Ecolog:
Organisms respond to changes in the elements of their habitats. We can call
that "invasive," and we do, but we must remember that "invasion" is a
cultural concept drawn from a culturally-loaded (biased) observation. It is
a conclusion, not a phenomenon.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Young" <steve.yo...@unl.edu>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
Interesting question, can a native become invasive? I would suggest that in
some instances this is the case. For example, eastern redcedar in the
Central Prairie is native, but has now become invasive in many locations.
The main reason is the lack of fire that used to occur naturally prior to
settlement by Europeans.
For those who want to know more, we will be addressing this topic at the
NAIPSC later in June. I expect the discussion will be quite good. Maybe I'll
post a summary to ECOLOG then.
Steve
___________________
Stephen L. Young, PhD
Weed Ecologist
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of ling huang
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:37 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
Hi
I am a chemist and not an ecologist but I'm very interested in this thread
since I enjoy the wetlands area close to Sacramento near the Davis Yolo
Causeway. I wondered and am interested in this invasive or progression type
question. I saw that there was a species called Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum
salicaria) that was introduced in the 1800s (?) and is a wetland flower that
has invaded wetlands. I suppose my question is how far do we go back to
determine if a species is invasive. Is there a time or case when an invasive
becomes a native? I did see this interesting online article where the
question asked was "Can native species become invasive?"
http://ipmsouth.com/2010/11/23/can-native-species-become-invasive/
Thanks. Ling
Ling Huang
Sacramento City College
--- On Sun, 4/22/12, Amanda Newsom <ajnew...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
From: Amanda Newsom <ajnew...@ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Date: Sunday, April 22, 2012, 3:40 PM
Very intelligent members of the public have asked me this question when they
approach me in the field and I have some time to chat. It's a great
question, because invasions biology is attacked politically on this front,
so it's one to which professionals really must craft a coherent response in
friendly conversation.
Another point to consider is the evolutionary history of native vs.
introduced (non-native) species in any particular system. One of the reasons
non-natives are of concern is that they do not share evolutionary history
with the native community, and this contributes to the unpredictable
biodiversity loss cited by other comments presented here.
This can also be discussed in light of the homogenization of life on earth,
because there are many species favored, facilitated, or directly cultivated
by humans that are now distributed worldwide. Some of these species threaten
regional biodiversity (Check out the book Ecological Imperialism for a
really interesting perspective on colonialism as an ecological process via
introduction of new dominant species). There's a lot coming out now on
evolution and invasive species as well that is, at least in part, reasonably
accessible to a general audience or the academic in ecology/evolution who is
wanting to step into invasion biology.
Related to this (somewhat tangentially) is that the buildup of introduced
and invasive species in systems like San Francisco Bay has also increased
the number and complexity of biological interactions, both
introduced-introduced and introduced-native. Increasing professional
interest in introduced-introduced interactions hasn't yet yielded a whole
lot of generalized hypotheses, but it has opened new windows to how complex
this issue is biologically and how best to protect species of interest as
well as local biodiversity.
That was a far longer and more convoluted comment than I originally
intended! Hopefully, Joshua, some of that is useful perspective. Thanks for
posing the question to ECOLOG! It can be intimidating to put something like
this out there as an undergrad, and I'm glad you took the initiative.
It comes up a lot, as you can see, and ECOLOG is a great forum for this
discussion.
A.
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Ruhl, Nathan <nr343...@ohio.edu> wrote:
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
<joshua.m.wils...@gmail.com>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
--
Amanda Newsom
Graduate Student
Bodega Marine Laboratory
``Life shrinks or expands according to one's courage'' -- Anais Nin
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2411/4954 - Release Date: 04/23/12
