#invasive animals

[lilghostguy]

Something that really pisses me off in green circles is the idea that leaving a space alone is going to fix it.

That's not how it works!

Invasive species aren't going to magically disappear, native populations of flora and fauna won't just show back up on their own! It takes work! Hard work!

We don't just get to sit back and pretend! A lot of the time human interference caused the problem, and it is needed to remedy it!

"Let nature reclaim it" doesn't work when invasives are involved! They are destroying the old ecosystem, making it uninhabitable for the species that used to thrive there!

DO SOMETHING!

[rebeccathenaturalist]

A 2026 peer-reviewed study reveals the ecological consequences of releasing pet goldfish into freshwater lakes, showing they can destabilize

Lots of us already knew that goldfish--a type of carp--wreak havoc when released into ecosystems they aren't native to. This recent study enumerates the specifics of the damage:

"The damage was quick and extensive. The Journal of Animal Ecology study found that water clarity dropped almost instantly in nutrient-rich conditions as goldfish stirred up sediment from the lake bottom. Populations of snails, amphipods, and zooplankton the small invertebrates that are the base of healthy aquatic food webs crashed through direct consumption and habitat destruction. Native fish exhibited declining body condition, an early warning indicator of long-term population health."

Defenders of invasive animals often claim that the introduced species aren't really causing harm, or that they're just accelerating evolution. (There's also the appeal to emotion that the animals didn't choose to be there, and therefore we should leave them alone.) But whether it's goldfish and European starlings in the US, Sitka spruce in Europe, rabbits in Australia, or hippos in Colombia, the facts show that non-native species have a deleterious effect on ecosystems they're introduced to, taking up space and other resources needed by native species.

The article also got me thinking about the irresponsible attitude many people have toward "disposable" pets like inexpensive fish. When I lived on the coast, I had a 60 gallon aquarium with a variety of tropical fish. Before I moved back to Portland, I rehomed all the inhabitants minus the bladder snails (which are thriving in a jar with my marimo moss balls). I very easily could have just walked a hundred yards to the lake behind my coastal home and dropped the platies and cardinal tetras in there; instead I took the time to find them new homes with other people.

I get that people don't want to euthanize unwanted pets, even goldfish. And there aren't as many rescues that take pets that aren't furry or feathered. But the answer is not to dump these animals in the wild and hope they can survive; this is how we end up with lakes full of giant yellow carp, and domestic rabbits spreading diseases to wild rabbit populations. It also leaves a lot of these poor creatures to slow, lingering deaths from exposure or starvation, assuming they don't end up as predator food.

Responsibility toward nature includes properly caring for those we have domesticated or tamed, to include ethical care from beginning to end, and responsible breeding practices. Unfortunately as long as there is a profit to be made, there will be those facilities--and that is the best name for them--that will churn out large quantities of high-demand, inexpensive animals to meet the pet trade without taking any responsibility for where they end up. While an ethical breeder of dogs, for example, will always take back one of the dogs they've bred at any age, you can't just return your goldfish once you realize you can't house a two foot long carp.

Most importantly, I think we need to keep pushing back against the "Well, it doesn't matter if I do it just this one time" mentality. Imagine how many individual people think this when they dump a few aquarium fish into a pond,. Even if not all of these animals survive, odds are that enough will to become established invasive populations. It's a multi-pronged problem, and getting people to change their assumptions and habits sometimes feels like an uphill battle. But studies like this one help to foster change by educating people about the reality of invasive species.

[parchment-wasp-core]

Western honeybees (Apis mellifera) are NOT native to North America. They were introduced by European colonists in the 1600s for honey production and crop pollination (WHICH THEY AREN'T EVEN THAT GOOD AT). North America already had thousands of native bee species, most of which are solitary and don’t live in big colonies like honeybees.

Honey bees are invasive, they outcompete native bees and do a worse job pollinating many native species.

Some research has even found that areas with lots of honeybees can show lower native bee diversity, y'know, the ones we need.

Honeybees also interact in weird ways with invasive plants. In parts of the U.S. South they heavily pollinate invasive plants like Chinese tallow tree, y'know, the plants we don't want.

Western honeybees are actually worse at pollinating many native North American plants than native bees. A lot of native plants evolved alongside specific native pollinators, so their flowers are shaped in ways that match those bees’ bodies and behaviors (beehaviors). Native bees also tend to carry pollen on dry, branched hairs that hold onto pollen grains better, while honeybees pack pollen into tight “pollen baskets” on their legs, which means less pollen actually transfers between flowers. Because of this, a single visit from some native bees can pollinate a flower more effectively than multiple honeybee visits. Honeybees are great generalist pollinators and amazing for agriculture, but they aren’t always the best match for native ecosystems. (y'know, the ecosystems we - *gunshot*)

Idk man, I like em but I don't think I like em enough to kill all the good guys, the ones who are actually going endangered in the US.

[pokemon-exploration]

Fire Ants DNI

(Direct Nest Injection)

[rebeccathenaturalist]

I try to be really polite on my social media, but today's post has me wanting to unleash a creative string of profanity.

Thanks to a citizen scientist using iNaturalist (and, by the way, all iNat users are by default citizen scientists), a spotted lanternfly (Lycorma deliculata) nymph was spotted in Portland, less than a mile from my apartment. It's the third verified sighting of this highly invasive species in Oregon, the first being in The Dalles in 2023, and one in Eugene last year. There's no telling how many there are across the region now, but given that these have primarily been a problem east of the Mississippi it's disheartening to see their spread here.

Spotted lanternflies are native to China and Japan, but have since become destructive invasive species in South Korea and North America. I wrote up a more detailed description of them here on my website. They attack a wide variety of plants, to include native species and agricultural crops.

Their preferred host tree is the tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), which is itself also a pernicious invasive species here in North America. It can be very difficult to control, and is most effectively killed with herbicides applied to cuts in the bark--simply cutting it down won't help, because it just grows back, and it can be very difficult to dig up entirely once established. While lanternfly nymphs can survive on other plants, they are not as healthy as those on tree of heaven, and so taking away their host is a big step in slowing them down.

Speaking of big steps, if you see a lanternfly or its egg casings, stomp on it! It's an immediate death, and it removes it from the breeding pool. This is especially important in spring and summer when lanternflies are still in their nymph stages, because they aren't able to breed until they're adults in the fall.

Finally, this is a great example of how vital citizen science is in getting more observers out in the field, and also how we need professional scientists (like those at the Oregon Department of Agriculture) to get the word out to the general public with information about invasive species. The USDA also has valuable articles about lanternflies on their website and has been working on the spotted lanternfly problem since the insects first arrived here in 2014. The United States has been a leader in the sciences for decades, and it's important we keep it that way for so many reasons, to include protecting our food and our natural areas.

[rebeccathenaturalist]

Florida's giant Burmese pythons are doing more than eating wildlife, they are transforming the Everglades by spreading seeds - The Times of

The Times of India brings the Latest & Top Breaking News on Politics and Current Affairs in India & around the World, Cricket, Sports, Busin

So the long and short of it is that viable seeds are making it through invasive Burmese pythons' digestive tracts in the Florida Everglades, meaning that the pythons are acting as seed dispersers. Defenders of invasive species might answer that this means the pythons are just taking on the seed disperser role. However, there are two main ecological problems with that:

--Pythons can often reach places where the seeds' native dispersers do not or can not go, which alters the distribution of plant species, and potentially upsetting the balance of plant communities.

--What happens when the pythons have eaten all the native seed dispersers? They're certainly not going to continue spread the seeds around out of concern.

Burmese pythons are a prime example of how invasive species can have multiple negative impacts on ecosystems in which they're introduced. In some parts of the Everglades they have been the direct cause of a 99% decrease in small and medium mammal numbers. Now we're seeing how they may have cascading effects on plants as well.

[rebeccathenaturalist]

‘It’s an open invasion’: how millions of quagga mussels changed Lake Geneva for ever

The molluscs are decimating food chains in Switzerland, have devastated the Great Lakes in North America, and this week were spotted in Nort

There is a certain type of person who argues that we should just let invasive species be, either because they're already there and it's our fault in the first place, or because they mistakenly think that "naturalized" (being able to successfully reproduce in a place) means "part of the natural environment now". This is to say nothing of well-meaning folks who hate the idea of any animal being killed, even if it's to save an ecosystem.

Yes, it is true that our species is by and large responsible for the spread of invasive species, whether it is common starlings being intentionally released in New York City's Central Park in the 1890s, or barred owls hopscotching across the former ecological barrier of the Great Plains due to settlers planting trees and stopping tree-killing wildfires. But that doesn't stop the fact that these introduced species are doing damage in their new homes.

The quagga mussel, and its cousin the zebra mussel, both originate in Ukraine (the zebra mussel is also found in Russia.) However, they have found their way to waters around the world and, lacking their natural predators and competitors, have exploded in population to the point where they not only devastate the natural environment but human infrastructure as well.

There aren't any simple answers in eradicating any invasive species; even successful eradication campaigns have involved an incredible amount of time, money, and effort, to say nothing of education. I used to lived near Willapa Bay in extreme southwest Washington, which for a time was completely lined with invasive Atlantic cordgrass. This destroyed native wetland ecosystems and threatened oyster farms, so a concerted effort began among both public and private entities to rid the bay of this problem. It took years of consistently spraying the cordgrass with herbicides to knock it back enough to allow native plants to recuperate.

However, one landowner along the bay refused for years to allow anyone to spray the cordgrass on their property, believing that any herbicide use was bad and wrong and evil. Their protected patch continued to send seeds out into the rest of the bay, which would result in new populations setting up shop. It wasn't until a few years ago that the landowners finally relented, but their refusal demonstrated that even the smallest amount of cordgrass allowed to survive could quickly cause the bay to become overrun again.

I appreciate this article because it lays out in stark terms the impact of invasive species. It doesn't mean the mussels won't have their champions arguing we should just leave them be (though these defenders likely number fewer than those trying to argue for the protection of, say, house sparrows in North America). But the more we educate people on the actual, measurable and observable impacts of these species and how to combat them, the more support we may get not only for eradication campaigns but prevention of the introduction of invasive species in the first place.

[xmimikyuusx]

Can people like. Get a grip or something