Ecolog:
At Krista's request, I am posting her comments herewith. For the most part,
I tend to agree with her while disagreeing with her, but will not comment
further on those points--much. I especially agree that the discussion has
wandered off into the intellectual weeds, but I also am willing to weed out
the wheat from the chaff. As an invader myself, I don't pull out easily, and
share her desire for clarity, even though I probably have been guilty of
creating much of the fog myself.
Perhaps the best way to begin to disentangle the discussion is to ask one
question or make one statement at a time, and a very specific one at that.
WT
"We must disenthrall ourselves." --Abraham Lincoln
Krista: If you are subscribed, just address [email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Krista Lindley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 2:25 PM
Subject: response to ECOLOG thread "Re: a non Ivory Tower view of invasive
species"
Wayne,
Either my computer will not allow me to post to this thread (first
time poster) or I'm experiencing a user error : )
Would you be willing to post this on my behalf or email me brief
instructions for posting?
Thanks in advance,
Krista Lindley
As a student currently in search of a graduate program in which to
study invasion ecology, I am also troubled to see some of the rhetoric
espoused in this comment stream. Thank you to those in this stream who
have not yet given up.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand and acknowledge there are terms
commonly used in the field of invasion ecology that could be better
defined (i.e. native, natural, exotic, invasive, etc). Still, I can’t
help but feel we are getting lost in a discussion of semantics. This
aversion to certain terms is dismissive of years of hard work and
worthwhile research conducted by our colleagues beginning decades ago.
Before we rush to the conclusion that we’re arrogant in our attempts
to conserve diversity and ecosystem functions, or that invasive
species management is futile, or resign to the idea that we don’t even
know what we mean by “nature” and therefore everything else is moot,
remember, we do know a thing or two about what is happening in
ecosystems.
Indeed there are interesting philosophical discussions to be had about
the implications of science, but let’s be careful not to belittle the
science in doing so. The idea that invasive species management is
blindly “gardening” on landscape level merits discussion. Still, this
idea is overly simplistic and pays little respect to invasion
ecologists. The parallel to climate change is a good one; while we
haven’t yet worked out all the kinks we know the climate is changing
and can anticipate widespread negative effects (on food webs, nutrient
cycling, economies, etc.) based on the interpretation of scientific
data, not linguistics. Yes, communities are dynamic, may have multiple
stable states, and may be constantly in flux. Still, it’s hard to tell
yourself that when you’re standing waist deep in a vast monoculture of
an exotic perennial plant that has colonized that space following wild
boar disturbance event.
As a kid I often thought about the weeds growing in the cracks of the
pavement and was filled with admiration for the plant; “You made it
against all odds!” Now, as a budding ecologist, I cannot imagine ever
being able to simply accept the net global loss of species due to this
phenomenon. Let’s not lose focus of what we already know about the
overwhelmingly negative effects of invasive (distinct from “exotic”)
species in introduced areas. We’re not just talking about species
shuffling around the globe; we’re talking about a massive loss of
species for good.
Maybe one of the biggest advantages afforded to invasives is the time
we provide them while we sit in our offices debating the words in
which to describe what is obvious.
Not discouraged,
Krista Lindley
Sonoma State University Alum
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3892 - Release Date: 09/12/11
