Slashdot Mirror
100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species
Ant writes "100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species list says: 'Invasive species have been recognised globally as a major threat to biodiversity (the collected wealth of the world's species of plants, animals and other organisms) as well as to agriculture and other human interests. It is very difficult to choose 100 invasive species, from around the world, that really are "worse" than any others. Species and their interactions with ecosystems are very complex. Some species may have invaded only a restricted region, but have a huge probability of expanding, and causing further great damage (e.g. see Boiga irregularis: the brown tree snake). Other species may already be globally widespread, and causing cumulative but less visible damage. Many biological families or genera contain large numbers of invasive species, often with similar impacts; in these cases one representative species was chosen. The one hundred species aim to collectively illustrate the range of impacts caused by biological invasion.'"
C'mon, Humans have got to rank someplace on that list.
First Post!
Apparently #38 is the common cat. I hadn't thought of cats as invasive, but I'm surprised that it's considered so invasive. I imagine they are so high on the list because of their numbers, and few people think of them in this way.
-Adam
I would say:
1) Homo Sapiens
To quote the entry: "few single species occupy as many diverse environments as humans"
Americans
Great article. Thanks Ant.
Introduced species brought in to stimulate this (profit) or eradicate that ("pests"), have brought about consequences to our generation and those after us, the obvious one being the trampling and eradication of native species that have adapted to their particular region over many generations -- key players in that area's natural system. These are being dominated by "foreigners" -- many of which have made the list -- often with consequences that may not be discovered for many years.
I have family in Hawai'i, and anyone who's flown to or from Honolulu Int'l knows how strict the authorities are there. Fragile, geologically young, natural systems are especially at risk for species introduction, as evidenced by the mongoose (brought in to eradicate another species), as one example. The mongoose has seriously threatened the native bird populations on Oahu and many neighbor islands.
It's fun to tackle serious issues with a touch of humor. Make no mistake, though. This is a very serious issue that is being taken very seriously, especially by those fragile island regions most threatened by these invasions, and even by geologically older regions dealing with invasive ivys and other (introduced) pests that cost money to deal with.
It seems I've touched on a volatile issue here. Please consider this elaboration. Hopefully it will show you that I do consider my thoughts carefully.
With every technological innovation there are consequences. Coal power produced pollution the likes of which had never been seen before; the proliferation of the automobile has contributed greatly to increased greenhouse emissions; and genetically modified foods have been met with great skepticism is most industrialized nations ... America being a noteworthy exception, as the nation has embraced it wholeheartedly for the most part.
Indeed, agriculture has been around a very, very long time. And with that experience comes hesitation when introducing something as bold as GMF.
Selectively breeding the best strain of rice or rose or whatever? Great. When chemically asserting our influence on a plant's genetics, fine tuning resistances, making the stalk more hearty, whatever is desired, should not the system in which that plant is introduced be carefully examined and all possible consequences be taken into account, even those of which we have no knowlege of?
When my children come of age, I don't want them to deal with any more problems than they have to. Leave the world better than when you entered it, I've heard so often. Granted, GMC can produce high yields and produce great profits. But what of their affects on their regions? The soil? Groundwater? Neighboring flora and fauna? What of the pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers used to nourish these crops? No one can answer these questions with any degree of certainty because we have yet to understand 100% of nature's processes.
Look at the Mississippi River, at the "Dead Zone" where it empties into the Gulf of Mexico. Is that what we want our kids to inherit?
I'm not broadcasting nameless, shapeless fear, but I do have reason to be concerned. What I am concerned about is the long term consequences of our implementation of modern GMC the likes of which have never been seen in 2000+ years of agriculture, and, specifically, how those changes will affect the health and yields of future crops.