Domain: issg.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to issg.org.
Comments · 8
-
Sewers == fertilizer
Most of our fertilizers and pesticides are produced using fossil fuels
Manure was used as fertilizer before they invented the Haber-Bosch process. There's one tropical plant, the Brazilian water hyacinth, that's considered one of the world's worst weeds. It doubles its mass in six to eighteen days, probably the fastest growing plant in the world. One hectare produces up to 750 kg of dry organic matter per day.
The ideal biomass production scheme? Grow water hyacinth in ponds of untreated sewage. Make cellulosic ethanol from that, or else just burn the biomass to power steam turbines.
-
why not reproduction
Why do the authors suggest that this is not related to reproduction? It seems similar to the habits of Crepidula fornicata (the slipper shell) http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?fr=1&si=600
-
Re:selfish imbicilesNowhere in that article did it say anything of the sort, that such a possibility had even been looked at. The basic point of that article was to advance a new type of local economy based on 'ecotourism' to support struggling ranchers. Not exactly sounding like a group of 'scientists', now capitalism is good for the planet?. Other than a large outdoor zoo, this has no scientific value whatsoever. The closest thing they could claim was that thousands of years ago these animals might have influenced the animals that are here right now. Hardly a groundbreaking endeavour.
why is it foolish, counter-productive to not take this at face value?
Are you going to give reasons to support your position of my 'childish' points? Or are you just going to stomp your feet in the corner and disagree just because you can? Are you trying to tell me that a deliberate attempt will always know every possible outcome of the invasive species, and always be successful?
-
Re:cloning uncommon?It's not just Europe. Those "Argentinian ants" (Linepithema humile) are taking over the planet! Or so it seems. Have a look at the Global Invasive Species database: http://www.issg.org/database/species/distribution
. asp?si=127&fr=1&sts=
Around where I live (coastal California) I don't think there are any other kinds of ants anymore.
--Seen -
Re:myna bird?
It's alphabetical by formal specise name, which is why Acridotheres tristis is number 3, and Rattus rattus is near Salmo trutta!
Wow! There are no flies on you are there? (are flies on the list?) Why didn't they say that? All they say by way of methodology is "It is very difficult to choose 100 invasive species, from around the world, ... The one hundred species aim to collectively illustrate the range of impacts caused by biological invasion."
Loveliness != good for the environment!
The indictment http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?s i=108&fr=1&sts= seems to mention New Zealand a lot. It states that in Singapore, where they cheered me up no end as I walked to work every morning, they are no problem. This list is some kind of Kiwi consipiracy. And in that part of the world they don't have a particularly good record with animals do they?
New Zealand? Oh, wait a minute! http://www.issg.org/people.html#Contacts -
Re:myna bird?
It's alphabetical by formal specise name, which is why Acridotheres tristis is number 3, and Rattus rattus is near Salmo trutta!
Wow! There are no flies on you are there? (are flies on the list?) Why didn't they say that? All they say by way of methodology is "It is very difficult to choose 100 invasive species, from around the world, ... The one hundred species aim to collectively illustrate the range of impacts caused by biological invasion."
Loveliness != good for the environment!
The indictment http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?s i=108&fr=1&sts= seems to mention New Zealand a lot. It states that in Singapore, where they cheered me up no end as I walked to work every morning, they are no problem. This list is some kind of Kiwi consipiracy. And in that part of the world they don't have a particularly good record with animals do they?
New Zealand? Oh, wait a minute! http://www.issg.org/people.html#Contacts -
Re:This is awesome
Yes, zebra mussels do CLEAR the water, but they do not CLEAN it. What they do is they remove all the sediment that other creatures oftem feed on, thus making it unavailable. However, they pass most pollutants right on (except for some heavy metals and such which they bioaccumulate like crazy, poisoning any creatures which then eat them.)
And the clearing of the water actually causes problems in and of itself. There is still a super high nutrient load in the water, and the extra light allowed in causes several noxious weeds to grow out of control, choking out most normal vegetation, destroying habitat several animals use (especially for egg laying) and choke waterways from human navigation.
While their unchecked growth in the wild does cause problens, zebra mussels could make an interesting part of a constructed bioremediation system (at least in waterways which are already infected by the zebras anyways.)
A couple of links on zebra mussels:
Wisconsin DNR
Minnesota Sea Grant
Missouri Department of Conservation
Iowa DNR
And slightly more technical link outlinking some ofthe risks of overfiltration -
Re:Look at the introduction of 'foreign' species..
Not to mention what happened to Australia after Cane Toads were introduced.
Many more examples can be found at this site and using this database