Facing the broader dimensions of biological invasions

Abstract

Invasive species are an excellent opportunity to think about the nature society desires, particularly in the face of global changes. Nature, and human views of nature, are rapidly evolving; our approach to biological invasions through biosecurity institutions and land management policies must evolve in tandem with these changes. We review three dimensions that are insufficiently addressed. First, biological invasions are culturally shaped and interpreted. Humans play a major role in the movement and nurturing of alien life, and aesthetics, perception, and emotion are deeply implicated in the and management of invasive species. What people fear or regret with invasive species are not their effects on nature per se, but their effects on a particular desired nature, and policymaking must reflect this. Second, biological invasions are not restricted to negative impacts. Invasions take place in landscapes where many natural conditions have been altered, so policy tools must recognize that invasive species are a functional, structural and compositional part of transformed ecosystems. In some cases, native species benefit from changes in resource availability caused by invasions or from protections provided by an invasive plant. Finally, invasive species can help ecosystems and people to adapt to global change by maintaining ecosystem processes such as productivity, carbon storage, and nutrient cycling in a context of climate change or land cover transformations. While recognition is growing among ecologists that novel, invaded ecosystems have value, and while the on-the-ground application of biosecurity policies has of necessity adjusted to local contexts and other agendas, invasion biology could aid policymaking by better addressing the three complexities inherent in the three dimensions highlighted above.

Nature conservation in the Anthropocene: preservation, restoration and the challenge of novel ecosystems

“…A key line of contention between the historically orientated compositional emphasis of traditional conservation approaches and the future orientated functional concerns of the novel ecosystems perspective is the divergent position of each regarding the ontological status of non-native species (Tassin and Kull, 2015). For preservation focused approaches, non-native species are conceived as undesirable human introductions that threaten the intrinsic value of autogenic dynamics.…”

The progress of interdisciplinarity in invasion science

“…Many introduced species are useful in new geographic areas, e.g. to provide resources or improve ecosystem services Tassin and Kull 2015;Vaz et al 2017). However, a small proportion of non-native species becomes invasive (sensu , i.e.…”

“…Larson 2005;Carruthers et al 2011;Hattingh 2011;Kull et al 2011;Rotherham and Lambert 2011;. Contributions from these scholars call for the elucidation of feedbacks between ecological and social drivers (Kueffer 2013;Matzek et al 2013), and the valuation of invasion effects which are co-produced by society, scientific facts, and cultural norms (McNeely 2001;Hattingh 2011;Kull et al 2011;Estévez et al 2014;Jeschke et al 2014;Tassin and Kull 2015;Essl et al 2017;Kueffer and Kull 2017). Other scholars have also focused on the role of societal beliefs, perceptions, memory, and cultural aspects related to non-native and invasive species that shape human attitudes, and therefore decisions relating to these species management (e.g.…”

“…As in the case of other environmental challenges (Liu et al 2007;Larson 2011;Tengö et al 2014;Rissman and Gillon 2016;Bennett et al 2017), a socialecological lens can help to reframe invasion science (e.g. Larson 2007;Kueffer 2013;Matzek et al 2013;Tassin and Kull 2015) by better accounting for social-ecological feedbacks that mediate the dynamics and valuation of biological invasions (Kueffer 2013;Kull et al 2013;. A social-ecological perspective is particularly expected to improve the effectiveness of invasion science for management (e.g.…”

Moral-Material Ontologies of Nature Conservation: Exploring the Discord between Ecological Restoration and Novel Ecosystems

“…(Clewell and Aronson, 2013, 246) In countering the assertions of those advancing the novel ecosystems perspective, the adherents of more traditional forms of ecological restoration 'argue for a precautionary principle', where 'rather than embracing invasion-driven 'novel ecosystems' as a 'new normal', we should seek to reestablish [sic]…the historical trajectory of ecosystems, before they were deflected by human activity' (Murcia et al, 2014, 549). Accordingly, a key matter of disagreement regarding the legitimacy of conservation activity between these contending paradigms are the contrasting perspectives on the management of non-native species (Tassin and Kull, 2015). For adherents to traditional practices, 'since ecological restoration of natural ecosystems attempts to recover as much historical authenticity as can be reasonably accommodated, the reduction or elimination of exotic species at restoration project sites is highly desirable ' (SER, 2004, 9).…”