The
world is divided into three groups when
it comes to invasive species. The first and largest is the group that
has no idea, information or opinion about what an invasive species is or may be
let alone whether there is reason for concern or not. This largest of constituencies
is only interested in non human species when they slither into its bedrooms
(pythons), bring disease (tiger mosquitoes), decreases harvest of baseball bats
(emerald ash borer) or pulls down power lines (kudzu) needed to stay connected
to social media.
The
second interest group has decided the information at hand warrants no concern
and no focus or allocation of resources or consideration. In some sense this
group has decided to live for today knowing that tomorrow will take care of
itself as well as any human generations that may come. The third broad
constituency, on the other hand, sees a
problem and want to prevent what it can
and fix what is damaged in order to preserve a future of maximum opportunities
based upon present understandings of biological diversity. This last group's invasive species positions are based upon an
understanding that human welfare both directly and indirectly depends on the
environment, a concept that the first group never thinks about and the
presumptions about which the second groups has questions.
Irreversible environmental damage
to ecological system resources and services negatively affect future generations' abilities to achieve quality
of life goals. The chronic disruption of natural ecosystems caused by human
development activities include the introduction and establishment of novel
species that replace existing species' relationships and interactions. A major
difficulty arises in any effort to assign a value that would allow an easy
decision or choice as to what steps to take in regards to an invasive species
issue. The challenge is in determining the
estimation of the economic value of environmental resources, service or effects,
as well as the possible conflicts between the discounting of ecological effects
and long-term environmental and sustainability concerns.[1]
In a
sense the whole idea of environmental evaluation lead directly to a conflict between
the conservation of environmental assets including indigenous species patterns
and aggregations versus traditional patterns of economic development such as
the clearance of land for agriculture and urban development. To safeguard future generations' access to ecological
services, present human activities (development) would seem to require that the
present generation restrict the use of scarce ecological resources.[2]
But that is pretty much not going to happen in a world staring at human
population numbers growing to 9 plus
billion within this century.
If an invasive species has not yet made a
measurable or economical impact on a field, landscape or natural area, most
people ask why spend money on something that has not happened? It is the same
problem facing schools versus prisons; why spend money on education of many individuals
to prevent crimes of a few when one can wait until a crime is committed and
then remove the specific individual from the community as a whole. Of course
when it comes to personal health, we rather reluctantly almost get the prevention
thing because our mothers told us so. When it comes to consideration of the
environment, however, Mother's advice goes out the window.
The
first two group's preoccupation with the present results in a cascading series
of decisions that extend beyond invasive species inaction. Bridges are not repaired,
libraries are closed and research into environmental tools are shut down. USDA-ARS,
for example, is closing its Kika de la
Garza Subtropical Agricultural Research Center founding in 1935 in Texas
along with 9 other locations across the US because it can no longer afford to
support the scientific work done there on:
1) Integrated pest management (IPM) of parasites and diseases of honey bee colonies; 2) Biological control methods used to identify and defeat present and potential pest threats to Rio Grande Valley agriculture; 3) Organic farming systems utilizing holistic approaches to healthy and nutritious food production; 4) Quarantine treatments of subtropical fruits and vegetables; 5) Post harvest treatments of produce for disinfestations by non-chemical means; 6) Aerial remote sensing of agricultural problems; and 7) Pesticide tolerance of vegetables, ornamental, and specialty crops for registration labeling and EPA compliance.
Another
example of groups one and two unintentional and unplanned collaboration is the budget driven decision by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to stop funding its enormously successful Aquatic Plant Control Research
Program. The program traces its original to the catastrophic introduction
of a non-indigenous aquatic plant, water-hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes (Mart.) Solms), which rapidly
infested the waters of Florida and Louisiana. The elimination of terrestrial and aquatic
biological control research is short sighted, foolish and just plain stupid,
but reflects a society concerned now with that it can get today not what it
will leave for its children tomorrow.
Thus, it
comes down to a series of trade-offs as to what to do with invasive species,
their introduction, establishment and control. This is pretty much the life of
a gardener; a series of morning decisions based on unsatisfactory trade-offs
involving resources such as time and money. It also makes the gardener's case that
an touch of prevention is worth more than a costly excursion of eradication and
control after the fact. But who has time to listen to gardeners anymore?
[1] Jan
Douwe Meindertsma. “Agricultural Research for Development” [accessed December
31, 2011] http://www.icra-edu.org/page.cfm?pageid=ardhome&loginas=anon_e
[2]
David Pearce. 1993. Valuing The Environment: Past Practice,Future Prospect.
[accessed December 31, 2011] http://prototype2010.cserge.webapp3.uea.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pa_1994_02.pdf
1 comment:
My focus on invasive species is on aquatic weeds: I have too many friends among the invasive animals (including ALL my HUMAN friends - nothing is more invasive). Aquatic weeds are the real driving force in climate degradation. They dessicate the lands and silt up the waters. The solution to aquatic weeds is the repeated use of massed manpower, which requires profitable use of the harvested biomass. Biomass is biofuel in the raw. Roughly 3 billion people now use biomass for their main source of energy. Diverting their use to weeds rather than trees would save many forests. By weeding and dredging the lakes and rivers we can reestablish "lake effect" rains worldwide. With the lake beds cleansed, the groundwater will again be replenished, and wells will again provide water.
Post a Comment