A DEFENSE OF INVASIVE SPECIES.

A DEFENSE OF INVASIVE SPECIES. I have conflicting feelings about invasive species. Matt Ridley argues that they are sometimes good things: “Some ecosystems are enriched and made more productive by invasive species.” He supports this with examples of invasive species that provide improved “ecosystem services” such as creation of soil and the prevention of erosion. He gives the example of gray squirrels in the United Kingdom, who are displacing the red squirrels that have been there since the ice age. He says: “ecologically,…the gray is better at filling the squirrel niche in [the UK] broadleaf woodland’ because red squirrels are a “pine-adapted species”. Of course, there is a weakness in his argument. A successful invasive species will be successful because it is better adapted to an environment. The question of whether invasive species are bad in themselves is a different one—and, I think, an aesthetic question.

This entry was posted in Science. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A DEFENSE OF INVASIVE SPECIES.

  1. Lee says:

    The downside is that red squirrels are way cuter than their gray cousins. Hitchens on the subject.

  2. Dick Weisfelder says:

    Today’s Toledo Blade has an article on the importation of live Asian carp to Canada to serve the preferences of the Asian population of Toronto. Do your “conflicted feelings” apply if a spill lets them into the Great Lakes or Canadian watersheds? Their food yield potential is huge to the exclusion of a host of indigenous species.

  3. Pingback: AMERICANS AS AN INVASIVE SPECIES (COMMENT). | Pater Familias

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.