Hi, Ling Huang and other Ecologers,
Here where I live in central New York, we have a large wetland call
the Montezuma Marsh. It has had nearly half of its over 3,200 acres under
management dominated by purple loosestrife, which crowds out other plants
and eliminates nesting areas and forage for animals that depend on those
other plants. This URL is for one of many websites with information about
loosetrife in Montezuma: http://www.fws.gov/r5mnwr/mnwrls.html
People taking a narrow view might say, "Well, if those plants can't
compete, they're less fit and deserve to decline, and the same for those
animals that can't eat loosestrife or make nests in it." Natural
selection, and all that.
But I think that's the narrow view. Montezuma is a stopover place
for migrating waterfowl on an important flyway, so the birds that stop
there for forage don't find as much. This can of course affect the success
of their migration, and so in this case an invasive species in a relatively
small area can have an effect on species and habitats hundreds of miles
away. Again, some might say, "Well, tough for those birds; the fit ones
will find a way to survive."
I don't believe this stance is based upon deep respect for the
struggle for existence that plays out in nature. Rather, people with this
view are really just indifferent to any protection of the natural world
that may cause them inconvenience, a bit of money, or restriction on their
freedom to do whatever they want whenever and wherever they want.
I believe that if we humans can, by reasonable precautions, prevent
such disruptions of natural systems, then it is better for the world if we
do so. Can I prove that a marsh with 1000 species is better than a marsh
with 500 species? Obviously, the economics, aesthetic, and other
considerations of such a determination could be vastly complex, but I think
we can agree that holding the line against disruption where we can is
easier and cheaper than reversing it after it has occurred.
People can argue forever about the definition of terms like "native"
and "invasive," and I have no problem with that. However, I think we
should in the meantime accept operational definitions that allow us to take
action that will avoid difficult-to-reverse disruption.
Perhaps I have violated my own rule about sticking to a single point
in a single posting, but I had to get my two cents in. Thank you to David
I. and other who make that possible.
Martin M. Meiss
2012/4/23 Julian D. Olden <[email protected]>
> Hi Steve,
>
> One potential place to start is where the general idea of the native
> invader was recently defined (Simberloff 2011) and the forthcoming review
> paper by Carey et al. (in press).
>
> Carey, M.P., Sanderson, B.L., Barnas, K.A. and J.D. Olden. In press.
> Native invaders create novel challenges for science, management, society
> and policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (online early shortly)
>
> Simberloff D. 2011. Native Invaders. In Simberloff D and Rejmánek M
> (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.
> University of California Press, Ltd.
>
> Cheers,
> Julian
>
> ---
> Julian D. Olden
> Freshwater Ecology & Conservation Lab
> School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
> University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195
> e: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, t: (206) 616-3112
> w: http://www.fish.washington.edu/research/oldenlab/
> skype: goldenolden
>
> On Apr 23, 2012, at 7:52 PM, "Steve Young" <[email protected]<mailto:
> [email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of a good reference on this topic of when native plants
> become invasive? It seems like many of us know of examples, but it would be
> nice if there were something actually written (e.g., published) on it. (The
> article Ling referenced is on ants.) If not, at the very least, is there a
> list of these plants that has been put together for different regions of
> the globe?
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:
> [email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:20 PM
> To: Steve Young; [email protected]<mailto:
> [email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
>
> Hi Steve and Ling, another example of a native becoming invasive is
> cattail (typha) in the phosphorus oligotrophic Florida Everglades. Usually
> present in low population densities, cattail populations take off with
> increased phosphorus concentrations in water and soil (usually
> anthropogenic). Yet another example is the spreading populations of
> Vouchesia divergens in the Pantanal that are associated with drier
> conditions over the past couple decades.
>
> A plant community is dynamic and responds to changes in both biotic and
> abiotic factors that affect ecosystem structure and function. Thus a
> species once present in small numbers can dominate the community for a
> while..
> The other question, when does an invasive become native, goes back to how
> we define what is native, or for how long does a species have to be present
> in an ecosystem to get naturalized. For instance, cocos nucifera, the
> coconut palm ubiquitous to tropical and subtropical coasts all over the
> world.. It is still a matter of conjecture as to where coconuts palms
> originated. If they were dispersed by ocean currents, then I suppose they
> would be considered native wherever they occur. If man were the agent of
> dispersal, they would be exotics. If brought in by man thousands of years
> ago, they would be naturalized exotics. If they invaded and dominated upon
> arrival, they would be invasive exotics. An exotic or native can bide their
> time in low numbers, and with an environmental change, suddenly take off,
> thus earning the term invasive.
> Regards, amartya
> Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Young <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
> >>
> Sender: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" <
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:22:05
> To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Reply-To: Steve Young <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
> >>
> 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:
> [email protected]>> wrote:
>
> From: Amanda Newsom <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
> To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:
> [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]<mailto:[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
>
