Non-Native
Species Are Not Necessarily a Threat to Biodiversity
Summary: It
is estimated that there are anywhere between 6,500 and 50,000 non-native
species in the United States and only a very small number have become
invasive where they have caused economic losses or extinction of native
species. Most of them are actually beneficial and were purposely brought here
to try to solve certain problems. A prime example of this is the Asian Carp introduced
to control algae throughout lakes and ponds in the South. Many conservation activists and law
makers are trying to group all non-native species together as invasive and pass
laws to control or ban their introduction. There are currently more than twenty
government agencies and billions of dollars involved in managing “invasive”
species each year. Many organisms in our
environment were once non-native and have made their way into our culture with
no problems. In fact, ninety-eight percent of our entire food system is made up
of exotic or non-native crops and livestock. Many activists claim that
invasive species are a “threat to the variety of species within ecosystems”
but some scientists actually think that non-natives
increase biodiversity and lead to a larger number of species over time.
Opinion/Reflection:
There is no scientific evidence
that supports the statement that introduced species are causing global
extinction of native species. Therefore, I think that there is no reason to be generally
banning all exotic species if the majority of them are actually integrated nicely
in their habitats and actually beneficial to their ecosystems. Even when
certain species have some damaging effects, it can’t be ignored that they also
have positive effects. For example, the zebra mussels that are multiplying
rapidly in the Great Lakes are causing some economic troubles and affecting
some species but they are also improving the water quality and increasing
aquatic plants that shelter other species of fish. I do agree that some native
species do need to be controlled but we should not waste resources in
controlling ALL non-native species. Overall, I believe change is good and it
could lead to more species and a better biodiversity ratio.
Questions:
1.
Should the government be spending billions
of taxpayer money on creating laws to control non-native species?
2.
Is it worth losing the benefits of many
non-native species by banning all new species to avoid the negative effects of
some of the invasive ones?
3.
Does introducing invasive species threaten or
promote biodiversity?
4.
Could invasive species be controlled more effectively at the state or local level where the problem is
occurring?
I found the article and Kelly's analysis very interesting. The idea that invasive species are a serious threat has been reinforced into our heads. I didn't realize that only the minority of invasive species pose danger to their environment. I find it ridiculous that the government is spending countless billions on controlling the ecosystem and its inhabitants. I firmly believe that the environment will work out all its problems independently. If it can't, then the invasive species will take over and start anew. Nature is a cycle that will always balance itself out. We should simply let nature take care of itself. Intervening into an ecosystem with a new species may help biodiversity at first. However, if that new organism proves hazardous for the environment then it will surely hinder biodiversity by indirectly harming other species. While I don't feel that we should seriously control any part of the ecosystem, if it were to be done it should be at a local level. The government has no true understanding on local problems, only a big picture that must be fulfilled. This leads to much more drastic measures on a magnitude that the problem might not require. I am interested in my community and its inhabitants, and often do research into the condition of the local ecosystem. Most problems I've heard of are very insignificant, and certainly don't require a big government solution. Locals should be responsible for their species. They have the only true understanding of how it is effecting the population of the local organisms.
ReplyDeleteOpinion/Reflection:I somewhat disagree with Kelly and Eugene. Although it may be, as Eugene stated, "ridiculous that the government is spending billions on controlling the ecosystem", it is necessary. Think of the native species that may become extinct because of the invasive species that are eating their normal food source. Also, the native species that may be becoming extinct or dwindling in population could be a keystone species. The lack of that species in an ecosystem could cause the ecosystem to fall apart. That would definitely not help its biodiversity! Thirdly, the Asian Carp may have served its purpose originally, but now, as stated in my article, they escaped and are endangering the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
ReplyDeleteAnswering Question:
Does introducing invasive species threaten or promote biodiversity?
It depends how the organisms in the ecosystem react to the introduction of the invasive species. The organisms could work well with the new species, and the biodiversity could flourish, or they could not work well at all, and the ecosystem could be destroyed, threatening the biodiversity.
Eugene, really good opinion section, but next time do 2 paragraphs, see Brandon's example. He separates them, which makes it much more clear.
ReplyDelete