with a sort of meta-analysis of what came in. The replies were more numerous and substantial than I had anticipated, so thank you again. Now to clarify. When I mentioned progression, my idea was that an invasive species encourages competition, and in some cases extreme and insurmountable competition. I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. The complication arises when an introduced species or a native species that becomes dominant are able to outcompete the other species in the ecosystem to the point of the only species able to compete is itself. In these instances, there are various stances to take, some of which I've heard through responses (again, thank you). From the complete control and restoration of native (albeit weaker) species, to letting nature run its course. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. And as Wayne Tyson said, we are interrupting and influencing this. This leads to many more questions. With what I've learned so far through this posting, exhaustive studies would be needed to determine the best course of action for a particular system or species. Even then, the needed actions to benefit one species might directly contradict the needs of another. There are multitudes of variables that need to go into project planning, not the least of which is *us, *and we cannot foresee the ripple effects of what we'll do. On the other hand, certain invasive species have led to unforeseen benefits. I will mention *Tamarix* *spp.* in this instance. But even with the detriments and benefits, there is a threshold to each. Likewise, invasive species seem to provide species-specific detriments (or benefits). One can call it a culling of the weak species and the establishment of stronger (which in my mind is necessary for progression), or unfair competition, invasive species are not by nature detrimental. I've rambled far more than I expected to, and not as cohesive as some might like. My knowledge and experiences are limited, hence my original question, but I've a sincere interest in these ideas. Again, I would welcome any thoughts, ideas, questions, or comments. Thank you all ECOLOG, this is a great resource for undergrads, post-docs, and interested individuals alike. Keep it up. Have a good night all, Josh On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog, I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems to me that the questions should be addressed and some conclusions concluded, even if they are two-headed. I suggest that everyone read the article to which Huang supplied a link. It is not long, nor is it complicated. I suspect
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
Ecolog and Joshua: Being cocksure about anything is a bad habit for anybody to cultivate, is damnfoolish for ecologists, and verboten for scientists. Egocentrism and science do not mix, but lo, the plethora of contradictions of this statement that exist in the really, really unreal world of civilization. Had we been possessed of better angels, we might have rejected the mess of culture (cultivation--enslavement of plants and animals) at the outset and would still be residing in Eden, laughing and loving and standing in awe of this awesome Earth and Universe, calling our place in it, and seeing it as, good. We might be extinct. Maybe we are, in ecological terms. For the most part we have become wholly dependent upon the products of culture--and these pixels are proof of that, at least in this instance? Irony anyone? With respect to plants (more irony, at least in ambiguity), I am astonished, nay, blown away, that the concept of natives invading a place where they evolved, exists at all. I must be missing something, but I'll be damned if I can guess what it is. WT - Original Message - From: Joshua Wilson joshua.m.wils...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? Good evening, First off, thank you for the wealth of responses, a number of them helped to solidify and clarify ideas on this issue. I had been waiting for all responses before I replied with a sort of meta-analysis of what came in. The replies were more numerous and substantial than I had anticipated, so thank you again. Now to clarify. When I mentioned progression, my idea was that an invasive species encourages competition, and in some cases extreme and insurmountable competition. I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. The complication arises when an introduced species or a native species that becomes dominant are able to outcompete the other species in the ecosystem to the point of the only species able to compete is itself. In these instances, there are various stances to take, some of which I've heard through responses (again, thank you). From the complete control and restoration of native (albeit weaker) species, to letting nature run its course. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. And as Wayne Tyson said, we are interrupting and influencing this. This leads to many more questions. With what I've learned so far through this posting, exhaustive studies would be needed to determine the best course of action for a particular system or species. Even then, the needed actions to benefit one species might directly contradict the needs of another. There are multitudes of variables that need to go into project planning, not the least of which is *us, *and we cannot foresee the ripple effects of what we'll do. On the other hand, certain invasive species have led to unforeseen benefits. I will mention *Tamarix* *spp.* in this instance. But even with the detriments and benefits, there is a threshold to each. Likewise, invasive species seem to provide species-specific detriments (or benefits). One can call it a culling of the weak species and the establishment of stronger (which in my mind is necessary for progression), or unfair competition, invasive species are not by nature detrimental. I've rambled far more than I expected to, and not as cohesive as some might like. My knowledge and experiences are limited, hence my original question, but I've a sincere interest in these ideas. Again, I would welcome any thoughts, ideas, questions, or comments. Thank you all ECOLOG, this is a great resource for undergrads, post-docs, and interested individuals alike. Keep it up. Have a good night all, Josh On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog, I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems to me that the questions should be addressed and some conclusions concluded, even if they are two-headed. I suggest that everyone read the article to which Huang supplied a link. It is not long, nor is it complicated. I suspect that there may be a fundamental flaw in the article's premise, but I will leave that judgment up to my betters . . . Coincidentally, Joshua Wilson's original post (Invasion or progression?) did not define progression, nor has anyone else, and Wilson has not responded to my request for a definition. I think it is essential that it be defined before his question can be answered. If Josh was just joshing us, or he is incapacitated, I may have to lower his grade from an A+ to, say, a C for mediocrity, due to his unresponsiveness. Are you there, Josh? I will await
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
I cant help but find irony in that in one breath (read: keystroke) we cannot agree on a definition of an invasive species invasion or the like, or, seemingly, even if there is such a thing as invasive species when put into the context of evolutionary time. At the same time, there is the opinion at least being discussed here, that there are species that are so successful as to be eradicable. eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:03:25 -0700 From: landr...@cox.net Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Ecolog and Joshua: Being cocksure about anything is a bad habit for anybody to cultivate, is damnfoolish for ecologists, and verboten for scientists. Egocentrism and science do not mix, but lo, the plethora of contradictions of this statement that exist in the really, really unreal world of civilization. Had we been possessed of better angels, we might have rejected the mess of culture (cultivation--enslavement of plants and animals) at the outset and would still be residing in Eden, laughing and loving and standing in awe of this awesome Earth and Universe, calling our place in it, and seeing it as, good. We might be extinct. Maybe we are, in ecological terms. For the most part we have become wholly dependent upon the products of culture--and these pixels are proof of that, at least in this instance? Irony anyone? With respect to plants (more irony, at least in ambiguity), I am astonished, nay, blown away, that the concept of natives invading a place where they evolved, exists at all. I must be missing something, but I'll be damned if I can guess what it is. WT - Original Message - From: Joshua Wilson joshua.m.wils...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? Good evening, First off, thank you for the wealth of responses, a number of them helped to solidify and clarify ideas on this issue. I had been waiting for all responses before I replied with a sort of meta-analysis of what came in. The replies were more numerous and substantial than I had anticipated, so thank you again. Now to clarify. When I mentioned progression, my idea was that an invasive species encourages competition, and in some cases extreme and insurmountable competition. I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. The complication arises when an introduced species or a native species that becomes dominant are able to outcompete the other species in the ecosystem to the point of the only species able to compete is itself. In these instances, there are various stances to take, some of which I've heard through responses (again, thank you). From the complete control and restoration of native (albeit weaker) species, to letting nature run its course. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. And as Wayne Tyson said, we are interrupting and influencing this. This leads to many more questions. With what I've learned so far through this posting, exhaustive studies would be needed to determine the best course of action for a particular system or species. Even then, the needed actions to benefit one species might directly contradict the needs of another. There are multitudes of variables that need to go into project planning, not the least of which is *us, *and we cannot foresee the ripple effects of what we'll do. On the other hand, certain invasive species have led to unforeseen benefits. I will mention *Tamarix* *spp.* in this instance. But even with the detriments and benefits, there is a threshold to each. Likewise, invasive species seem to provide species-specific detriments (or benefits). One can call it a culling of the weak species and the establishment of stronger (which in my mind is necessary for progression), or unfair competition, invasive species are not by nature detrimental. I've rambled far more than I expected to, and not as cohesive as some might like. My knowledge and experiences are limited, hence my original question, but I've a sincere interest in these ideas. Again, I would welcome any thoughts, ideas, questions, or comments. Thank you all ECOLOG, this is a great resource for undergrads, post-docs, and interested individuals alike. Keep it up. Have a good night all, Josh On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog, I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
Dear Ling, WT, and Ecolog, I think the term invasive implies that whatever is now dominating a system came from some ambiguously demarcated outside due to human intervention. The term is largely framed by our conception of history, and so we are inconsistent about where we draw this line for outside. From my experience, most biologists use the term invasive in reference to a dominant organism which is from outside an area it could not have dispersed into without human assistance. For example, most do not consider species to be invasive when disturbance regimes or other processes have been altered by humans from past conditions (this past can be equally ambiguous in discussions) and allow for their dominance of local areas where they could have dispersed into but probably didn't occur. I believe it is for this reason I have never heard a biologist say a raccoon is invasive in North America abefore this discussion. There may be examples which contradict this definition that I have been using though, and I would appreciate the correction and also would very much so appreciate if anyone has a citation for a better definition in use if I am off on this. So, to get around to addressing Ling and WT's questions, if we are consistent with the underlying ideas of what is outside and what is inside are used in our definition, native implies inside and invasive implies outside, both to some predetermined space, and so I would say that the answers to Ling's questions are: 1. (when) can an invasive become native? no (or, never) 2. can an invasive become native? no. I think the words are actually logically exclusive of the other no matter where we draw the line, it is where we draw that line that is contentious, and essentially we would have to switch our conception (whatever that may be) for an invasive to become native. Best, Ryan Unks On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Eric North xcs...@hotmail.com wrote: I cant help but find irony in that in one breath (read: keystroke) we cannot agree on a definition of an invasive species invasion or the like, or, seemingly, even if there is such a thing as invasive species when put into the context of evolutionary time. At the same time, there is the opinion at least being discussed here, that there are species that are so successful as to be eradicable. eric Eric North All Things Wild Consulting P.O. Box 254 Cable, WI 54821 928.607.3098 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:03:25 -0700 From: landr...@cox.net Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Ecolog and Joshua: Being cocksure about anything is a bad habit for anybody to cultivate, is damnfoolish for ecologists, and verboten for scientists. Egocentrism and science do not mix, but lo, the plethora of contradictions of this statement that exist in the really, really unreal world of civilization. Had we been possessed of better angels, we might have rejected the mess of culture (cultivation--enslavement of plants and animals) at the outset and would still be residing in Eden, laughing and loving and standing in awe of this awesome Earth and Universe, calling our place in it, and seeing it as, good. We might be extinct. Maybe we are, in ecological terms. For the most part we have become wholly dependent upon the products of culture--and these pixels are proof of that, at least in this instance? Irony anyone? With respect to plants (more irony, at least in ambiguity), I am astonished, nay, blown away, that the concept of natives invading a place where they evolved, exists at all. I must be missing something, but I'll be damned if I can guess what it is. WT - Original Message - From: Joshua Wilson joshua.m.wils...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? Good evening, First off, thank you for the wealth of responses, a number of them helped to solidify and clarify ideas on this issue. I had been waiting for all responses before I replied with a sort of meta-analysis of what came in. The replies were more numerous and substantial than I had anticipated, so thank you again. Now to clarify. When I mentioned progression, my idea was that an invasive species encourages competition, and in some cases extreme and insurmountable competition. I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. The complication arises when an introduced species or a native species that becomes dominant are able to outcompete the other species in the ecosystem to the point of the only species able to compete is itself. In these instances, there are various stances to take, some
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
That would be most of them, if by eradicate you mean to remove all reproducing individuals from a defined region such that all individuals are put at risk, and reinvasion or recovery is unlikely. The implication being that after an eradication no further management investment is needed, since the targeted invasive species is eradicated. By the time most invasive plant problems are detected or recognized they are uneradicable with normally available resources. Some notable exceptions exist and many eradications have been successful under the right conditions Chris Buddenhagen On Apr 26, 2012 11:11 PM, Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com wrote: How about if we consider that invaders have become native when all efforts to eradicate them are futile? Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/26 David Duffy ddu...@hawaii.edu I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. native (albeit weaker) species I am not sure there is much evidence that ecosystems progress towards a more complex and stronger state, even if we do not ask whether if competition is beneficial or even a dominant force. Nor is there evidence, with a few exceptions, that ecosystems are cyclical, much less self regulating and then only if you carefully pick your scale. One might argue that much of ecological theory has been a repeat of the Gleason-Clements debate, an argument between those who seem life dominated by random events and those who see homeostasis and orthogenesis, perhaps with a pinch of Nietzchian der Wille zur Macht thrown in. This colors current discussions of invasive species, probably far more than any confusion over what invasive means. David Duffy On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Joshua Wilson joshua.m.wils...@gmail.comwrote: Good evening, First off, thank you for the wealth of responses, a number of them helped to solidify and clarify ideas on this issue. I had been waiting for all responses before I replied with a sort of meta-analysis of what came in. The replies were more numerous and substantial than I had anticipated, so thank you again. Now to clarify. When I mentioned progression, my idea was that an invasive species encourages competition, and in some cases extreme and insurmountable competition. I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. The complication arises when an introduced species or a native species that becomes dominant are able to outcompete the other species in the ecosystem to the point of the only species able to compete is itself. In these instances, there are various stances to take, some of which I've heard through responses (again, thank you). From the complete control and restoration of native (albeit weaker) species, to letting nature run its course. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. And as Wayne Tyson said, we are interrupting and influencing this. This leads to many more questions. With what I've learned so far through this posting, exhaustive studies would be needed to determine the best course of action for a particular system or species. Even then, the needed actions to benefit one species might directly contradict the needs of another. There are multitudes of variables that need to go into project planning, not the least of which is *us, *and we cannot foresee the ripple effects of what we'll do. On the other hand, certain invasive species have led to unforeseen benefits. I will mention *Tamarix* *spp.* in this instance. But even with the detriments and benefits, there is a threshold to each. Likewise, invasive species seem to provide species-specific detriments (or benefits). One can call it a culling of the weak species and the establishment of stronger (which in my mind is necessary for progression), or unfair competition, invasive species are not by nature detrimental. I've rambled far more than I expected to, and not as cohesive as some might like. My knowledge and experiences are limited, hence my original question, but I've a sincere interest in these ideas. Again, I would welcome any thoughts, ideas, questions, or comments. Thank you all ECOLOG, this is a great resource for undergrads, post-docs, and interested individuals alike. Keep it up. Have a good night all, Josh On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog, I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems
[ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
Ecolog, I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems to me that the questions should be addressed and some conclusions concluded, even if they are two-headed. I suggest that everyone read the article to which Huang supplied a link. It is not long, nor is it complicated. I suspect that there may be a fundamental flaw in the article's premise, but I will leave that judgment up to my betters . . . Coincidentally, Joshua Wilson's original post (Invasion or progression?) did not define progression, nor has anyone else, and Wilson has not responded to my request for a definition. I think it is essential that it be defined before his question can be answered. If Josh was just joshing us, or he is incapacitated, I may have to lower his grade from an A+ to, say, a C for mediocrity, due to his unresponsiveness. Are you there, Josh? I will await the responses from others on the questions by Huang: 1. (When) do invasives become native? 2. Can natives become invasive? I hope that greater responsiveness will encourage Huang, the chemist, to continue to take his cross-fertilization attempt seriously and not to give up on ecologists. WT - Original Message - From: ling huang ling.hu...@prodigy.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? Hi I am a chemist and not an ecologist but I'm very interested in this thread since I enjoy the wetlands area close to Sacramento near the Davis Yolo Causeway. I wondered and am interested in this invasive or progression type question. I saw that there was a species called Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) that was introduced in the 1800s (?) and is a wetland flower that has invaded wetlands. I suppose my question is how far do we go back to determine if a species is invasive. Is there a time or case when an invasive becomes a native? I did see this interesting online article where the question asked was Can native species become invasive? http://ipmsouth.com/2010/11/23/can-native-species-become-invasive/ Thanks. Ling Ling Huang Sacramento City College --- On Sun, 4/22/12, Amanda Newsom ajnew...@ucdavis.edu wrote: From: Amanda Newsom ajnew...@ucdavis.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Sunday, April 22, 2012, 3:40 PM Very intelligent members of the public have asked me this question when they approach me in the field and I have some time to chat. It's a great question, because invasions biology is attacked politically on this front, so it's one to which professionals really must craft a coherent response in friendly conversation. Another point to consider is the evolutionary history of native vs. introduced (non-native) species in any particular system. One of the reasons non-natives are of concern is that they do not share evolutionary history with the native community, and this contributes to the unpredictable biodiversity loss cited by other comments presented here. This can also be discussed in light of the homogenization of life on earth, because there are many species favored, facilitated, or directly cultivated by humans that are now distributed worldwide. Some of these species threaten regional biodiversity (Check out the book Ecological Imperialism for a really interesting perspective on colonialism as an ecological process via introduction of new dominant species). There's a lot coming out now on evolution and invasive species as well that is, at least in part, reasonably accessible to a general audience or the academic in ecology/evolution who is wanting to step into invasion biology. Related to this (somewhat tangentially) is that the buildup of introduced and invasive species in systems like San Francisco Bay has also increased the number and complexity of biological interactions, both introduced-introduced and introduced-native. Increasing professional interest in introduced-introduced interactions hasn't yet yielded a whole lot of generalized hypotheses, but it has opened new windows to how complex this issue is biologically and how best to protect species of interest as well as local biodiversity. That was a far longer and more convoluted comment than I originally intended! Hopefully, Joshua, some of that is useful perspective. Thanks for posing the question to ECOLOG! It can be intimidating to put something like this out there as an undergrad, and I'm glad you took the initiative. It comes up a lot, as you can see, and ECOLOG is a great forum for this discussion. A. On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Ruhl, Nathan nr343...@ohio.edu wrote: I posed a very similar question to a group of graduate students and professors during a theoretical ecology seminar a few years ago. The central premise was that humans, by virtue of our innate-desire/ability to alter our surroundings, have caused
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
I think that the lack of a response is because there is no clear established rule about either but I suspect that folks have replied to Huang off list. Without academic references to back it up (I'm busy grading at the end of the semester) I will give two short answers based on what I have always been taught and used myself. 1. Invasive species are generally considered native when there are endemics that specialize on the invasive species. An example would be Larrea tridentata which is a relative newcomer to North America, having hitched a ride on migrating birds from S. America in the last 20,000-30,000 years and then rapidly spread throughout its current range. 2. Natives can be considered noxious (http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver ) but the term invasive is generally not applied to natives. You have probably heard the term noxious weed before. This label is used regardless of the recent origin of the species. On a government policy level, the label invasive is restricted to non-natives (http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/whatis.shtml ). -Erin Erin E. O'Brien, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences Dixie State College of Utah 225 South 700 East St. George, UT 84770 Phone: (435) 652-7761 Fax: (435) 656-4002 Email: obr...@dixie.edu -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson I will await the responses from others on the questions by Huang: 1. (When) do invasives become native? 2. Can natives become invasive?
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
Good evening, First off, thank you for the wealth of responses, a number of them helped to solidify and clarify ideas on this issue. I had been waiting for all responses before I replied with a sort of meta-analysis of what came in. The replies were more numerous and substantial than I had anticipated, so thank you again. Now to clarify. When I mentioned progression, my idea was that an invasive species encourages competition, and in some cases extreme and insurmountable competition. I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. The complication arises when an introduced species or a native species that becomes dominant are able to outcompete the other species in the ecosystem to the point of the only species able to compete is itself. In these instances, there are various stances to take, some of which I've heard through responses (again, thank you). From the complete control and restoration of native (albeit weaker) species, to letting nature run its course. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. And as Wayne Tyson said, we are interrupting and influencing this. This leads to many more questions. With what I've learned so far through this posting, exhaustive studies would be needed to determine the best course of action for a particular system or species. Even then, the needed actions to benefit one species might directly contradict the needs of another. There are multitudes of variables that need to go into project planning, not the least of which is *us, *and we cannot foresee the ripple effects of what we'll do. On the other hand, certain invasive species have led to unforeseen benefits. I will mention *Tamarix* *spp.* in this instance. But even with the detriments and benefits, there is a threshold to each. Likewise, invasive species seem to provide species-specific detriments (or benefits). One can call it a culling of the weak species and the establishment of stronger (which in my mind is necessary for progression), or unfair competition, invasive species are not by nature detrimental. I've rambled far more than I expected to, and not as cohesive as some might like. My knowledge and experiences are limited, hence my original question, but I've a sincere interest in these ideas. Again, I would welcome any thoughts, ideas, questions, or comments. Thank you all ECOLOG, this is a great resource for undergrads, post-docs, and interested individuals alike. Keep it up. Have a good night all, Josh On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog, I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems to me that the questions should be addressed and some conclusions concluded, even if they are two-headed. I suggest that everyone read the article to which Huang supplied a link. It is not long, nor is it complicated. I suspect that there may be a fundamental flaw in the article's premise, but I will leave that judgment up to my betters . . . Coincidentally, Joshua Wilson's original post (Invasion or progression?) did not define progression, nor has anyone else, and Wilson has not responded to my request for a definition. I think it is essential that it be defined before his question can be answered. If Josh was just joshing us, or he is incapacitated, I may have to lower his grade from an A+ to, say, a C for mediocrity, due to his unresponsiveness. Are you there, Josh? I will await the responses from others on the questions by Huang: 1. (When) do invasives become native? 2. Can natives become invasive? I hope that greater responsiveness will encourage Huang, the chemist, to continue to take his cross-fertilization attempt seriously and not to give up on ecologists. WT - Original Message - From: ling huang ling.hu...@prodigy.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? Hi I am a chemist and not an ecologist but I'm very interested in this thread since I enjoy the wetlands area close to Sacramento near the Davis Yolo Causeway. I wondered and am interested in this invasive or progression type question. I saw that there was a species called Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) that was introduced in the 1800s (?) and is a wetland flower that has invaded wetlands. I suppose my question is how far do we go back to determine if a species is invasive. Is there a time or case when an invasive becomes a native? I did see this interesting online article where the question asked was Can native species become invasive? http://ipmsouth.com/2010/11/**23/can-native-species-become-**invasive/http://ipmsouth.com/2010/11/23/can-native-species-become-invasive/ Thanks. Ling Ling Huang Sacramento City
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
Well, several responses have answered in the affirmative so far as natives becoming invasive, with examples. Raccoons and Eastern Red Cedar come to mind as examples mentioned so far. I won't comment further here on my thoughts about them. So far as When do invasives become native?: What about when people who never knew them as exotics are the oldest people looking. That would make Russian Thistle and both species of Tamarisk now native in the western U.S. But, there are control programs for Tamarisk. So far as I know, only farmers and ranchers make any effort to control Russian thistle (tumbleweed). Another example of exotic to native so far as function is concerned might be common carp in North America. Which brings to mind that a fair number of exotic fishes have been planted in locales where they have become an accepted (and even welcomed) part of the local fish fauna. Some of them are sports fishes. Among these are several trouts from North America transplanted to other parts of North America, Europe, Africa, S. America; Several centrarchids from eastern North America transplanted to western North America, Africa, S. America; Brown trout from Europe to North America; striped bass from the Atlantic seaboard of North America to interior river systems in North America. If the introduction is on purpose for a supposed benefit, does it still count as invasive when it becomes widely established? David McNeely Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog, I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems to me that the questions should be addressed and some conclusions concluded, even if they are two-headed. I suggest that everyone read the article to which Huang supplied a link. It is not long, nor is it complicated. I suspect that there may be a fundamental flaw in the article's premise, but I will leave that judgment up to my betters . . . Coincidentally, Joshua Wilson's original post (Invasion or progression?) did not define progression, nor has anyone else, and Wilson has not responded to my request for a definition. I think it is essential that it be defined before his question can be answered. If Josh was just joshing us, or he is incapacitated, I may have to lower his grade from an A+ to, say, a C for mediocrity, due to his unresponsiveness. Are you there, Josh? I will await the responses from others on the questions by Huang: 1. (When) do invasives become native? 2. Can natives become invasive? I hope that greater responsiveness will encourage Huang, the chemist, to continue to take his cross-fertilization attempt seriously and not to give up on ecologists. WT - Original Message - From: ling huang ling.hu...@prodigy.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? Hi I am a chemist and not an ecologist but I'm very interested in this thread since I enjoy the wetlands area close to Sacramento near the Davis Yolo Causeway. I wondered and am interested in this invasive or progression type question. I saw that there was a species called Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) that was introduced in the 1800s (?) and is a wetland flower that has invaded wetlands. I suppose my question is how far do we go back to determine if a species is invasive. Is there a time or case when an invasive becomes a native? I did see this interesting online article where the question asked was Can native species become invasive? http://ipmsouth.com/2010/11/23/can-native-species-become-invasive/ Thanks. Ling Ling Huang Sacramento City College --- On Sun, 4/22/12, Amanda Newsom ajnew...@ucdavis.edu wrote: From: Amanda Newsom ajnew...@ucdavis.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Sunday, April 22, 2012, 3:40 PM Very intelligent members of the public have asked me this question when they approach me in the field and I have some time to chat. It's a great question, because invasions biology is attacked politically on this front, so it's one to which professionals really must craft a coherent response in friendly conversation. Another point to consider is the evolutionary history of native vs. introduced (non-native) species in any particular system. One of the reasons non-natives are of concern is that they do not share evolutionary history with the native community, and this contributes to the unpredictable biodiversity loss cited by other comments presented here. This can also be discussed in light of the homogenization of life on earth, because there are many species favored, facilitated, or directly cultivated by humans that are now distributed worldwide. Some of these species threaten regional biodiversity (Check out the book
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
I sent a reference to the Brown et al. (2008) paper (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1614/IPSM-08-082.1) to Huang offline. I think many other references were also sent offline. As for Joshua's comment that certain invasive species have led to unforeseen benefits, there is a small (?) body of research and commentary on the impact that invasive species are having on ecosystem services. The increase in the distribution of invasive species is impacting ecosystems and not always to the detriment of the system. In fact, articles by Hershner and Havens (2008) (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1523-1739.2008.00957.x/abstract), Pattemore and Wilcove (2011) (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1733/1597), and others would support this premise and have raised considerable debate in other online communities. In contrast, one of the biggest issues currently being debated is how invasive plant species used for bioenergy production could have significant effects if they escape into the local region (http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/Reports/Archive/2012/04-04-12-Growing-Risk.aspx). Again, much has to do with how we define an invasive, the context in which we're referring to, and the setting we may be working in. I'm not sure if this is the direction of the discussion for this thread, but it is something to consider. Steve ___ Stephen L. Young, PhD Weed Ecologist University of Nebraska-Lincoln -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Joshua Wilson Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 8:11 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? Good evening, First off, thank you for the wealth of responses, a number of them helped to solidify and clarify ideas on this issue. I had been waiting for all responses before I replied with a sort of meta-analysis of what came in. The replies were more numerous and substantial than I had anticipated, so thank you again. Now to clarify. When I mentioned progression, my idea was that an invasive species encourages competition, and in some cases extreme and insurmountable competition. I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. The complication arises when an introduced species or a native species that becomes dominant are able to outcompete the other species in the ecosystem to the point of the only species able to compete is itself. In these instances, there are various stances to take, some of which I've heard through responses (again, thank you). From the complete control and restoration of native (albeit weaker) species, to letting nature run its course. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. And as Wayne Tyson said, we are interrupting and influencing this. This leads to many more questions. With what I've learned so far through this posting, exhaustive studies would be needed to determine the best course of action for a particular system or species. Even then, the needed actions to benefit one species might directly contradict the needs of another. There are multitudes of variables that need to go into project planning, not the least of which is *us, *and we cannot foresee the ripple effects of what we'll do. On the other hand, certain invasive species have led to unforeseen benefits. I will mention *Tamarix* *spp.* in this instance. But even with the detriments and benefits, there is a threshold to each. Likewise, invasive species seem to provide species-specific detriments (or benefits). One can call it a culling of the weak species and the establishment of stronger (which in my mind is necessary for progression), or unfair competition, invasive species are not by nature detrimental. I've rambled far more than I expected to, and not as cohesive as some might like. My knowledge and experiences are limited, hence my original question, but I've a sincere interest in these ideas. Again, I would welcome any thoughts, ideas, questions, or comments. Thank you all ECOLOG, this is a great resource for undergrads, post-docs, and interested individuals alike. Keep it up. Have a good night all, Josh On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog, I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems to me that the questions should be addressed and some conclusions concluded, even if they are two-headed. I suggest that everyone read the article to which Huang supplied a link. It is not long, nor is it complicated. I suspect that there may be a fundamental flaw in the article's premise, but I will leave
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. native (albeit weaker) species I am not sure there is much evidence that ecosystems progress towards a more complex and stronger state, even if we do not ask whether if competition is beneficial or even a dominant force. Nor is there evidence, with a few exceptions, that ecosystems are cyclical, much less self regulating and then only if you carefully pick your scale. One might argue that much of ecological theory has been a repeat of the Gleason-Clements debate, an argument between those who seem life dominated by random events and those who see homeostasis and orthogenesis, perhaps with a pinch of Nietzchian der Wille zur Macht thrown in. This colors current discussions of invasive species, probably far more than any confusion over what invasive means. David Duffy On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Joshua Wilson joshua.m.wils...@gmail.comwrote: Good evening, First off, thank you for the wealth of responses, a number of them helped to solidify and clarify ideas on this issue. I had been waiting for all responses before I replied with a sort of meta-analysis of what came in. The replies were more numerous and substantial than I had anticipated, so thank you again. Now to clarify. When I mentioned progression, my idea was that an invasive species encourages competition, and in some cases extreme and insurmountable competition. I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. The complication arises when an introduced species or a native species that becomes dominant are able to outcompete the other species in the ecosystem to the point of the only species able to compete is itself. In these instances, there are various stances to take, some of which I've heard through responses (again, thank you). From the complete control and restoration of native (albeit weaker) species, to letting nature run its course. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. And as Wayne Tyson said, we are interrupting and influencing this. This leads to many more questions. With what I've learned so far through this posting, exhaustive studies would be needed to determine the best course of action for a particular system or species. Even then, the needed actions to benefit one species might directly contradict the needs of another. There are multitudes of variables that need to go into project planning, not the least of which is *us, *and we cannot foresee the ripple effects of what we'll do. On the other hand, certain invasive species have led to unforeseen benefits. I will mention *Tamarix* *spp.* in this instance. But even with the detriments and benefits, there is a threshold to each. Likewise, invasive species seem to provide species-specific detriments (or benefits). One can call it a culling of the weak species and the establishment of stronger (which in my mind is necessary for progression), or unfair competition, invasive species are not by nature detrimental. I've rambled far more than I expected to, and not as cohesive as some might like. My knowledge and experiences are limited, hence my original question, but I've a sincere interest in these ideas. Again, I would welcome any thoughts, ideas, questions, or comments. Thank you all ECOLOG, this is a great resource for undergrads, post-docs, and interested individuals alike. Keep it up. Have a good night all, Josh On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog, I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems to me that the questions should be addressed and some conclusions concluded, even if they are two-headed. I suggest that everyone read the article to which Huang supplied a link. It is not long, nor is it complicated. I suspect that there may be a fundamental flaw in the article's premise, but I will leave that judgment up to my betters . . . Coincidentally, Joshua Wilson's original post (Invasion or progression?) did not define progression, nor has anyone else, and Wilson has not responded to my request for a definition. I think it is essential that it be defined before his question can be answered. If Josh was just joshing us, or he is incapacitated, I may have to lower his grade from an A+ to, say, a C for mediocrity, due to his unresponsiveness. Are you there, Josh? I will await the responses from others on the questions by Huang: 1. (When) do invasives become native? 2. Can natives become invasive? I hope that greater responsiveness will
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plants Invasive natives? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
How about if we consider that invaders have become native when all efforts to eradicate them are futile? Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/26 David Duffy ddu...@hawaii.edu I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. native (albeit weaker) species I am not sure there is much evidence that ecosystems progress towards a more complex and stronger state, even if we do not ask whether if competition is beneficial or even a dominant force. Nor is there evidence, with a few exceptions, that ecosystems are cyclical, much less self regulating and then only if you carefully pick your scale. One might argue that much of ecological theory has been a repeat of the Gleason-Clements debate, an argument between those who seem life dominated by random events and those who see homeostasis and orthogenesis, perhaps with a pinch of Nietzchian der Wille zur Macht thrown in. This colors current discussions of invasive species, probably far more than any confusion over what invasive means. David Duffy On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Joshua Wilson joshua.m.wils...@gmail.comwrote: Good evening, First off, thank you for the wealth of responses, a number of them helped to solidify and clarify ideas on this issue. I had been waiting for all responses before I replied with a sort of meta-analysis of what came in. The replies were more numerous and substantial than I had anticipated, so thank you again. Now to clarify. When I mentioned progression, my idea was that an invasive species encourages competition, and in some cases extreme and insurmountable competition. I feel that competition without a doubt is beneficial, perhaps necessary, for an ecosystem to continue progressing towards a more complex and stronger state. The complication arises when an introduced species or a native species that becomes dominant are able to outcompete the other species in the ecosystem to the point of the only species able to compete is itself. In these instances, there are various stances to take, some of which I've heard through responses (again, thank you). From the complete control and restoration of native (albeit weaker) species, to letting nature run its course. However, my thought was that ecosystems are cyclical and self-regulating. And as Wayne Tyson said, we are interrupting and influencing this. This leads to many more questions. With what I've learned so far through this posting, exhaustive studies would be needed to determine the best course of action for a particular system or species. Even then, the needed actions to benefit one species might directly contradict the needs of another. There are multitudes of variables that need to go into project planning, not the least of which is *us, *and we cannot foresee the ripple effects of what we'll do. On the other hand, certain invasive species have led to unforeseen benefits. I will mention *Tamarix* *spp.* in this instance. But even with the detriments and benefits, there is a threshold to each. Likewise, invasive species seem to provide species-specific detriments (or benefits). One can call it a culling of the weak species and the establishment of stronger (which in my mind is necessary for progression), or unfair competition, invasive species are not by nature detrimental. I've rambled far more than I expected to, and not as cohesive as some might like. My knowledge and experiences are limited, hence my original question, but I've a sincere interest in these ideas. Again, I would welcome any thoughts, ideas, questions, or comments. Thank you all ECOLOG, this is a great resource for undergrads, post-docs, and interested individuals alike. Keep it up. Have a good night all, Josh On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog, I am dismayed that there has been so little response to Huang's questions. Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption and they have been. But it seems to me that the questions should be addressed and some conclusions concluded, even if they are two-headed. I suggest that everyone read the article to which Huang supplied a link. It is not long, nor is it complicated. I suspect that there may be a fundamental flaw in the article's premise, but I will leave that judgment up to my betters . . . Coincidentally, Joshua Wilson's original post (Invasion or progression?) did not define progression, nor has anyone else, and Wilson has not responded to my request for a definition. I think it is essential that it be defined before his question can be answered. If Josh was just joshing us, or he is incapacitated, I may have to lower his grade from an A+ to, say,
