A post on Slate.com by Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow might be a good starting point to consider a discussion of whether invasive species are always necessarily undesirable. Don’t Sweat the Invasion -Why foreign plants and animals may not be that bad starts off with a vignette showing that one invasive shrub in the Southwest (salt cedar or tamarisk) is not all bad because it provides habitat for an endangered bird (southwestern willow flycatcher). So, “good” or “bad” cannot be unambiguously determined. But frankly, I’m not convinced. On balance,the salt cedar invasion is ecologically deleterious, and , on balance, we should probably continue to assume that most invasives are likely to be detrimental to the invaded environment.
Filed under: invasive plants | Tagged: invasive plants, invasive species, salt cedar, southwestern willow flycatcher, tamarisk, weeds, wildlife
I do not agree with this article, particular in regards to saltcedar. While it states that the SWFC nests in this tree, it fails to tell you that the fitness of the SWFC in saltcedar dominated habitats is greatly reduced when compared to native willow habitats. Additionally, saltcedar leads to greater channelization of streams and rivers, having deleterious impacts on numerous endangered species, mainly fish and molluscs. I think that the idea presented here illustrates the dangers of the single species conservation approach. The reclamation, or rescue of a habitat, which would benefit the ecological community as a whole is ignored in favor of taking action based on one “flashy” species of interest.
It will be considered good if the results (positive ones of course) outweighs the risks and it wouldn’t cause too much disturbance to the ecological balance. One thing I know, in some aspects, invasive is not always bad and in most cases not even close to bad. Of course it has some risks and downsides but hey, if the positive effects are considerable then why not?