Brendon M. H. Larson

Committing to ecological restoration

Efforts around the globe need legal and policy clarification At the September 2014 United Nations Climate Summit, governments rallied around an international agreement—the New York Declaration on Forests—that underscored restoration of degraded ecosystems as an auspicious solution to climate change. Ethiopia committed to restore more than one-sixth of its land. Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, and Colombia pledged to restore huge areas within their borders. In total, parties committed to restore a staggering 350 million hectares by 2030.

An alien approach to invasive species: objectivity and society in invasion biology.

Several authors have recently argued that invasion biologists should adopt a more objective and dispassionate stance towards invasive species. Brown and Sax (Austral Ecol 29:530–536, 2004; Austral Ecol 30:481–483, 2005) assert that invasion biologists risk their objectivity, “commit the naturalist fallacy” or “embark on a slippery slope” with engaged concern about invasive species. Elsewhere, Colautti and MacIsaac (Divers Distrib 10:135–141, 2004) propose a neutral language for invasion biology, one that insulates scientific from popular discussion about invasive species. While there is certainly hyperbole about the effects of some invasive species, the type of objectivity promoted in these papers may often be inappropriate for invasion biology. It implies a policy of non-action that is inconsistent with the conservation values of many invasion biologists. To engage these values, invasion biologists can adopt deliberative methods for environmental problem-solving that involve stakeholders in their research design and which still promote high standards of scientific rigor.

Participation Under Time Constraints: Landowner Perceptions of Rapid Response to the Emerald Ash Borer

Participatory approaches to environmental management often require lengthy periods for stakeholder involvement, but this may not always be feasible. For example, recent policy papers have emphasized the need for “rapid response” programs to eradicate newly detected invasive species before they spread. We review previous theory to demonstrate three challenges of integrating public participation in rapid response programs. We explore these in a case study of the rapid response to an invasive beetle, the emerald ash borer (EAB), in southern Ontario, Canada, in February 2003. To prevent the beetles spread, a government agency oversaw the cutting, often at short notice, of a 10-km-wide swath of ash trees, much of which was on private land. Our interviews with local landowners detected widespread dissatisfaction with the rapid response to EAB that reflected the challenges we predicted, so we conclude with thoughts on the need for rapid participatory methods.

Clarifying debates in invasion biology: a survey of invasion biologists.

Invasion biology is a relatively new field, so there are ongoing debates about foundational issues regarding terminology and assessment of the causes and consequences of invasive species. These debates largely reflect differing views about the extent to which invasion biologists should advocate on behalf of native species. We surveyed reviewers of the journal Biological Invasions to obtain a better sense of how invasion biologists evaluate several foundational issues. We received 422 replies, which represented a very good response rate for an online survey of 42.5% of those contacted. Responses to several debates in the field were distributed bimodally, but respondents consistently indicated that contemporary biological invasions are unprecedented. Even still, this was not seen as justification for exaggerated language (hyperbole). In contrast to prevalent claims in the literature, only 27.3% of respondents ranked invasive species as the first or second greatest threat to biodiversity. The responses also highlighted the interaction of invasive species with other threats and the role of human activity in their spread. Finally, the respondents agreed that they need to be both more objective and better at communicating their results so that those results can be effectively integrated into management.

Ecology, Complexity, and Metaphor

Abstract Complexity has recently risen to prominence in ecology as part of a broader interest that suggests its status is something more than just a scientific theory or property of reality. It may be helpful to consider complexity, and related terms such as “self-organization,” as recent metaphors deployed to advance knowledge on fundamental questions in ecology, including the relationship between parts and wholes, and between order and disorder. Though not commonly viewed as such, metaphors are an indispensable component of science, and should not be appraised as true or false, but rather in terms of how they help or hinder knowledge. By understanding metaphor as a necessary ally and not a threat to ecological knowledge, we may enrich our contextual understanding of complexity while continuing to invoke it in useful ways. The special section introduced by this article features essays by two prominent experts in ecology, complexity, and metaphor: science studies scholar Evelyn Fox Keller and theoretical ecologist Simon Levin.

The Public and Professionals Reason Similarly about the Management of Non-Native Invasive Species: A Quantitative Investigation of the Relationship between Beliefs and Attitudes

Despite continued critique of the idea of clear boundaries between scientific and lay knowledge, the ‘deficit-model’ of public understanding of ecological issues still seems prevalent in discourses of biodiversity management. Prominent invasion biologists, for example, still argue that citizens need to be educated so that they accept scientists’ views on the management of non-native invasive species. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey with members of the public and professionals in invasive species management (n = 732) in Canada and the UK to investigate commonalities and differences in their perceptions of species and, more importantly, how these perceptions were connected to attitudes towards species management. Both native and non-native mammal and tree species were included. Professionals tended to have more extreme views than the public, especially in relation to nativeness and abundance of a species. In both groups, species that were perceived to be more abundant, non-native, unattractive or harmful to nature and the economy were more likely to be regarded as in need of management. While perceptions of species and attitudes towards management thus often differed between public and professionals, these perceptions were linked to attitudes in very similar ways across the two groups. This suggests that ways of reasoning about invasive species employed by professionals and the public might be more compatible with each other than commonly thought. We recommend that managers and local people engage in open discussion about each other’s beliefs and attitudes prior to an invasive species control programme. This could ultimately reduce conflict over invasive species control.

The biology of Canadian weeds. 135. Lonicera japonica Thunb.

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica Thunb.) is a twining semi-evergreen vine native to Japan, Korea and eastern China. Over the past 150 yr it has been introduced as an ornamental and become established in temperate and tropical regions worldwide. It was first discovered in Canada in 1976 in southwestern Ontario woodlands and has since been found growing without cultivation in 15 localities. While L. japonica does not occur very frequently in southern Ontario, climate change models suggest that it may become more abundant in this region. Its predominance elsewhere derives from morphological and physiological characteristics that allow it to be particularly successful in the edge habitats of fragmented landscapes. Through extensive vegetative propagation and competitive ability it occupies space which may otherwise host a diverse native flora. The plant has many uses in Asian medicine and is a popular ornamental, but has been prohibited in some regions due to its displacement of other species. A combin...

Neither the public nor experts judge species primarily on their origins

In contemporary environmental conservation, species are judged in terms of their origin (‘nativeness’), as well as their behaviour and impacts (‘invasiveness’). In many instances, however, the term ‘non-native’ has been used as a proxy for harmfulness, implying the need for control. Some scientists have attempted to discourage this practice, on the grounds that it is inappropriate and counterproductive to judge species on their origin alone. However, to date, no empirical data exist on the degree to which nativeness in itself (that is, a species’ origin) shapes peoples attitudes towards management interventions in practice. This study addresses this void, demonstrating empirically that both the public and invasive species professionals largely ignore a species’ origin when evaluating the need for conservation action. Through a questionnaire-based survey of the general public and invasive species experts in both Scotland and Canada, the study revealed that perceived abundance and damage to nature and the economy, rather than non-nativeness, informed attitudes towards species management, empirically substantiating the claim that a species’ perceived abundance and impact, and not its origin, is what really matters to most people. Natural resource management should thus focus explicitly on impact-related criteria, rather than on a species’ origin.

Managing invasive species amidst high uncertainty and novelty

Most conservation biologists would agree that the spread of non-native species is undesirable and should be prevented whenever possible. This view was recently criticized by Davis et al., who argued that organisms should be assessed on their negative environmental effects rather than on whether they are native or not [1]. In a recent article in TREE, Simberloff et al. take issue with their critique, demonstrating that great progress has been made in understanding and managing the negative effects of biological invasions, and proposing that the proper role of scientists is to educate people about these negative effects and thereby to inform societal debate [2].

The Need for Indigenous Voices in Discourse about Introduced Species: Insights from a Controversy over Wild Horses

Culture, livelihoods and political-economic status all influence people’s perception of introduced and invasive species, shaping perspectives on what sort of management of them, if any, is warranted. Indigenous voices and values are under-represented in scholarly discourse about introduced and invasive species. This paper examines the relationship between the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation (one of six Tsilhqot’in communities) and wild or free-roaming horses in British Columbia, Canada. We outline how Xeni Gwet’in people value horses and experience management actions, contextualising the controversy over wild horses amidst power imbalances in the expression of environmental values. We suggest that Indigenous voices are vital to include when evaluating impacts of controversial species and developing management strategies.