Better Safe than Sorry

Photo by Dave W. Dave W. Clarke

Nature presented a review article in which a large number of ecologists said that the nature of a species should carry more weight than the origin. That whether or not a species is native to the environment which it now lives in should not outweigh what it does to the environment. While the ecologists made a convincing claim that some biodiversity occurs when an invasive species enters, no one can oppose the fact that an alien species actually do major harm to the local environment. Invasive and alien species, both interchangeable names, must be nonnative, and able to do harm to the surrounding environment as defined by the US Forest Service. The counter argument was never really refuted, which means in some ways that the harm can never be reversed. One can refute many harmful examples from ecologists’ research by just stating different examples of species that don’t do as much damage instead of going back and retaliating the claims just made. From a global perspective, invasive species do more harm to environments than good. And while some of them may appear to not be consequential at all, it’s better to be safe than sorry. Some of them may not be harmful, but we can hardly get rid of the threat of something that can evolve and is not native to the immediate or existing environment. Nonnative species, in any means, will harm the original ecosystem.

Nonnative species can carry out peaceful lives, not harming the environment they have infiltrated. Most, however, will become invasive species. They will convert, just because they have the upper hand and it is only natural for them to take over. Species can invade easily when the environment is not prepared, and take over the resources it offers. Or even prey on the other species that it now cohabitates with. When a species can come and take all of the resources meant for other species, it spreads rapidly to other recesses of the ecosystem. This further displaces the native species and gives them less to live off of. Another large problem of unforeseen nonnative species is the fact that the species will have no natural predators. If there is nothing to contain the species and keep it them checked, then once again, the species is free to take over more space unrivaled.

 The ecologists that wrote the nature opinion article state several cases of nonnative species that completely destroy other species and even create collateral damage for humans. Most of the examples they give aren’t denied. One of the examples they use is the one of the zebra mussel. The zebra mussel came to North America in 1980s and has caused the water utilities and power services millions (possibly billions) or dollars clogging up pipes. Avian malaria was another one they even used, saying that it killed over half the native species of Hawaii when it was brought over. These accusations are met unopposed by any sort of case for them. The ecologists do not make an attempt to refute the counter argument to their own thesis statement. This must mean that there are cases which there is no good side. It is just a purely harmful invasive species, and while there are some specific cases that were no doubt found and used voraciously in this article, most nonnative species do not have the good side to cover up the bad one.

The case was also made by these ecologists that the fact that since the environment is constantly changing, the addition of nonnative species cannot be affecting the ecosystems and environments of the native species that much. Environments are going to change not according to the species that are introduced to its population, but by the original population itself. Unknowingly, the environment may be weakening or strengthening itself to outside intruders. By saying that we should not be so concerned with nonnatives being invasive is to say that the environments can handle themselves. True, when an ecosystem changes, we may not need to try and restore it exactly back to the way it was before, but you can’t assume that just because something has benefits, that it doesn’t also have a bad side too. Especially when people introduce a new species on purpose to an ecosystem. Some nonnative species are known for having two faces, so to speak. For example, the Himalayan blackberry, which produces edible berries, was originally planted for food and for beauty. However, it increases fire risk and horribly crowds out native plants. So some species may have little impact on the world around them, but how many species are we willing to overlook because of the good? The world loses billions of dollars every year, just trying to combat species that are places they shouldn’t be.

Ecologists propose that we don’t stop our protection of ones we know are bad, but remember the ones that may have good potential. We would not be taking into account what happens if or when the nonnative species evolve though. The ecologists are saying the environments are changing so, why not let the ones that aren’t doing bad things to coexist. Well, as the environment changes, so do the species inside it. They adapt. And who’s to say that a nonnative species, with no predators and an outside advantage won’t evolve into something invasive and harmful? I believe the better plan would be better safe than sorry . To assume that most or all nonnative species have the potential to act on their ability to be invasive. Ecosystems created themselves based on a set of animals that weren’t supposed to change. The original ecosystems function the best at keeping up the biodiversity of the area, instead of relying on good nonnative species to do so. So yes, we should take into account the good, but we cannot automatically cancel out the possibility of the bad.



Works Cited

Davis, Mark A. "Don't Judge Species on Their Origins." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 8 June 2011. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.

"Non-Native Species." JNCC. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.

"Pacific Northwest Research Station." Invasive Species. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.