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 a general decline in biodiversity globally. That is,humans are the primary vector for a loss of global biodiversity, not the "non-native"/"invasive" species. The question was, is reduction of biodiversity bad or is it simply evolution in favor of species better adapted to live in a human-altered landscape?
After much debate, the consensus was more or less that we don't know what all the ecological implications of a rapid global reduction in biodiversity will be and, because we have only one habitable planet currently, it would be a good idea not to break it. Therefore, in the absence of a rigorous ecological understanding that we may never actually achieve, humans should be taking steps to promote the conservation of biodiversity whenever possible. N Ruhl Ohio University ________________________________________ On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Joshua Wilson <[email protected]>wrote: > Good morning, > > I know that invasive and non-native species have been getting a great deal > of attention lately, and justly. I understand the basic ecological impacts > and concerns invasive species cause, and the disruption of the native > system. My main question is: > > Why are invasive species considered a nuisance, instead of adaptation, > progression, or perhaps ecosystem evolution? > > Yes, human beings have been a main cause of the large majority of these > invasions. But even so, I feel we are part of the natural system. If an > invasive species exhibits more plasticity or is more competitive and > adaptive than the present species in an ecosystem, does that necessarily > imply catastrophic impacts? There are multiple arguments against this, I > know, many of them strong and verified. I am not an advocate of invasive > species dominated ecosystems, but am just curious why this change and shift > is considered so extremely detrimental. I feel that stable and progressive > change and adaptation is the basis of a strong ecological system. > > I would welcome any thoughts on this, or perhaps to start a discussion. I > am still an undergrad, so my question may seem farfetched and ridiculous to > some. Even so, just something to ponder on a lovely Sunday morning. > > Have a good day all, > > Josh Wilson > -- Gary D. Grossman, PhD Professor of Animal Ecology Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA 30602 http://grossman.myweb.uga.edu/ <http://www.arches.uga.edu/%7Egrossman> Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish
