Unintended Consequences Removing a Foreign Species

[almitywife]

I was reading this thread and it talked about a non-native lionfish being introduced into Florida’s costal waters. The question came up about removing them and what effect the species may have if left un-checked. Here in SoCal, we have a growing problem with an invasive seaweed. I’m sure there are thousands of other examples of non-native species being introduced to our seas and I don’t want to turn this into an argument revolving around any one specific foreign introduction but I would like discussion about how to treat it.

My initial reaction is that in most cases it’s too late to do anything other than prevent additional introductions. I feel that once a species has established itself, removing it may do more unintentional harm than good.

Dave

*** mod post ***

dear divers,

i see we have gone way off topic here
so please read OP and return to topic.

if you noticed your post count is down
it will be because i have deleted some posts.
ordinarily i would pm you to advise but there
was too many to remember who

cheers

*** mod post ***​

.

 

[Hank49]

I mentioned the honey bee mortality problem earlier in this thread and I just saw this on Yahoo news. It talks of the possibility of a virus introduced by importing bees from Australia. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_sc/honeybee_virus

This is exactly what happened when we started moving shrimp around the world 20 years ago or so. Kind of the same effect that the first Europeans had on the Tahitians by exposing them to flu or colds that they'd never been exposed to.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Wussie. I'll say it.

"KILL THE LIONFISH":bigun2:

COVERING FIRE! :bigun2:

 

[drbill]

Saw my first reproductive state Sargassum filicinum last weekend at Long Point. Up til now it has been just the immature, non-reproductive state. Look out Catalina... here it comes again.

 

[lmorin]

There are literally countless (although one could certainly try to get estimates) examples of "exotic" species in and around North America. Some were intentionally or otherwise introduced by people. Starlings, English sparrows. The cattle egret is now very widespread, but originated as a vagrant or two entering northern South America, presumably as a "natural" introduction from Europe, in the 1930's.

Who's to say whether something is or is not natural? It's a small world these days, and one could argue that prevention species introduction is like trying to stem the tide. Regardless, at some point following every introduction, the species has to be reclassified as native. This is particularly true given that there is no record of what was or was not native until somebody started making lists. The bottom line is that change is constant and the ecological systems adapt to it as appropriate. And, the ecological systems dictate what is appropriate, not humans. We are merely part of the ecology, and a rather temporary part, in the grand scheme of things.

That said, I detest English Ivy. Looks nice, but is incredibly invasive and destructive of anything it blankets where I live-- sort of like kudzu, but in a more temperate climate.

 

[archman]

Who's to say whether something is or is not natural? It's a small world these days, and one could argue that prevention species introduction is like trying to stem the tide. Regardless, at some point following every introduction, the species has to be reclassified as native.

I've been recently thinking along these very lines myself. I'm sure other scientists have been as well. I guess eventually we'll have some sort of *statute of limitations* for introduced species. Perhaps give them an ecological classification of their own... "entrenched exotic" or "recent native".

In the meantime, seeing as nearly every introduced species seems to be doing so as a result of manmade facilitation, and our records only go far back a few hundred years (a blink of a ecological eye), there is nothing particularly inappropriate with the current naming terminology. It just needs to be expanded, is all.