The New Wild: Why Invasive Species will be Nature's Salvation
Talk One Book One Thread
Join LibraryThing to post.
12wonderY
Having started two other threads and not followed through yet, I am boldly creating a third.
Though I like reading in history and sociology, I am passionate about agronomy and nature.
The New Wild, by Fred Pearce, challenges the traditional ecological modeling of conservationists. While Pearce is not a scientist, he primarily identifies as an environmental journalist.
There is lots to consider here. Lots of places and people I want to keep straight, so that I can follow the arguments and do further readings.
Though I like reading in history and sociology, I am passionate about agronomy and nature.
The New Wild, by Fred Pearce, challenges the traditional ecological modeling of conservationists. While Pearce is not a scientist, he primarily identifies as an environmental journalist.
There is lots to consider here. Lots of places and people I want to keep straight, so that I can follow the arguments and do further readings.
22wonderY
This was an LT Early Reviewer book in 2015, and the member reviews are worth reading. For the most part, his challenge to the current wisdom is appreciated. Opinions on the validity of his arguments vary.
A couple of excerpts~
by @whitewavedarling:
"Pearce's argument is meticulously researched and well-balanced. And he's not ignoring the horror stories at all, though he is saying that there's a bit more to them and that we may be simplifying things far too much when we point to one species and blame it for outright destruction. Part of Pearce's point is that nature is ever-changing, and our approach (and by 'our', I mean humankind's) to conservation hasn't particularly accepted that. We see something and we want it to remain 'pristine', even if that 'pristine' status isn't at all original and actually incorporates species that Were alien at some time in the past. Pearce asks pointedly, where do we draw the line? And at what point does a species move from being alien to being native? And, perhaps even more importantly, if an invasive species seems to benefit a particular ecosystem without doing any harm, does that still mean there's any worth in keeping it out, as has so often been the practice?"
by @benuathanasia:
"While intriguing, Pearce never really proves his point. Much of the structure of his argument throughout the book falls into one of these patterns:
Horrible thing an invasive species has done
Horrible thing an invasive species has done
Horrible thing an invasive species has done
Pretty good thing an invasive species has done - therefore they're good!
Horrible thing invasive species has done
Horrible thing invasive species has done
Horrible thing invasive species has done
Flawed quote I proved wrong
Flawed science I proved wrong
Therefore invasive species are good!"
by @mposey82:
"The book spends a lot of time first addressing the usual assumptions about pioneer species - they force out existing species, they destroy biodiversity, and generally prevent a healthy ecosystem. A decent amount of the book is looking into some of the supposed worst offenders and building a case that in all but the rarest of cases the long term advantages outweighed any short term disruptions to ecological patterns.
The remainder of the book is spent talking up the apparent advantages of pioneer species - introducing new genetics to the local system, building up soil health, filling vacated ecological niches, and generally helping failing ecosystems to the path of recovery. A reader could argue against all these points and hold to the old view of wild pioneers but I believe Pearce builds a convincing case for how to go forward working with natural systems to promote a sustainable and abundant ecological future"
A couple of excerpts~
by @whitewavedarling:
"Pearce's argument is meticulously researched and well-balanced. And he's not ignoring the horror stories at all, though he is saying that there's a bit more to them and that we may be simplifying things far too much when we point to one species and blame it for outright destruction. Part of Pearce's point is that nature is ever-changing, and our approach (and by 'our', I mean humankind's) to conservation hasn't particularly accepted that. We see something and we want it to remain 'pristine', even if that 'pristine' status isn't at all original and actually incorporates species that Were alien at some time in the past. Pearce asks pointedly, where do we draw the line? And at what point does a species move from being alien to being native? And, perhaps even more importantly, if an invasive species seems to benefit a particular ecosystem without doing any harm, does that still mean there's any worth in keeping it out, as has so often been the practice?"
by @benuathanasia:
"While intriguing, Pearce never really proves his point. Much of the structure of his argument throughout the book falls into one of these patterns:
Horrible thing an invasive species has done
Horrible thing an invasive species has done
Horrible thing an invasive species has done
Pretty good thing an invasive species has done - therefore they're good!
Horrible thing invasive species has done
Horrible thing invasive species has done
Horrible thing invasive species has done
Flawed quote I proved wrong
Flawed science I proved wrong
Therefore invasive species are good!"
by @mposey82:
"The book spends a lot of time first addressing the usual assumptions about pioneer species - they force out existing species, they destroy biodiversity, and generally prevent a healthy ecosystem. A decent amount of the book is looking into some of the supposed worst offenders and building a case that in all but the rarest of cases the long term advantages outweighed any short term disruptions to ecological patterns.
The remainder of the book is spent talking up the apparent advantages of pioneer species - introducing new genetics to the local system, building up soil health, filling vacated ecological niches, and generally helping failing ecosystems to the path of recovery. A reader could argue against all these points and hold to the old view of wild pioneers but I believe Pearce builds a convincing case for how to go forward working with natural systems to promote a sustainable and abundant ecological future"
32wonderY
I've been greatly influenced by Douglas Tallamy's book Bringing Nature Home.
The sub-title is 'How you can sustain wildlife with native plants'
My review:
"This is one of those paradigm shifting books. So, do you want the local insects to eat holes in your leaves? Resoundingly, YES! If you want a healthy ecosystem, you have to encourage all of the local life; you can't be particular and selective. And to keep the whole thing churning correctly, you can't displace the traditional foods of even the smallest members of the system. Witness the Monarch butterfly crisis because farmers have been eradicating milkweed from much of the US heartland. Grow those weeds. More importantly, grow all the local plants that the local animals rely on. One of the reasons some imported varieties do so outsize well is that they don't have their native nibblers here. That's not a good ecosystem."
I happen to have his most recent title at hand, as well, and will probably be dipping in to it during this read too. Nature's Best Hope contains at least two chapters that address the same material. Chapter 7 is 'Are Alien Plants Bad?' and chapter 9 is titled 'What Have Weeds Done For Us Lately?"
The sub-title is 'How you can sustain wildlife with native plants'
My review:
"This is one of those paradigm shifting books. So, do you want the local insects to eat holes in your leaves? Resoundingly, YES! If you want a healthy ecosystem, you have to encourage all of the local life; you can't be particular and selective. And to keep the whole thing churning correctly, you can't displace the traditional foods of even the smallest members of the system. Witness the Monarch butterfly crisis because farmers have been eradicating milkweed from much of the US heartland. Grow those weeds. More importantly, grow all the local plants that the local animals rely on. One of the reasons some imported varieties do so outsize well is that they don't have their native nibblers here. That's not a good ecosystem."
I happen to have his most recent title at hand, as well, and will probably be dipping in to it during this read too. Nature's Best Hope contains at least two chapters that address the same material. Chapter 7 is 'Are Alien Plants Bad?' and chapter 9 is titled 'What Have Weeds Done For Us Lately?"
42wonderY
And to add to the enjoyment of the subject, I stumbled upon this video done by Wyoming PBS:
Goats Eat Weeds - Farm to Fork Wyoming
There is discussion of weeds and invasives and how they contribute to the succession of species; particularly where goats, as browsers, not ruminants, participate in converting stressed land back to a restored ecology.
Goats Eat Weeds - Farm to Fork Wyoming
There is discussion of weeds and invasives and how they contribute to the succession of species; particularly where goats, as browsers, not ruminants, participate in converting stressed land back to a restored ecology.
52wonderY
I'm having difficulties maintaining focus on any projects nowadays.
Chapter 1 sets up the conflict between natives and invasives in the most extreme locations - remote islands.
Brown tree snakes on Guam and carnivorous mice on Gough Island are a couple of the horror stories. But Pearce suggests that the snake problem on Guam met an already ecologically challenged biota, after military deforestation during WW2.
He presents Ascension Island as a clear paradise because of the multitude of introduced species that quickly forested bare volcanic rock and thus encouraged additional rainfall patterns.
Mona Loa lists thousands of thriving introduced species versus a handful of lost natives. The conservationists hate an enthusiastic myrtle tree that colonizes bare lava and fixes nitrogen. Pearce went looking for research on the tree as a possible transient colonizer, finding possible anecdotal evidence that it might give way to other species.
He relates the story of yellow crazy ants on Christmas Island that all of a sudden rampaged in the 1990s, killing off a large part of the native red crab population; which allowed a healthier forest growth. Most of the crazy ant colonies collapsed in 2011, without warning or explanation.
(More later)
Chapter 1 sets up the conflict between natives and invasives in the most extreme locations - remote islands.
Brown tree snakes on Guam and carnivorous mice on Gough Island are a couple of the horror stories. But Pearce suggests that the snake problem on Guam met an already ecologically challenged biota, after military deforestation during WW2.
He presents Ascension Island as a clear paradise because of the multitude of introduced species that quickly forested bare volcanic rock and thus encouraged additional rainfall patterns.
Mona Loa lists thousands of thriving introduced species versus a handful of lost natives. The conservationists hate an enthusiastic myrtle tree that colonizes bare lava and fixes nitrogen. Pearce went looking for research on the tree as a possible transient colonizer, finding possible anecdotal evidence that it might give way to other species.
He relates the story of yellow crazy ants on Christmas Island that all of a sudden rampaged in the 1990s, killing off a large part of the native red crab population; which allowed a healthier forest growth. Most of the crazy ant colonies collapsed in 2011, without warning or explanation.
(More later)
