3 ms·

Also, "invasive" has gained the connotation of "bad" for some reason, as though regions and their flora/fauna do not change and have not changed over time. Spec

Also, "invasive" has gained the connotation of "bad" for some reason, as though regions and their flora/fauna do not change and have not changed over time. Species invade. Such is the ecosystem.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago
Definitely. Obviously the rate of change is crazy higher than anything pre-anthropocene but... but it's more broadly just part of biology. imho there's a kind of unfortunate essentialist philosophy which runs rampant among some "ecologists" and which has seeped into the public sphere... which believes that "nature" is a self-balancing system, and it is only our interference (as something "outside" nature) that breaks this. And this gets tied into the "natives" vs "invasives" dialog, as well. I think this is profoundly wrong. Nature is chaos. (Said in Werner Herzog voice, or something). Consider that the ice age only ended just over 10,000 years ago -- which is an extremely short time ago in geological and evolutionary terms -- and every forest, meadow or natural space you see in (temperate North America and Europe at least) is very new and was "invaded" after the glaciers melted and as the climate warmed. In some cases quite recently.
- tway_GdBRwW 2y ago
  As you point out, the problem is that the rate of change is crazy higher than what almost all multi-celled life is used to. I'm on board with your view that we are a part of nature, not separate, but when I think of previous speed-ups in rate of change (i.e. sexual selection to allow more rapid gene reshuffling, or epigenetic modification which allows more flexibility from the same genes) these have been spread across multiple species. The acceleration we are currently seeing is basically due to the industrial revolution, which is due to people finding an net energy positive fuel source and leveraging this. Nature is a chaotic system, yes, but chaotic systems have balance and tend to have semi-regular orbits. By so drastically changing the rate of change past what any other living thing can match, we are on course to push the system into a new regime. Which is unlikely to be as pleasant as the one we currently enjoy.
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    I mean, see my point above about rate of change following the end of the ice ages. The part of North America I'm in, it's actually really young in evolutionary terms. And was really in constant intense flux even prior to European settlement. And the locals here (Anishinaabe and Iriquois) also intervened heavily with fire and planting for thousands of years, too. More broadly we're committing ecocide in much more terrible ways. All that said, I tend to plant natives because they're usually (but not always) better adapted. Apples, I had to spray the crap out of and cut all of mine down. Pawpaws? Took care of themselves. Inter-specific "hybrid" grapes (with North American vitis ancestry) require almost no spraying, while v. vinifera is weak and requires constant intervention (I also do my own grape breeding). I had dwarf sour cherries bred in western Canada, and they can't handle the heat and humidity here. Native black cherry grows fantastic (I've thought about trying to breed with it). However here's the thing. Among native plant advocates there's this kind of schizo thing. On one hand we're supposed to plant natives because they're better adapted for our environment. On the other hand we're supposed to root out the invasives because they're out-competing the natives and pushing them out. Huh? Which is it? Adapted for this place, or too weak to thrive in this place? I'm not the first to point this out.
    - qup 2y ago
      Can't they be adapted to fill a niche with little or no competition, which the invasive outcompetes them for? Based on your comment, I think you're in my region (Ozarks). Hi! My best choice was some fig trees. No pressure except from raccoons. No tending, watering, etc required.
      - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
        > I think you're in my region (Ozarks). Not quite. Upper great lakes (southern Ontario). Right at the edge (like literally within a few miles) of where these "southern" species (pawpaw, sassafras, etc.) can survive. Figs can't survive the winter here without protection, unfortunately.
    - bratwurst3000 2y ago
bratwurst3000 2y ago
exactly. climate change for example demands a change of fauna in certain regions. i live in europe and I had to find out that many trees that I thought where endemic are not. oranges or apples are a good example. or mullberry.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  Yeah, I actually think humans have an important role to play in helping build resilience in natural areas during this extremely rapid change. In identifying species that thrive in the new margins and changed areas. It seems we can't (actually, won't) stop our idiocy. Some of us are going to have to act as bigger-picture gardeners. Blind adherence to "this isn't native" isn't going to help. We may have to reach to things that are native in areas adjacent (or not even) but warmer/dryer/wetter/etc and encourage them.
more_corn 2y ago
Yes… but that delicate balance they describe in the article? The symbiotic relationship between one specific bee that only pollinates one specific flower? That delicate balance is interrupted when we introduce non-native plants. It’s not guaranteed to be a problem, nor a catastrophic one. But sometimes it is. It’s simply better to select local plants when possible because we don’t yet understand all the relationships that make established ecosystems humm. I’m not nazi about it, there are plenty of nonnative species in my garden, but we have the awesome tiny bees that visit one specific tiny purple flower. I’d hate to crowd them out by accident so I try to plant local varieties when I can. And the bees we get are fantastic. I can’t wait to start identifying them.
carapace 2y ago
"Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States: Assessing the relative importance of habitat destruction, alien species, pollution, overexploitation, and disease" https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/48/8/607/232411?login=false https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/48/8/607/232411?...

Also, "invasive" has gained the connotation of "bad" for some reason, as though regions and their flora/fauna do not change and have not changed over time. Species invade. Such is the ecosystem.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago

Definitely. Obviously the rate of change is crazy higher than anything pre-anthropocene but... but it's more broadly just part of biology. imho there's a kind of unfortunate essentialist philosophy which runs rampant among some "ecologists" and which has seeped into the public sphere... which believes that "nature" is a self-balancing system, and it is only our interference (as something "outside" nature) that breaks this. And this gets tied into the "natives" vs "invasives" dialog, as well. I think this is profoundly wrong. Nature is chaos. (Said in Werner Herzog voice, or something). Consider that the ice age only ended just over 10,000 years ago -- which is an extremely short time ago in geological and evolutionary terms -- and every forest, meadow or natural space you see in (temperate North America and Europe at least) is very new and was "invaded" after the glaciers melted and as the climate warmed. In some cases quite recently.

tway_GdBRwW 2y ago
As you point out, the problem is that the rate of change is crazy higher than what almost all multi-celled life is used to. I'm on board with your view that we are a part of nature, not separate, but when I think of previous speed-ups in rate of change (i.e. sexual selection to allow more rapid gene reshuffling, or epigenetic modification which allows more flexibility from the same genes) these have been spread across multiple species. The acceleration we are currently seeing is basically due to the industrial revolution, which is due to people finding an net energy positive fuel source and leveraging this. Nature is a chaotic system, yes, but chaotic systems have balance and tend to have semi-regular orbits. By so drastically changing the rate of change past what any other living thing can match, we are on course to push the system into a new regime. Which is unlikely to be as pleasant as the one we currently enjoy.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  I mean, see my point above about rate of change following the end of the ice ages. The part of North America I'm in, it's actually really young in evolutionary terms. And was really in constant intense flux even prior to European settlement. And the locals here (Anishinaabe and Iriquois) also intervened heavily with fire and planting for thousands of years, too. More broadly we're committing ecocide in much more terrible ways. All that said, I tend to plant natives because they're usually (but not always) better adapted. Apples, I had to spray the crap out of and cut all of mine down. Pawpaws? Took care of themselves. Inter-specific "hybrid" grapes (with North American vitis ancestry) require almost no spraying, while v. vinifera is weak and requires constant intervention (I also do my own grape breeding). I had dwarf sour cherries bred in western Canada, and they can't handle the heat and humidity here. Native black cherry grows fantastic (I've thought about trying to breed with it). However here's the thing. Among native plant advocates there's this kind of schizo thing. On one hand we're supposed to plant natives because they're better adapted for our environment. On the other hand we're supposed to root out the invasives because they're out-competing the natives and pushing them out. Huh? Which is it? Adapted for this place, or too weak to thrive in this place? I'm not the first to point this out.
  - qup 2y ago
    Can't they be adapted to fill a niche with little or no competition, which the invasive outcompetes them for? Based on your comment, I think you're in my region (Ozarks). Hi! My best choice was some fig trees. No pressure except from raccoons. No tending, watering, etc required.
    - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
      > I think you're in my region (Ozarks). Not quite. Upper great lakes (southern Ontario). Right at the edge (like literally within a few miles) of where these "southern" species (pawpaw, sassafras, etc.) can survive. Figs can't survive the winter here without protection, unfortunately.
  - bratwurst3000 2y ago

bratwurst3000 2y ago

exactly. climate change for example demands a change of fauna in certain regions. i live in europe and I had to find out that many trees that I thought where endemic are not. oranges or apples are a good example. or mullberry.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago
Yeah, I actually think humans have an important role to play in helping build resilience in natural areas during this extremely rapid change. In identifying species that thrive in the new margins and changed areas. It seems we can't (actually, won't) stop our idiocy. Some of us are going to have to act as bigger-picture gardeners. Blind adherence to "this isn't native" isn't going to help. We may have to reach to things that are native in areas adjacent (or not even) but warmer/dryer/wetter/etc and encourage them.

more_corn 2y ago

Yes… but that delicate balance they describe in the article? The symbiotic relationship between one specific bee that only pollinates one specific flower? That delicate balance is interrupted when we introduce non-native plants. It’s not guaranteed to be a problem, nor a catastrophic one. But sometimes it is. It’s simply better to select local plants when possible because we don’t yet understand all the relationships that make established ecosystems humm. I’m not nazi about it, there are plenty of nonnative species in my garden, but we have the awesome tiny bees that visit one specific tiny purple flower. I’d hate to crowd them out by accident so I try to plant local varieties when I can. And the bees we get are fantastic. I can’t wait to start identifying them.

carapace 2y ago

"Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States: Assessing the relative importance of habitat destruction, alien species, pollution, overexploitation, and disease" https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/48/8/607/232411?login=false https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/48/8/607/232411?...