Here, for those interested in matters of substance, is the introduction to one of the publications cited in the recent Davis, et al Nature commentary. The full citation is: Chew, M.K. and A.H. Hamilton. 2011. The Rise and Fall of Biotic Nativeness: A Historical Perspective. in D. Richardson, ed. *Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology. *Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 35-47.
INTRODUCTION: THE NATIVENESS PROBLEM Nativeness is an organizing principle of numerous scientific studies and findings, and the sine qua non invoked by many management policies, plans, and actions to justify intervening on prevailing ecosystem processes. In recent years, leading invasion biologists (for example Richardson et al. 2000; Pyšek et al. 2004, 2008) have revisited and subtly revised categories, concepts and defiitions related to nativeness to promote increased taxonomic rigor and improve the field’s data collection and analysis. Others (for example Klein 2002; Bean 2007) have relied on, applied and extended these revisions. Critiques have emerged from within and without examining invasion biology’s concepts and practices (for example Milton 2000; Subramaniam 2001; Sagoff 2002, 2005; Theodoropoulos 2003; Colautti & MacIsaac 2004; Brown & Sax 2005; Gobster 2005; Larson 2007; Warren 2007; Davis 2009; Stromberg et al. 2009). Most of these questioned the appropriateness of the native – alien dichotomy to some degree and some have argued against its continued use (see especially Coates 2003 ; Aitken 2004; Townsend 2005 ) whereas others were content to explore its cultural influence (for example Trigger et al. 2008 ). Given the significance attributed to the distinction between native and alien biota and the growing concern over its quality, it is important to be clear about what these concepts mean. Is nativeness conceptually defensible? Does it accomplish any theoretical work? Pyšek et al. (2004) argued that ‘The search for a precise lexicon of terms and concepts in invasion ecology is not driven by concerns of just semantics’ . In that spirit, this chapter reviews the categories underpinning science and policy from historical and conceptual perspectives, not the labels that ecologists and policymakers use. Nevertheless, when scientists describe categories, we must credit their choice of words with meaning, and they must allow us to evaluate their categories by the descriptions they provide. We address several interpenetrating questions: 1 How did the conception of biotic nativeness develop in historical context? 2 How is nativeness diagnosed and applied? 3 What theoretical considerations does nativeness embody? 4 What rights or privileges does biotic nativeness confer? In answering, we conclude that its categorical meaning and signifi cance both dissolve under scrutiny. Biotic nativeness is theoretically weak and internally inconsistent, allowing familiar human desires and expectations to be misconstrued as essential belonging relationships between biota, places and eras. We believe much well – intended effort is wasted on research contrasting ‘native’ and ‘alien’ taxa, and by conservation projects focused primarily on preserving or restoring natives. Matthew K Chew Assistant Research Professor Arizona State University School of Life Sciences ASU Center for Biology & Society PO Box 873301 Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA Tel 480.965.8422 Fax 480.965.8330 [email protected] or [email protected] http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
