As I continue to peruse Rambunctious Garden, it seems like more of my (perhaps shallow) presumptions about conservation are being increasingly challenged with common sense. And that, in truth, makes sense, as propaganda has often been biased and seen through rose-colored lenses. Marris’ arguments about exotic species and novel ecosystems, for instance, make sense, because they delve into the intricacies of the data rather than derive from blanket statements so easily acknowledged for their simplicity. I’ve probably said something along those lines in prior blogs, but that is honestly how I feel about these chapters.
How invasive species affect ecosystems is about as predictable as mid-run meteorology (as in it is simply unpredictable). Like Marris said, the concept of rewilding is somewhere along this line of invasion, yet it shows some practical promise (as well as a larger amount of theoretical promise). Assisted migration can also be considered to be invasive, yet with sufficient forethought and research, potential consequences from the movement may be mitigated. The term “invasive species” in itself has probably put a bad reputation to such foreigners; hopefully scientists will exchange that term for a friendlier nom de plume.
However, I do have one critique about Marris’ ideas about the novel ecosystem. Because the “invasiveness” of a species is a case-by-case dilemma (is it directly causing the endangerment of a species, for instance), would that not be reason for more mitigation of funds into individual environments? (Whether it is more efficient than current preservation techniques is up for discussion, but the ambiguity is there.) It should be no surprise in the number and diversity of ecosystems that exists, especially in isolated areas such as islands and lakes, apparently. Thus, each area would have to be at least cursorily studied to examine the effects of nonnative species. It just seems like there is potential to throw more money into an already risky investment, good cause it may be.
Nevertheless, Marris is correct in her assessment. Her statements regarding actually dangerous invasive species in a bit more muted than I would have liked, but for the sake of her argument to defend them it may have been a better choice to reduce some of the more incendiary rebuttals. Indeed, we as humans who created the anthropocene era must account for the natural ecosystems as well as novel ones (since technically all ecosystems are novel anyway), though I would hazard to guess that finding that balance between which species to keep and which to remove will be a murky battleground for years to come, especially if virulence of a species is actually considered. That war is probably happening now, as is shown in Ariel Lugo’s battle with The Nature Conservancy about the nonnative Leucaena trees in the Virgin Islands. Only time and awareness will tell what scientists will do. (Interestingly absent from the book as of yet is the mention of any native species that perhaps become bloated with the introduction of another species, or by some other consequence, creating the feared monocultural wasteland commonly referred to in these two chapters.)
