Gregory+Niguidula+-+6+Long+Annotations+2

Elton, Charles S. //The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants//. Great Britain: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1958. Print.

Important Quotes: "It is not just nuclear bombs and wars that threaten us, though these rank very high on the list at the moment: there are other sorts of explosions, and this book is about ecological explosions" "I use the word 'explosion' deliberately, because it means the bursting out from control of forces that were previously held in restraint by other forces." "We must make no mistake: we are seeing one of the great historical convulsions in the world's fauna and flora. We might say, with Professor Challenger, standing on Conan Doyle's 'Lost Word'...'We have been privileged to be present at one of the typical decisive battles of history - the battles which have determined the fate of the world.' But how will it be decisive? Will it be a Lost Word? These are questions that ecologists ought to try to answer."

Main Argument: Elton made the argument that 'ecological explosions' caused by species introduced by humans present a very large threat to ecosystems and people. He also urged ecologist to act quickly in order to conserve the environment.

Support for main argument: 1. Seven case studies of different invading species including plants, animals, and microbes, were presented. Each showed a different kind of devastation on the environment. 2. He uses analogies, categorizing biological explosions with nuclear explosions, for example, to impress the seriousness of the threat upon the reader. 3. He addresses other views and makes his seem like the most realistic and logical.

Literatures: This text is perhaps the most important piece of framing literature. This book and its author are credited with creating the field of invasion ecology. Much of the field's groundwork lies here and reading it is essential to understanding how the field 'works' so to speak.

My Argument: What this book does is provide context that allows one to better understand all of invasion ecology which will greatly enhance my own understanding and my argument by extension. Some authors have already attributed some of the fields flaws to the book, something I may be able to do as well.

Support for my Argument Elton uses analogies that allude to the second world war. This makes the piece seem outdated along with some of the conclusions drawn from it. Only seven species are used as case studies, certainly too small to make some of the negative generalizations about invasive species that Elton and others have made. Naturally, it is clear that Elton's intentions in writing the book were very good, going on about the importance of conservation and discussing at length human attitudes toward the environment. Newer data and articles can be used to argue that in order for his wishes to be fulfilled, another approach has to be taken.

Ricciardi, Anthony, and Hugh J. MacIsaac. “In Retrospect: The Book That Began Invasion Ecology.” //Nature// 452.7183 (2008): 34–34. //www.nature.com//. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

Important Quotes: "Previously, ecologists had treated invasions as anomalies. Elton characterized them as being symptomatic of a process that could alter the biological landscape of the planet." "Elton demonstrated the profound influence of human activities in reshaping species distributions." "His book sounded an early warning that, having gone largely unheeded for three decades, has become a clarion call that resonates in the work of invasion ecologists worldwide."

Main Argument After Elton's book was published, it took over three decades to gain significance. However, recent years have seen it become the cornerstone of an entire field of ecology and many of the ideas put forth within the book have become important research foci.

Support for Main Argument 1. Quantitative data. The article's only figure is a graph that clearly shows how citations for the book and publications in invasive ecology have increased exponentially (in the literal sense) over the past decade or two. 2. The ideas from the book that found widespread acceptance are touted as being ahead of their time. 3. Facts about the field of invasion ecology and the incredible growth it has experienced are reflected upon.

Literatures This article fits neatly among the framing literatures. While it does not specifically address the costs or benefits of invasive species very much, it succinctly summarizes the evolution of the field of invasion ecology since the book was published.

My argument: While the article frames the strong influence that Elton has had on ecology as a positive phenomenon, the exact same information could be used to frame it as a negative. As long as I have first established the flaws in Elton's book, then I can use this article to show how misconceptions and over generalizations put forth in it have been perpetuated.

Support for my argument: 1. It is mentioned that Elton got rid of the idea that invasions were anomalies. But if they are part of nature, then why did he make the assumption that they are negative? 2. This article reminded me that not all the ideas presented in the book are bad ones. Something worth keeping in mind while writing the thesis. 3. The article provides good information about how the field did not gain much attention until the early 1990s and hypothesizes that the //Caulerpa taxafolia// invasion in the Mediterranean Seawas a catalyst for this. Knowing about the history is very important for my argument.

Davis, Mark A. et al. “Don’t Judge Species on Their Origins.” //Nature// 474.7350 (2011): 153–154. //www.nature.com//. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

Important Quotes "Increasingly, the practical value of the native-versus-alien species dichotomy in conservation is declining, and even becoming counterproductive. Yet many conservationists still consider the distinction a core guiding principle" "...many of the claims driving people's perception that introduced species pose an apocalyptic threat to biodiversity are not backed by data." "We are not suggesting that conservationists abandon their efforts to mitigate serious problems caused by some introduced species, or that governments should stop trying to prevent potentially harmful species from entering their countries. But we urge conservationists and land managers to organize priorities around whether species are producing benefits or harm to biodiversity, human health, ecological services and economies."

Main Argument: The current rhetoric of invasion ecology is fixated on distinguishing invasives from natives because it is assumed that one is, by its nature, preferable over the other. However, this approach is neither practical nor justified. Species should be managed only when they are the cause of significant damage and not simply because of their origins.

Support for Main Argument 1. Providing examples where species invasion management can be considered a waste of time and resources. 2. Providing examples of when the fear of an invasive species was not backed by data. 3. Presenting their argument as a one that is more realistic and fits better with the changing climate.

Literatures This most heavily contributes to the "swimming against the tide" literature because it attempts to take on the dominant way of thinking in invasion ecology.

My argument The article provides some much needed evidence for my argument that desired natures are prevalent in invasive species policy. While desired natures are not explicitly addressed, related issues like irrational fear of invasive species and the assumption that native species are benign are. The article also lends credibility to my argument because it was authored by 18 ecologists and published in Nature.

Support for my argument 1. "Specifically, policy and management decisions must take into account the positive effects of many invaders." This quote will almost certainly be a part of the thesis because I intend to provide specific ways that policy can do exactly that. 2. This article is a good source of examples of when invasive species management did not result in the desired effect. 3. The article mentions the use of military metaphors by Elton and those that came after him to portray invasive species as enemies of humanity. This can be an extension of my argument that Elton's book is largely outdated and misguided.

Larson, Brendon M. H., and Christoph Kueffer. “Managing Invasive Species amidst High Uncertainty and Novelty.” //Trends in Ecology & Evolution// 28.5 (2013): 255–256. //ScienceDirect//. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

Important Quotes "As an interdisciplinary group of ecologists and social scientists, we agree that invasion biologists should interact with society, yet we wish to point out some of the difficulties of this interaction in situations in which our understanding remains highly uncertain." "...biological facts about invasions will sometimes not suffice to convince the public about the importance of a precautionary approach; rather, we require more social scientific insights into why some people prefer caution whereas others are willing to opt for novelty." "when uncertainties are high, it will be unclear whether action – or inaction – will have net positive or negative consequences."

Main argument: It is the job of scientists to inform society about the risks and dangers brought forth by invasive species, but caution has to be exercised when there is a high degree of uncertainty.

Support for main argument 1. This article was mainly written in response another that criticized the piece written by Davis et al. Much of the text is spent picking apart that article. For example, inconsistently using the word "impact" 2. It is made clear that there is often too many unknowns for scientists to adequately inform the public about the "dangers" a species possesses. 3. Warning society of dangers is made to seem like something that should be an exceptional case, not the norm, simply because scientists often don't understand it themselves.

My argument This piece is the first real insight I have found into the ongoing debate between the dominant school of thought and the one proposed by Davis et al. in the previous source. It doesn't completely refute either, but it does take issue with an article written by Simberloff et al. that critique's Davis and his colleagues. Simberloff is clearly an important figure in invasive ecology and he might be seen as a symbol.

Support for my argument 1. The implies that Simberloff's approach is not the most cautious which means I can infer that Simberloff''s approach is dangerous. 2. Heavy emphasis is placed on the idea that there is a high degree of uncertainty when it comes to the impacts of invasive species which is very good evidence for the argument that current practices and assumptions should be changed. 3. The idea that certain "solutions" can make the situation work provides a similar argument.

Simberloff, Daniel, Virginie Maris, and Jean-Louis Martin. “Inaction ≠ Caution: Response to Larson, Kueffer, and the ZiF Working Group on Ecological Novelty.” //Trends in Ecology & Evolution// 28.5 (2013): 257. //ScienceDirect//. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

"We are forced to act, if only because failing to act is also an action, and such failure to act is not generically more cautious than acting." "However, there is nothing inherently cautious about doing nothing in the face of a small patch of a recently introduced plant or a pond with a population of an introduced fish." "It is neither irrational nor illegitimate for society to decide to act aggressively in a situation in which failure to act could conceivably lead to a very bad consequence, even if the likelihood is low or the probability uncertain. This is the very spirit of the precautionary principle."

Main Argument This is a response article to Larson et al. (above) written by the same people that wrote the original article. Their main contention is that the Larson article is wrong in suggesting that not taking action is the more cautious and practical decision.

Support for main argument. 1. Using Larson's logic against him. The argument was that what Larson was proposing was not actually a cautious approach, but quite the opposite. 2. This is also done by agreeing with parts of Larson's article. 3. Finally, Larson and his team are made to look like they do not understand the article they criticized or the practical realities of invasive species management.

My Argument I think this piece provides the best insight into the philosophies that drive many invasion ecologists. Picking this apart and critiquing it will be very useful for understanding in greater detail the thought processes of the authors and others like them.

Support for my argument "We suspect that the ongoing attempt by Larson et al. [1,5] to police the vocabulary of conservation science communication will be futile." While this is a bit of a tangent, it does seem to reflect a truth that has been hinted at in other works I've read. "In addition, we stand by our claim that the spread of invasive species is, in fact, ‘reminiscent of armies moving’. This is precisely why military metaphors abound in descriptions of invasions, as in public health, and it is unlikely that scientists or the public looking at maps of the spread of invasions will fail to see the resemblance." - Finally I've found justification for the military metaphors in the literature. " We reject the contention that we sow confusion by defining impact neutrally, as any significant change, regardless of its perceived value to humans. In fact, we avoid confusion by being explicit." - This is perhaps the weakest counterargument in the piece. It does not say why the contention is rejected, it just makes a statement that is in direct contrast with the one made by Larson et al. Also it is worth noting that action requires, resources, inaction does not.

Hulme, Philip E. et al. “Bias and Error in Understanding Plant Invasion Impacts.” //Trends in Ecology & Evolution// 28.4 (2013): 212–218. //ScienceDirect//. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

" By pointing out research and methodological gaps, we propose a new agenda for impact studies that aims to deliver greater consensus regarding the threat posed by alien plants and to provide a more rigorous basis for their management." "...only nine species account for one-third of all quantitative assessments of ecological impacts" "Variation in impacts should be expected and researchers must try to incorporate such variation in their designs by specifically examining impacts across explicit environmental gradients or invasion chronosequences. Recognizing that researchers might only have the resources to measure a few responses, pragmatic approaches must be implemented that ensure that the links are defined between species traits, ecosystem stocks and flows, as well as services."

Main Argument: The impacts of quantitative alien plant studies are limited by inconsistent approaches, lack of predictive tools, and poorly defined links between key concepts.

Support for main argument 1. A meta-analysis of hundreds of published articles was used to determine to what extent plant invasion species are understood using a statistics. 2. Species bias was examined closely and was quantified and presented in a graph. 3. Some of the claims made seem subjective, so sources are heavily cited and all methods are defended.

My argument The authors of this study claim that this is the "first detailed critique of quantitative field studies of alien plant impacts" and find that there are quite a few areas in which the field as a whole could improve. While desired natures are not mentioned, bias, subjectivity, and their negative effects on the efficacy of the field research are, so my argument that the current methods of thinking and doing in invasion ecology is flawed can be supported.

Support for my argument 1. The article goes into variability and context dependency of alien species impacts. The conclusion drawn is that too many articles do not take into account factors beyond the single species being studied. This is evidence that many invasion ecologists do not see the "big picture." 2. The article brings up the many forms of bias which the authors feel have made it impossible to adequately predict alien species impact based solely on current studies. 3. "Current knowledge of impacts is drawn largely from a relatively small number of herbaceous species in the temperate environments of the northern hemisphere, which more than likely reflects the coincidence of research effort and the tractability of these systems for study rather than management priorities." This quote is further evidence that research is not driven entirely by concern for the environment, but rather human interests.