I read an article by Chris D. Thomas in
Nature this week titled 'The
Anthropocene could raise biological diversity' and I liked it!
The article begins by explaining how the
distribution of plants and animals is changing in response to the warming temperatures
of our changing climate. So far nothing I’ve not heard before; nothing worth
writing home about. Next I read of the ‘irrational’ response of those who find
themselves ‘invaded’ by such ‘displaced’ species, and that the ‘persecution of
the new – just because it is new – is no longer sustainable in a world of rapid
global change’. This I find refreshing
and interesting. It fills me with a certain confidence and reassures me that my
thoughts and opinions regarding introduced species are perhaps not all that
ignorant and taboo.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I have
never understood why native species are always given conservation priority over
introduced species. In an increasingly globalized world, it seems that the flow
of species is the only ‘flow’ that is
not being actively encouraged. I can’t help but draw parallels to ethnic
diversity, something that is greatly celebrated and promoted in globalized
countries today, and without entering into these debates (human geography does
not interest me), I wonder why it is that mixing of species is not seen in the
same light.
One reader who has commented on the
article, reminded me of the conventional stance taken by commentators of
introduced species… He argued that populations living “on the edge” are not
being irrational in seeking to eliminate potential threats to crops. In order
to at least appear impartial, I decided to research (briefly) the adverse
effects introduced species can have on ecosystems. Who better to fight in the corner of the
‘anti-invasives’ than fishzilla
himself - the snakehead fish. This fish is monstrous! It has many adaptations
that make it an expert invader and it can even survive on land for up to four
days! It has had decimated native food chains in the US.
In the red corner: ‘fishzilla’ – the
snakehead fish
Snakehead fish, meet the Japanese
white-eye. This non-native bird is actually helping to prevent the extinction
of native rainforest shrubs in Hawaii by propagating their seeds.
And in the blue corner: Japanese white-eye
(show them what you’ve got)
The article concludes that our default
attitude to introduced species is ‘antagonism or ambivalence’. Introduced
species are demonized often having caused no damage to their host ecosystems. All
species should be given equal conservation value, irrespective of where they
originate. I do recognize that some introduced species do damage ecosystems,
and efforts should be concentrated on preventing the invasion of these species.
I am eager to discuss further the issue of
invasive species as well as the other ways Chris D. Thomas says the
Anthropocene is raising biodiversity.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. There is definitely a bias in the literature towards the negative impacts of invasive species, the term itself seems to imply 'oh, that's not from round here, ergo, it must be bad!' (Though is it any wonder with stuff like that ghastly fish branded as invasive and thrust in peoples faces!)
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree with your point about concentrating efforts on those invasive species which we know to have negative impacts too, instead of all invasive species, which would quite frankly be pointless!
Maybe if we could somehow make the Japanese white eye the face of all invasive species, people would be more impartial to them!
I am glad you agree Rob. I find the literature so frustrating! It's almost impossible to find articles (both academic and non-academic) that discuss invasive species objectively without that deep embedded bias that you mentioned. I saw a photograph of a Japanese White-Eye and the caption read "Photograph of the day: Japanese White-Eye adorable yet invasive". This says it all doesn't it!
Delete