I never said that economic harms were more concrete than environmental and social ones, only that many discussions of exotic species come from a "change is bad" point of view rather than actually demonstrating some kind of harm. In this case, the harm happens to be economic/cultural.
Jane Shevtsov On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Steve Young <[email protected]> wrote: > You make some good points, but I was interested to know about your last > comment on highlighting an article that describes what you would say are > concrete harms arising from an exotic species. Just curious, but why are > economics, at least that was the emphasis I got from the article, a more > concrete harm than loss of services, both environmental and social? > > In Nebraska, introduced common reed in the Republican and Platte Rivers has > been one of the main causes for reducing water flow into Kansas and > obstructing nesting ground for two endangered bird species. Another example > is eastern redcedar (yes, I know we just had a discussion as to the > invasiveness of this native species) that has encroached into prairie > grasslands creating monocultures that reduce diversity in not only herbaceous > plant, but also invertebrate, and mammalian species. > > I know there are other examples of the 'concrete' harms done by exotic > species beyond just the economics. See the link to find out what Asian carp > are doing to kayakers in the Missouri River > (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2010/08/carp_attack.shtml). > > Steve Young > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jane Shevtsov > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] invasive truffles > > As much as I enjoy (and tend to agree with) Matt Chew's commentary on this > list, I must express my disagreement with some of what he says below. > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Matt Chew <[email protected]> wrote: >> Labeling a fungus as an "invader" it is an absurd anthropomorphism. It >> is a further, even less supportable one to call a fungus "invasive" >> as if "invading" is an essential trait or characteristic of the taxon. > > While I was speaking casually, I don't think that using the word "invasive" > implies an intrinsic characteristic any more than, say, "successful" does. A > person's success in some endeavor is a function of both their traits and > their environment; the same goes for invasiveness. Furthermore, there's no > necessary anthropomorphism behind the word "invasive". For example, doctors > may speak of invasive cancers. > >> No "Chinese" truffle found growing in Italy has ever been "Chinese" >> except in name, and possibly as a spore-unless a person knowingly >> moved it from Asia to Italy- in which case the motivation and volition >> were the person's, and the relevant action was translocation, not >> invasion. If there was ever any intention to invade anything as a >> result, it was only and entirely a person's intention. > > Why is volition relevant? Also, we often say that X (a fungus, a person, or > whatever) is Chinese when its immediate ancestors are from China. > >> Claiming this (or any) fungus causes problems violates any rational >> conception of causality. The problem discussed in the article (one >> species of truffle being mistaken for or misrepresented as another) is >> one of unethical conduct by truffle dealers and/or taxonomic error by >> dealers and or buyers. Truffles aren't "causing" anything. > > The article also describes Tuber indicum as becoming established in truffle > orchards and, either by human error or competition, preventing the growth of > the desired Tuber melanosporum. If that's not causality, I don't know what is. > >> Careless metaphorical misconstruction and "blaming" organisms for >> arriving and persisting in unexpected places actively undermines >> ecological understanding, communication, effective research and >> appropriate conservation action. > > Is there any evidence that research is being undemined or that anyone is > "blaming" organisms? I agree that many control/eradication efforts are > thoroughly misguided. > >> We should be interested in working out why any specific translocation >> event results in a viable population (or not).unless ecology's primary >> purpose is to declare, "We hate this change, so we hate this species!" > > One of the reasons I highlighted this article is that it describes concrete > harms arising from an exotic species, unlike the all-too-common "we must get > rid of this species because it's not from here" or presentation of the cost > of control efforts as a harm caused by the species. > > -- > ------------- > Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D. > Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA co-founder, > www.worldbeyondborders.org > > "In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a > systems ecologist, or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual > and for society, than that intended to produce a broadly educated person who > has also written a dissertation." --John Janovy, Jr., "On Becoming a > Biologist" > > > -- > ------------- > Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D. > Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA co-founder, > www.worldbeyondborders.org > > "In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a > systems ecologist, or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual > and for society, than that intended to produce a broadly educated person who > has also written a dissertation." --John Janovy, Jr., "On Becoming a > Biologist" -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D. Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org "In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a systems ecologist, or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual and for society, than that intended to produce a broadly educated person who has also written a dissertation." --John Janovy, Jr., "On Becoming a Biologist"
