Ecolog and M. Kirkland:
"Declarations" in scientific, scholarly, or intellectual intercourse have
long been customarily required to be based upon specifics. In the spirit of
such enquiry, specific defects observed in another's statement should be
cited, followed by a relevant exposition of relevant facts and sources, the
critic's reasoning, and clear conclusions. Perhaps I am out-of-date; if this
custom has been supplanted by opinion (arguing from authority?) or something
superior, I should like to become informed of the basis upon which such
alternative is grounded.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirkland, Melissa J NWP" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Responses to Davis_etal..Nature article on invasive
species (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
As part of this debate, and I give nod to those that have declared the
original article as over-simplified, there are vast differences in the
impacts of "invasive" species that displace desirable species, and
non-native
species that simply naturalize in an area with minimal impacts to the
ecosystem.
Which brings up another concept for me. Ecosystem functions and how those
functions collapse in the face of replacement of native plant communities
with monocultural stands of invasive species.
Just my humble thoughts.
Melissa Kirkland
Natural Resource Specialist
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eugene, Oregon
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3793 - Release Date: 07/28/11
