To summarize and second Wayne's statement, it has been and remains
politically expedient to blame the indicator for rangeland degradation
rather than blaming 150 years or more of short-term extractive
profiteering. Sometimes the research that funding agencies willingly
underwrite isn't actually
Christina-
I'm afraid the information you're looking for is indeed hard to find. Many
species and varieties were introduced commercially without government
participation or notice, especially before about 1900. Old seed and
nursery catalogs are potential sources of information, but they are
This has been an interesting conversation. Ecological functions entail
putative benefits to some population or individual. It doesn't have to be
a human population, so it doesn't have to be anthropocentric, but that is
the second most common centrism. Biocentrism and ecocentrism are generally
Yesterday's belated decontextualization of previous comments provides an
opportunity to recontextualize them.
Human activity generates resources for many taxa. Regardless of their
intentions, researchers traveling to and entering areas otherwise
unfrequented by humans are agents of change:
One of the ways people become prominent in a profession is by listening to
what others are saying, then saying it louder, in more auspicious
settings. Leaders in that sense aren't likely to make waves, but they're
very good at riding them. Reflecting the common wisdom is the source of
their
The transcript of Science Magazine's Science Now live chat on invasive
species is available at
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/live-chat-invasive-species--thre.html
Matthew K Chew
Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
ASU Center for Biology Society
PO Box 873301
Tempe,
There are many potentially devilish details to identify and consider. It's
not clear to me from David's scenario that founding a university is a good
investment. The chance that a developing country can begin producing
competitive academic-theoretical expertise in petroleum or hard mineral
The introductory statement of the quoted *Science Daily* item (these
typically are institutional press releases reproduced verbatim) leads with
unexceptional confused hyperbole but ends on a truly alarming claim:
...until now, scientists had little reason to believe that native plants
could mount
The link I received in the digest included extra characters. Here it is
without them (unless the server is inserting them after the = character)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y38B8aDfPjQ
According to the species (Gymnomyza samoensis) recovery plan (see
Since the scientific history of Macquarie island extends a bit further back
than we have seen so far, here is a supplement to David Duffy's chronology.
There are many other sources, but these five capture some interesting
moments.
First, Notice in regard to Macquarie Island by Thomas Raine,
We don’t need to have a linguistic discussion, because labeling a process
consisting of unintended arrival, survival and successful reproduction of
organisms an “invasion” is a conceptual, categorical error. That makes it
a philosophical discussion, but hardly an arcane one. I'll only use a few
In response to Richard Plate’s question about neutrality: first, I suggest
that you have a look at Colautti and MacIsaac’s “neutral terminology”
proposal in Diversity and Distributions 10:135-141 (2004). I think their
attempt was commendable, but it ultimately failed for the same reasons the
The dust has settled a bit, so it's time to respond.
Jane Shevtsov raised some interesting points in her rebuttal of my analysis
of her post. Most of them further exemplify the conceptual confusion and
questionable communication practices I was highlighting.
First, she reminded us: I was
Sadly, everything about Jane Shevtsov's brief referral is wrong in
important ways.
Now this is an invasive that causes problems!
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/adventure/2012/05/truffle-trouble-in-europe-the-invader-without-flavor/
Labeling a fungus as an invader it is an absurd
Everyone should take a minute to read this Nature 'world view' piece.
http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20120515
Matthew K Chew
Assistant Research Professor
Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
ASU Center for Biology Society
PO Box
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!)
The Rise and Fall of Biotic Nativeness: A Historical Perspective has (as
of this email) been viewed 1242 times via my academia.edu page. Amazing.
Thanks. Andrew Hamilton and I have begun scoping a follow-up, what now?
paper, and we will try to take less than 5 years (or even 5 months) to
I am pleased to see this discussion continuing and expanding. Ecological
terminology can be no more definite than ecological conceptions; both have
been challenged many times during our history, and none of those challenges
have ever been wholly resolved. The fact that even our most basic
Jason Persichetti's contention, we all know what is meant by the idiom is
precisely false.
I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent the
native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by
different authorities. They can't all be correct AND mean
The general definition of 'native' is 'not introduced'. It is a historical
criterion, not an ecological one, and it rests entirely on absence of
evidence for introduction. That definition has not changed at all since it
was first fully codified in England in 1847.
David McNeely's claim that
This thread often employs 'natural' and 'ecological' as proxies for 'good'
or 'proper' or 'appropriate' or 'desirable'. Using some past condition to
exemplify a desired future is commonplace, but that past is always poorly
documented and most of our 'knowledge' of past conditions is selectively
It's nice to see signs of life. Right now responding to one in particular:
Defining ecology is much harder than Liane Cochran-Stafira's hopeful
assertion suggests.
She favors The scientific discipline that is concerned with the
relationships between organisms and their past, present and future
As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from
fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K
reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or
combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible
rationalizations,
Wayne, et al-
It is simple to ask what ecology is (and isn't) but that doesn't make it
easy to answer. By definition and tradition it's a pretty broad concept. If
you have access, look at the OED entry. If we're trying to pin down what
ecology SHOULD be, well, good luck with that. For example,
Wayne, et al:
The manifesto has been cited, e.g., by:
Patrick Curry (2006) Ecological Ethics. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.
J. Anthony Cassils (2007) Some Reflections on Human Rationality (or the
Lack of It) and the Way Ahead. Proceedings of the Canadia Association for
the Club of Rome 3(11)19-27
Well, that was interesting. Comments on a few highlights:
- The “hand in glove’ analogy for species in environments is archaic and
teleological. Assorted appendages in a bucket is probably a better
analogy, but still useless for practical purposes.
- I haven’t seen an attempt to
Howdy folks-
The assertion that affiliation with university-level research renders a
finding suspect or an opinion dubious should interest members of this list.
We can compose effectively endless lists of cases where human agency has
redistributed biota and thereby affected pre-existing
Marine Biologist Jim Carlton and I debated the merits of invasion biology
yesterday on Canadian Broadcasting Corp's live Radio 1 morning show, The
Current
If you like that sort of thing you can stream it at
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/08/04/biological-bias/
About 25 minutes long,
I'm surprised that no one has commented here on the fact that ESA president
elect Steward T.A. Pickett is one of the authors.
Matthew K Chew
Assistant Research Professor
Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
ASU Center for Biology Society
PO Box 873301
Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
Tel
Hi all–
One point regarding Neahga Leonard's observations: Tamarisks (like
cottonwoods and cattails) are primarily anemochores, so seed dispersal
doesn't strongly depend on their position in any particular watershed. They
may spring up in any damp patch, often many miles from a seed source, up,
An observation or two: an opinion paper with 19 authors effectively receives
6 times as much peer review in the process of its drafting and revision as
any typical research paper receives under normal circumstances. The authors
included journal editors quite familiar with the scientific
Here, for those interested in matters of substance, is the introduction to one
of the publications cited in the recent Davis, et al Nature commentary. The
full citation is: Chew, M.K. and A.H. Hamilton. 2011. The Rise and Fall of
Biotic Nativeness: A Historical Perspective. in D. Richardson, ed.
As one of the authors of the 'Nature' article in question, I am pleased to
see it under discussion here.
Writing a 19-author paper requires a great deal of close coordination and
numerous drafts over several months. This one is derived from many lifetimes
of experience. Most of the authors are
'Native', 'alien' and 'invasive' are not really scientific or ecological
terms, which is why they have been problematic for ecologists. The
following paper (due out this month) outlines the derivation and history of
significant attempts to standardize the definitions of these categories.
Chew,
A couple of gaps can be filled in and misconceptions cleared up here.
Darwin was not employed as the ship's naturalist on the Beagle. He was
invited to travel at his own (that is, his father's) expense as a social
class-appropriate companion to Captain Fitzroy, who feared the isolation of
a long
Ecology without hypotheses has been dismissed (sometimes derided) as natural
history, but even natural history requires one hypothesis. Reporting an
observation requires 0 confidence that an observation is meaningful, can be
communicated, and can be interpreted. There are also tacit hypotheses
Jason, et al-
The purist position is untenable. If human agency marks the difference
between wild and managed, as soon as we take any action to change (+/-) the
fitness of any population or species we move it from the roster of wild
biota to the roster of managed biota. Even dividing wild from
This has been an interesting thread. I may have missed something, but I
don't recall anyone mentioning David Takacs' book 'The Idea of Biodiversity:
Philosophies of Paradise' (Johns Hopkins, 1996) which includes interviews
with then-prominent (mostly still active) ecologists and conservation
Several of you responded to my comments about history of ecology and biology
with specific queries. I will respond as soon as I can but I'm
(unexpectedly) developing another course 'on the fly' this semester so my
time is limited. What I will do–when I can–is gather some syllabi from
various
It has been politely suggested that the Franklin bacteria quotation is
dubious. It is worse than that, in two ways.
First, the salient facts are readily available but were apparently never
checked or even questioned before they were posted. Such naive and
incurious assertions should not be
Controversial issues in science practice have often been controversial for
years, decades, or even centuries. There is an extensive literature on peer
review that addresses everything under discussion here, and more. It has
previously landed close to home, and pretty recently, too. For example:
as
his inspiration for concepts underpinning the idea of 'land health' and
Ouspensky's thinking remains perceptible in various aspects of modern
environmentalism.
And please remember that replying without deleting the message you replied
to results in unnecessary reposting.
Matt Chew
ASU Center
ball. Whether it's 'functional' depends entirely on the needs or
expectations of its participants or observers. Function and purpose are
stipulative, too.
Matt Chew
ASU Center for Biology Society
mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com
http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
http
Under the terminology and definitions promoted by leading invasion
biologists including David Richardson and Petr Pyšek, 'alien' species and
their subset 'invasive' species are not routinely identified by their
ecological characteristics. Aliens are identified by subtracting historical
local
Okay, I've taken the bait - or at least, I'm nibbling at it. Earlier today
Jim Crants pretty accurately summarized the points I made off-list, for
which I thank him. Here I'm responding to his paragraph regarding 'moral
grounds' and to his numbered paragraphs (1-4). In order to minimize
45 matches
Mail list logo
