Invasive Species

kjm030584 · 04-26-2005, 01:55 PM

This kind of stuff really interests me. A while back I mentioned that Lady bugs (that means lady birds, Kiera) were an exotic species that is doing really well outside it's native habitat. So anyway here's an article I thought was really interesting:

April 22, 2005
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
When Nature Assaults Itself
By ALAN BURDICK

LATE one afternoon not long ago, I stood on the bridge of an Alaska-bound oil tanker, trying to divine our ecological future from the encircling horizon: a gray band of haze separating an overcast sky from the slate-gray sea.

One key element of this future lay not in the surrounding sea and sky but several decks below my feet: the countless plants and animals - from single-celled diatoms and dinoflagellates to microscopic, shrimplike copepods, larval mollusks and crustaceans - thriving in the million-odd gallons of ballast water the ship had taken on in San Francisco Bay and would eventually deposit north of the 48th parallel, in Valdez. In recent years marine biologists have documented that an astonishing range of living organisms is inadvertently carried in ballast water to ports around the world, threatening our economies and our health and diminishing the biological diversity of Earth as a whole.

Far from the minds of the founders of Earth Day 35 years ago, invasive species are a new kind of threat, wrought by nature against nature itself - albeit with an assist from humankind. The hazards of pollution and habitat destruction are comparatively easy to grasp. Invasive species impose a different variety of environmental changes - often subtle and slow to manifest, hard to forecast and challenging to combat.

At any given moment some 35,000 ships large and small are at sea, bearing our wants and needs - petroleum, corn feed, wood chips, automobiles - from one port to another. Ballast water is essential to that motion. Taken on to aid stability and propulsion, ballast water does for the modern cargo ship what sandbags do for a hot-air balloon. Unfortunately, it can also carry comb jellies from the East Coast to the Black Sea, Japanese sea stars to Australia, and voracious green crabs from Europe to San Francisco Bay.

Many, perhaps most, of the organisms do not survive their odysseys. But with so much ballast water in motion around the world, many organisms inevitably do. And even one can inflict profound changes on its new habitat. The Eurasian zebra mussel reached Lake St. Clair via ballast water in the 1980's; it now lives throughout the Great Lakes, down the Mississippi River to New Orleans, and in more than 350 lakes and ponds. No larger than a pistachio, it thrives in such dense profusion that it has sunk navigational buoys. It crowds out native species and hogs the nutrients that other organisms require.

Our current environmental legislation is poorly equipped to cope with this kind of invasion. Laws like the Endangered Species Act are intended to protect specific, known organisms from specific, known threats. Ecological invasion does not submit to such clarity. One can identify which species, like the zebra mussel, have already proved troublesome. But as great a risk comes from the yet unidentified invaders - the zebra mussels of tomorrow. Scientists cannot accurately predict which organism will invade where, nor which native organisms will be most affected when the unknown threat arrives. The only certainty is that, inevitably, something - many somethings - will invade, by which point the moment for interception will have passed.

Congress is finally grappling with this new ecological reality. Last week, a bipartisan group of legislators introduced the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2005, which would authorize money for research, the control and monitoring of existing and new threats, and the improved regulation of the biologically rich ballast water that arrives with international ships. Notably, it would require all ships to report their ballast operations and would offer ship owners incentives to test new ballast-treatment technologies. The bill is a worthy effort to update the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, which expired in 2002. Critics may carp about the cost - $836 million over several years - but that is a small fraction of the cost that the zebra mussel already exacts.

In the end, alien species are a reflection of us; they are the respiring extensions of our own ambitions on Earth. Where we go, they follow. But it needn't be that way. As biological entities, invasions may be natural, but that doesn't mean they're welcome.

Alan Burdick, an editor at Discover, is the author of the forthcoming "Out of Eden: An Odyssey of Ecological Invasion."[SIZE=7]

kjm030584 · 04-26-2005, 02:02 PM

When I was studying world history I learned all about how Columbus holds a large part of the blame. I don't know why we devote a holiday for him; however, now he seems to fit in with the people we call heros. It's true that "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue," but the rest of that song is utter hogwash. He sailed to the America's, Hispaniola to be exact, in 1492 and returned to Spain to tell about what he found. The King then gave him more money and more ships to colonize the new land. So he returned in 1493 and very much marginalized the indigenous population he also introduced foreign species of plants and small animals that were too close of competition for the native species to keep up with.

I'm sorry, this stuff really interests me. :P

MrCC · 04-26-2005, 10:18 PM

In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
In 1493 Columbus sailed the the deep blue sea.
In 1494 Columbus sailed and sailed some more.

It's the nature of a world economy. It's not just a problem with animals in the ocean it's a problem on land as well. I was reading an article about how the federal government spends far more today than even a few years ago to combat the spread of non-native species on government land. It's a problem in the desert because native species survive by being able to soak up the water when it rains, but non-native species are robbing the native plants of the water they need to survice the harsh summers.

I agree - it is interesting, but what can be done? Throwing billions into research to study the problem seems like a waste IMHO. Non-native species will continue to spread no matter what we do. It's not like we can stop shipping in the world. Most of the products we buy are not made in the country we live in. There is always the "Buy Local" idea that is a motto of the anti-globalization movement, but it's like trying to stop a river from flowing. Whenever I hear these people I think the people pushing for anti-globalization are driving Japanese cars, watching TV's made in Korea, wearing clothing made in Pakistan, shoes made in South America, and eating Tomatos grown in Chile. Sure you could live in a commune, make all your clothes, and grow your own vegetables - but that's no life for me. If I didn't buy products that came from someplace else I would be dead. Cheesburgers and pizza may come from non-native species, but they still taste better than cactus. ;)

:agree:

kjm030584 · 04-26-2005, 11:41 PM

yeah.. i think it's really impossible to do anything about it. Plus if we wanted to be really active we'd have to destroy ourselves. It actually has more to do with population than economy though. As a population grows it expands and covers a larger area.

MrCC · 04-26-2005, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kjm030584@Apr 26 2005, 04:41 PM
yeah.. i think it's really impossible to do anything about it. Plus if we wanted to be really active we'd have to destroy ourselves. It actually has more to do with population than economy though. As a population grows it expands and covers a larger area.

That post sounds like one of those episodes of The Twilight Zone where they fry the robots brain when they point out that in order to protect man the robot must destroy those who threaten man - the robot himself. In order to save mankind we must kill all men. It's like throwing out the baby with the bilge water. ;)

Eibhlin · 04-27-2005, 12:07 AM

it seems to me that "we" (i use we loosely) have already begun destroting ourselves, isnt it true that in some countries it is a practice to kill babies of a certain gender, or to limit the amount of children you can have? it seems i heard that or read that at some point in time, and of course there is the ever controversial "A" word...

Little Bird · 04-27-2005, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kjm030584@Apr 26 2005, 11:41 PM
yeah.. i think it's really impossible to do anything about it. Plus if we wanted to be really active we'd have to destroy ourselves. It actually has more to do with population than economy though. As a population grows it expands and covers a larger area.

Finally someone gets it. This I believe is true but before we do that, we must evolve. Then we can leave the planet to the animals and plants etc with no more interference from us annoying humans!

It's all about the mind.

04-26-2005, 01:55 PM	#1
kjm030584 Moderator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 1,843 Rep Power: 254	This kind of stuff really interests me. A while back I mentioned that Lady bugs (that means lady birds, Kiera) were an exotic species that is doing really well outside it's native habitat. So anyway here's an article I thought was really interesting: April 22, 2005 OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR When Nature Assaults Itself By ALAN BURDICK LATE one afternoon not long ago, I stood on the bridge of an Alaska-bound oil tanker, trying to divine our ecological future from the encircling horizon: a gray band of haze separating an overcast sky from the slate-gray sea. One key element of this future lay not in the surrounding sea and sky but several decks below my feet: the countless plants and animals - from single-celled diatoms and dinoflagellates to microscopic, shrimplike copepods, larval mollusks and crustaceans - thriving in the million-odd gallons of ballast water the ship had taken on in San Francisco Bay and would eventually deposit north of the 48th parallel, in Valdez. In recent years marine biologists have documented that an astonishing range of living organisms is inadvertently carried in ballast water to ports around the world, threatening our economies and our health and diminishing the biological diversity of Earth as a whole. Far from the minds of the founders of Earth Day 35 years ago, invasive species are a new kind of threat, wrought by nature against nature itself - albeit with an assist from humankind. The hazards of pollution and habitat destruction are comparatively easy to grasp. Invasive species impose a different variety of environmental changes - often subtle and slow to manifest, hard to forecast and challenging to combat. At any given moment some 35,000 ships large and small are at sea, bearing our wants and needs - petroleum, corn feed, wood chips, automobiles - from one port to another. Ballast water is essential to that motion. Taken on to aid stability and propulsion, ballast water does for the modern cargo ship what sandbags do for a hot-air balloon. Unfortunately, it can also carry comb jellies from the East Coast to the Black Sea, Japanese sea stars to Australia, and voracious green crabs from Europe to San Francisco Bay. Many, perhaps most, of the organisms do not survive their odysseys. But with so much ballast water in motion around the world, many organisms inevitably do. And even one can inflict profound changes on its new habitat. The Eurasian zebra mussel reached Lake St. Clair via ballast water in the 1980's; it now lives throughout the Great Lakes, down the Mississippi River to New Orleans, and in more than 350 lakes and ponds. No larger than a pistachio, it thrives in such dense profusion that it has sunk navigational buoys. It crowds out native species and hogs the nutrients that other organisms require. Our current environmental legislation is poorly equipped to cope with this kind of invasion. Laws like the Endangered Species Act are intended to protect specific, known organisms from specific, known threats. Ecological invasion does not submit to such clarity. One can identify which species, like the zebra mussel, have already proved troublesome. But as great a risk comes from the yet unidentified invaders - the zebra mussels of tomorrow. Scientists cannot accurately predict which organism will invade where, nor which native organisms will be most affected when the unknown threat arrives. The only certainty is that, inevitably, something - many somethings - will invade, by which point the moment for interception will have passed. Congress is finally grappling with this new ecological reality. Last week, a bipartisan group of legislators introduced the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2005, which would authorize money for research, the control and monitoring of existing and new threats, and the improved regulation of the biologically rich ballast water that arrives with international ships. Notably, it would require all ships to report their ballast operations and would offer ship owners incentives to test new ballast-treatment technologies. The bill is a worthy effort to update the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, which expired in 2002. Critics may carp about the cost - $836 million over several years - but that is a small fraction of the cost that the zebra mussel already exacts. In the end, alien species are a reflection of us; they are the respiring extensions of our own ambitions on Earth. Where we go, they follow. But it needn't be that way. As biological entities, invasions may be natural, but that doesn't mean they're welcome. Alan Burdick, an editor at Discover, is the author of the forthcoming "Out of Eden: An Odyssey of Ecological Invasion."[SIZE=7] __________________

04-26-2005, 02:02 PM	#2
kjm030584 Moderator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 1,843 Rep Power: 254	When I was studying world history I learned all about how Columbus holds a large part of the blame. I don't know why we devote a holiday for him; however, now he seems to fit in with the people we call heros. It's true that "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue," but the rest of that song is utter hogwash. He sailed to the America's, Hispaniola to be exact, in 1492 and returned to Spain to tell about what he found. The King then gave him more money and more ships to colonize the new land. So he returned in 1493 and very much marginalized the indigenous population he also introduced foreign species of plants and small animals that were too close of competition for the native species to keep up with. I'm sorry, this stuff really interests me. :P __________________

04-26-2005, 10:18 PM	#3
MrCC JKF Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The World Jewel Forum Posts: 839 Rep Power: 0	In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. In 1493 Columbus sailed the the deep blue sea. In 1494 Columbus sailed and sailed some more. It's the nature of a world economy. It's not just a problem with animals in the ocean it's a problem on land as well. I was reading an article about how the federal government spends far more today than even a few years ago to combat the spread of non-native species on government land. It's a problem in the desert because native species survive by being able to soak up the water when it rains, but non-native species are robbing the native plants of the water they need to survice the harsh summers. I agree - it is interesting, but what can be done? Throwing billions into research to study the problem seems like a waste IMHO. Non-native species will continue to spread no matter what we do. It's not like we can stop shipping in the world. Most of the products we buy are not made in the country we live in. There is always the "Buy Local" idea that is a motto of the anti-globalization movement, but it's like trying to stop a river from flowing. Whenever I hear these people I think the people pushing for anti-globalization are driving Japanese cars, watching TV's made in Korea, wearing clothing made in Pakistan, shoes made in South America, and eating Tomatos grown in Chile. Sure you could live in a commune, make all your clothes, and grow your own vegetables - but that's no life for me. If I didn't buy products that came from someplace else I would be dead. Cheesburgers and pizza may come from non-native species, but they still taste better than cactus. ;) :agree: __________________ Mike

04-26-2005, 11:41 PM	#4
kjm030584 Moderator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 1,843 Rep Power: 254	yeah.. i think it's really impossible to do anything about it. Plus if we wanted to be really active we'd have to destroy ourselves. It actually has more to do with population than economy though. As a population grows it expands and covers a larger area. __________________

04-27-2005, 12:07 AM	#6
Eibhlin Oscillating Fan Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: North Cackalacky Posts: 2,044 Rep Power: 255	it seems to me that "we" (i use we loosely) have already begun destroting ourselves, isnt it true that in some countries it is a practice to kill babies of a certain gender, or to limit the amount of children you can have? it seems i heard that or read that at some point in time, and of course there is the ever controversial "A" word... __________________ I'd like to call you my wild horse and feed you silver sage Andrea an eye for an eye makes the world blind