5 ms·

It's not really an apples to apples comparison. All of those are invasive species, except for the screw fly, which isn't a large part of a biological ecosystem

• nradov 11y ago
  In principle why should it matter whether a particular species is native or invasive? Regardless of whether a particular species spread to an area naturally or were introduced by humans we have to deal with them as they exist today. And certainly some mosquito species are invasive to the areas where they live now.
  • wodenokoto 11y ago
    The difference is that invasive species are considered harmful to the ecosystem while naturally spread species are considered part of the ecosystem.
    • ajuc 11y ago
      Native species are just an invasive species 10 000 years later.
      • praxulus 11y ago
        Ok, so in the year 11950 we can have a debate about whether or not a species has been around long enough to be considered native. Right now, they're still invasive.
    • nradov 11y ago
      Who gets to decide what is "harmful" and what isn't? Why is it necessarily better to have one animal species in a certain area rather than another? Valuing native species over invasive species seems like an arbitrary human value judgment. (I don't necessarily disagree with eradicating invasive species, but I've noticed that people often haven't thought it through or considered their biases.)
      • bduerst 11y ago
        >Who gets to decide what is "harmful" and what isn't? Typically zoologists, botanists, and other biologists who study local ecosystems and determine the damage done by invasive species. Construing this as a human concept doesn't make it arbitrary - anthropogenic impact on the environment is important because we rely on our environment for survival as a species. Damage isn't limited to just a less biological diversity, it can and has stretched into agriculture and human production.
      • __jal 11y ago
        Why, you get to decide. And I do. And everyone else. Just like we all chose whom to listen to. Turns out that people who study these things and understand the implications tend to be more listened to than, say, me, because I'm not an expert. But to explain a bit of the reasoning, as I understand it, invasive species are considered harmful to ecosystems because they tend to throw them out of equilibrium. If you introduce something to an environment with no natural predators or other environment feedback loops to constrain population growth, the newly introduced species has a field day, for a bit, until it kills off whatever it feeds on. Since ecosystems are inherently deeply interconnected things, the boom-bust cycle causes all sorts of problems. Now maybe a new equilibrium is eventually "better" than it was before, but that, I think, is the real arbitrary human value judgment. Observing that introducing a new species throws existing systems out of whack isn't a value judgement - it accurately describes what happens.
        • nradov 11y ago
          But real world ecosystems are never in equilibrium, at least not for long. Even isolated ecosystems with little human contact and no invasive species experience boom and bust cycles. So we're actually just discussing the appropriate rate of change. How fast is too fast?
          • __jal 11y ago
            I don't think ecologists use the word the same way you do. I'm not an ecologist; I just used to date one. But I do know that equilibrium in the ecology sense is not static at all. If I'm understanding your comment about the rate of change, I think you're talking about drift between equilibria. Asking about "too fast" is where the human value judgement comes in. Which isn't invalid, it is just human-centric and far from the whole picture. Stating that introducing an invasive species can destroy the existing ecosystem is a statement of fact without judgement. It is just an observation of reality.
  • btilly 11y ago
    It matters because unless you understand the ecosystem very well, you don't know what else the presence of a native species affects. For example look at the phenomena of keystone species. If you remove starfish from a beach, the mussels will take over and the rest of the tidepool animals get wiped out. The reason is that the starfish prefer eating mussels and so maintain a balance. Unless you really know the ecosystem, it is hard to tell what is a keystone species that completely changes things. An introduced species is easier. Unless it is in the same ecological niche as a native, there is no possibility that it is a necessary part of the balance. Unfortunately, mosquitoes are likely to have a significant ecological role. They have preferred targets. Their role as a disease vector affects what population density those targets can have. Wipe out the mosquitoes, and you don't know what will happen to that ecosystem. That said, I've been bitten by enough mosquitoes that I'm willing to risk it...
    • maxerickson 11y ago
      They have preferred targets. The methods discussed in the article can be targeted on a per species basis. The action could be limited to mosquito species that prefer to target humans. (the sterile male method is already being used)
  • lmm 11y ago
    Removing a native species carries a much greater risk of causing ecosystem collapse (massively reducing biodiversity) than removing an invasive species. Biodiversity is practically valuable (e.g. drug candidates) and some people feel it's inherently valuable. (Also some people feel that preserving the natural ecosystem is inherently valuable, though I don't have that feeling myself).
• XFrequentist 11y ago
  Aedes mosquitoes are indeed "invasive" in much (arguably, most) of the world.
  • bduerst 11y ago
    Yes and eliminating two specific Aedes species from where they are invasive is by far the best plan of action. Claiming that mass extinction of all mosquitoes from the ecosystem is a bullet the environment can take is another matter.
    • XFrequentist 11y ago
      Agree completely with your first point. To your second point: eliminating all blood-feeding mosquitoes is the most radical proposal I've ever encountered, and this is a small subset of all mosquitoes (itself a small subset of Culicidae). I've never seen it compellingly demonstrated that these mosquitoes have an irreplacable role in any ecosystem, but there's much we don't grasp that an incremental and cautious approach seems wise.
  • pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    Humans are invasive in, arguably, all of the world.
    • XFrequentist 11y ago
      Just about, yeah.
• speleding 11y ago
  There are places where mosquitos are an invasive species. Hawaii apparently did not have mosquitos until they were introduced there by humans. So that might be a good place to experiment with eradicating them, the "it's not natural" argument would carry less weight there.
  • bduerst 11y ago
    Precisely. To be clear, eradication of invasive mosquito species where they aren't native is a great idea. Thinking that removing mosquitoes from the ecosystems everywhere won't have a negative impact on the environment is less so.
    • funkyy 11y ago
      There will be obviously an impact. Question is how big.
      • TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
        I don't really understand why we're arguing about this. How many species have we lost as a result of human activity? What's one more. Here's a list[1]. Fuck the mosquito. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_animals 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine
        • azazqadir 11y ago
          The point is we are deliberately trying to eliminate their existence and we will be directly responsible for that.
          • u_me_him 11y ago
            I can live with that
          • TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago