I'm not sure that the fossil record is particularly relevant to the current situation where man is the principal actor in introducing invasive exotics into environments which have already been greatly disturbed by man.
In any event it might not be extinction we should be concerned about as much as major alterations in the landscape caused by invasions of species like english ivy, bamboo, Bradford pear, burning bush, oriental bittersweet, Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose, autumn olive, Japanese stilt grass, mile-a-minute weed, wisteria, Princess tree, tree of heaven, kudzu, etc. Invasive exotics are often more successful than native species because the insects, diseases, and predators which keep them under control in their native habitats are not present in the new habitat. Also many reproduce vegatatively as well as by seed. These two statements may appear obvious, but I have not seen any mention of them in this discussion. I am concerned that invasive exotics, in combination with other disturbances of habitat like suburban sprawl, conversion to agriculture, climate change, and air and water pollution, may further increase the already alarming rate of extinction. Bob Mowbray Tropical Forest Ecologist -------------- Original message from "Kathleen S. Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -------------- > I've been reading "Species Invasions: Insights into ecology, evolution, and > biogeography" (2005) edited by Dov Sax, John Stachowicz, and Steven Gaines. [snip] In chapter 12, Vermej discusses historical invasions from the > fossil record and what we can learn from them. One of his conclusions is > that while invasions do cause extinctions in islands, in the long term > they're not very destructive. [snip]
