What a great article! So much great information! I love the gradient of 10 labels describing introductions. I will be diving into these source papers for research for the book I'm co-authoring. Thanks so much for posting this. I am subscribed and looking forward to reading more.
Thanks! I lifted it from a book that I am currently co-authoring with Nikki Hill, the working title of which is "Stop Blaming the Messengers: A critique of the 'invasive plant' narrative." We delve into the science of course, but also examine the cultural tropes that contribute to the story (xenophobia, a false belief that the world is a static and unchanging place, the agricultural perspective of 'weeds' etc.). If you are interested, I could email you some draft chapters.
Your writing is brilliant! And as an artist whose work combines scientific data with images and text researched from archival sources, this week’s series is perfectly in synch with my current project, developing a series on the early modern roots of biodiversity loss (as a artist research fellow at the Folger Shakespeare Library) I just love the new terminology suggested and will begin using right away as I discuss my work.
I'm so delighted I happened across this article and your Substack. Fascinating piece, and I'm looking forward to reading more.
These studies all focus on mainland examples, but I am curious whether there are studies like this on islands. I think it's well-known since Darwin's finches that isolated locations like islands are incubators of new species, but it's also the case that islands have tons of "immigrants" introduced all the time, both "naturally" and by human intervention.
So for instance, you have a clip from Hamilton in your post, and of course Alexander Hamilton was born on the island of Nevis. Nevis has monkeys (imported from Asia and from South America), mongooses (imported from Asia) in addition to animal imports people expect, like chickens, goats, donkeys, and rats. But also many common "Caribbean" plants there are imports from Asia, like breadfruit and pineapples.
Those are all examples of imports being brought to Nevis by humans, but it's also my understanding that a common way that small reptiles and many arthropods get to islands is by being blown there by storms.
All this adds up to a lot of biodiversity on very small islands, which sometimes turns out badly (mongooses eradicated native reptile species on many islands), and often turns out pretty great. SO I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this.
My biases full disclosure: I live on a very small Caribbean island (Saba, Dutch Caribbean) and am pro-immigrant species because I'm pro-Caribbean.
Awesome! I'm so glad you enjoy my writing. In my previous post, I discussed the really cool example of Puerto Rican tree frogs living on introduced African tulip trees - I'd love to learn more about other Caribbean immigrant species.
Nice article, Sam. It will be interesting to see the letters offering differing viewpoints. Invasiveness is a natural process, it has been occurring ever since the planet has had motile and/or migratory species upon which other life hitches rides to distant locations otherwise out of reach...notably islands. The very term, "invasiveness" with its freight of unpleasant connotations is a misnomer. Life enters a new area that is at an energy equilibrium. Then a period of instability occurs followed by a new equilibrium until the next travelor arrives. Admittedly mankind has been the greatest facilitator in this process. I consider it a net good, but am open to counter-arguments.
I personally don't believe that Earth was created "for" humanity in a teleological sense, and I don't know what humanity's destiny is. But I do think we already, effectively, "rule" this planet as its firstborn spacefaring and atmospheric species, and I'm excited to see what we can do to steward it. This paragraph from one of my Netherlands articles seems relevant to your comment:
"One of the many things I’m trying to contribute to in a small way by writing The Weekly Anthropocene is developing a more hopeful and inspiring narrative of human civilization and its response to climate change. We are not hopeless eco-sinners doomed to be woefully struck down by the forces we have unleashed, we are a brilliant, unprecedented mega-band of clothes-wearing plains apes who’ve created extraordinary wealth, prosperity, art, culture, and science thanks to incredible technological innovation, and we’re now starting to manage the major negative externalities of our civilization (air pollution, global warming, biodiversity loss) by transitioning to clean energy and working to establish new ways that humans and ecosystems can thrive alongside each other. The story of humanity and its biosphere is awesome."
I agree about the earth not being created "for" humanity, but some do.
As for your second paragraph, I just penned an Article on X, that speaks to the fragility of humanity. The earth is not as fragile as we are led to believe.... especially when you consider the perspective in the article.
Eco-sinner... this is like spitting in the wind. It comes back twice as hard.
Thank you for sharing these articles, Sam. I would like to know your definition of what an invasive species is and what is different about "immigrant species biology" compared to "invasive species biology." For me, the definitions I use for invasion biology are close to what the National Park Service uses [1]. It is not exhaustive like Lemoine's definitions, but it is concise and works well for academic and non-academic audiences.
I am curious since you talked about wild turkeys and condors being technically "invasive”, but I think most people studying invasive species would not refer to them as that. They aren't disrupting the environment, they are not disrupting other species, they are just there- no big deal.
I think we have the same goals in mind- do not worry about the many non-native species that aren't causing a ruckus and manage the few that are. We may differ on monitoring potential invasive species that have recently been detected, but monitoring usually comes with good reasons. For example, the jorō spider produces tons of spider babies, they can easily disperse, and they aren't the pickiest eaters (unless it is a toxic monarch [2]). This does not mean they are invasive, but they share traits that are common amongst successful invasive species. I think the researchers at Clemson and Georgia have been smart about researching the jorō spider and to focus on evidence before sounding the alarm [3]. I am surprised all the jorō papers refer to the spider as invasive, but it is apparent from their papers and our conversations that everyone has similar, yet different ideas about exactly what an invasive species is.
I hard disagree when you say invasive concerns are based on so-called "myths" of hearsay or xenophobia. When reading the first paper about spotted lanternfly’s detection in Pennsylvania, the group documents that it is invasive in South Korea, has noticeable crop damage in Korean vineyards, and the bug share’s good invasive species traits (high births, high dispersal, general appetite...) [4]. The researchers based their concerns on evidence, not rumors or fear of the new. It is good news to hear that hardwoods aren't at risk, but it is still a vineyard pest that farmers will need to manage [5].
If I had to put it in one sentence, I'd say that invasive species biology tends to have a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude to new arrivals, and I'd prefer "innocent until proven guilty." I agree that most non-native species cause no problems, but I think the field fails to convey this to the public. I agree that monitoring is good (for any species, native or new arrival) and I'm hopeful that the attempts at early clarification on joro spiders being essentially harmless represent the start of a paradigm shift!
I definitely think we should use "invasive species" as a term much more sparingly and with a much higher burden of proof that actual harmful impacts are occurring
I am fairly skeptical of this premise that invasive species are generally benign or even beneficial. To be labeled an invasive species in the first places means that it is detrimental to the native populations and regional biodiversity. I am open to idea that maybe we have wrongly labeled certain things invasive, but I have my doubts there will be a huge tidal shift away from the idea native vs invasive species.
Even many of the species on a 2000 list of the world's 100 Worst Invasive Species now look like they've been wrongly labeled as invasive! I personally suspect that many, perhaps most, of what we call "invasive species" are not in fact detrimental to their adopted ecosystems & new neighbor species (at least on continents with the time & space for a new equilibrium to be reached). I wrote an article with several examples.
What a great article! So much great information! I love the gradient of 10 labels describing introductions. I will be diving into these source papers for research for the book I'm co-authoring. Thanks so much for posting this. I am subscribed and looking forward to reading more.
Thank you!!! I love your Substack title
Thanks! I lifted it from a book that I am currently co-authoring with Nikki Hill, the working title of which is "Stop Blaming the Messengers: A critique of the 'invasive plant' narrative." We delve into the science of course, but also examine the cultural tropes that contribute to the story (xenophobia, a false belief that the world is a static and unchanging place, the agricultural perspective of 'weeds' etc.). If you are interested, I could email you some draft chapters.
Absolutely!!! I have an article coming out Monday that touches on the same ideas!
Your writing is brilliant! And as an artist whose work combines scientific data with images and text researched from archival sources, this week’s series is perfectly in synch with my current project, developing a series on the early modern roots of biodiversity loss (as a artist research fellow at the Folger Shakespeare Library) I just love the new terminology suggested and will begin using right away as I discuss my work.
Thank you so much!
I'm so delighted I happened across this article and your Substack. Fascinating piece, and I'm looking forward to reading more.
These studies all focus on mainland examples, but I am curious whether there are studies like this on islands. I think it's well-known since Darwin's finches that isolated locations like islands are incubators of new species, but it's also the case that islands have tons of "immigrants" introduced all the time, both "naturally" and by human intervention.
So for instance, you have a clip from Hamilton in your post, and of course Alexander Hamilton was born on the island of Nevis. Nevis has monkeys (imported from Asia and from South America), mongooses (imported from Asia) in addition to animal imports people expect, like chickens, goats, donkeys, and rats. But also many common "Caribbean" plants there are imports from Asia, like breadfruit and pineapples.
Those are all examples of imports being brought to Nevis by humans, but it's also my understanding that a common way that small reptiles and many arthropods get to islands is by being blown there by storms.
All this adds up to a lot of biodiversity on very small islands, which sometimes turns out badly (mongooses eradicated native reptile species on many islands), and often turns out pretty great. SO I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this.
My biases full disclosure: I live on a very small Caribbean island (Saba, Dutch Caribbean) and am pro-immigrant species because I'm pro-Caribbean.
Awesome! I'm so glad you enjoy my writing. In my previous post, I discussed the really cool example of Puerto Rican tree frogs living on introduced African tulip trees - I'd love to learn more about other Caribbean immigrant species.
https://sammatey.substack.com/p/even-the-worlds-worst-invasive-species
Nice article, Sam. It will be interesting to see the letters offering differing viewpoints. Invasiveness is a natural process, it has been occurring ever since the planet has had motile and/or migratory species upon which other life hitches rides to distant locations otherwise out of reach...notably islands. The very term, "invasiveness" with its freight of unpleasant connotations is a misnomer. Life enters a new area that is at an energy equilibrium. Then a period of instability occurs followed by a new equilibrium until the next travelor arrives. Admittedly mankind has been the greatest facilitator in this process. I consider it a net good, but am open to counter-arguments.
Thank you!
Sam - When are humans considered invasive species ?
Some believe….
The earth was made for humanity and humanity was made to rule it.
What is Humanity’s Destiny?
I personally don't believe that Earth was created "for" humanity in a teleological sense, and I don't know what humanity's destiny is. But I do think we already, effectively, "rule" this planet as its firstborn spacefaring and atmospheric species, and I'm excited to see what we can do to steward it. This paragraph from one of my Netherlands articles seems relevant to your comment:
"One of the many things I’m trying to contribute to in a small way by writing The Weekly Anthropocene is developing a more hopeful and inspiring narrative of human civilization and its response to climate change. We are not hopeless eco-sinners doomed to be woefully struck down by the forces we have unleashed, we are a brilliant, unprecedented mega-band of clothes-wearing plains apes who’ve created extraordinary wealth, prosperity, art, culture, and science thanks to incredible technological innovation, and we’re now starting to manage the major negative externalities of our civilization (air pollution, global warming, biodiversity loss) by transitioning to clean energy and working to establish new ways that humans and ecosystems can thrive alongside each other. The story of humanity and its biosphere is awesome."
I agree about the earth not being created "for" humanity, but some do.
As for your second paragraph, I just penned an Article on X, that speaks to the fragility of humanity. The earth is not as fragile as we are led to believe.... especially when you consider the perspective in the article.
Eco-sinner... this is like spitting in the wind. It comes back twice as hard.
Give it a read, its very short.
Linked here:
https://x.com/The_Earthmonk/status/1812948337777164667
Thank you for sharing these articles, Sam. I would like to know your definition of what an invasive species is and what is different about "immigrant species biology" compared to "invasive species biology." For me, the definitions I use for invasion biology are close to what the National Park Service uses [1]. It is not exhaustive like Lemoine's definitions, but it is concise and works well for academic and non-academic audiences.
I am curious since you talked about wild turkeys and condors being technically "invasive”, but I think most people studying invasive species would not refer to them as that. They aren't disrupting the environment, they are not disrupting other species, they are just there- no big deal.
I think we have the same goals in mind- do not worry about the many non-native species that aren't causing a ruckus and manage the few that are. We may differ on monitoring potential invasive species that have recently been detected, but monitoring usually comes with good reasons. For example, the jorō spider produces tons of spider babies, they can easily disperse, and they aren't the pickiest eaters (unless it is a toxic monarch [2]). This does not mean they are invasive, but they share traits that are common amongst successful invasive species. I think the researchers at Clemson and Georgia have been smart about researching the jorō spider and to focus on evidence before sounding the alarm [3]. I am surprised all the jorō papers refer to the spider as invasive, but it is apparent from their papers and our conversations that everyone has similar, yet different ideas about exactly what an invasive species is.
I hard disagree when you say invasive concerns are based on so-called "myths" of hearsay or xenophobia. When reading the first paper about spotted lanternfly’s detection in Pennsylvania, the group documents that it is invasive in South Korea, has noticeable crop damage in Korean vineyards, and the bug share’s good invasive species traits (high births, high dispersal, general appetite...) [4]. The researchers based their concerns on evidence, not rumors or fear of the new. It is good news to hear that hardwoods aren't at risk, but it is still a vineyard pest that farmers will need to manage [5].
[1] https://www.nps.gov/subjects/invasive/what-are-invasive-species.htm
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11122559/
[3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-022-02914-3
[4] https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/6/1/20/2936989
[5] https://extension.psu.edu/spotted-lanternfly-management-in-vineyards
I appreciate your thoughtful response
If I had to put it in one sentence, I'd say that invasive species biology tends to have a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude to new arrivals, and I'd prefer "innocent until proven guilty." I agree that most non-native species cause no problems, but I think the field fails to convey this to the public. I agree that monitoring is good (for any species, native or new arrival) and I'm hopeful that the attempts at early clarification on joro spiders being essentially harmless represent the start of a paradigm shift!
I definitely think we should use "invasive species" as a term much more sparingly and with a much higher burden of proof that actual harmful impacts are occurring
I am fairly skeptical of this premise that invasive species are generally benign or even beneficial. To be labeled an invasive species in the first places means that it is detrimental to the native populations and regional biodiversity. I am open to idea that maybe we have wrongly labeled certain things invasive, but I have my doubts there will be a huge tidal shift away from the idea native vs invasive species.
Even many of the species on a 2000 list of the world's 100 Worst Invasive Species now look like they've been wrongly labeled as invasive! I personally suspect that many, perhaps most, of what we call "invasive species" are not in fact detrimental to their adopted ecosystems & new neighbor species (at least on continents with the time & space for a new equilibrium to be reached). I wrote an article with several examples.
https://sammatey.substack.com/p/even-the-worlds-worst-invasive-species
Interesting. I will give it a read