Ling, so far as purple loosestrife is concerned, it is considered invasive and
a pest, and conservation agencies have active control programs operating. I
believe it is considered responsible for degradation of wetlands in many parts
of the U.S.
---- ling huang <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for your interests in matters ecological. David McNeely
Hi
>
> Thank you for all of the email and examples. Again
I must first say I am a chemist and teach chemistry, not an ecologist,
and in my initial message I just wondered whether or not Purple
Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) that was introduced in the 1800s (?) and
is a wetland flower. Is this flower today considered invasive or
native? I then thought that it was interesting to ask if there are
examples of invasive becoming native; or native becoming invasive? So
this is all interesting to me. As to using the word "invasive", when I
do a search there are literally 1000s of articles using the words native
and invasive.
>
> So I really thank you for the response and debate.
Someone mentioned and sent a link about risk assessment (guidelines).
It seems that would be a good idea as well as using meta analyses in
such risk assessments.
>
> Here are a few of the articles I plan and/or have been looking
through.
>
> Cavaleri, Molly A., and Lawren Sack. 2010. Comparative water
use of native and invasive plants at multiple scales: a global
meta-analysis. Ecology 91:2705–2715.
> Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006 Risk Analysis for Biological Hazards:
> What We Need
> to Know about Invasive Species by Stohlgren and John Schnase.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ling Huang
> Sacramento City College
> http://huangl.webs.com
>
> --- On Mon, 4/23/12, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Wayne Tyson <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, April 23, 2012, 8:35 PM
>
> 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" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ling huang
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:37 PM
> To: [email protected]
> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Amanda Newsom <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
> To: [email protected]
> 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 <[email protected]> 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
> > <[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
> >
>
>
>
> -- 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
--
David McNeely
