Invasion is a Failed Concept in Biology - More Subpar Research

#insectdiversity #insectanatomy #insectmorphology #insecttaxonomy #entomology #insects
Panicky research on the invasion of Antarctica shows the underlying problems in the concept of "invasiveness" in biology.
Artcile: www.frontiersi...
References: core.ac.uk/dow...
link.springer....

[@vojtatlusty7289]

Interesting! I'm glad I discovered a new channel with an expert discussing modern research in his field. Regarding the concept of "invasive species," I agree that, by definition, invasive and foretic species share similarities. However, considering how humans have been traveling globally for just a few centuries compared to the natural movement of other species. I think it's important to distinguish between foretic species that co-travel with other organisms and species that co-travel with humans to entirely new areas with no prior connection. In this case if there was no natural link between the original habitat of these flies and Antarctica, we could classify them as invasive species. However, I acknowledge that the term "invasive" often implies (by its ethimology) a significant ecological threat, which in this case might be marginal or nonexistent. Perhaps the term "potentially invasive" would be more appropriate? I believe it’s important to highlight potential risks when discussing species introduced to environments they’ve never been in contact with before and your term "human foretic species" is by my opinion insuficent.

[@souIsynapse]

Yeah, I think the more parsimonious explanation has to do with the fact that (1) the PI is an associate editor for that section of that journal (2) it's the first author's first publication and (3) it's in Frontiers which is noisy to begin with. It kinda feels like they wanted to make the case that it's getting established (fat chance) with a phylogenetic probe (using only cox1 for phylogenetic inference was never going to reveal that) and sunk enough time into it that they wanted to push some kind of publication out the door.

[@EntoExplorer]

I think you are probably right.

[@Gorindakia]

You had me for the first two thirds but lost me in the last third. Yes there’s always flux in nature and eventually some species can migrate in naturally and upend an ecosystem, but that happens much more slowly without humans present and shifts will be relatively slow and happen gradually in local areas, a new equilibrium will be found and life moves on. Invasive species definitely exist and should be mitigated though, it may not be that far off from nature, but it generally shouldn’t be seen as a good or neutral thing to be introducing species that outcompete the native species for no reason. Big ecological shifts can result in collapses of forests or grasslands that we depend on for lumber, grazing, act as valuable carbon syncs. It also puts pressure on native species and I see you see no value in preserving species just because they’re there unless they’re in some way desirable, but a lot of people (I think everyone should but I know they don’t) value the diversity our world has. If we just mixed all the species everywhere together, all similar climatic regions would have pretty similar flora and fauna and that takes the whimsy and uniqueness out of our world. We absolutely should try to avoid introducing species where they don’t belong as humans and if a species starts outcompeting the native species, we should absolutely try to prevent its spread. Look at Asian carp and sea lamprey, they’ve decimated the native fish populations where they’ve been introduced and ruined billion dollar fisheries, I’m personally more saddened at the loss of North America’s biodiversity and vast natural abundance, but on an economic level, invasive species can also reek havoc. I know that this would be covered by your “what humans find desirable” mentality and should be fought, but why not try to prevent it in the first place?

[@EntoExplorer]

@@john2432 Because peoples belief systems obviously affect how they approach topics like conservation. A deeply religious Christian is not going to see it the same as an agnostic materialist or as a nihilistic atheist. Scientists aren't asking questions or doing research in a vacuum. Their personal belief systems and the belief systems of their peers underpin the questions which they think to ask, how they interpret their data and their subsequent recommendations for action. Just look at the person you are responding to: "Invasive species definitely exist and should be mitigated though, it may not be that far off from nature, but it generally shouldn’t be seen as a good or neutral thing to be introducing species that outcompete the native species for no reason." What does he mean "shouldn't be seen as good or neutral"? That is something that is just being taken for granted as obvious. If it is bad, what is the value system that justifies it? His personal justification is 1) it reduces whimsy 2) it's costly and 3) it makes him sad. Cost is something you can justify to other people, but preventing the spread of invasives is also very costly. Entire government agencies at every level and non-profit groups spend billions of dollars on it every year. So it really boils down to "I don't like it", which is fine but be prepared to defend yourself. And just to be clear I support many conservation programs, but the idea that we need to try and prevent the spread of every living thing outside of an arbitrary area we have assigned as "appropriate and natural" is absurd. We need to pick the battles we find most valuable and forget the rest.

[@EntoExplorer]

@@john2432 "Invasive species cause real damage to their ecosystems and can wipe out species that other organisms rely on." That reason is embedded in a value system.

[@EntoExplorer]

@@john2432 "But if you’re pissed that we spend money to remove screwworms, you should probably find a different field" Quit being dishonest. That isn't my complaint and you know it. Also, I haven't deleted your comments but that's understandable since your are a drama hunting liar.

[@EntoExplorer]

@@john2432 Ah yes"the natural order of biology" a totally well defined and not bullshit platitude.

[@BeeTriggerBee]

In what environment do you count as unique? You do realize that if you live anywhere close to civilization literally all "nature" you have around you is manipulated, The forests we consider natural is old plantations, and the meadows is old fields. You need to look pretty far into the wilderness to find untouched nature. So you are basically telling people to be careful to introduce things in an environment humans have manipulated for thousands of years to uphold an idea what you all deem "natural".

[@JENKEM1000]

Invasive is just a slur for "successful". It's also a 100% reliable midwit red flag.

[@kipkipper-lg9vl]

these same people would consider half of this logic applied to human populations to turbo hitler satan evil lol

[@insectilluminatigetshrekt5574]

Hey, I like fleas. (As long as they aren't biting humans of course, in nature they are cool)

[@EntoExplorer]

you do you boo

[@insectilluminatigetshrekt5574]

@@EntoExplorer hm?

[@evilcow666]

This is black rat propaganda