Invasive species are a wicked
inconvenience to those concerned and to those unaware. Invasion biology is the
study of an ecological wicked problem.[1]
The intentional or accidental release due to human activities and subsequent
establishment of a new species into an ecosystem, in which the novel species
has no co-evolutionary interactions, impacts the system irrevocably. Burmese
pythons are a charismatic example of an ecosystem undergoing human induced
change. The pythons are also an example of the complexities of the issue of
invasive species and the wicked nature of any conversation.
In 2009 I wrote about the larger
than life snake [Thompson. Pythons, People
& Pathways: Invasive Species Slither In. Invasive Notes. August 22, 2012] and my up-close and
personal controlled encounter with it. Now almost three years later, the saga
continues inextricably towards a logical end. In a recent study reported by Craig Pittman, "... a lot of animals that used to be
seen in the Everglades are gone — apparently
gobbled up by the invading snakes." [Pittman. When pythons take
over Everglades, raccoons, rabbits and other small mammals vanish. Tampa Bay
Times. January 31, 2012] The study published by the National
Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and referred to by Pittman in some detail states
in its discussion that "[n]umerous lines of evidence implicate introduced Burmese
pythons as the primary cause of dramatic declines of several species of
once-abundant mammals in ENP."[2]
In
the current misunderstanding of what science is and the confusion between fact,
value and opinion, we feel obliged to present all points of views equally
neatly confusing each component and producing an homogenized miasma of beliefs.
Because science is about the repeated testing of hypothesis and not about
absolute facts as received dogma, we are treated to a system that equates
fairness with science. We feel obligated to closely inspect occasional hyper-opinions as fact. And so we get today's extra-ordinary journalistically
bombastic headline: "Are pythons
overrunning the Everglades? Some experts now say no."[3] On
the face of it, the report simply notes that there are more opinions in the
world than those in the reviewed study from the National Academy of Sciences. The
problem is that in the PNAS paper we have a proposition that can be tested and
either sustained or proved wrong, and in the two opinions from the Tribune
article we have un-testable value statements which may or may not be testable.
But
as surely as tweets can fly and hogs have legs, we will hear that there is no
consensus on any measurable impact of the establishment of a novel species in
the Everglades. This balance in the
name of fairness results in logical fallacies of the 2 = 11 type. What is
really called for if some feel the study is problematic is a testable model of
their position with their methodology explained and their conclusions stated.
To this we throw in the empirical
evidence debate that occupies dark corners of controversy. As my friend
John Waugh points out that " Most
of us lack any empirical evidence that the light bulb goes off when the fridge
is shut either."[4] We
then use journalism to stir the pot of controversy until there is a virtual public
sector boiling that serves to attract more and more uninformed opinion creating
a congress of expectations.
That
non-indigenous pythons as a top predator or keystone species may be
dramatically altering an ecosystem should come as no surprise. According to a Science
Codex article
"it is predator/prey
relationships (not competitor or mutualistic relationships) that provide the
necessary stability for almost infinite numbers of species to exist in
ecosystems. They do so by keeping the size of species populations in check at
supportable levels. ..When prey are high, predators increase and reduce the
number of prey by predation. When predators are low, prey decrease and thus
reduce the number of predators by starvation. These predator/prey relationships
thereby promote stability in ecosystems and enable them to maintain large
numbers of species."[5]
This strongly supports the study and of course is never mentioned when
competing opinions are submitted for consideration as science construed in
terms of journalism.
Because invasive species issues are a form of a wicked problem we tend to skip
the science when a testable conclusion does not fit our value system or our a priori desired outcomes. Because the
issues of invasion biology and ecology are so complex, by the time we
absolutely know we have a problem, we no longer have the resources to actually
do anything about the resulting alteration of the ecosystem itself. When I was involved
directly in the nursery industry and managed fields and green houses, I did not
need to be overwhelmed by a new weed or insect in my production to react, and
if my very small managed system began to yield unexpected results, I would
identify the usual suspects of physical change as well as take immediate steps
to eradicate or control the new species without waiting for the complete loss
of the crops. So while it is true that our ecosystems are complex adaptive
systems with many internal signals that create the great and small cycles, they
are because of their very chaotic nature extremely sensitive to small novel
perturbations which can quickly change the character of the system. If farmers
awoke every morning and decided to wait and see what novelty might do to their harvests
we would all starve.
There
is a tendency to overreact in the other direction and misunderstand the nature
of science based papers and the information therein. Invasive species problems
rarely if ever have a linear solution. Once the cat is out of the bag it can
almost never be stuffed back in having at the very least scratched a hole in
the bag in the re-stuffing attempt and therefore altering the bag (the system)
forever. Driving a solution that depends
upon human activity disappearing in a world of 7 billion souls achieves little
in the long run. And most importantly invasive species are considered from a
human-centered point of view mostly because the people writing about and living
in the ecosystems are human. One can perhaps wish there were no humanity, but
the exercise is an adventure into the null space of human reality. We are here
and we are part of nature; and for now we must find ways to live in nature and
with it. The
Dorcas et al. paper is a form of
early warning, and may actually come too late to affect any significant
reversal of the process of integration of a novel species into south Florida.
We may actually be in the control and management phase adjusting our
expectations of local ecosystems services that we can recover from the
resources that are being altered.
Buried
way down in the philosophical basement of all invasive species debates is the concept
of ecological systems and the services the resources provide. In the cellar
of ideas where few bother to tread, are value systems that state that ecosystem
services are infinite, that ecosystem resources can be owned and dispensed on a
who can pay basis, and that ecosystem services are separate from human
activities, needs and wants. It is here that the idea that the Everglades is a
vast other just waiting to be processed by human industry and intellect resides; and
implicit in this is the idea that nothing is sacred, that everything exists to
be subservient to the desires of humankind today. If there is nothing of value
that we think we need in the Everglades with pythons then it is clear that
diverting scarce resources to their control is problematic . Because banks do
not put a value on the spirit of place, of what concern are a few less rodents
and mammals to us? In other words why worry about the introduction of a new
species to an old ecosystem when change is all around us.
[1]
Thompson. 2011. The Wicked Inconvenience of Invasive Species: A Reader in
Complexities. InvasiveNotes. http://ipetrus.blogspot.com/2011/06/wicked-inconvenience-of-invasive.html
The discussion of invasive
species issues may be framed by the planning theory of “wicked” problems.
Rittel & Webber's formulation of wicked problems specifies ten
characteristics, perhaps best considered in the context of social policy
planning, 1- 10. Jeff Conklin Ph.D., a computer scientist expanded, or rather
refined the definition, with 11-14, below.
1. There is no definitive
formulation of a wicked problem.
2. Wicked problems have no
stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked
problems are not true-or-false, but instead better, worse, or good enough.
4. There is no immediate and
no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. Every solution to a wicked
problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to
learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Wicked problems do not
have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions,
nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be
incorporated into the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is
essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can
be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a
discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways.
The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.
10. The planner has no right
to be wrong (Planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they
generate). Further, the planner or designer (solving the problem) has no
inherent right to solve the problem, and no permission to make mistakes.
11. The problem is not
understood until after formulation of a solution.
Stakeholders have radically
different world views and different frames for understanding the problem
12. Constraints and resources
to solve the problem change over time.
13. The problem is never
solved.
14. Wicked problems are often
"solved" (as well as they can be...) through group efforts.
15. Wicked problems require
inventive/creative solutions.
16. Every implemented
solution to a wicked problem has consequences, and may cause additional
problems.
[2]
Dorcas et al. 2012. Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of
invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park.
PNAS. accessed February 26, 2012] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/23/1115226109.full.pdf
Received for review in
September of 2011, the paper has eleven
authors. Given the point I shall try to make today, I think it
important to list them by name and their institutions of record: Michael E. Dorcas, Department of Biology,
Davidson College, Davidson, NC 28035; John D. Willson, Department of Fish and
Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA 24061; Robert N. Reed, Fort Collins Science Center, US
Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO 80526; Ray W. Snow, Everglades National
Park, National Park Service, Homestead, FL 33034; Michael R. Rochford, Fort
Lauderdale Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Davie, FL
33314; Melissa A. Miller, Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University,
Auburn, AL 36849; Walter E. Meshaka, Jr., State Museum of Pennsylvania,
Harrisburg, PA 17120; Paul T. Andreadis, Department of Biology, Denison
University, Granville, OH 43023; Frank J. Mazzotti , Fort Lauderdale Research
and Education Center, University of Florida, Davie, FL 33314; Christina M.
Romagos, Department of Biology, Davidson College, Davidson, NC 28035; and
Kristen M. Hart. Southeast Ecological Science Center, US Geological Survey,
Davie, FL 33314. The study was edited by Peter M. Vitousek, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA, and approved December 21, 2011.
[3]
Barbara Liston. Are pythons overrunning the Everglades? Some experts now say
no. Chicago Tribune. February 24, 2012. [accessed February 26, 2012] http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-usa-pythonsevergladesl2e8do4ou-20120224,0,5920161.story?page=1
"Do I think we have an impending disaster? I don't think
so," said Scott Hardin, exotic species coordinator for the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
"That study should have never made it to the light of day,"
"That study should have never made it to the light of day,"
[4]
personal communication email February 26, 2012
[5] Solved!
Mystery that stumped ecosystem modelers. ScienceCodex {Source: National Science
Foundation} February 22, 2012. [accessed February 26, 2012] http://www.sciencecodex.com/solved_mystery_that_stumped_ecosystem_modelers-86605
No comments:
Post a Comment