For a long time, people have painted invasive species in terms of the villain that which is causing havoc in pristine native ecosystems. Perhaps it’s time we stepped back from this militaristic and aggressive rhetoric and refashioned our approach to these so-called invaders.
If you have ever tried to catch a Burmese python in the Florida Everglades, then you would know simply how overwhelming the task is. Probably first introduced as exotic pets, these snakes have managed to form large populations in the wild that are a major threat to native wildlife. Attempts at eradication are underway, but with the extent of the problem, it seems an uphill battle.
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services estimates that invasive species cost the global economy over $423 billion annually in a new report. This is because they are among principal causes of native species extinction and can cause huge disturbance to ecosystems. But while this number seems really bad—and yes, it is—the reality is that most of these species are here through us, whether by long-distance trade, international travel, or even intentional introductions.
According to Dr. Aníbal Pauchard, a professor in Chile, “It’s normal that species move. It’s not normal that the species cross the Atlantic.” But humans have mixed up the world enough, with climate change in particular, to create perfect conditions for some invasive species to develop a foothold in new ecosystems. Yet must we go on demonizing and treating them like enemies?
Traditional “war on invasive species” generally means bulldozers, chainsaws, and herbicides. For example, in Hawaii, mangrove trees are showered with glyphosate and then left to rot on beaches, while state helicopters in Washington spray herbicides in an attempt to control smooth cordgrass. This could be ecologically harmful to the species and may not treat the cause of the problem at all.
A holistic approach means, most recently, seeing how factors like climate change, habitat destruction, and land use changes interrelate, as was outlined in “Beyond the War on Invasive Species.” This is not only about the eradication of intrusive species but a need for a much broader level of change in general: to think through exactly how we present resource acquisition strategies for food, water, and shelter. Those everyday choices of ours really do bear weight on the structure and functioning of ecosystems.
The language matters, too. Terms such as “invasive,” “enemy,” and “eradicate” are framed against these species, usually with a lack of respect for the intricacies of existence. This does actually create unintended, xenophobic actions. For example, the name of the Asian carp in Minnesota was changed to “invasive carp” for avoiding those negative connotations that go with the word “Asian,” which people connect to the community.
The ESA has already shown the way to rename the gypsy moth to the spongy moth. Such a change strips some of the pejorative associations with particular human groups from names. It is imperative that ecologically descriptive and helper accurate, field identification descriptions be retained while eliminating or at least minimizing negative biases.
The idea of a “native” species is, in reality, a human-defined concept, based on a moment in time. The labeling of native and invasive sometimes overlooks natural migration and adaptability of species. All species are trying to survive wherever they find themselves; it is the lack of natural controls that usually causes problems. For example, sumac is managed in certain prairies not because it is something bad, but the natural fires that keep it under check no longer occur now.
This leads us to another moral question: Should we eradicate a species just because it is not native? Some alien species may be threatened in their native places. Indiscriminate removals may drive them to the brink of extinction at the global level. We must see a species beyond its native status, consider its functionality in the present ecosystem, and then decide about removal.
In place of waging wars, balanced ecosystems should be our aim. This shall involve emulating natural processes, reviewing the history of species migration, testing by continuous monitoring with constant improvement of restoration. Our shift in perspective through language may make our conservation efforts more inclusive and effective.
Invasive species, in the final analysis, call for a change in words but also a paradigm shift in our strategies: respect for the complexities of the ecosystems and acknowledgment of our role in their perturbation. With this more careful, nuanced approach, we will work better toward biodiversity and the health of our ecosystems into the future.
