Are we supposed to try to see zebra mussels and house sparrows in a sympathetic light now? As a biologist, I get to see first hand what invasive species can do to healthy ecosystems. Certainly some are more damaging than others, but the fact remains that no new species can enter a given ecosystem without causing harm to the organisms that "belong" there. Trying to tie a response to ecological damage to immigration politics or P.C. "dorm-room headscratchers" is moronic at best and extremely counterproductive at worst. We're supposed to just live with the results of previous poor management practices? You know what else? We might enjoy global warming, too. And atomic war will give our land masses a nice, healthy glow. So, since they're inevitable, relax and enjoy them!

I dig your name but I disagree.

Who are you to say that they "don't belong there"? I am a biologist too, but I don't pretend to know who belongs and who doesn't. Every organism on Hawaii based on your view "doesn't belong there". Species distribution is not static! They migrate, the find other places where they can exploit the surroundings, and in time they too will be part of that new ecosystem. Let life be life and accept that you really don't know what is best and that change is the most powerful aspect of life. Atomic war in the form of a comet 65 million years ago really sucked for most of the life here but it was great for mammals... with out that catastrophe we may not be here!

I don't believe I said anything like "every organism on Hawaii doesn't belong there." But the ones brought by humans that are destroying the natural ecosystems (like the rats, pigs, and cats decimating Hawaii's native birds) don't belong there.

I don't mean to be personal, but your attitude is unlike any biologist I've ever been around, met, read, or had any passing familiarity with.

The point of the article was not, as you suggested, to get us "to see zebra mussels and house sparrows in a sympathetic light", but rather to promote more rational thinking concerning introduced species. The language of invasion biology itself, including such terms as "alien" and "invader", is obviously very emotionally biased, and I don't see how such analysis is moronic. I do have to agree that the introduction of some species have had extremely negative results and are now a pain to deal with. However, sometimes, as I would argue is the case with zebra mussels, we just have to accept that the ecosystems have changed, there's no way we're getting these things out of there, and maybe it's time to design some better pipes, instead of pumping countless dollars and man hours into a fruitless battle.

Tammy: But let's see these efforts for what they are: expressions of human preferences rather than imperatives that flow directly from the science

I think you’ve been goofin’ with the bees, Tammy… (The Nazis?)…doh!

These invaders extract a huge cost. The current annual environmental, economic, and health-related costs of invasive species exceed those of all other natural disasters combined.

Invasive Species Information Node

Also, it turns out that air pollution turns your skin a nice color of brown!

"These invaders extract a huge cost. The current annual environmental, economic, and health-related costs of invasive species exceed those of all other natural disasters combined."

HAP,

You raise a good point, but I think it's more the case that, when things are thought to be true (whether they are or not), they become real in their consequences. I have two friends who spent an entire summer picking weeds in a national park, at a huge cost, and they got no where. But the weeds that they were picking were on roadsides, about the most disturbed environments you can get. These weeds had not spread to any great extent into the undisturbed forests, and it was largely an aesthetic endeavour. But the cost of the whole exercise, and many others like it, would be included in the statistic you cite.

I'm not saying, far from it really, that invasive species haven't done any harm, but I think a lot of the money and effort we spend on them is a waste of time and based on an irrational emotional response.

Perhaps I could interest you in purchasing some Pueraria lobata cuttings? Buy one, get one free through Christmas!

Every organism that got to Hawaii got there from somewhere else. Why is is any different for one to get there by ship and another floating along on debris? Humans are no less natural than a hurricane. Again, you have no business saying what "belongs there" and what doesn't and your idea of "destroying" ecosystems is incredibly myopic. Ecosystems, change they cannot be destroyed. Look at the major catastrophes that occurred in the Earths history, none of them destroyed life completely.

As for your last comment, if you are going to call me a lair just do it, unless you mean that you only read and talk to biologists that you agree with. Science isn't about sitting around and agreeing with each other.

Well, I guess by your name you may be a paleontologist or a paleontology enthusiast. I am a microbiology major with a PhD in Immunology. I work at the NIH right now studying T cell development. Still don't believe me? I am the first author.

<link>

...is about as good as my understanding of immunology.

Here's why it's different to bring in organisms by ship: the animals that occur naturally in Hawaii--that is to say the ones that were NOT brought by humans--have done so over the millions of years that Hawaii has existed. They evolved in the presence of each other, and have had milions of years to adapt to themselves and to each other. They actually have an ecosystem and a community that is balanced. Those brought by humans have been introduced over the last few hundred years. They have no natural enemies, predators, parasites, or pathogens on the islands, and thus have a huge competitive advantage. They'll wipe out the natives in a relative blink of an eye--they have done so to a huge degree. Most of the native bird fauna of Hawaii is either extinct or teetering on the edge of extinction. Native plants are being wiped out by introduced aliens. If you don't think that biodiversity is important, then of course, this isn't a big deal. But it also means that you don't know what you're talking about, because biodiversity is extremely important, even if for none other than economic reasons.

have done so over the millions of years that Hawaii has existed. They evolved in the presence of each other, and have had milions of years to adapt to themselves and to each other

You are making a big assumption here that all the species on Hawaii arrived at the same time. Most likely they didn't. It doesn't matter whether a pig gets to Hawaii by boat or by natural raft formed by a hurricane, the pig still has the same advantage when it gets there.

The problem here is that you are looking at the short term, I am looking at the long term. I am not disagreeing that introduced species won't have an advantage at first, but an equilibrium will establish over time. A pig arriving on Hawaii may be the catalyst for new Hawaiian species hundreds of thousands of years from now, who are you to say that is "bad"?

Let's add a few drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii to an ecosystem that consists of, oh, all the cells of your body. Over the long term, what's going to happen? It'll be completely natural, but an equilibrium will establish over time. Who are you to say that that is "bad?" Only anybody who cares anything about you, or who thinks you have some economic or aesthetic value.

It is not bad. Trilobites were here on Earth for a long long time, now they are gone. I think it would be awesome if there were triceratops roaming the countryside but they are gone. There are countless beautiful and valuable things that don't exist anymore, their demise allows for the new beautiful things.

Also, you analogy is flawed. If I understand it right, my body represents an ecosystem and the bacterial infection is the invasive species. In the infection I most likely would die and then no more me, but the actual ecosytem will not die, it will simple change. It will be less diverse for a while while the invader has the advantage but soon the invader runs out of space and resource and the surviving organisms will evolve to take advantage of the new and abundant invader. Meanwhile the invader itself will evolve to be less aggressive because rapidly consuming resources is bad for the invader as well. Change the analogy to colonizing the gut with new bacteria after being on antibiotics or EBV which infects 90% of us for life and most of us don't know it because over time we adapted to the virus and it adapted to us, killing the host is bad business.

"Their demise allows for new beautiful things." It takes thousands of years for new species to arise. The result of human activity is going to be a depauperate biota that will take millions of years to recover, and will almost certainly not include humans. If you'd like to be part of a "natural event" like a meteor strike that's your business, but it's all you, buddy. I don't want any part of it.

I'm afraid your understanding of evolution is a bit confused. Yes, over time, a population of bacteria will evolve to be less virulent--but in the meantime, individual bacteria still kill their hosts. Individual organisms don't evolve. And my analogy is exactly apt, for the very reason you point out--killing the host is bad business. Whether you like it or not, or care to admit it or not, our very existence depends upon biodiversity. Wipe it out, and it's good-bye humans. We're killing the host. But there the analogy ends, since we only have one possible host. Kill it and we're done.

Individual organisms don't evolve.

Come on man, I never said that, I said over time. Again you see biology in all or nothing terms. As humans have been exposed to a herpes virus over time the strain of virus will evolve to become less virulent and the host will evolve to tolerate the virus. Example EBV infects most of us for life and most people are never aware they have it. But to get to that point many humans died in the past, but most lived. Sometimes the organism moves from being tolerated to becoming integral to the host like commensal bacteria on the skin and in the gut. Some invaders like Yersinia pestis (causitive agent of black plague) kills of lots and lots of people and those that gain resistance to it give rise to offspring many years down the road that are also resistant to HIV. Many HIV non-progressors owe their life to Yersinia! Any infection will kill some people but not all (if we are the ecosystem), similarly invasive species will not destroy the world either, for they have to live here too! Although some seem out of control now they will be checked later.

It is not that I want to be in the next massive die off, it is just that I don't see my life as any more important than a trilobite or Yersinia pestis. I accept that life is dynamic not static and that large die offs are a part of this cycle. Humans will eventually become extinct for one reason or another, you have not convinced my why I should give a fuck.