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
What, no snakeheads on this list?
So will they remove all limits on Rainbow Trout now? :-)
That would be nice...
"God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
What about those face huggers from Aliens?
I would say:
1) Homo Sapiens
To quote the entry: "few single species occupy as many diverse environments as humans"
Cthulhu and the other elder gods listed?
It might be millions years between incursions, but the effect they have on the biosphere is pretty dramatic.
Mass extinctions, tectonic plate shifts, pole shifts, axis shifts, etc, etc, etc.
Reported only yesterday, a ladybird being sold around the world for pest control may out-compete
s tm
native ladybirds, and eat the eggs of butterflies
and lacewings.
They also blemish soft fruits and their acrid defensive chemicals taint wines.
Harmonia axyridis - the Harlequin Ladybird
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3715120.
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.
What does 'invasive' mean? It means its in an area where it doesn't 'naturally belong', in this context, and 'is doing damage'.
The point is, tree's are exceptionally good at biological warfare. A non-native tree in a distant land, with no competitors, can utterly decimate local species.
Sorta like Americans in Baghdad, but I digress..
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Number 1 on the list is a tree. A goddamn tree! But where's those bug eyed greys on the list? They're not on there, are they? I smell a coverup! I don't think a tree's ever given anyone an anal probe (but then again, I'm not a botanist).
---
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."
Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
1. Humans
2. Starbucks
3. Talk Shows
4. Neoconservatives
5. "Alternative" Bands
6. Cell-Phone-Talking SUV Drivers
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
It's alphabetical by formal specise name, which is why Acridotheres tristis is number 3, and Rattus rattus is near Salmo trutta!
... The one hundred species aim to collectively illustrate the range of impacts caused by biological invasion."
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?
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,
Loveliness != good for the environment!
The indictment http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?
New Zealand? Oh, wait a minute! http://www.issg.org/people.html#Contacts
There are probably two ways of judging how bad an invasive species is: the negative effects on other "native" species and ecology, and how hard it is to eradicate. As an example lets look at the salt cedar , which is bad on both of these counts.
This plant is a huge success of natural selection. It can survive in all sorts of environments, and scales wonderfully eeking a survival in the middle of the desert as a shrub or thrive in wet forest as a tree, but always leeching every and all the resources available to it. It has an extensive root system which soaks up all the water available, which not only chokes off local trees, but prevents ground water from replenishing streams and aquifers, hurting the ecology of the entire region. It is near worthless as a source of food for animals, unlike the plants which it displaces.
Getting rid of it is not quite as easy as using a chainsaw. As I mentioned, it has an extensive root system which survives and resprouts after the above-ground portion of the plant has been cut down. The salt ceder also salinates the soil, making harder for other plants to regrow if the infestation has been there a long time before removal. Most places resort to pesticide to get rid of it, either by spraying areas that are completely infested, or by poisoning the trunks of individual trees that have been cut down. Also, "just chainsawing it", is not as easy as it sounds. It is an extremely time consuming task. Likewise, pesticides are not something that you want to go overboard with. In general these trees have been spreading over decades and we are just now getting around to dealing with them, so you don't want to just rip out all the salt cedars as fast as possible without a plan for reintroducing native plants.
Here in New Mexico, the salt cedar is concidered to be one of the greatest threats to our water supply, and a great deal of effort is being made to eradicate it, and progress is being made, but it is necisarrily slow.
I for one welcome are new joke nazi overlords.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
For all those who complain that #1 is a tree, the list appears to be alphabetically ordered.
Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
When you release beetles to consume aphids, for instance, it is a bad assumption to think that the beetles will take care of the aphid problem, and then having exhausted their food source, will then simply die off or dwindle to an acceptable-to-humans number- more likely, they'll choose alternate food sources, which may include things humans did not intend for them to eat. I'm certainly not the sort to suggest that all human modification of the environment is awful and we must leave all of nature pristine- for one thing, it's not as though animals and plants themselves leave nature unspoiled. Also, in certain cases like food crops and game animals, invasive species have been extremely beneficial to humans. While they might have made the list here, I think many humans are perfectly fine with lakes and rivers brimming with largemouth bass and trout. In the same way, while "invasive," and sometimes even destructive, few humans would put the domestic cat on the same level of infamy as Dutch elm disease, kudzu, or fire ants- in fact, they've traditionally been valued for controlling populations of two of the other members on the list. But, we must remember that animals and plants are not machines that can be operated to do the will of humanity- however much we may think ourselves their masters, at a higher level they obey their genes. And their genes want them to reproduce without limit.
On the subject of deliberately introduced invasive species, this entry sounds like a truly amazing creature:
The predatory "rosy wolf snail" (also known as the "cannibal snail") is native to the south-eastern United States, especially Florida. It has been introduced to islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, also to Bermuda and the Bahamas, as a putative biological control agent for another alien species, the giant African snail (Achatina fulica). There is no good evidence that control of A. fulica has been effected, but E. rosea has caused the extinction of numerous endemic partulid tree snails in French Polynesia and has been heavily implicated in the extinction or at least decline of other species of snails wherever it has been introduced, notably in Hawaii. Common Names: cannibal snail, Rosige Wolfsschnecke, rosy wolf snail
I mean, I just would like to see this thing in action- you tend to think of most predatory animals as made for pursuit, capable of bursts of speed to chase down prey. Then you have this snail....
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."