Josh et y'all:
Note: There once was a teacher who would grant an "A" to any student who
asked one intelligent question, regardless of whether the question implied
knowledge or ignorance. (Sigh . . .)
"Invasion" means that the dimensions of the habitat (temperature, radiation,
Ph, nutrients, water, etc.) favor the "invading" organism. This requires the
presence of a propagule or other reproductive unit (e.g. a male and a female
in the case of sexual reproduction) and conditions favorable to the
"invading" organism's survival, reproduction, and persistence as breeding
population. Such conditions may exist at the time the propagule is
introduced, or they may be created by various forms of disturbance, which
may or may not be anthropogenic. All this occurs within the energy/nutrient
cycle.
The rub comes in with culture. Culture may take certain advantage of the
energy/nutrient cycle, but cultivation radically alters the habitat.
Irrigation and fertilization bring elements of habitat into one system from
another--robbing "Peter" to pay "Paul." This alters the "donor" system too,
with consequent changes "there" too.
WT
PS: Josh, what do YOU mean by "progression" and "ecosystem evolution?"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua Wilson" <joshua.m.wils...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 7:01 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
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
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2411/4950 - Release Date: 04/21/12
