Gregory+Niguidula+-+6+Long+Annotations+1

Bertness, Mark D., and Tyler C. Coverdale. “An Invasive Species Facilitates the Recovery of Salt Marsh Ecosystems on Cape Cod.” //Ecology// 94.9 (2013): 1937–1943. //CrossRef//. Web. 6 Sept. 2014.

“These results suggest that invasive species can contribute to restoring degraded ecosystems and underscores the potential for invasive species to return ecological functions lost to human impacts.” “Our results suggest that the invasion of Carcinus into heavily burrowed die-off marshes on Cape Cod (Massachusetts, USA) can facilitate the recovery of cordgrass after decades of intense herbivory” “Our results show that, despite previous evidence of negative impacts on native species throughout its introduced range, Carcinus is well suited to accelerate the recovery of heavily degraded salt marsh ecosystems in New England.” The main argument is that a crab species that is considered invasive, //Carcinus maenas//, can actually be beneficial to damaged salt-marsh ecosystems by controlling native herbivorous crabs and allowing cordgrass to recover. Support for the main argument: 1. Good experimental design - 16 separate marshes were studied, including both healthy and degraded, measures were taken to reduce the impacts of the experiment on the marshes and the organisms being studied, and a large amount of data was collected. 2. Statistical analysis 3. Citing other sources while providing background and describing conclusions Literature: This contributes to the “Swimming against the tide” literature because it puts forth the very radical idea that invasive species are not always detrimental to the environment. Few other papers even acknowledge that this is a possibility, let alone study it. My argument: This is perhaps one of the more important sources in my collection because it provides direct evidence that one of the most prevalent assumptions in invasive species ecology is incorrect. The idea that all invasives are detrimental to the environment has shaped much of the research being done on them. This article pokes one of the largest holes in the current framework which I can use to justify my project. Three details:
 * 1) The invasive crab was beneficial because it controlled the populations of herbivorous native crabs which discredits the assumption that native species are always beneficial and invasives are the opposite.
 * 2) The invasive crab was found not to be present in healthy marshes, discrediting the idea that invasives require human intervention to be managed.
 * 3) The invasive crab is found in salt marshes that have been degraded by human impacts. Their classification as invasive may be evidence of a desired nature, that nature being whatever the marsh looked like before human activity took its toll.

Davis, Mark A., Ken Thompson, and J. Philip Grime. “Charles S. Elton and the Dissociation of Invasion Ecology from the Rest of Ecology.” //Diversity and Distributions// 7 (2001): 97–102. Print.

“In this essay, we argue that one impediment in the field’s development has been that the field of invasion ecology has largely dissociated itself from other subdisciplines of ecology, particularly succession ecology.” “In summary, we hope that this historical overview will prompt the field of invasion ecology to re-examine its roots and connections to other research areas.” “We believe that … knowledge from succession ecology and other subdisciplines can be used to advance the study of invasions.” Main argument: Ever since Charles Elton published his landmark book on ecological invasions, the subfield of invasion ecology has been separated from ecology’s other branches, most notably succession ecology and this has ultimately been problematic. Support for argument: Literatures - This work contributes to the literature group I have dubbed “Swimming against the tide” which is composed of sources that argue against the dominant assumptions in the world of invasion ecology. It also contributes to My argument - Because I intend on arguing that there are flaws in the current frameworks that govern invasive species management policy and putting forth possible ways to fix that. An isolation of invasion ecologists from the rest of the environmental science community is a perfect example of a flaw and bridging this divide is a perfect example of a solution. Three details: 1. This article is actually not the first time someone has called for change in how invasive species are thought of. It cites three other articles from the 1980s and 1990s that called for an end to the distinction between succession ecology and invasive ecology. This could be used in a policy recommendation. 2. Elton’s classification of species as “invasive” may be a result of his experience working in Britain during the second World War. This might form part of an argument that the current framework is flawed and based on outdated paradigms. 3. The article mentions that (at the time of its writing) contained in Britain’s official catalog of alien species contains over 3,500 entries, but only a small percentage are problematic. This is very solid evidence for the argument that invasive species are not always harmful and therefore the management strategies have to change.
 * 1) 1. Historical analysis-The divide is traced back to the publishing of Charles Elton’s book //The Ecology of Invasions by Plants and Animals// and then its development is followed up to the time of the article’s writing (2001).
 * 2) 2. Modern examples of the divide, most significantly counting the number of citations in then-recent Invasion Ecology reviews (published in 1999) and finding that none of them contained succession ecology keywords.
 * 3) 3. Putting forth ways that invasion ecology could benefit from succession ecology approaches and ideas.

Davis, Mark A., and Ken Thompson. “Eight Ways to Be a Colonizer; Two Ways to Be an Invader: A Proposed Nomenclature Scheme for Invasion Ecology.” //Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America// (2000): 226–230. Print.

“We believe that inconsistent and imprecise use of invasion terminology is one factor that is contributing to the ongoing difficulties of the field. Thus … we propose a similar classification scheme for invasion nomenclature in an attempt to provide some clarity to the field of invasion ecology and to promote new perspectives.” “Until a commonly accepted vocabulary is adopted by invasion ecologists, we think the field will continue to have difficulty developing reliable generalizations, partly due to misunderstandings and misinterpretations among investigators.” “The scheme is organized around three distinctive aspects of the colonizer: dispersal distance (short or long), uniqueness (novel or common to the region colonized), and impact in the new environment (small or great).” Main Argument: In invasive species literature, species are generally grouped into several ill-defined categories that have no standardized meaning. This is a major hindrance to the field of invasion ecology, but this could be fixed if an adequate classification system was adopted by the scientific community. The system proposed categorizes colonizing species based on the criteria of dispersal distance, uniqueness, and impact in the new environment. Literatures: This piece contributes to the “swimming against the tide” literature group because it attempts to change the common practices of invasion ecologists. My argument: Though the classification scheme proposed by the authors has not been as widely adopted as they had hoped, this paper is still useful because it demonstrates a clear lack of consistency by invasion ecologists in the terms they use. This gives credit to the idea that “invasive” is largely a highly subjective term and sometimes reflects a nature desired by humans. Support: Of the eight possible subclassifications put forth by the paper, the authors recommend that the word “invasive” be used to describe two of them. This can be used to attack the indiscriminate use of the word “invasive” to describe foreign species. The paper cites a 1981 article by Deborah Rabinowitz that revolutionized how species are classified based on rarity. It makes for good evidence that such a classification system would be useful. Invasive ecology is referred to as largely “qualitative” which is strange for a hard science, even biology. This is seen as a deficiency in the field and a good amount of my thesis will be spent identifying such deficiencies.

MacIsaac, Hugh J., Rahel A. Tedla, and Anthony Ricciardi. “Chapter 5: Patterns and Rate of Growth of Studies in Invasion Ecology.” //Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The Legacy of Charles Elton//. Ed. David M. Richardson. John Wiley & Sons, 2011. //Google Books//. Web. Main argument: The three hypotheses tested by the article are as follows: non-indigenous animals accumulate studies earlier than non-indigenous plant; Terrestrial non-indigenous species accumulate studies earlier than aquatic species; finally, aquatic invertebrates accumulate studies later than fishes. Using statistical analysis of the Web of Science database, it was concluded that only the first hypothesis was correct. Support for main argument Literature This chapter is difficult to categorize based on the literature categories I have put in place, but the best fit is in group 1, which is made up of the articles that allow me to understand the framework and history of invasive species research & management. This article fits into that category because it quantifies and categorizes the publications on invasive species and identifies trends in the field. My argument: This article references at several points the role human preference plays in invasive species research and even acknowledges the possibility that bias has helped shape key assumptions in the field of invasive species ecology. This piece will be helpful in providing background on what species are commonly studied and serve as a starting point for an analysis of the field’s current framework(s). Estévez, Rodrigo A. et al. “Clarifying Values, Risk Perceptions, and Attitudes to Resolve or Avoid Social Conflicts in Invasive Species Management.” //Conservation Biology// (2014): n/a–n/a. //Wiley Online Library//. Web. 6 Oct. 2014. Main Argument: Resolving and preventing conflicts that arise around invasive species is important yet has not been thoroughly researched or studied. The proposed solution in this article involves structured decision making as well as risk communication and trust building. Support for Main Argument Literature: This work contributes to my “swimming against the tide” group by proposing a new approach for dealing with invasive species and the problems that surround them. My argument: While it doesn’t directly address the idea of desired natures, this article does deal with the broader area of value systems. It also mentions a dichotomy between scientist self-reported research foci and their output. Overall, it is extremely useful for framing my argument and is evidence that new approaches to dealing with and thinking about invasive species are needed. Support for my argument:
 * 1) “Consistent with our first hypothesis, animals were significantly better studied than plants.”
 * 2) “The hypothesis that terrestrial species tend to be more conspicuous than aquatic species and therefore better studied was not supported.”
 * 3) “Consequently, our third hypothesis that the widespread stocking of fishes would result in more publications than for invertebrates was not supported.”
 * 1) Explaining the mathematical basis for the statistical methods used
 * 2) Limiting bias by choosing species to analyze from a separately published list
 * 3) Providing possible explanations for the results not being consistent with the hypotheses.
 * 1) “…publication patterns for different non - indigenous species reflect differences in their importance to, interest in or utility of these species to humans.”
 * 2) “It remains to be determined how this bias may have influenced key concepts in the field.”
 * 3) “Publication histories indicate that studies on most of the species that we investigated have increased dramatically since 1990.”
 * 1) “To date, however, no evaluation has examined commonalities and differences in the patterns and types of these social issues. Therefore, we reviewed and analyzed bibliographic trends in the social dimensions of invasive species research and management and explored the sources and potential solutions to problems and conflicts that arise around invasive species.”
 * 2) “The study and management of invasive species is faced with new challenges related to the societal demands for stakeholder participation in decision making. Scientists and managers, therefore, must adapt their strategies to these new socio-ecological scenarios that involve conceptual, practical, and ethical considerations.”
 * 3) “We found that conflicts surrounding invasive species arose based largely on differences in value systems and to a lesser extent stakeholder and decision maker's risk perceptions. To confront or avoid such situations, we suggest integrating the plurality of environmental values into invasive species research and management via structured decision making techniques, which enhance effective risk communication that promotes trust and confidence between stakeholders and decision makers.”
 * 1) 1. The work is framed very well. An entire section of the paper is devoted to explaining the ideas that many have in their mind when dealing with invasive species.
 * 2) 2. The methods were explained very thoroughly. An analysis of Web of Science search results was detailed and justified.
 * 3) 3. The methods and recommendations were all well supported by other literature from a variety of fields. Frameworks and categorization systems from other authors in the social sciences and biology were utilized.
 * 1) 1. In the article a conceptual framework is diagrammed. This framework is based on values which influence risk perceptions and attitudes which lead to certain behaviors. This can be among the conceptual frameworks I put forth while framing the argument as it is very useful for a social science approach like mine.
 * 2) 2. The discussion of structured decision making will be useful for increasing the scope and credibility of the recommendations I make. I expect that the discussion within my own paper may have to touch upon philosophy and this will help me do that with more confidence.
 * 3) 3. Lastly, this piece provides good data on the different value systems involved when dealing with invasive species. These value systems have been well categorized, making analyzing them in my work far easier.

Cook, David, and Wendy Proctor. “Assessing the Threat of Exotic Plant Pests.” //Ecological Economics// 63.2–3 (2007): 594–604. //ScienceDirect//. Web. 6 Oct. 2014. Ecological Economics of Coastal Disasters Coastal Disasters Special Section. “The application of the DMCE technique in a biosecurity resource-allocation context warrants further investigation.” “The resulting priorities were contrary to the current funding priorities placed on EPPs and showed that incorporation of wider considerations reflecting sustainable development and greater availability of information was essential in dealing with these potential problems.” “Despite the seemingly small change in the outcomes of rankings as a result of the deliberations, the process, as noted previously, was successful in revealing some important problems that need to be addressed with respect to EPP assessments. Main argument: The practice of multi-criteria evaluation is a powerful tool and can be applied to invasive species prioritization. While the results of the study were uncertain, the prioritization of species produced by the study differed from the actual order of resource allocation, indicating that more study may be beneficial. Support for main argument: Literature: This falls squarely within my first literature framing category because the assumptions in this paper are much like the other invasive species articles. The assumption that all invasive species are detrimental is clearly made. My argument: This paper is interesting because it shows the relationship that invasive species management to another controversial science with a strong sway over policy: economics. Perhaps the most important information to be found in this piece will be finding out how invasive species management is embedded in the very powerful economic system. Support for my argument: While the benefits of invasive species are not accounted for, the cultural significance of the species to indigenous peoples is. This, as an economics article, provides some insight into how the resources used to combat invasive species are allocated. This is interesting because resource allocation can probably be analyzed and conclusions about the priorities of the people governing these resources can be drawn. On a related note, actual dollar amounts that the Australian government has spent on invasive species management were cited. These numbers are in the millions, which speaks to the seriousness with which invasive species are treated.
 * 1) The approach being tested is described as effective in other situations, justifying the experiment with the possible benefits this decision making model may have.
 * 2) The approach is very well organized and thorough, incorporating species of different impact levels.
 * 3) Flaws in the study are openly acknowledged and accounted for in the results.