Discussion summary of Dr. Mark A Davis
Thank you everyone that came on Thursday to discuss the ideas and research of Dr. Mark A. Davis. The discussion on Thursday was a lot of things and was full of energy and dialogue and mostly civil. I know we hit a nerve with this topic and I'm thankful to be part of a community that is willing to face controversial subjects to make our work better.
The main take aways from the discussion were:
There is division in the way attendees viewed non-natives, but most people don't see them as black and white.
Rhetoric around invasive species can be problematic and we should all examine the meanings of our commonly used words.
And it is OK to uncomfortable- Speak your truth, embrace discomfort and except non-closure!
And here are some snippets overheard at the discussion:
-Dr. Davis didn't take into account a lot of the science around Garlic Mustard, such that in Minnesota it is on the edge of -suitability model's ranges, where it is not the case in Oregon.
-Many invasive species are early-successional species. Why are they where they are? Have those drivers changed? Are there places where some might be facilitating other species? How to minimize continual redisturbance?
-Many mangers already spend a lot of time carefully weighing costs and benefits of invasives removal rather than just trying to nuke everything non-native.
-Garlic mustard spread is a combination of non-native slugs, deer and worms that create conditions for it to flourish as researched by Dr. Bernd Blossey
-Invasive species work is just keeping an allusion that we have control of the system.
-Humans are the ultimate invasive species and most invasives are just our "passengers"
-Humans have managed the landscape for thousands of years.
-We often use a strange baseline for restoration: ~50 years after Native Americans and beavers were greatly reduced on the landscape.
-The longer I work in this field, the smaller the list of species I decide to manage against is.
- The talk was insulting and black and white.
-Talking about natives and non-natives and novel ecosystems could be thought about as too different mind sets, similar to the black and white of Judeo-Christian beliefs and Eastern values where everything is cool.
-We are managing for human values; there is always cultural evolution.
-People make good decisions when they know they don't know everything. People make bad decisions when they think they know everything.
-Challenge to not use evaluative words like “good” and “bad” when describing species.
-You can’t just jump to a conclusion because something pretty landed on it.
-All you can do is be a reflective practitioner.
-What are the impacts of invasive species and of their management? Ecological, economics, human health?
-Change is always hard; sometimes it’s bad and sometimes it’s not.
-What if I told you there is a plant that is the best at sequestering nitrogen and uptaking heavy metals from the air, and that plant is English Ivy? (said by a Professor that studies air quality and plants)
-Indigenous peoples used to gather lots of data as they spend a lot of time outside and come home and discuss what they saw, discuss management decisions and take note of the the responses of the species. We are now working under low ecological knowledge when that huge lineage of history of nature observations has been severe. Little time in the field, limited budget, no culture of sharing daily nature observations, and we are trying to make the best decisions with what we have.
-In California it was found that the rare/protected Red-legged frog was hybridizing with the invasive bull frog. At first most scientists immediately wanted to kill all the bull frogs, but Native americans on the task force said they decide by "asking the Red Legged frog what it wants". And the answer was the Red legged frog would want to survive and have its offspring. The indigenous also stated "We have changed everything, why would we slaughter them?"
-Animals want to live their lives and so what can we do to help them?
And here are the (very non-random, non scientific) SURVEY RESULTS (of scientists!)
Does your job involve the planning, management, and/or control of invasive species?(35 responses)
Yes 82.9% No 17.1%
Yes 29
No 6
Age(37 responses)
0-2425-3536-4546-55over 5510.8%10.8%40.5%37.8%
0-24 0
25-35 14
36-45 15
46-55 4
over 55 4
Dr. Mark Davis's gave a talk at the SER conference titled "Little Evidence of Negative Effects by Garlic Mustard on Other Understory Plants in a Minnesota Oak Forest.” His 3 year study showed no evidence that garlic mustard had any effect on the presence of other understory species. Will these results effect how you consider garlic mustard specifically or invasive species in general?
Yes: 9 (26%)
Potentially or Maybe: 7 (21%)
No or not likely: 18 (53%)
Please write any other responses, comments or questions that you have surrounding Dr. Mark Davis's viewpoint, or about how you may or may not think differently about invasive species or conservation biology. (Just a few published here!)
"There are a wide variety of micro-organisms that rely on the native species of an area. If we allow invasive species to replace our native species, even if they provide the same functions, then we will lose these species."
"We know that plants native to this region provide ecological function; that makes the decision to use them in restoration easy. As to leaving non-native plants, it would require decades of research to make a science based decision about which ones are neutral, net benefit, or detrimental. There is also likely a lot of gray area; a plant may benefit some species while displacing others."
"Well I hold a lot of reservations to points he made, I very much agree that it is a conversation worth having and that we need to examine how we view, label, and finally approach our application of ecological restoration."
"...To argue about whether or not there is such a thing as an "invasive species" misses the point entirely: incomprehensibly complex systems have given rise to the only life known to exist in the universe. We tinker with those systems at our own peril, to say nothing of that of every other species. "Novel ecosystems" strikes me as the restoration equivalent of "God is dead;" if human activity is to be given such license, there's no longer a foundation for this field's existence."
"It's refreshing to hear an idea that differs from the mainstream, especially when the mainstream employs violent tactics that focus on a materialistic view over a functional one. This talk brought ideas like “policy driven science” and focusing on environmental impact and function over “nativism” to my attention. Also, realizing how this type of thinking, if not backed by science, may do little more than put money in the pockets of chemical companies at the expense of efforts, public funds, and wildlife species that have adapted to depend on these “invasive species” is very disturbing and worth consideration."
"think of his approach as over-simplifying a number of complex issues. I am frustrated by his binary categories for topics that I consider gradients. Although his theses are somewhat interesting, I don't gain a lot of valuable insight from his work. My world is full of grays and his appears black and white."
"...We still have to gain understanding of the negative effects of plants that originate outside of our ecosystems. Given the unconscious "nostalgia" and current rhetoric with their whole set of unconscious assumptions, "war on invasives" etc, it seems terribly difficult for restoration planners to change our mindset to one that is unbiased. We can make this shift in mindset and practices together, without the two-sided polarity that currently exists. I have stayed diplomatic, but obviously have been bottling up some criticisms of the status quo... We are scientists. There can be no sacred cows. Lets stay curious. Y'all."
