Finding a middle-ground: The native/non-native debate

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThroughout the history of invasion biology, there has been long-standing and sometimes fierce debate on the perception and management of non-native species. Some argue that non-native species are universally undesirable for their unpredictability and their ability to at times dramatically disrupt native species and systems. Others argue for an approach that weighs a species' impact and role in a system before determining its desirability, irrespective of its identity. We suggest a middle-ground approach, one that does add extra caution about the desirability of non-native species relative to native species, but also bases perception and management decisions on the population stage of the non-native species and in relation to a wider range of conservation goals. In initial stages of introduction and establishment, we argue that a cautious approach is most prudent, one assuming the potential dangers of the new species in systems. In later stages of established populations, we argue that impact assessments will provide the soundest and more efficient management information, with origin and other available data included as part of the subsequent decision-making process. We explore and expand on these suggestions, and hope that the perspective presented respectfully contributes to finding a common ground in a long and polarized debate.

Incorporating novelty and novel ecosystems into restoration planning and practice in the 21st century

“…On the other hand, some concerns about novel ecosystems are misapprehensions, including a belief that invasive species will be accepted, that acceptance of novel ecosystems will replace traditional conservation and restoration practices, and that our Western consumer culture lends itself to accepting novel ecosystems into management frameworks simply because they are "new." These misapprehensions can be argued away convincingly-invasive species, whether native or non-native, should still be tackled where they pose a threat-but measures of impact may provide a pragmatic approach where prevention has already failed (Shackelford et al 2013). The management framework of novel ecosystems provides a broadening of traditional frameworks, not a replacement.…”

Missing the bandwagon: Nonnative species impacts still concern managers

“…These criticisms of invasive species management distill into two major suggested revisions of current invasive species management practices: first, that managers should distinguish between nonnative species that are invasive and those that are not (Davis 2009, Davis et al 2011, and second, that managers should be concerned with native problematic species as much as nonnative invasive species (Warren 2007, Davis 2009, Davis et al 2011, Shackelford et al 2013. A frequent response to these management critiques is that they are straw man arguments because managers already prioritize among nonnative species to target those deemed harmful to specific conservation goals (Simberloff et al 2011, Richardson andRicciardi 2013).…”

Landscape architecture and novel ecosystems: ecological restoration in an expanded field

“…To overcome the nature-culture binary (including the local native-exotic debate, (Shackelford et al 2013;Haila 2000); 2. To derive termed focal restoration (Higgs 2003), based on this specific place, not translated from practices established in the northern hemisphere; 3.…”