The California Department of Food and Agriculture held a symposium about invasive pest management in the 21st Century on October 17, 2013, at UC Davis. This second in a series was focused on insects and diseases. The first symposium held in Oakland in June 2013, focused on “invasive” plants.
The keynote speaker at the second symposium was Professor Daniel Simberloff of University of Tennessee. He is a prominent invasion biologist and a self-appointed defender of that scientific discipline. When the assumptions of invasion biology are questioned by other scientists, Professor Simberloff often publishes a heated response and recruits others to join him. (For an example, see our recent post about Ascension Island and visit his “Counterpoint” to the article on which our post was based.)
Given the many recent defections of scientists from the central assumptions of invasion biology, we anticipated that Professor Simberloff would acknowledge that invasion biology is under siege. We were not disappointed. He started his talk by showing a quote from a scientist on the Galapagos Islands who, after decades of trying to eradicate non-native blackberry, was admitting defeat. To paraphrase the scientist, he no longer believes that eradication is possible. Therefore, he is now willing to call it a native plant.
We were reminded of Professor Matt Chew’s criterion for what species “belong” in any particular location. If the species persists unassisted in that location, Professor Chew believes it belongs there. Surely a corollary to that criterion should be, “if you can’t eradicate it, it belongs there.”
Professor Simberloff diagnoses this acceptance of non-native species as pessimism. He is not alone in this characterization of people who are no longer willing to spend unlimited amounts of time and money trying to kill non-native species. This is the standard criticism of that viewpoint. We are called defeatists who have “given up” in the internet debates we read.
Why are we critics of invasion biology?
Although we agree that it is usually futile to try to eradicate non-native plants with large, well-established populations that have long ago naturalized in our environment, this is not the primary reason why we reject the notion that there is some benefit to trying anyway. The main reason why we reject the fruitless crusade against non-native plants is because of the damage it does: the herbicides that are sprayed on our public lands; the release of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when trees are destroyed; the loss of habitat for wildlife, etc.
At the same time, we acknowledge that some invasions of insects and diseases have posed such serious economic and health threats that we have no choice but to make every effort to eradicate them. The species of mosquitoes that carry yellow fever and malaria are examples of justified eradication efforts. We hope that those who are engaged in that effort are also mindful that the methods used are not more harmful than the targets.
Scientists defend “novel” ecosystems
We harp on these issues because they are not discussed by the scientists who either defend or critique invasion biology. Their concerns are, so to speak, academic.
There is an excellent description of the scientific debate about “invasive species” in the on-line newsletter of the American Society of Landscape Architecture (ASLA). They report that novel ecosystems were featured at the recent conference of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) held in Madison, Wisconsin. Novel ecosystems were defined by one of the speakers (Eric Higgs, University of Victoria) as ecosystems in which changes from historical conditions are considered irreversible: “Even if plants are removed, ‘the system will revert back immediately’ to a state of invasion.” This is an accurate description of 15 years of effort by San Francisco’s so-called Natural Areas Program. Non-native plants are repeatedly yanked out and/or poisoned, native plants are planted, native plants die, non-native plants return. That cycle is repeated annually in some high-priority locations.
Apparently, we are not alone in observing this futile cycle. The ASLA description of the conference of the Society of Ecological Restoration summarizes current thinking of practitioners of that profession:
“In the face of this overwhelming struggle against novelty, there has been a shift in values among society. Years ago, restoration ecologists wanted to restore ecosystems to their “historic fidelity” as much as possible. Now, ecologists, scientists, and landscape architects discuss the value of novel ecosystems’ services, which to some extent are plant-agnostic.”
While this viewpoint is a welcome improvement over the previous fantasies of restorationists, this information has not yet reached managers of public lands in the San Francisco Bay Area. Nor does it acknowledge the very real damage that is being done by those who cling to the fantasy that non-native plants can be eradicated and replaced with native species, particularly in an urban setting such as the Bay Area.
The mission of Million Trees is not an academic exercise. Our objective is to stop the damage being inflicted on our environment and the animals that live in it. And we don’t intend to shut up until the damage has stopped. We hope to be put out of business within our lifetime.
6 thoughts on “Are critics of invasion biology pessimists or realists?”
I hope you never stop your crusade. I feel as you on the loss of habitat for wildlife and senseless herbicide use. I too have seen projects locally done as you mentioned. The non-natives return and often worse than how they started since some plants being eradicated grow by runners and excessive seeding. Even the sprays don’t contain them.
To me it is funny how it is the native activists that get the voice and press. People just don’t rationally analyze what they spout and take it as gospel. It does not become a scientifically verifiable argument but one fed by emotion. The problem itself has too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak. Environmentalists grow native plants for the health of the environment, ecologists use them because they are concerned with keeping the natural order of habitats and balancing ecosystems, horticulturists see natives as having commercial and landscape promise and possibility, and gardeners grow native plants because it makes them feel worthy about their contribution to all of the above. Everybody has a differing agenda it seems, where having a common goal would be more productive. I find it almost humorous to the lengths some native enthusiasts will go too.
Yes, it would be funny if we weren’t living with the consequences of their extremism.
OK,, then, it is time to ask you to address this question
If the introduction of a species of a humanly-edible, quite tasty, nutritious, and otherwise human health enhancing fungus into the Sutro Forest were to diminish or even eradicate the Himalayan Blackberry there, and that fungus continued to persist in the Sutro Forest without further human action regarding it other than perhaps the removal of its fruiting bodies, would you object to the loss of the blackberry or would you declare the fungus to now be native to the Sutro Forest? I know you have focused on plants (and vascular particularly) but I hope that does not prevent you from thinking more generally.
And after you answer that question, consider if the fungus were not humanly edible, quite tasty, nutritious, and otherwise human health enhancing would it make any difference in your answer.
Sorry, that’s too hypothetical to answer. We are firmly entrenched in the real world. It’s not a question we have faced or expect to face.
Consider that may be a dodge
First of all, I have real world evidence such fungal species exist and do “control” Himylayan Blackberry.
Secondly, since you might therefore face those questions someday, would you rather face them pro-actively or reactively? It is far easier to critique the proposals of others than it is to fashion your own, but the latter is not only more noble but more likely to gain one wider appreciation and thus greater voice in public land management policy formation and promulgation.
Thirdly, my questions are surrogates for much more wordy questions of the integrity (including “internal consistency”) and thoroughness of your critiques of “invasion” biology, “native” advocacy — and they are thought experiments with which you might test/refine your seeming embrace of the notion that if something persists in an ecosystem it must belong and the obvious corollary that if it gets outcompeted it doesn’t belong.
I am surprised at your claim that you are (inferred as “only”) firmly entrenched in the real world. While you have done an excellent job of analyzing and concluding from real world information, it has seemed to me that you have also delved into the realm of ecosystem management philosophy/guiding principles. But if you wish to not do so in this case at this time, so much the less work for me to not have to follow through with something I started.
We don’t cover topics of which we have no first hand knowledge. If you provide references for the example you give I will read them.