Ecology biased against non-native species?
ScienceDaily (June 9, 2011) — The recent field of invasion biology faces a new challenge as 19 eminent ecologists issue a call to "end the bias against non-native species" in the journal Nature.
Read more on this at Science Daily - just click on heading!
A serious question for the times. Via Fernenland
Tamarisk species, a non-native species with benefits?
(Credit: Elizabeth Makings/ASU)
Update:
I'm going to add to this post the comment that Fernenland left below... very worth sharing I think!
Notions of 'native' and 'non-native' are merely artificial mental structures we've created. Nature is dynamic and doesn't recognize the boundaries we try to fence her in with. Many (most?) of NZ's 'native' species in fact originated elsewhere. Some are relative newcomers. And some 'non-native species' become highly beneficial food sources to 'native species.' 'Native' species sometimes also become invasive, as the article points out. I wonder whether the fact that a species becomes invasive is a signal of some sort of deeper ecological imbalance, much in the way that the weeds that flourish on a piece of land that is left to its own devices are the ones that supply the nutrients it is deficient in. Of course, as rosaria points out at http://sixtyfivewhatnow.blogspot.com/2011/06/invasive-species-and-other-thoughts.html humans are an invasive species too. Perhaps we are simply nature's tool to move different plants and animals around the planet at speed, since most invasive 'foreign' species have arrived via the kind offices of humans? What is it that allows a species to become unconstrained in its growth? And is it merely a temporary phase? Will human population increase be restricted by some action of nature - or are we doing a good enough job on our own, with fertility rates plummeting, seemingly at least in part due to exposure to everyday chemicals such as the ubiquitous BPA, reported in the last few days to accumulate in the body much more rapidly than previously thought? And is the bias against 'non-native' species merely symptomatic of humans' resistance to a rapidly changing world? Should we apply the same notions when it comes to human immigrants? Or only the ones that aren't wealthy or have a different religion or race or outlook on life? What makes US the arbiter of who or what should live where? Is the land really ours? Land ownership, after all, is another artificial construct...
Thank you indeed Ferneland!
Update:
I'm going to add to this post the comment that Fernenland left below... very worth sharing I think!
Notions of 'native' and 'non-native' are merely artificial mental structures we've created. Nature is dynamic and doesn't recognize the boundaries we try to fence her in with. Many (most?) of NZ's 'native' species in fact originated elsewhere. Some are relative newcomers. And some 'non-native species' become highly beneficial food sources to 'native species.' 'Native' species sometimes also become invasive, as the article points out. I wonder whether the fact that a species becomes invasive is a signal of some sort of deeper ecological imbalance, much in the way that the weeds that flourish on a piece of land that is left to its own devices are the ones that supply the nutrients it is deficient in. Of course, as rosaria points out at http://sixtyfivewhatnow.blogspot.com/2011/06/invasive-species-and-other-thoughts.html humans are an invasive species too. Perhaps we are simply nature's tool to move different plants and animals around the planet at speed, since most invasive 'foreign' species have arrived via the kind offices of humans? What is it that allows a species to become unconstrained in its growth? And is it merely a temporary phase? Will human population increase be restricted by some action of nature - or are we doing a good enough job on our own, with fertility rates plummeting, seemingly at least in part due to exposure to everyday chemicals such as the ubiquitous BPA, reported in the last few days to accumulate in the body much more rapidly than previously thought? And is the bias against 'non-native' species merely symptomatic of humans' resistance to a rapidly changing world? Should we apply the same notions when it comes to human immigrants? Or only the ones that aren't wealthy or have a different religion or race or outlook on life? What makes US the arbiter of who or what should live where? Is the land really ours? Land ownership, after all, is another artificial construct...
Thank you indeed Ferneland!
