[ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Function Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
Ecolog, Chew says: 'We haven't come much closer to 'truth' than Charles Lyell did in 1832, when he wrote (in the idiom of the day): We may regard the involuntary agency of man as strictly analogous to that of the inferior animals. Like them we unconsciously contribute to extend or limit the geographical range and numbers of certain species, in obedience to general rules in the economy of nature, which are for the most part beyond our control.”' I can't argue much (I don't want to wander off into the weeds too much) with Chew's entire post, but I would only like to note that the elephant in the room remains what we INTENTIONALLY (and unintentional by-products) do and don't do that produces system feedbacks (that we can control only by altering our intentional inputs). So much for the science, the value-free aspect of the issue. As an organism which has uniquely figured out how to manipulate our environment rather that submit to it, we have enjoyed (hedonistically and otherwise) the earth's bounty such that it has been profoundly changed. We have two choices. We can ignore such changes or we can comprehend them and act on that comprehension or decide not to so act. WT - Original Message - From: Matt Chew anek...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 10:22 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? My general views on this are a matter of detailed record here and in several publications, all available at http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew . (By the way, views of all my papers there now total over 3,200 – with 'The Rise and Fall of Biotic Nativeness' alone at nearly 2000 – thanks again!) Nobody has yet published evidence to support the idea that native - alien - invasive - invasible and their ilk are actually ecological conceptions, much less characteristics of species or populations or communities. That is why, as Moles, et al 2012 (doi: 10./j.1365-2745.2011.01915.x) pointed out, invasion biology's (or invasion ecology's, if you prefer) results continue to be idiosyncratic. We very practically prefer predictability to unpredictability and stability to change—particularly to unforeseen or unintended change. Sometimes it's a matter of psychological comfort, nostalgia, regret, a sense of fairness or justice or powerlessness… and sometimes it's a matter of survival. But wanting things to be other than they are, even to the extent of organizing a majority opinion or a putative consensus on the matter, doesn't automatically mean we've agreed on the right idea. It certainly doesn't confer the ability to make any particular desired future happen. Nor does it make our intended ecological outcomes better than the unintended ones. As usual, what CAN happen IS happening, whether we like it or not. The history of biology is characterized by defaults to normative vitalistic and teleological arguments that aren't susceptible to empirical evaluation or demonstration. Ecology is still loaded with them. Even the 'more is better' and 'different is better' commitments of biodiversity-based conservation philosophy are no better grounded in reality than preformationism, evolution via striving for perfection or deterministic succession to climax communities. We haven't come much closer to 'truth' than Charles Lyell did in 1832, when he wrote (in the idiom of the day): We may regard the involuntary agency of man as strictly analogous to that of the inferior animals. Like them we unconsciously contribute to extend or limit the geographical range and numbers of certain species, in obedience to general rules in the economy of nature, which are for the most part beyond our control.” I hope to see you in Portland at Symposium 22, Conservation In a Globalizing World; Session ID 7614, Friday, August 10, 2012, 8:00 AM - 11:30 AM Matthew K Chew Assistant Research Professor Arizona State University School of Life Sciences - 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem function Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
Anthropogenic influence can be the direct agent of invasiveness (as in actively introducing a species into a new area, willingly or not) or the indirect agent (as in changing the climate and land use patterns so that conditions change and new environments become available for species). In addition, as WT pointed out, there are also changes that are not anthropogenic and that can create conditions for the invading organism to thrive. If there's one thing we can count on is the fact that, given the right conditions, species WILL disperse and reproduce. So, I would argue that where humans are indirect agents or other events create conditions for invasives to thrive, it may be very hard to control or avoid invasiveness/dispersal, since species are only doing what they are supposed to do. Unless we can change the climate back or turn land uses to previous states, or change those events that led to the right conditions in a certain system, species will move, and some will cause damage to the native system and some won't. Those that cause damage are invasives, those that don't are just, well, dispersing, even though both are just doing their thing - and sometimes things just are out of our control (pun intended). I mean, is it really possible to stop a species from naturally dispersing? How about 100 species? For how long and at what cost? Astrid Caldas, Ph.D. Climate Change and Wildlife Science Fellow Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036-4604 Tel: 202-772-0229 |Fax: 202-682-1331 acal...@defenders.org | www.defenders.org http://experts.defendersblog.org/author/acaldas -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 4:39 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem function Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression? 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
[ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem function Re: [ECOLOG-L] Invasion, or progression?
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
