You make some good points, but I was interested to know about your last comment
on highlighting an article that describes what you would say are concrete harms
arising from an exotic species. Just curious, but why are economics, at least
that was the emphasis I got from the article, a more concrete harm than loss of
services, both environmental and social?
In Nebraska, introduced common reed in the Republican and Platte Rivers has
been one of the main causes for reducing water flow into Kansas and obstructing
nesting ground for two endangered bird species. Another example is eastern
redcedar (yes, I know we just had a discussion as to the invasiveness of this
native species) that has encroached into prairie grasslands creating
monocultures that reduce diversity in not only herbaceous plant, but also
invertebrate, and mammalian species.
I know there are other examples of the 'concrete' harms done by exotic species
beyond just the economics. See the link to find out what Asian carp are doing
to kayakers in the Missouri River
(http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2010/08/carp_attack.shtml).
Steve Young
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jane Shevtsov
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] invasive truffles
As much as I enjoy (and tend to agree with) Matt Chew's commentary on this
list, I must express my disagreement with some of what he says below.
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Matt Chew<[email protected]> wrote:
Labeling a fungus as an "invader" it is an absurd anthropomorphism. It
is a further, even less supportable one to call a fungus "invasive"
as if "invading" is an essential trait or characteristic of the taxon.
While I was speaking casually, I don't think that using the word "invasive" implies an intrinsic
characteristic any more than, say, "successful" does. A person's success in some endeavor is a
function of both their traits and their environment; the same goes for invasiveness. Furthermore, there's no
necessary anthropomorphism behind the word "invasive". For example, doctors may speak of invasive
cancers.
No "Chinese" truffle found growing in Italy has ever been "Chinese"
except in name, and possibly as a spore-unless a person knowingly
moved it from Asia to Italy- in which case the motivation and volition
were the person's, and the relevant action was translocation, not
invasion. If there was ever any intention to invade anything as a
result, it was only and entirely a person's intention.
Why is volition relevant? Also, we often say that X (a fungus, a person, or
whatever) is Chinese when its immediate ancestors are from China.
Claiming this (or any) fungus causes problems violates any rational
conception of causality. The problem discussed in the article (one
species of truffle being mistaken for or misrepresented as another) is
one of unethical conduct by truffle dealers and/or taxonomic error by
dealers and or buyers. Truffles aren't "causing" anything.
The article also describes Tuber indicum as becoming established in truffle
orchards and, either by human error or competition, preventing the growth of
the desired Tuber melanosporum. If that's not causality, I don't know what is.
Careless metaphorical misconstruction and "blaming" organisms for
arriving and persisting in unexpected places actively undermines
ecological understanding, communication, effective research and
appropriate conservation action.
Is there any evidence that research is being undemined or that anyone is
"blaming" organisms? I agree that many control/eradication efforts are
thoroughly misguided.
We should be interested in working out why any specific translocation
event results in a viable population (or not).unless ecology's primary
purpose is to declare, "We hate this change, so we hate this species!"
One of the reasons I highlighted this article is that it describes concrete harms arising
from an exotic species, unlike the all-too-common "we must get rid of this species
because it's not from here" or presentation of the cost of control efforts as a harm
caused by the species.
--
-------------
Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D.
Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA co-founder,
www.worldbeyondborders.org
"In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a systems ecologist,
or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual and for society, than that intended to
produce a broadly educated person who has also written a dissertation." --John Janovy, Jr.,
"On Becoming a Biologist"
--
-------------
Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D.
Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA co-founder,
www.worldbeyondborders.org
"In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a systems ecologist,
or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual and for society, than that intended to
produce a broadly educated person who has also written a dissertation." --John Janovy, Jr.,
"On Becoming a Biologist"
