In chapter 8, Marris introduces the idea of designer ecosystems, which are ecosystems built to be functional. The purpose of designer ecosystems is not to restore the ecosystem to a historic baseline. Rather, it is to improve the ecosystem and increase its value by helping it serve a purpose. Designer ecosystems are crafted for “for specific measurable goals [such as] nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or the maintenance of one or a small number of named species,” (Marris 125) to name a few. Not only are designer ecosystems more practical, they are also easier to achieve. When Marris discussed some ecologists’ efforts to revert ecosystems to baselines, one of the major arguments against the idea was that there are too many variables that scientists cannot account for in the ecological makeup of an ecosystem to accurately recreate and ensure the survival of every species. According to Margaret Palmer of the University of Maryland, College Park, our methods of conservation and restoration “will just replace one arbitrary baseline with another – neither of which takes into account the changing nature of the landscape” (Marris 124). Designer ecosystems guide ecologists towards building a better future rather than living in the past.

Marris predicts that ecologists will eventually settle on fusing ecosystem designing with untamed nature. To her, these two viewpoints on environmentalism can produce a world that is “’ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding and favorable to the continued growth of civilization’” (Marris 131) but still offers “unweeded and untidy” (Marris 131) patches of nature. However, I disagree that having more unmanaged wilderness will effectively balance the designed ecosystems. Ecosystems need to be contained and maintained so that they do not interfere with other ecosystems and disrupt environmental balances. The idea of pure nature seems contradictory to Marris’s definition of a rambunctious garden in the beginning of the book, as it is less of a hybrid of modern conservation techniques and more of a laissez-faire approach highly dependent on natural regulation.

In chapter 9, Marris introduces the idea of integrating conservation and natural species within our society. The concept of creating conservational efforts within our cities, suburbs, and farms seem to be the most feasible and least radical of all the options Marris presents in the book. It builds on the efforts to increase practicality and functionality from nature. Hydroseeding, [for example, where] seed [of native species are] mixed in with water and sprayed directly on roadsides” (Marris 144), creates new habitats for said species, and utilizes land to its fullest extent. Not only does this promote efficient use of land, but also it also connects patches of nature together. By promoting connectivity and “[patching] together different kinds of land to create connected-up nature: parks, public lands of other types, private lands with special legal arrangements in place, state lands, tribal lands, and so on” (Marris 138), humans can also feel more connected to nature by living so close to it. Conserving and restoring native species and ecosystems, promoting human interaction and appreciation of nature, and higher efficient use of land – all of this can be achieved with a network of nature patches. Compared to Marris’s idea of large unmanaged fields of wilderness, blending conservation efforts with human existence seems more likely to succeed. Although it will not be as successful as perhaps devoting an entire garden to a native ecosystem, some native species will be able to survive in their new environments. Humans will also how to better understand interact with nature, and thus preserve it in the long run.

In the eighth chapter of Emma Marris’s Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, entitled “Designer Ecosystems,” comes an addition to the recurring concept of manmade nature. Yet again, this proposal rivals the standard conservation tactic of restoration to a historical baseline. Instead, designer ecosystems refer to those that are mended to suit their needs. This is more of a functional restoration, for it involves the construction of different aspects in order to perform certain jobs such as the reduction of nitrogen. Although this hasn’t become a particularly accepted or common practice, it seems pretty useful and beneficial. The idea of the historical baseline is slowly fading as conservationists begin to see more and more that the true origins of ecosystems cannot be discovered and that they’d end up changing anyway. If we can do something to repair damage while simultaneously conserving nature, there is no reason why we shouldn’t do so.

Another type of designer ecosystems that Marris mentions is that of entirely human-generated ecosystems. This is really not conservation at all, since nothing is being saved or preserved, but it’s more of an extreme version of the rambunctious garden. It isn’t humans tending to the nature around them but humans actually creating the nature. This might be the future of conservation, but it’s a bit too controlled for me. Nature has always been out of human control, and our efforts to save it are pushing that boundary, but us building it from scratch is just going too far. It’d be like little virtual ecological communities, and the point of nature, as I see it, is that it’s out of our hands and can’t and shouldn’t be manipulated to that extent.

The ninth chapter of Marris’s book, entitled “Conservation Everywhere,” rehashes the aspect of the rambunctious garden that says that nature can exist everywhere. All of her aforementioned conservation methods operate in accordance with her idea to “[make] the most out of every scrap of land and water,” (193) “from industrial rivers like the Duwamish to the roofs of buildings and farmers’ fields” (194). Theoretically, this sounds perfect. Instilling small pieces of nature everywhere possible can’t hurt; it would add some aesthetic value to urban areas while conserving nature at the same time. Yet, even with her example of the successful coexistence of nature and industry on the Duwamish, nature in “the loud, soot-belching landscape of factories, processing plants, energy infrastructure, and transportation” (204) seems remarkably difficult. In any city, these installments of nature would really just be out of place and probably ineffective. Nevertheless, it could be a great initiative if there was a foolproof way of going about it.

Throughout the ninth chapter, Marris appears to believe that everyone wants to coexist with nature in order to conserve it. Based on the history of humankind, I would beg to differ. All we’ve ever done is destroy nature to make more room for us, so it wouldn’t make sense that people are suddenly willing to surround themselves with it just because it’s dying out. In fact, many people are probably more than willing to let it continue on its current path of deterioration, or if not they definitely don’t want it at their doorstep. I personally think that conservation should be a priority and that we should do it however possible, but the hope for ‘conservation everywhere’ won’t even get close to becoming a reality until this becomes a more widespread view.

In chapters 8 and 9, Marris continues to criticize returning ecosystems to the way they existed before human intervention. She reiterates the idea, this time using designer ecosystems and once again, human misperceptions of nature and the goals of conservation, to illustrate the problems with trying to restore environments in this manner. Marris then clearly offers how people should think of conservation. Marris argues that the goal of conservation should be to create environments that are “ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding and favorable to the continued growth of civilization” (131). This idea of conservation is reasonable and practical given the amount of irreversible changes humans have already made to nature and its ability to appeal to the many people.

Marris has already attacked a variety of conservation ideas such as rewilding and assisted migration. The latest method of conservation she attacks is designer ecosystems. She begins by destroying the common idea held by ecologists and average people alike of what a stream should look like. The thought of a stream being a “single languidly curving channel with high banks” is actually something that has been created as a result of manmade dams during the Industrial Revolution (123). The archetype for an untouched stream is anything but natural. She goes back to the idea of baselines and where people decide untouched by humans really is. One point that she really nails is the idea that designer ecosystems can be expensive, difficult and unsuccessful. The idea of designing an area to look a certain way may require using humans to maintain it. One example she uses is sinking old ships so coral reefs can live on them. Old ships certainly are not a part of the way the ecosystem naturally was, but they are effective solutions. Some designed ecosystems just fail completely due to amount of changes and alterations in an ecosystem. One example she gives is in Australia where the soil and rainfall patterns have changed, that making it incredibly difficult to repopulate the area with eucalyptus trees that have become locally extinct. In such cases, it is fruitless to try to design an area to its original ecosystem; however, in other instances, designer ecosystems should not completely be thrown aside. Using the example of the sunken ships to promote growth in the coral reef, it does offer a solution that works, despite it not being completely natural. Designer ecosystems can save species that are going extinct.

Marris argues that the best type of conservation blends together the needs of humans and nature for a happy medium. An example that she provides that is working towards benefits for both humans and nature is the Duwamish River. The river is an important place that not only functions as a habitat but also a “active industrial waterway” (133). Though the water is polluted, cleanup efforts are being made to improve the ecosystem. A key point that Marris points out is how people are not asking for the entire river to be cleaned up completely and returned to a more ecologically friendly state since the river also provides a vital source of jobs. Perhaps because this idea does not require a drastic change in how humans already altering their behavior that it is often overlooked as a solution. Yet this might also be a selling point, because it is so simple, people might be more willing to adhere to it.

Throughout “Rambunctious Garden,” Emma Marris has suggested methods to solving the issues with conservation. Some ecologists try to return to pristine natures, which Marris doesn’t agree with since she believes in the rambunctious garden. She also discussed methods such as assisted migration, rewilding, restoration, and isolating landscapes form human interaction. She states “Restoration ecologists have been trapped by the seductive vision of healing wounded nature and returning it to a stable ‘natural’ state. But there is a new current of energy at their meetings. They are beginning to see the possibilities of designing, engineering, cooking up something new”(126). This introduces the emergence of designer ecosystems.

Designer ecosystems are created to fulfill a certain purpose, whether it is saving a species, “increased biodiversity, as well as the removal of nitrogen and excess sediment” (126). In this era of Anthropocene, returning to a state that preexisted human involvement won’t help nature because we have left our mark and the majority of the human population doesn’t seem content on reversing their progress. In this way “a designer ecosystem may be better than a recreation of a historical ecosystem” (127).

We have contributed some negative consequences to the environment, with the extinction of certain species, the depletion of wildlife, pollution, and the degrading ozone layer. To remedy these issues we could instead try to create an environment that helps resolve these issues, or at least mitigate their affects and growing rate. If we were to return the earth to a pristine environment it would be difficult since we can’t completely identify what the pristine environment exactly was. Then there’s the question of why have a pristine nature when humans are the dominant force on the planet. The eventual result would be in an unpristine environment. In addition, we cannot reverse the mistakes we have made, making it impossible to return to a pristine nature.

Radical conservationists are not a viable goal at this point in time, therefore designer ecosystems cold help us achieve the conservationist goals we set out to achieve. In this way, rather than isolating the environment from humans, we can have humans and the environment working in collaboration for the betterment of the earth. In this way, we are achieving Marris’ idea of a rambunctious garden because we will be living with the environment with the idea that it is capable of helping itself. Marri’s doesn’t believe nature is as fragile as we make it and if we can make certain modifications then rely on nature to take care of itself and maintain itself then we can live with nature rather than trying to baby it.

Designer ecosystems are ecosystems that have a goal for its existence. This usually involves helping the environment in some way or preventing species from dying out. These designer ecosystems usually include a lot of planning which help identify a problem that needs to be fixed. Designer ecosystems are also more possible than “pristine ecosystems” that have been discussed throughout the book. Such projects would help during the present and continue to benefit the environment in the future. Therefore, designer ecosystems seem like a worthy investment of one’s time and effort.

Conservation is extremely important because it helps keep nature preserved. Marris points out that conservation should take place every where. This would be her model of a rambunctious garden and would greatly help the preservation of nature. People are encouraged to plant plants around their home. She greatly believes that people should not think that nature is a designated area, rather a place that exists everywhere. If everyone changes their mindset, it would greatly help the preservation of nature. If people are well informed, they will help contribute to the ecosystem.

The ideas that Marris presents are much more plausible than the ones mentioned before. A designer ecosystem is going to provide benefits almost immediately after completion. Designer ecosystems are much easier to finish as a project since it has a clear stated goal rather than restoring it to “baseline.” Marris also says that if everyone contributes to conservation, it would be much more successful. This begins when the people realize that every person can contribute to this effort. Even though these ideas may seem extremely well thought out, there are some drawbacks. Not everyone can be motivated to do something especially where it takes effort. Also, even though designer ecosystems do provide benefits, it may be some time before people see visual changes. This can discourage people in using more money and effort to creating more of these ecosystems.

I honestly believe that the ideas discussed in these two chapters are much more reasonable. The chances of these projects happening are higher than any of the others so far. Even though these are good ideas, I still think it may be a long time before any major changes will occur. Nature isn’t something that changes overnight and commitment to these projects are crucial to its success.

In chapters 8 and 9, Emma Marris focuses on designer ecosystems and advocates the act of conservation everywhere, not only in the pristine wilderness. Like in other chapters, Marris brings up alternatives to the conventional idea of restoring wilderness to a pristine state or to a historic baseline. The reason that these alternatives developed is that baseline conservation is unrealistic and unfeasible to achieve in our current world. Funding, drastic alterations to the environment such as soil content, animal extinction, and global climate change are just a few reasons that baseline conditions are very hard to achieve. These alternatives are meant to be a more feasible way to integrate conservation and our human interests.

Designer ecosystems are basically ecosystems that are designed with a specific purpose to achieve. Previously, the only purpose of conservation was to reach the baseline of the ecosystem, but designer ecosystems are ecosystems that have their functions restored or new functions and interactions in the environment. Like in chapter 9, streams that were trying to emulate the baseline were not able to remove nitrogen like the past baseline ecosystems, while newly designed ecosystems did a much better job. This concept sounds like a more efficient way to use resources, or to gain more resources if the government takes notice. There are countless benefits including economic returns and environmental improvement, and could be a way to deal with climate change that is already changing ecosystems. Why not lend a hand to the inefficient ecosystems? The only problem would be deciding which ecosystems to help design, there should still be some attempts of pristine wilderness or baseline ecosystems, but not at the scale of focus that we have now.

The main idea in chapter 9 focuses on expanding conservation to everywhere, including our own backyards, industrial areas, and agricultural properties. One main point she makes is connectedness between our conservation areas, letting animals have a wider range through connected channels, which increases species diversity and does not allow for fragments to contain some populations. She also points out that we can make our own areas or gardens more accessible to nature, and by doing this a thriving ecosystem could emerge, or our urban environment could potentially become corridors for species to travel through. By converting our rooftops and lawns with eco-friendly plants, we are participating in the conservation of ecosystems. This idea seems very optimistic, but I do have objections pertaining all of these insects and pests that could accompany conservation anywhere. It could be a huge problem in New York to bring in more insects and other pests, and the general public could object to it; this idea is not exactly feasible everywhere.

The solution that these alternatives bring basically bring is combing both the needs of ecosystems/conservationists and other human needs for the environment. By connecting human interests with ecological goals, the actual involvement with conservation could potentially increase.

In chapter 8 and 9 of the book Rambunctious Garden Marris introduces the concept of designer ecosystem and the idea that conservation should occur everywhere around the globe. I agree with Marris that conservationists should think about achieving specific goals instead of heavily focused on returning the area to their baselines. Also, I like the idea that conservation should occur everywhere not just in those big parks.

In the chapter “designer ecosystem” Marris argues that while conserving ecosystem is important, there are many ways to do it. Many conservationists were too focused on setting a baseline, and trying to bring those places to meet a certain baseline conditions. While Marris thinks that by doing so it will miss the point. She suggests that, “no restoration reproduces exactly the ecosystem of hundreds of years ago. And restoration ecologists use lots of “hacks” –less-than-authentic shortcuts to get a landscape looking and working the way they want (Marris 181).” I agree with Marris that conservationists should focused more on achieving specific goals; for example, reducing the amount of nitrogen or carbons in the atmosphere, or changing the soil composition. Returning a place into what it looked like before human interferences sounds ideal, but it was not realistic. There are proofs of human interferences everywhere in this world; therefore, there are no such things as “pristine” nature. According to Hobbs, “You are not going to get the previous ecosystem back, but you can still aim for something that is valuable (Marris 187)”. It is not about making it looks the same as before, but creating a similar ecosystem that will provides same ecological services. In chapter 9 of the book, Marris talks about the idea that conservation should take place everywhere around the world. As she puts it, “To make the most of our protected areas, we must think beyond their boundaries and complement our wildernesses with conservation everywhere else too, from industrial rivers like the Duwamish to the roofs of buildings and farmer’s fields (Marris 193).” We should start paying attention to the nature that surrounds us, whether it’s a small park, a street with many trees or anywhere with plants and little creatures; because all of them represent the signs of nature. It is easy for people to talk about conservation but difficult to get everyone involved in this big project of saving nature. Marris gives an example of conservation in agricultural lands, in which many conservationists suggest “habitat and other natural values can be improved by increasing the diversity and reducing the intensity of farming (Marris 201).” By changing farm lands into habitats will decrease the agricultural production, and thus less profits. Therefore, many farmers and economists are not in favor of this idea. Marris also talks about planting more native species in private gardens; however, it is not easy for people to implement this idea. Since many of these plants attract bugs and insects, many house owners don’t want to grow anything in their gardens. I agree with the idea that conservation should occur in everywhere; however, we need to work harder to convince people to help to make a difference.

Emma Marris has argued throughout her novel, Rambunctious Garden, that “pristine wilderness” is unrealistic and unfeasible to recreate. Human activities have influenced nature for as long as we existed. It is impossible, if not difficult, to reverse all the impact that has been done or to restore ecosystems. Marris further supports her argument in chapters 8 and 9. She talks about creating “designer ecosystems” that can realistically benefit nature. Together with the idea of “conservation everywhere”, both humans and nature can benefit and coexist with one another.

Marris believes that designer ecosystems are “a best-case future” (Marris 131). They would “create ‘new environments that are ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding and favorable to the continued growth of civilization'” (131). Parks would still be kept for those who want that true feeling of nature, but a majority of these types of environments would be designer ecosystems. These are essentially the rambunctious gardens which Marris appropriately titles her novel. René Dubos, an advocate, microbiologist and environmental thinker, is convinced that managed nature designed to support humans and other species will prosper in the future (130). Perhaps one of the most appealing characteristics of designer ecosystems is from the economic standpoint. It would be far more affordable for governments to maintain these rambunctious gardens than “pristine wilderness” efforts. These ecosystems would utilize land and make them more efficient.

In addition, species would be aided with appropriate habitats. Marris provides us with an example of sinking old ships to provide places for coral reefs to populate (126). Another example would be penguin habitat manipulation. “The manipulation doesn’t return penguin habitat to any particular baseline; it makes the habitat better than ‘normal’ for the birds (127). Nonetheless, there are many people who argue in favor of “Island Civilization”, where “humans retreat to very dense cities, voluntarily limit their own population, and let the rest of the planet run wild” (132).

In these chapters, Marris clarifies why rambunctious gardens are more realistic and beneficial to nature and society. I certainly favor the idea of designer ecosystems simply because it is more plausible to achieve man and nature coexistence. I understand the beauty and love for “pristine wilderness”, but we can create just as beautiful (or even more) ecosystems. Historian Roderick Nash addresses that the “garden scenario” is “human control of nature” that is both total and beneficent” (130). Soil composition and fertility is well maintained, rivers are clean and pure. If designer ecosystems can benefit in many ways, it seems as if we have the best of both worlds. There will still be true nature in addition to these created environments. This can please advocates of pristine wilderness and rambunctious gardens. Moreover, a lot of money will be saved that can be used to better both systems.

In chapters 8 and 9 of “Rambunctious Garden,” Emma Marris describes various innovative alternatives for conservation around the world. In chapter 8, “Designer Ecosystems,” she talks about people engineering ecosystems in order to reach a particular goal. This way, they can design the ecosystem to function the way they want it to and to get the species diverse and its appearance a certain way. This method is certainly different from most conservation techniques. “But the most radical kind of designer ecosystem is not emulating any baseline at all but building de novo to achieve a particular goal. This is heady stuff for restoration ecologists, who until recently made their living trying to recreate ecosystems at historical baselines.” (126) This shows that designer ecosystems, rather than focusing on making an ecosystem look and act like it did in the past, function so that there is greater species diversity and the new changes, whether biotic or abiotic, are accounted for. In this method of improving the ecosystems, ecologists focus more on the current environmental conditions and think about the future and how to make it more sustainable going ahead compared to more traditional conservationists who try to make ecosystems look the way they once did before. This idea of designer ecosystems may in fact be better than our current conservation methods because it accounts more for the changes that have been made to the ecosystems. Rather than making them appear pristine and untouched, we should aim towards creating a more sustainable and healthy environment for various species to coexist and thrive in. In chapter 9, “Conservation Everywhere,” Marris describes many different styles of nature conservation. “Rewilding, assisting migration, and embracing some exotic species and novel ecosystems may seem like disparate strategies, but they are all at some level about making the most out of every scrap of land and water, no matter its condition.” (135) This shows that she is trying to get the point across that people can make small changes in their own lives and still benefit the overall ecosystem. I found her idea about turning backyards and other parts of peoples’ homes into a conservation site. “What’s wonderful about these kinds of strategies is that private citizens do not have to wait and hope that their government or some larger conservation organization will carry them out. Every owner and renter can make any space work for nearly any conservation goal, whether they have a tiny balcony, a slot in a community garden, or a ranch in Texas.” (145) This is especially important for people who live in cities for example, because they may feel like they do not have adequate space to make an effort for conservation. Although the beneficial lawn may not be as aesthetically appealing compared to more traditional lawns, they are certainly better for the ecosystem since they are able to house more species, thus increasing the species diversity right in a person’s backyard.

The main idea of Emma Marris’s Rambunctious Garden was that the pristine wilderness that modern ecologist and environmentalists are looking for is nearly impossible. Marris introduced her idea of Rambunctious Garden to the readers, which is more possible solution to modern environmental issues. Marris argued that the “baseline theory” couldn’t be applied in reality; instead Marris suggests “designer ecosystems”, where the nature is conserved according to specific goal than the baseline. The goals are “nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or the maintenance of one or a small number of named species” (125). These goals may be costly and timely however it is more possible solution to the problems.

In the chapters, Marris says that regarding the “design ecosystem”, following factors such as “size of project, budget, and how much the place has already changed” (127) must be defined. Having a clear goal for recreating the nature seems much more feasible than looking for the pristine nature that no one actually knows. Goals such as nitrogen reduction are possible and are currently going on in certain areas. The idea of “design ecosystem” was my favorite idea that Marris introduced, since is most feasible and matches up with current reality. I believe that many project that are currently held are based off from the design ecosystem since many projects has specific goals to achieve.

Later on in Chapter 9, Marris revisited her idea of “rambunctious garden”. Marris informs readers that conservation can happen anywhere even in their backyard. Anyplace can be turned in to the rambunctious garden that allows survival of nature and human lifestyle. Therefore, the author urges the readers to conserve their closest nature and bring more diversity into it. She recalls all of other ideas that she mentioned through out the book. After getting informed by all of the sub-ideas, Marris’ rambunctious garden seems more clear and understandable. I believe that the primary goal of Marris is to find the ecosystem that balance out the natural ecosystem and urban life. This is why Marris used the city as example of all of her sub-ideas. “Plants and animals are all around us, in our backyards, along roadsides, in city parks” (150), this quote basically sums the rambunctious garden that Marris wants to inform the readers. There is nature everywhere and the best way to conserve them is just to look carefully unto it and let it be.

What I felt through out the book is that Marris thinks that pristine nature is unnecessary. I think that the most important thing is to conserve what we have now before the nature becomes extinct, endangered, and damaged. Overall, what the urban cities need is a slight effort to conserve the little nature on the roadside and in the people’s backyard. It may seem easy and have no-effect but I believe conserving the smallest nature brings a great impact in the future.

After reading five chapters of Marris’ Rambunctious Garden, it is easy to infer that traditional ecology spurns the idea of invasive species coexisting with native species; invasive species are bad, native species are good. Years of field study and research have formed orthodox views that support the idea that invasive species hinder ecosystems due to their harmful nature, severely impeding biodiversity and ecosystem health. As Marris’ book states, “A species invades, and the ecosystem collapses, species go extinct, and complexity and diversity are replaced with a monotonous and weedy landscape dominated by invaders” (97). Proof has been seen for centuries all around the world. Zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, the yellow crazy ant in Australia, or the aggressive species introduced to Stephens Island that killed off ten of twelve native birds, leading to a cascading effect on other species serve as only a few examples. With so much proof, it is difficult to view exotic species otherwise. Chapter six and seven of Marris’ book, however, shine a new light on invasive species and propose the contentious idea that perhaps exotic species are not so bad after all.

Throughout chapters six and seven, Marris provides readers with an alternative vantage point, presenting the claim that exotic species may, in fact, be beneficial to an ecosystem. Marris’ first example pertains to an instance in which an introduced species of trees actually saved three native species from going extinct: On Rodrigues Island, fast-growing exotic trees were chosen to reforest the land and “almost accidentally” saved the island’s two endangered songbirds and a fruit bat. Marris furthers her argument by introducing two modern ecologists, Mascaro and Lugo, who also support the notion of “novel ecosystems,” ecosystems defined by anthropogenic change that are not under active human management (114). The stories support examples of native and introduced species living together diversely, sans “monocultures and other such nightmares.” She also makes the argument that targeting invasive species is simply not economical. Ridding an ecosystem of all invasive species requires a large amount of time, effort and money, and the results are not always permanent. In short, Marris provides readers with the general idea that “…some exotic species are a huge problem, the vast majority are not.” (98).

But is this really so? When assessed objectively, this blanket claim seems to fall short. It is true that a number of invasive species are introduced and eventually mellow out, but the impacts of exotic species are far direr than made to seem. Invasive species have high competitive ability, fecundity and their extremely quick growth rate is supplemented by the lack of natural regulators such as parasites or competitors that have yet to adapt to the new species. In fact, introduced species rank amongst the top five causes of modern extinction. What about the “good” invasive species Marris talks of in her book? They have a very high failure rate.

All in all, we cannot merely say that invasive species are good. We must strike a balance between giving exotic species free reign and entirely ridding areas of introduced species. I agree strongly with Joe Mascaro’s quote, “This isn’t about conceding defeat; its about a new approach” (122).

Marris supports the idea of designer ecosystems, as they are similar to her idea of a rambunctious garden. A designer ecosystem is a “restored” ecosystem where ecologists attempt to bring an ecosystem back to the targeted baseline by tempering with aspects of the environment. For example, stream restoration is a type of “restored” ecosystem that ecologists work on in attempt to reduce nitrogen levels. Ecologists aim to restore streams to their previous appearance where they meander down through soil. To restore streams, “wire baskets filled with rocks or the root balls of dead trees are chained in place to slow stream flows.” Marris explains that restoring an ecosystem is not really restoring it as it does not put the ecosystem back to its baseline, but builds a new ecosystem. A designer ecosystem seems similar to a novel ecosystem in that both ecosystems involve tempering with an ecosystem to make it productive and improve nature. However, Marris’ example of a failed prairie restoration job does sound similar to a novel ecosystem. In this failed restoration, mixed species of a variety of prairie ecosystems were planted on an area. This resulted in domination by Sporoboblus airoides, “which doesn’t exist as a dominant anywhere around for hundred of miles.” Although it is not stated that the species are not invasive, they are not stated that they are native species of the area either. This seems to blur the lines of a novel ecosystem and a designer ecosystem.

There are many ways to make the Earth greener without having to give up on human modernization. In the past people aimed to conserve nature and keep it away from human hands. However, more people are beginning to look at nature by infusing it with modern society. Marris mentions a “gestalt switch” where people change their views of the main focus in saving nature. Previously many people believed that “nature is the foreground, human-dominated lands the background…[but now] pavement, houses, malls where nothing can grow—as the foreground and everything else as the background nature.” Instead of sacrificing everything to keep nature in its pristine state, people are coming up with ways to work urbanization with nature. For example, in Banff National Park in Alberta there are wildlife overpasses and underpasses that allow humans and wild animals to travel where they need to go. Marris states that conservationists need to intermix variety of lands to form connected nature like parks. This is seen in Europe’s farm-like conservation system, where “National Parks and nature reserves are often intensely grazed by cattle and sheep.” This system combines humans with nature, as farmers do not have to leave or give up their land to conserve nature. It also gives farmers incentive to help preserve nature. There is debate about using agricultural methods to conserve nature. Agriculture has led to overusing land and possibly using even using more land according to Ivette Perfecto and John Vandermeer. These two ecologists suggest working with agri-environement schemes so species would be able to use the land as their habitat or as “corridors,” like a stopover during migration. For example, Duwamish Diagonal Avenue is an example of a “corridor” for migrating species, as well as a place for people to get in touch with nature.With so many methods to save nature, it is possible for the environment to fuse with urban society.

In Chapter 8, Marris discusses “Designer Ecosystems.” The gist of this concept is to construct ecosystems that rather than attempting to recreate historical situations or situations to maximize aesthetics, ecosystems should be crafted in such a way that is both beneficial to humans and the organisms living there. One example she mentioned was using large boulders to maximize the output of plant and animal communities in streambeds. While these boulders are not naturally occurring, bringing them in is thought to have beneficial effects on the ecosystem as a whole. Some other examples of this are wire baskets filled with rocks to slow stream flows, and sinking old ships to provide places for coral reefs to live. The thought behind these actions is that human interference does not always have to be thought of as a bad thing. Through research and appropriate action we can help to keep ecosystems more sufficient and lively for years to come. I agree with this philosophy because the world we live in is changing all the time. Whether it be climate, soil composition, or pollution; the earth is not in the same state it was hundreds of years ago. For this reason, it is clear that historical views of nature are becoming outdated. A forest that thrived 500 years ago might quickly die out today. The conditions of the world today should be gauged and appropriately adapted to rather than striving for a time long since past. Designer Ecosystems are a good way for people to help the environment as a sort of return for all the negative things human activity does to ecosystems.

Chapter 9 discusses the different views of conservationism around the world. The two main counter philosophies Marris brings up are the ideas of North American movements, and those of Europe. An example from North America is Yellowstone and the goal of creating corridors in order to allow for more space especially for bigger animals. Another proponent of the North American philosophy that comes up a lot in the book is that of historical ecosystems and “restoration.” The European model is quite different from this. The example that Marris gave was that when she went to see a bird sanctuary in the U.K., it was on a farm. European conservationists tend to focus on nature in areas that are also being used for something else such as farming. The thinking behind the bird sanctuary is that these birds are used to living on open plains maintained by herbivores, which is a very similar situation to farmland. The reasoning behind these methods partially comes from the fact that in Europe there were far fewer “pristine” examples of wilderness to work with than in North America. Either way, this method of conservation seems more appropriate to me. Across the globe more and more land is being used by humans for gains so it is fitting that conservationists include this ever-increasing percentage of land to the land they try to improve. As time goes on, examples of “pristine” nature will dwindle whether we like it or not so it is good to get a start on this more “modern” form of conservation in my opinion.

In chapter six and seven of her book, Rambunctious Gardens, Emma Marris argues against the culture of fighting invasive species and supports the idea of allowing novel ecosystems to flourish. Although Marris makes it clear that not all invasive species are detrimental, she still minimizes the severity their impact can have on certain ecosystems. In addition, her support for novel ecosystems faces huge opposition from the existing attitudes towards non-native species.

Marris argues against the traditional view proposed by ecologists, such as Charles Elton, without giving serious attention to the devastative effects invasive species exhibited in the past. Elton believed that exotic species that establish themselves in an environment are likely to cause damage. Marris tackles this idea by claiming that the enemy is humans, not exotics (141). She argues that humans are largely responsible for transporting species to various ecosystems and end up expending a vast amount of resources to reverse the consequences. As a result, Marris supports the idea of allowing non-native species to continue living in ecosystems to which they were accidently introduced. However, she does not give proper attention to the invasive species that have ravaged unsuspecting ecosystems. For instance, the accidental introduction of brown tree snakes to Guam has utterly decimated the bird population. Moreover, since the snake has no natural predator, its population has skyrocketed and caused major problems for residents. Hence, while Marris makes a point that it is counterproductive to fight against invasive species, we cannot simply allow non-natives to grow out of control because the consequences can be devastating.

In chapter seven, Marris suggests that we change the way we view novel ecosystems. She points out that many ecologists dislike these ecosystems, which are comprised of exotic species, because they are not pristine (165). Hence, they are typically viewed as artificial because they did not co-evolve over millions of years. However, changing the perception of novel ecosystems is no easy task. The government is already highly vested in eradicating non-native species. In addition, since the succession pattern of novel ecosystems is unpredictable, many are afraid of embracing the idea. Yet, novel ecosystems have just as much biodiversity as native ecosystems and have even proven to be more productive than their native counterparts. As a result, Marris makes a good claim for embracing novel ecosystems but still faces hurdles from the traditional views held by others.

Altogether, Emma Marris presents a valid claim that humans are largely responsible for invasive species and that not all non-native species are detrimental to the environment. However, her approach of simply embracing the growth of exotic species in their new environments overlooks the harsh consequences that some invasive species can have on certain ecosystems. Likewise, her position on novel ecosystem also faces hindrances because she goes against the traditional perception held by most ecologists. As a result, Marris’s ideas concerning invasive species and novel ecosystems are not likely to be embraced in the near future.

Throughout Rambunctious Garden, Marris has already made her case that creating a “pristine wilderness” is near impossible. She has stated many times that there are other ways to help nature. In Chapter 8 and 9, she offers solutions to help nature and ways for humans to coexist with nature. Marris suggests designer ecosystems and conservation everywhere as two ways to help nature.

Designer ecosystems functions mainly to make the original ecosystem even better. In the past, many ecologists have assumed that before humans arrived, “ecosystems were always maximally efficient at such functions as purifying water, supporting diverse life, keeping sediment from washing away, and so on” (126). However, there is currently some desire to engineer a possibly new ecosystem such as adding additional features to aid the species living there. For example, there are rats eating the chicks of flightless bird in an ecosystem. Instead of getting rid of the rats, scientists “are drilling more nesting holes into the rocks for the birds” (127). This does not reset the ecosystem to the original baseline, but it does give the birds are greater chance to survive. In other words, these designer ecosystems are made to make the habitat better for the species.

Marris also expands her idea of a “rambunctious garden” by telling the reader that conservation can happen everywhere. She states that the “project of conservation is not just defending what we have, but adding lands to our portfolio and deepening value of the lands in play” (135). Since most of the land is already being used on the planet, there should be a greater focus on deepening the use of the land. Corridors can be use to connect small areas together. This will prevent species from leaking and “gene pools can stay large and vital” (137). Connectivity appears to be one key aspect for conservation.

In addition, Marris focuses on how regular people can help connect with nature. Many state conservation agencies have urged people to let nature take over their garden. It may not look pleasing to the eye, but this type of garden creates a more diverse and rambunctious feel to it. Marris states that “If New Yorkers planted more fertile plants and loosened up their gardening standards, bees zooming across the five boroughs could tie isolated specimens together into a metapopulation” (146). Of course, this would create a place with more insects and possible pests such as mosquitoes. In the end, “individuals and communities will have to gauge their own level of tolerance for such threat” (149).

Marris’s idea of a “rambunctious garden” definitely makes much more sense now. Since reverting nature back to a “pristine wilderness” is impossible, people should live in coexistence with nature. After all, “plants and animals are all around us, in our backyards, along roadsides, in city parks” (150). The cities are diverse places for this reason. Marris hopes to grow nature larger than it currently is. However, this will require everyone to change their view on nature. In addition, it will also require a change to the current method of conserving nature. Convincing everyone to agree on the same vision as Marris may be a challenging task in the future.

In chapter 8 of her novel, Marris discusses designer ecosystems–not an emulation of any baseline, but the best possible version of that ecosystem. Essentially, designer ecosystems are created to make the habitat better than normal; the goal is to make the area work and thrive most efficiently and effectively. Trying to restore an area to its baseline is an extreme amount of work, complex ecosystems have not yet been fully figured out. “The organisms and the relations between them that have emerged from million sof years of natural selection are likely going to outperform anything we cobble together n our computers, whether the goal is spaces for recreation, management of energy and nutrients, protection of biodiversity, or provision of services” (130). Marris wishes for an “unweedy and untidy” rambunctious garden and, similarly, Rene Dubos wished for “new environments that are ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding and favorable to the continued growth of civilization” (131).

In my opinion, I agree with Dubos; that seems like the most sensible and overall satisfying goal. Fundamentally, though, that idea lies on a foundation of anthropogenic acceptance. It boils down to the two opposing viewpoints of accepting or not accepting humanity’s inevitable interaction with and transformation of their natural surroundings. Some people are proponents of “island civilizations,” where there’s a separation between man and nature, while others, supporters of design ecosystems, lean toward “managed nature, designed to support humans and other species” (page 132).

As for chapter 9, Marris weaves together all the concepts she previously discussed up to this point–assisted migration, rewilding, exotic species, and novel ecosystems. I found myself agreeing with her point of view throughout; there truly was a strong emphasis on interconnectivity of man and wild. Similar to the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition’s “eco-industrial vision,” a balance can be found between the natural and industrial worlds. “To make the most of our protected areas, we must think beyond their boundaries” (135). Industrial areas, like the roofs of factories such as the Hostess Cupcake factory in New Jersey, can transform the tops of their buildings into “green roofs,” which serve as habitats for plants and insects, simultaneously “reducing water runoff and counteracting the urban heat island effect, where dark roofs and pavements suck up sunlight” (143). This is an example of what Marris and other scientists refer to as “corridors”–small, natural areas that serve as bridges between larger habitats for various species. Implementing the creation of these natural spaces is a large step in overall conservation, considering how great of a role corridors play in the migration of species or the settlement of species. In the same way, farms and agricultural land are or can become “agri-environments” that serve both economic and preservation needs. Marris suggested that businesses, those of which have strips of outdoor land on their property, landscape with self-sustaining plants so as to create or add to the rambunctious garden that exists in so many places overtly or discretely. It simply requires adjustments be made to our aesthetics, accepting a more natural, wild look than we’re accustomed to. The Highline is an example of a “small city garden as a ‘reserve’ for nature,” (146) amidst the concrete jungle and business capital of the world. Ultimately, striving to find a balance between industry and wilderness is a more realistic approach to conservationism than investing all efforts and energy into reverting back to an assumed baseline environment.

In Chapter 8 of her book, Marris talks about the concept of “designer ecosystems”, opening with a story about the archetypal “streams” we, along with most ecologists, all imagine – a clear line of water flowing down a cliff or mountain. These are the types of streams restoration ecologists have been trying to recreate, until it was recently discovered that the streams in the eastern United States, were actually more like ponds than streams in early history. As a result, numerous streams have been torn down, in an effort to start all over and recreate this new revelation of what they looked like before, which in Marris’ view, is rather fruitless. The alternative to this, is as she puts it, a designer ecosystem, where instead of restoring an entire ecosystem, you design or reengineer it to fit specific goals that can make the area better, or help a certain species (page 125).  She gives another example of this idea of reengineering, the plight to save the Galapagos Penguin. Rats that have been introduced to the area where these penguins live eat the chicks, resulting in the species’ endangerment. However, instead of getting rid of the invasive rats, scientists have drilled more nesting holes for the penguins, which would allow them to reproduce in greater numbers, hopefully allowing the species as a whole to stay ahead of the species reductions caused by rats (page 128). Interestingly enough, this example particularly also adds to her point from her previous chapters, about how invasive species don’t necessarily need to be killed off to prevent damage to ecosystems, and that there are ways around it – such as in this penguin instance.

Proponents of these designer ecosystems envision a world covered in “managed nature, designed to support humans and other species” (page 132), while those who oppose it argue that they prefer more “island civilizations”, where humans and nature are kept separate, with humans in dense urban cities, and the rest of the planet left alone for nature to thrive. Marris, on the other hand, hopes for a combination of both – that ecologists will come around to seeing the benefits of these engineered ecosystems that allow humans and nature to co-exist, but also leave some areas wild and untouched, just to see what can come of them.

In Chapter 9, titled “Conservation Everywhere”, Marris begins to tie together the ideas and themes that she has been weaving throughout the preceding chapters of her book. She writes, “rewilding, assisted migration, and embracing some exotic species and novel ecosystems may seem like disparate strategies, but they are all at some level about making the most of every scrap of land and water, no matter its condition” (page 135). She emphasizes that connectivity to nature is key in conserving it, and that scientists must bring together all types of land to create that connectivity. “Ideally, reserves should be scientifically designed to achieve conservation goals agreed upon by interested parties while being sensitive to the needs of the people who now live or once lived on the sites in question” (page 138). She goes on to provide very interesting examples of ways such connectivity can occur – she mentions Ford Dearborn truck assembly plant in Michigan, and the Hostess Cupcake factory in New Jersey, and how they both now feature green roofs, which replicate ecosystems and create a home for various plants and bugs while at the same time, reducing water run-off and counteracting the urban heat island effect. I believe that this is a perfect example of the Rambunctious Garden Marris has been advocating for throughout the entire book – a mutually beneficial conservation strategy ideal for the urban setting.

Marris does not seem to think that invasive species are as harmful as people think them to be. She first explains how people currently view invasive species, which is: invasive species will only bring harm to the environment it is introduced. Because majority people believe that foreign species will take over the new environment and destroy the native species of that environment, the positive aspects of invasive species are shaded. For example, on Rodrigues Island, when the forest was being cut down the three species living on that island faced extinction. This was because they depended on the fruits and nectar from trees in the forest, as well as the insects living in the forest. The situation became extremely dire as the number of bird species was declining down to ten birds. So to save the species, the island was reforested with exotic species. “The trees were chosen without regard to conservation and included some notorious pests.” However, the introduction of the exotic species did damage the environment, but had saved it instead. Marris states that prejudice against the exotic species because they were still “invasive species” led to their exile from the Rodrigues Island. This proves that Marris does not really think of foreign species as invasive species if they prove helpful to nature in areas they are introduced to. Also, Marris brings up the Dov Sax’s paper American Naturalist, which spoke of increased “diversity of overall oceanic islands.” Sax’s research showed that invasive species were not illustrating the competition over resources, which would lead to native species extinctions, nor were they displaying a take over of the ecosystem. Marris concludes from Sax’s paper that extinctions did not occur because of “introduced species on continents.” Marris’ standpoint opened my eyes to the positive effects of “invasive” species, but the negative effects from purposely introducing foreign species overpower the positive aspects.

The success of novel ecosystems seems beneficial for nature and people even though some ecologists disapprove of them as they consist of majorly of invasive species. In Puerto Rico, the people treasure some invasive species-such as the flame tree and the mango tree-thriving there. However, some ecologists are so prejudiced against invasive species that they even prevented Puerto Rico from making an invasive specie its’ official plant. This prejudice should be changed. Because invasive species are located in different areas and not creating any harm, they are increasing the chances of that breed’s survival. For example, the flame tree is an invasive specie in Puerto Rico, but if it were not there it may have gone extinct as the flame tree is threatened in its native land-Madagascar. Lugo’s research of how the pine tree-an invasive specie on Puerto Rico’s pine plantations-was more productive than its neighboring natives. Ecologists should not grudge against novel ecosystems just because they do not illustrate the “stereotypes of invasive species…[forming] monocultures.” Novel ecosystems are still a part of nature and they are helping improve nature with their stability and productivity.

In chapters 6 and 7 of “Rambunctious Garden,” Emma Marris focuses on the concept of invasive species. In chapter 6, “Learning to Love Exotic Species,” Marris starts off by describing some of the harms that invasive species may cause in certain habitats. She introduces some of the reasons why so many conservationists argue against the idea of introducing new species into ecosystems. However, as the title of the chapter points out, Marris is actually promoting the idea of invasive species. Her viewpoint is that the benefits of introducing new species are far greater than the risks associating with doing so. “While some exotic species are a huge problem, the vast majority are not. Science is finding that some are quite well behaved and innocuous, or even helpful. An spending time and money battling exotics simply because they are not ‘supposed’ to be where they are drains time and money away from more constructive conservation projects.” (98) This shows that she believes that rather than fighting against invasive species, we should accept the introduction of new species into different ecosystems since they do help them in most cases. She points out that invasive species drastically increase the biodiversity in an ecosystem compared to the state of the ecosystem before they were introduced. In some cases, endangered species that were moved into a new ecosystem end up thriving because they are well-suited for that environment. In chapter 7, “Novel Ecosystems,” Marris further discusses her idea of invasive species in ecosystems. She gives several examples of new types of ecosystems that have been influenced by human interaction since new species were introduced. She talks about how many novel ecosystems are functioning as well as, if not better, than the original ecosystem that was there before without the new species. “These new systems likely do spell homogenization and extinction, in some places. But they can also mean ecosystem services, increased diversity, and brand-new species. And we are going to have to start studying these places. They represent the future of our planet, like it or not.” (122) Marris claims that although there are possible negative consequences associated with invasive species and novel ecosystems, the positives are worth it. She believes that novel ecosystems will be the way to go in the future to make ecosystems more rich and diverse.

From these two chapters, I have learned a lot about the possible benefits that can come from invasive species. Before this, there have been many negatives described about invasive species. Her different point of view does introduce some interesting points. However, I feel that some of the extreme consequences that can come from introducing new species may be too much for many conservationists to start advocating novel ecosystems. Perhaps, sometime in the future, after there is more research and experimentation done about the sustainability of novel ecosystems, they can catch on with other conservationists, but until then, introducing invasive species still seems like a risky thing to do.

In Chapters 6 & 7 of her novel, Marris focuses on “invasive” or “exotic” species and the idea of emerging “novel ecosystems”, which, according to an ecologist she spoke to named Erle Ellis, now take up around 35% of the world’s ice-free land (pg 120). Species that have been introduced to ecosystems where they have not been found before are referred to as exotic species, or nonnative. However, it is when those species begin to cause problems in the ecosystems they have inhabited – by preying on native species, taking all the native species’ food supply, etc. – that they become “invasive”, and largely viewed by ecologists as a problem that needs to be eradicated.

Marris gives a number of examples of such “invasive” species that have wreaked havoc on the ecosystems they have been introduced to. She mentions the case of the Stephen Island’s flightless wren, which was driven to extinction by a population of feral cats that were accidently let loose on the island (page 98), as well as zebra mussles of the Great Lakes, flammable cheatgrass, and the Asian tiger mosquito, each of which have caused significant damage to the areas where they have been introduced.

However, Marris then goes on to suggest that perhaps we are overreacting about the issues these invasive species cause, and that we should re-examine our attitudes towards them, instead of spending countless money, manpower and resources trying to get rid of them. She points to various examples of introduced, exotic species that have not been harmful to their habitats, and in some cases have even helped save some of the native species from extinction, as the case with the Turkey Oaks which helped keep Britain’s blue tits from going extinct (page 106). She also mentions how we have spent so many resources making sure these exotic species don’t flourish, for fear of “genetic pollution, as the case with the ruddy duck and the white-headed duck in the UK (page 109), when there is really no need for these efforts and all that the cross-breeding of these ducks was doing was creating a new species, as part of the “novel ecosystems” Marris advocates for.

Marris expands on the idea of novel ecosystems in Chapter 7, where she mentions ecologists Lugo and Mascaro, who are proponents of such ecosystems, where introduced and native species can live together and flourish in diverse mixes, something which many traditional ecologists are still weary about. She mentions the example of the “mango forest”, a novel ecosystem where mangos that were planted a while ago have flourished and created a forest of many exotic species otherwise not found in the area. Marris says that these novel ecosystems represent the future of our planet, and whether this is so I’m not sure, but something tells me there may be more to this than mentioned in these chapters, since these invasive species must be hated by so many ecologists and conservationists for a reason, and Marris seemed to have brushed off that hatred rather quickly.

Emma Marris commences on the notions of invasive species and novel ecosystems in Chapters 6 and 7 of her novel, Rambunctious Garden. Invasive species, also known as “exotic species”, have been previously introduced to particular ecosystems by humans. Most scientists refer to these species by the former term because they are commonly believed to be injurious to their new environment. For example, “some introduced species can cost farers and ranches big money, as they destroy crops or displace more palatable species on the range” (Marris 99). On the other hand, we have novel ecosystems – man-made niches that are not natural. They are not closely maintained by humans. Surprisingly, these novel ecosystems are found to perform well. Some in fact, perform better than other existing ecosystems because invasive species help native species thrive.

In novel ecosystems, invasive species are present to help support rare native species. Rewilders have introduced species specifically for this purpose. Marris gives us the example of the Atlantic shad. It swims in the Pacific Northwest to help feed endangered salmon (109). In addition, introduced species increase the level of biodiversity in the long run. Both the introduced and native species will learn to adapt and coexist with one another. These new ecological relationships are only possible if we give them a chance before removing them all. We are constantly at war with species we think are “invasive”, such as the Phragmites. Park specialists are on a continuous look out to destroy these plants. It has been discovered however, that the Phragmites is a global species.

According to Marris, Joe Mascaro found “forty-six novel forests dominated by a variety of different species and growing on lava flows of varying ages at various altitudes” in Hawaii (119). There were as many species in these novel forests as native forests. Mascaro argues against the destruction of these modified niches, specifically because they are useful in the restoration of native species. They provide “crucial habit[s]”. Furthermore, he found that these novel forests had great productivity. With regards to soil nutrients and biomass, some matched while others outproduced native forests.

Nonetheless, it is hard for most scientists to accept the concept of invasive species and novel ecosystems. The world’s novel ecosystems have already changed to accomodate both the introduced and native species. However, it is still evident that invasive species can be extremely detrimental to native ecosystems. Instead of helping native species, introduced species are widely believed to cause extinctions. A dramatic example stated by Marris is “the brown tree snake, native to Australia and nearby countries, [killing] off ten of twelve native forest-dwelling birds on the island of Guam after arriving as a stowaway in cargo ships” (99). Novel ecosystems are possible if scientists can determine which introduced species can be a huge problem. Otherwise, there will always be a constant battle as to whether or not we can fully accept invasive or “exotic” species to create novel ecosystems.

In the chapter 6 and 7 of Rambunctious Garden, Marris talks about the invasive species. The invasive species became a major problem in modern ecosystems. Marris discusses how the invasive species have bad reputation since they are exotic species that are foreign to specific ecosystem.  Unlike the general opinion that disfavors the invasive species, Marris decides to argue the benefits of having exotic species. Mark Davis, an ecologist, argues that there are positive effects to introduce exotic species and letting them flourish in the new environment. Davis demonstrates how “sometimes newcomers might help natives flourish” by giving example of Pyura praeputialis in Australia. (pg  105). In this case, the exotic species helped the algae in the water to flourish, benefiting many other organisms in the water including the natural species. She continually argues that the introduction of exotic species does not necessarily mean the extinction of the natural species in the ecosystem. Furthermore, statistically, many of the introductions failed.  I somehow agree with Marris’s point that the introduction or the assisted migration benefits the ecosystem including the survival of the exotic species and the natural species. However, it is obvious that Marris is exaggerating since she does not fully demonstrate the extreme case of damages that the exotic species had done. She only speaks about the benefits and tends to minimize the damages that the modern ecosystems are suffering from.

Later on, Marris continues her argument by introducing the concept of “novel ecosystems.” In those situations, the exotic species are left on their own in new ecosystem with no regulation by humans or other species. Marris begins to talk about the benefits of the novel ecosystems since the exotic species bring better food chain, faster growth, and more efficient nutrient cycling. At the same time, Marris admits that there are some down-sides of the novel ecosystems since it also can being “homogenization and extinction.” In this case, Marris demonstrates the situation of mango species on how it was introduced and flourished with many benefits. However, it must be noted that the successful introduction happens “sometimes” not “all the time” as the tone of Marris suggests. It is possible to say the novel ecosystem can be the best alternative for exotic species that are close to extinction is their native ecosystems. However, such situation must be examined carefully since many fear the disadvantages of the exotic species.

My point of view is against on the exotic species. The records show that the exotic species causes more trouble than benefiting the introduced ecosystems. May exotic species extinct or endangered native species and harmed the natural cycle of the ecosystem. Moreover, many humans suffered from the disadvantages that the exotic species had brought such as pathogens. What make the invasive species so hated my humans is that once they settle, it is hard to remove the species and repair the damages. In the chapter 6 and 7, I was disappointed at Marris as she denies to look at the reality on how bad the exotic species are to the modern ecosystems

In Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post Modern World, Emma Marris turns her focus to the benefits of introduced species. She explains that, although there has been a historical view that all species that were introduced to an area by humans are a threat to their new environment, this is not always the case.

Chapter 6 of the book opens with an example of an introduced species that harmed its new ecosystem but Marris goes on to provide many examples of cases in which the opposite has occurred. In many, if not most cases, introduced species do not do as much harm as people expect.

In Chapter 7, Marris discusses Novel ecosystems, which thrive with both introduced and native species. In some cases, biodiversity can increase with introduced species. In fact, introduced species may evolve in a new environment, thus increasing biodiversity.

I believe that, given the information from these chapters, an ecosystem that includes species which are not native is not necessarily a bad ecosystem and it may not be so bad to introduce a species to an ecosystem if it is done carefully. Although an ecosystem may be able to survive and even thrive after a species has been introduced, this is not always the case. For this reason, I believe that it is important that people continue to be extremely careful about introducing a nonnative species to an area. The information provided in these chapters does not justify an idea like rewilding in my opinion. It may, however, justify certain cases of introducing species, such as assisted migration of an endangered species that has almost no chance of surviving any other way, as long as it is done extremely carefully.