Talk:Invasive species/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Upper hand?

Are invasive species always negative in their effects? Can't they provide what is lacked, be the source of positive adaptation and make no further harm? And... Is that bad that species come to an end when their genetical make up survives in hybrids?-GTB 12:55 am 15/9/2006

Many exotic species are very destructive, but some just stay in the area that they are introduced and/or are not present in high enough numbers to do significant harm (you would probably want to use the terms "exotic" or "introduced" species when talking about these organisms since "invasive" implies that they are harmful). Long-lived, slow-growing trees are probably fairly safe, depending on their method(s) of reproduction and the habitat they thrive in.

As for their genes surviving in hybrids, that is a rare outcome. Invading species are usually not the same species as the ones that are being displaced, and even if they were the same species, any hybrid offspring would probably be wiped out along with the original population eventually.

In the past, when some places were not colonized, introduced species were beneficial. However, ecosystems around the world are fairly well developed now. If a new island is created through volcanic action, introduced species would be a good thing, but you would still only want species that are indigenous to the general area in case they spread to other islands or the mainland. There is also likely to be more diversity if there are only indigenous species.

In the future, please add new comments to the bottom of the page. Thanks, Kjkolb 08:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Some invasives enhance some local populations; zebra mussels for example have overwhelmingly positive effects on population densities of benthic macroinvertebrates. Certainly the effects on other species suchas native freshwater mussels are negative, but there are also positive effects.Dmccabe 02:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an ecological principle that two separate species cannot occupy the same niche. If an introduced species is adapted to the same niche as an incumbent species, they will compete and one will dominate. Although a niche encompasses many resources which an organism requires, the competition will probably only arise over a key resource. As Kjkolb mentioned, modern ecosystems are well developed in that most (or all?) niches are occupied. Therefore invasive species will either not manage to get established, or will displace the encumbent species. There will be instances where new niches are found, and in these cases a species may be able to establish themselves alongside the ecosystem. Although this is not common today, as an example, where previously new classes of fish had resulted in displacement (outcompetition/extinction) of many previous species, the radiation of Osteichthyes produced many species which did not displace previous species: many new niches were found. zrenneh 22:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The terms "introduced" and invasive"

The terms "introduced" and "invasive", and my use of the term "introduced" to describe species others would describe as "invasive", have been the cause of angst and much discussion lately. Some see a strong difference between the two terms. Someone below asked an excellent question regarding the use of terminology like this outside of the US.

For the enlightenment of fellow discussers, I thought I would point that although the term "invasive" IS used in some formal scientific circles in Australia, in Australia the term "introduced" has become synonymous with "invasive". This is because so many introduced species HAVE established, become "invasive" and created havoc in Australia's unique and often very vulnerable (to invasive species) ecosystems. Following this "tradition" I have used the word "introduced" to describe species others would consider "invasive"; a clearly signposted assumption in my use of the word "introduced" is that I am (of course) referring to species whose introduction has been "successful" and have established wild breeding populations.

This is probably the explanation for much of the controversy over these two terms.

I also think it is fair to say terminology is a perenially difficult issue when it comes to discussing human-introduced/exotic/invasive species.

Codman 05:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Codman

There is strong difference between the two terms Introduction and Invasion. With the changes in the global enviroment, there are natural scenarios where species are travelling to areas where they've never been before (at least in the time that humans have been keeping track of them). This is invasion and not introduction. I disagree with the opinion that this article should be merged with Introduced Species article. 68.122.32.237 05:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Writing texts and listing invasive species: requests:

When writing a text about a species that is invasive somewhere, please ALWAYS discuss the species from its native standpoint first, before discussing the species from the viewpoint of it as an invasive exotic. Remember that your invasives are someone else's valued natives. Thanks, MPF

Remember also, that there is an article at Introduced species—this article (Invasive species) is limited to those species listed by government agencies somewhere as problem species (officially invasive) - Marshman 17:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between introduced and invasive, introduced species include non-native cultivated species, species that do not spread from planted areas. Introduced species are essentially "non-native" species. One discussion of terminology in the context of invasive plants is given by [Rejmenek et al 2000=http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/ddi/2000/00000006/00000002/art00003].Cbuddenhagen 20:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cbuddenhagen 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)--Cbuddenhagen 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)I would like to see more references in this section also this section is oddly piecemeal in its coverage, it does not provide a good overview of the subject- the range of things going on to address it, policy, laws, international agreements nor the science. Suggest that you seek someone like the IUCNs Invasive Species Specialist Group to fill in the Wikipedia pages.....

Species Survival Commission. 2000. IUCN guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive species. IUCN, Species Survival Commission, Invasive Species Specialist Group, Auckland, New Zealand. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/publications/policy/invasivesEng.htm

It is also mentioned in the Convention for Biodiversity, Article 8 (h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which states that:

"Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: ...(h) Prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species."

The section doesn't give an overview of invasions in the sense of what are the main subject areas of invasive species biology e.g.

Rejmánek, M., D. M. Richardson, S. I. Higgins, M. Pitcairn, and E. Grotkopp. 2002. Plant invasion ecology: State of the art in H. Mooney, J. A. McNeely, L. Neville, P. J. Schei, and J. Waage, editors. Invasive alien species: Searching for solutions. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Although the coverage is better in the area of plants it is still incomplete:

Rejmánek, M. a. D. M. R. 1996. What atributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655-1661.

Even the definitions page does not reflect key references:

Richardson, D. M., P. Pysek, M. Rejmánek, M. G. Barbour, F. D. Panetta, and C. J. West. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6:93-107. An article that according to google scholar has been cited 350 times.

Though relatively strong in the area of plant invasions the entry here does not cover the whole range of articles about weed risk assessment, a predictive tool that has been relatively successful in allowing the Australian government and other scientists to predict which species will or will not be invasive. Of particular interest are the articles that relate to the Pheloung article from 1999.

Batianoff, G. N., and D. W. Butler. 2002. Assessment of invasive naturalized plants in south-east Queensland. Plant Protection Quarterly 17:27-34. Caley, P., and P. M. Kuhnert. 2006. Application and evaluation of classification trees for screening unwanted plants. Austral Ecology 31:647-655. Caley, P., W. M. Lonsdale, and P. C. Pheloung. 2006. Quantifying uncertainty in predictions of invasiveness, with emphasis on weed risk assessment. Biological Invasions 8:1595-1604. Clayton, J., and P. Champion. 2006. Risk assessment method for submerged weeds in New Zealand hydroelectric lakes. Hydrobiologia 570:183-188. Daehler, C., and D. Carino. 2000. Predicting Invasive Plants: Prospects for a General Screening System Based on Current Regional Models. Biological Invasions 2:93-102. Daehler, C. C., J. S. Denslow, S. Ansari, and H.-C. Kuo. 2001. A risk-assessment system for screening out invasive pest plants from Hawaii and other Pacific Islands. Conservation Biology 18:360-368. Daehler, C. C., and D. R. Strong. 1993. Prediction in biological invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:380. Keller, R. P., D. M. Lodge, and D. C. Finnoff. 2007. Risk assessment for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:203-207. Krivanek, M., and P. Pysek. 2006. Predicting invasions by woody species in a temperate zone: a test of three risk assessment schemes in the Czech Republic (Central Europe). Diversity and Distributions 12:319-327. Panetta, F. D. 1993. A system of assessing proposed plant introductions for weed potential. Plant Protection Quarterly 8:10-14. Parker, C., B. P. Caton, and L. Fowler. 2007. Ranking nonindigenous weed species by their potential to invade the United States. Weed Science 55:386-397. Pheloung, P. 2001. Weed Risk Assessment for Plant Introductions to Australia. Pages 83-92 in R. H. Groves, F. D. Panetta, and J. G. Virtue, editors. Weed Risk Assessment. CSIRO, Collingwood. Richardson, D. M., R. M. Cowling, and D. C. Le Maitre. 1990. Assessing the Risk of Invasive Success in Pinus and Banksia in South African Mountain Fynbos. Journal of Vegetation Science 1:629-642. Tye, A. 2000. Invasive plant problems and requirements for weed risk assessment in the Galapagos Islands. Pages 153-175 in R. H. Groves, F. D. Panetta, and J. G. Virtue, editors. Weed Risk Assessment. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia.--Cbuddenhagen 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wanted!

More information on invasive species outside the US would be useful here. moved the page to a much more common word

But one with a slightly different meaning. See Talk:Introduced species - Marshman 01:07, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have added a link to the UK govts plant health pages. This deals with 'quarantine' and invasive species of agricultural significance.Maccheek 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Eucalyptus tree is an invasive species in the United States. But I don't know enough about it to write anything. Kingturtle 09:04 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe this exemplifies the political nature of the "problem" over scientific fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.86.207 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

discussions

OK Pollinator! And we probably can find another picture for the Introduced species page. I'll look around - Marshman 01:07, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Got photos of Phragmites, purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed (and probably some others if I look through my files). I'm not sure these are on the US list of invasives, but think they are both on some state lists. How best to use them? Pollinator 01:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, any picture on a naturalized introduced species NOT considered a pest would be useful to replace the mosquito photo on the Introduced species page. - Marshman 02:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I meant on the invasive page...have to think about the other, although you sounded like you might have something...Pollinator 02:34, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, nothing I was planning on. But there are lots of invasive plants here (like cattail) and I have plenty of photos. I would suggest first getting your pictures into an article on the species (or genus, or family), at the least just to make them known and available. I also want to change the species list of invasives that is misnamed; I'm waiting for comments back on the talk page. That article could use photos too - Marshman 02:56, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's a thought about redeeming features of some invasives. I'll just leave it here rather than sticking it on the page:

The common cat-tail (Typha latifolia) is being crowded from its habitat in many areas by two introduced marsh plants, the common reed (Phragmites australis) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Phragmites establish a complete natural monospecific environment with very little resources to support any other life, while purple loosestrife, because of its abundant nectar and pollen, tends to increase insect biodiversity. Pollinator 01:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC) (Phragmites does that regardless of whether it is the american subspecies or the european subspecies 67.177.2.243 (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

Funny you mention that. I was thinking of adding a brief word on how the cattail is one of the few species considered a pest (I guess not invasive by definition) in its own native range - Marshman 02:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I had never heard of cattail being considered a pest. They were once widely used as a food crop. Poison ivy is a native that can be a noxious weed -not introduced but could be considered invasive. Ribes such as blackberry are also native but considered invasive by some. (Being a beekeeper, I always liked large acreages of blackberries)...Pollinator 02:34, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Remember, when you talk about "native" it does not mean the same to me here in Hawaii. Cattail is an invasive here; and considered a pest by many managers of wetlands on the mainland. There is always lots of chatter on wetlands talk groups about eradicating cattails from managed and constructed wetlands. - Marshman 02:59, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

http://www.invasivespecies.gov/ Pollinator 01:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

becomes capable of establishing a breeding population in the new location without further intervention by humans, and subsequently
is troubling me if set in the definition of the word. It may sound obvious, but it is not given in official definitions.

Sure it is. If you mean "not worded just that way" in an official definition, you are right. But this is Wikipedia, not some official source. Why would you be troubled by restatements that are accurate? - Marshman 17:53, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC) And without it, things like cattle are possible to define as "invasive" - Marshman 18:02, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Although an invasive species is usually an introduced species, this is by no means always the case. A species that is long-established and native to a particular area can, under the influence of human modification to the environment, increase in numbers and become as invasive as an introduced species. The Pied Currawong of south-east Australia is an example: as a result of human changes to the landscape, Pied Currawongs increased greatly in range during the 20th century and have caused substantial declines in the populations of the smaller birds they prey on the nestlings of.

Tannin ~ This is an important concept, but has nothing to do with invasive species that are BY DEFINITION non-native. This has to do with human impact on natural ecosystems and unintended consequences - Marshman 04:48, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I beg to differ. 'Invasive' can be applied to any species (including natives) that dominates habitat at the expense of other species. Certainly the term is more commonly applied to introduced or exotic species, but species including cormorants can become invasive under certain circumstances. The term also applies to cyclical species that boom and bust and are invasive during the boom phase. Its also worth bearing in mind that 'native' is a relative concept. Dmccabe 03:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

economic not the only harm

Certainly "harm" is vague, but executive order 13112 gives not one, but three kinds of harm that define an invasive species:

Economic harm

Environmental harm

Harm to human health

Any one of these qualifies. While economics is certainly important, a species that lowers biodiversity would certainly be causing environmental harm without necessarily affecting the economy in any quantifiable way. WormRunner 07:06, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think the definition should be left more open than to just consider "economic harm". But consider this argument (moved here from my talk page):

....think about the definition: You know what is happening with the lumbricid fauna, but you are biased, because you have interest and knowledge. And that would be true for any biologist seeing their speciality over-run by introduced species. So if it is always true ecologically, then "invasive" and "introduced" are basically describing the same thing. But when that point was raised a month or so ago, there was an outcry (to wit: "I and every other biologist know what invasive is, and it is not the same as introduced"). Environmentalists use "invasive" because it has greater emotional appeal than "introduced". But when it comes down to actually defining the difference, the only thing I could find that made much sense is the "economic" issue. If USDA (or some other gov't entity) says the introduced species is causing great harm (usually measured in dollars somehow) then it is invasive; otherwise it is introduced.

Clearly there is some attempt being made by CEQ to indicate a matter of degree. As a biologist/ecologist I'm not certain that is possible. So do we just have two articles (introduced species and invasive species)that are essentially redundant; or can we find a way to differentiate these terms? Would you say, economics aside, that the introduced earthworms are now a pest species in their new range? And step back from your love of the natives, and answer this from the perspective of the ordinary citizen, farmer, etc. - Marshman 19:18, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would say there are species which are "introduced", but do not qualify as invasive. For example, in the earthworm arena Dendrobaena octaedra is now found almost everywhere, but in low numbers and not transforming the ecosystem. Lumbricus terrestris on the other hand, makes major changes in soil profile, and where it moves in, even in relatively natural forest, the natives disappear entirely. From an earthworm perspective, it is like a functional equivalent of kudzu. I don't have it before me right now, but an article came out a while ago about introduced earthworms (lumbricidae) in Canada destroying formerly good soil structure. I will hunt it up for a reference. I think these things qualify. A local earthworm species Driloleirus macelfreshi (the Oregon giant earthworm) is possibly extinct, basically through competition with Lumbricus terrestris and other lumbricids. This has gotten the Department of Fish and Wildlife interested enough to fund surveys into the matter. Weyerhauser corp. is funding survey work to establish its presence or absence on their land. Certainly the disappearance of a local species is of interest to many ordinary people of the area who have told me of past sightings. But getting back to "invasive", I think we should look at the general english usage of words, not their definition by the US government. A List of species defined as invasive by the USDA would be a reasonable article, but people in Britain or South Africa might not find it as useful. The executive order is a good place to start but not to quit. I think the fundamental characteristic of an invader is that of taking over a system and changing it. There is a difference between becoming part of an ecosystem and displacing the previous inhabitants of it, although it may take some time before the difference is apparent. That would magnify the "invasive" category from the purely economic one, but it would still be a subset of "introduced". WormRunner 22:15, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would not disagree with you on qualification. After all ecologists and others quible about definitions CONSTANTLY. My challange to you and others is to develop the lucid counter-arguements in a way that the lay reader can understand: NOT, what the definition means according to ME, BUT what the issues are in trying to come to a meaningful definition. The consequence of not doing so is that ecologists and then most people will simply dismiss anyone that uses such a loaded and imprecise term as "using a loaded and imprecise term" -- this can already be seen in the ecological literature.

And right, definitely not a place to quit (use of CEQ definition). Your fundamental characteristic is correct but still weak. I'm not trying to argue a purely economic line has to be crossed. I'm thinking maybe the term "pest" says it better than "economic damage". I'd certainly favor an ecological definition over either an economic or a government one. But what to do? - Marshman 23:13, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A native species most certainly can become invasive. There seems to be a push to define this term very narrowly according to one particular act in the United States. This is a global encyclopedia, and the fact that one particular US government agency uses one particular narrow meaning for a term does not invalidate standard usage. Tannin 20:53, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting point. But I think by definition a native species cannot become invasive (read definition). That is a different ecological phenomenon and the reason for having definitions in the first place (if by "standard" you mean "common", no one should be afraid to declare the common wisdom flawed; we have Wikipedia to educate and clarify; not to further common thinking where flawed). If you can come up with literature on the concept you espouse (or even a lucid discussion), it certainly would be worth including on the invasive species page. I think there is probably a better term, however. There is nothing narrow about the CEQ definition of the term. I think there you are trolling instead of reading. Try and define invasive unique from introduced. You think you know the difference, but all I am doing is challanging you and others that leap to that conclusion with coming up with a practical, applicable definition. I did. I used the literature.

And of course, every country has its equivalent to USDA, the responsibility of that country's agency being to declare which non-native species it regards as pest species and therefore exerts some control over. These declarations are a very practical way to define invasive. I suppose it is possible (and then worth mentioning) that declaration of a native species as a pest should be included here somehow. - Marshman 23:03, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As always, I have no idea from what knowledge base you (Tannin) are making your arguments from. I know nothing of the Pied Currawong. But your write-up says this: "[it] increased greatly in range during the 20th century" Now, if it moved from an area where it was native into areas (even nearby areas) where it never was (in modern times) native, because humans made that new place suitable for it, then is this not an example of an invasion of a non-native species? We may be arguing the wrong thing here. The "area" in which a species is native is not the same thing as an "area" according human social and political boundaries; i.e., I doubt the Pied Curawong is native to ALL of Australia. A native species from California could become invasive in Florida. Both are part of the U.S. but many California species are not really native to the U.S.—they are native (endemics) to a certain geographical range. Indeed, a species from the California Coast Range could theoretically become invasive in the Sierra Nevada only a 100+ miles eastward, if that "invasion" were mediated somehow by man. - Marshman 23:58, 17 February 2004 (UTC)

rollback

I reverted text by anon contributor because it was redundant and poorly written. I think you meant Phragmites and your point was already covered in the first paragraph under "Introduction". If you wish to read the article and then improve on it, I'm not trying to be mean. - Marshman 04:40, 11 February 2005 (UTC)

'White European" Reference

I agree with noting that humans can be considered an invasive species according to the definition laid out in the first paragraph (if you omit the self-referential "intervention by humans" clause). However, of all of the examples of human migrations throughout this planet's history, the choice of that of the white Europeans is less appropriate than that of the movement of the Native American precursor tribes moving across the much-argued "land bridge" of the Bering Strait, or the Semitic peoples' movement from the Horn of Africa into the Middle East and parts beyond. In actuality, the example of humans' initial migration from Africa into the rest of the world would seem to be more apt. This last case would be the strongest example of humans' "invasion" of areas not initially inhabited by them.

I agree with this comment. Also, the sentence:

Human beings are also a subset of introduced species because they introduced themselves into areas they did not formerly inhabit (eg. white European settlers introducing themselves into Australia and North America).

suggests that H. sapien' did not exist in North America and Australia until white Europeans moved in, which verges on calling Native Americans and Austrialian aborigines a different species. Human entry into the Americas and Australia did coincide with extinctions of megafauna, perhaps causing the extinction. We need a change. How about:

humans introducing themselves into Australia and North America

or deleting the reference entirely since humans introducing themselves isn't really different from any other species introducing itself. Nereocystis 00:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The concept (and the problems associated with) invasive species is a serious subject. It is nothing but bullshit to add to the article or discuss here whether humans are an invasive species. This is an encyclopedia for and by humans. If you want to discuss the finer points of human migrations across this planet or any other, you need to be 1) in a sociology article not ecology or 2) working on an encyclopedia developed by some other species (plant or animal, of this or another world). - Marshman 04:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC) And I further point out that you are totally confused on terminology and talking about introduced species not invasive species, the latter requiring that a government entitity list the species as officially a pest; not a likely scenario in most countries for Homo sapiens - Marshman

Inappropriate Reference

If Wikipedia wants to show some ecological and evironmental responsibility, then this execrable website: [1] is NOT appropriate. Hence I've deleted it. People wondering why should read my article removed from introduced species and shoved into discussion.

PLS sign your comments 8^) I agree with you that the website seems to lack credibility and demonstrates a serious lapse in ecological knowledge. Although obviously POV, there could be some value in showing how lack of scholarship can lead to erroneous conclusions. But you are right, it is just POV by a person with no ecological training or ability to apply science to solve problems - Marshman 18:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Getting use to the whole Wikipedia thing, and yes, am signing my name now.

I agree, the website is clearly the work of some nut with no scientific or ecological training/knowledge who has decided the exotic species issue will be his special subject of nutty attention. Cheers - Codman 02:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)Codman

I left very similar sentiments for you over on Talk:introduced species just now, where I was before coming here - Marshman 02:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I have readded the link as it does present an opposing argument which is useful for people to have a full perspective on this topic, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Invasive species" is unfortunately still a subjective term.It's not just about the organism that is invading,it is also about the local conditions and most impotant,our attitude to it's presence.For example,the Black locust is considered an invasive in the US,yet here in Romania it is seen as a usefull introduction and even though it has spread greatly in the wild it does not seem to inflict harmfull change.I agree with some of the statements in that link,but to use certain examples of positive introductions to say that all are positive I think is unffair to all the people and wildlife faced with the negative introductions.86.121.132.24 13:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)mihnea revaru

Formal Protest on the last section "Threat to Global Biodiversity"

If nobody else has any valid reasons why it should stay, I'm going to strike it. It reads like a freshman college essay, with a heavy POV. Either way, the NPOV boilerplate is certainly going up. Kade 05:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It is very difficult to read at present. I'm going to have a go at distilling the valid points into a more neutral section. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a run at it. A lot of the previous content was emotive and unusable but I have hopefully kept most of the intent. if people are happy with my revision we can remove the NPOV. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you did a good job. While that section certainly did need work, you have not materially changed the facts, only the tone. I think the POV sticker can go (I will take care of) - Marshman 18:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Formal protest on recent edits

Sorry, but saying "most species will eventually meet up with each other" due to to climate change and continental drift is not acceptable, is not particularly accurate, and undermines the serious of the Invasive Species article and the threat that invasive species pose. While most continents on earth will probably eventually meet again through continental drift, this will be so many millions of years into the future it is not funny. I mean, how long till Eurasia and Australia hit each other? Events like this are so far off that most species existing today will probably be gone (the fossil record makes it clear species, and particularly animal species, have a finite lifespan) and possibly humans too. Sorry, I'm changing it.

And I will continue to delete that website that was put back in. Websites that offer a contrary point of view are OK if they are based on reasoned and scientific or logical arguments - the website in question is based on none of these things, only sheer crankiness and lunacy, and it is not appropriate.Codman 10:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not delete the link, which i have just updated. Mr. Theodoropoulos's work *is* based upon science, unlike the non-science of invasion biology. i would strongly recommend reading his book on the subject, which is the first link on his page. science is based on logic, not emotion. read his book, and you'll understand why *your* response to his writings is the problem - it's a non-scientific response. it is fully appropriate within the context of wikipedia for this article to reference sites and authors who maintain a contrary position on the matter. so there's no misunderstanding, Mr. Theodoropoulos is my brother, not me. am i biased? yes - i don't particularly like my brother at all. but his work is of merit. Anastrophe 23:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the link previously went to a site laying out very poorly reasoned arguments about how good introduced species are for ecosystems. I think strong arguments can be made why there is no place for such a link here ("lack of scholarship" it is called). However, the link you just added goes to a personal web page and on that page is a link selling a book. Such commercial websites are definitely not allowed in Wikipedia. You have two choices: 1) provide a link to a non-commercial site with useful information or 2) elucidate (this time, in a scholarly manner) in the article an opposing viewpoint. There is no third option that I am aware of - Marshman 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I found a third option. Someone has added a Further reading subsection. I will list the book there on the principle that fair is fair. However, I think information on the book (whether it is self-publisdhed or not) should be mentioned. I consider any link to a place to buy books so listed to be commercial and not appropriate for Wikipedia - Marshman 02:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

And if I may, let me add a note about your assessment of what constitutes science and what does not. I assume that you are not trained as a scientist, and it seems clear neither is your brother. In your case, it is an off the cuff assumption that I and others expressing reservations about your brother's work is simply a non-scientific reaction because you find it based on emotion not logic. While I believe that is the difference between a vulcan and a human, it has little bearing here. Unfortunately, your ability to detect non-science is flawed. The very title of your brother's book suggests an appeal to emotions rather than logic. No one would call the biology or ecology of invasives a "pseudoscience" if they were were a scientist. It is entirely one thing to find flaws in the work of other scientists and put forth alternative hypotheses (scientific approach, plain and simple). It is quite another just to label thousands of ecologists "pseudoscientists" (including Charles Elton! And in writing!) for what can only be an appeal to ignorance. If your brother has credible arguments to make, he has gone off in a direction that almost guarantees lack of support from scientists. It makes his position suspect as one designed to draw attention to himself rather than win any arguments. The harm done by introduced species is as evident as the nose on your face in many places in the world. Does that mean there are not statements made by scientists that are incorrect and go to far. Certainly there are, scientists are allowed to have opinions, and opinions come at least partly from emotional investments. That does not make all knowledge about introduced species "pseudoscience", or any of it for that matter. Some may be just plain wrong, lack observational support, depend upon a clear understanding of definitions, or be speculative. - Marshman 03:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

that's quite the bolus of ad hominem there, sir. since you have not read his work - which, i might point out, can be found at the local library, so the fact that it is for sale is a poor argument against it - you are certainly not following the scientific method in dismissing it. invasion biology is a pseudoscience, which is precisely what his book is about - showing - empirically - that it has *no* basis in actual science. statements such as "as evident as the nose on your face" have nothing to do with science. the moment someone - scientist or not - says that something is "obvious" - is the moment one should immediately be skeptical. mr. theodoropoulos's book meticulously shows that invasion biology is not science, it is an appeal to emotion - and very base emotions at that. but again, rather than proclaim the work without merit in complete ignorance of it, you're welcome to read the book - at your local library. while we're at it, why don't we drop the red herring that because his site lists his book for sale, that it's verboten to list it in external links. to wit, have a look at the WP 'external links' for hewlett packard. or the same for microsoft. or walmart. or any of a thousand other wikipedia entries. as i said, red-herring.Anastrophe 03:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a trained scientist. I worked as a chemmist for 20 years in cutting edge laboratories. I am also a minister. I have always thought that the hype regarding invasive species and how evil they are is more due to subjective religious like beliefs than to any verifiable science. I recently found Mr. Theodorpoulos's book and now I understand why I have felt that way. Invasion biology has few if any verifiable testable hypothesis. It is impossible to look at two nearby meadows with different plants growing in them and to say which field is native and which is exotic based only on what plants are growing in the meadow. It is impossible to look at the plants in either meadow and to say "There, that plant is harming the ecosystem" And all the hype about how economically expensive invasive plants are is mostly bogus. If we weren't committing genocide against the genome of particular species, then we wouldn't have to pay for the eradication effort. Here's an interesting thought experiment for you. Has any invasive species ever been permanently eradicated anywhere in any continental setting? Then why are we wasting the time and money on trying? 65.100.213.65 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I thought I was being pretty fair to you both. I did read some of his arguments when they were posted on his web site, and I'm not averse to consider them again. But you are missing most of the points I made. You have no understanding of how science works, so I'm not interested in debating my or your approach to the subject. Science begins with observation, so stating that something is very evident, is certainly science. And whatever causes you to be skeptical is your business and is not an insult to me or science (we both expect skepticism). My major points: 1) the rule about no commercial website links is not mine, it is enforced all over Wikipedia (not a "red herring"; 2) your brother is confused, since I'm not sure there even is such a thing as "invasion science" (possibly a red herring, certainly a made-up word), but if his approach lacks scholarship it does not matter what I think, it will not be accepted by reasoning people. I suspect (but do not know) that scenerio has already played out lots of times - Marshman 04:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"You have no understanding of how science works," - ad hominem. "Science begins with observation, so stating that something is very evident, is certainly science." i take it then that you believe the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it? to your major points, 1, i've already shown that it is not enforced, thus, it's a red herring. 2, my brother may or may not be confused, however, 'invasion science' is your own made-up word, since i've not used it, nor does my brother in his books or presentations - so the confusion rests elsewhere. His approach is indeed accepted by 'reasoning people', and his audience within the scientific community is expanding rapidly, since his book is meticulously researched and annotated. typically, 'cranks' and 'lunatics' - further ad hominem, i need not point out - aren't invited to speak at universities here (the U.S.) and abroad. Anastrophe 04:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant "Invasion Biology" seemed like a made up word. And how you come to the conclusion that the earth was flat (and the sun revolves around it) as the only possible conclusion of making observations is strange. Your contention seems to be that the shape of the planet and its relation to the sun were not worked out until satellites. The "commercial" web links you site, I believe, are web pages of the subjects of their respective articles and therefore probably appropriate; if not, then the rule should be enforced (it certainly always is in my experience at Wikipedia). 'Cranks' and 'lunatics' are your characterizations, not mine. Personally, I have no reason to doubt your brother's qualifications beyond what I saw previously on his web site, which was a basic lack of scholarship regarding introduced species. Show me differently and I'll conclude differently. I could really otherwise care less; and I certainly have no agenda. Your emotional attachment to the issue is what is driving you. Not something worth my time to consider. Present me with some good arguments why the concept of "invasion biology" is a "pseudoscience", and I'm prepared to debate. Otherwise, dream on about the rapid expansion of acceptance. And hey, I could be entirely wrong here. I only remember what I saw, perhaps not a very representative sample.- Marshman 06:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

ahem. you stated "The harm done by introduced species is as evident as the nose on your face in many places in the world.". by that rigorous measure, it is plainly evident that the sun revolves around the earth. if it's science, then quantify it - don't dismiss the argument because something is "obvious". my use of 'cranks and lunatics' referenced Codman's post above, of 10:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC). as to the remainder of your post, excellent recursive arguments. i've pointed you to the book; you dismiss it out of hand as you have no time for it because you believe it has no merit; the reason you believe it has no merit is because you've not read it. "dream on about the rapid expansion of acceptance" - do you honestly expect to be taken seriously that you are _not_ emotional and have no agenda on the matter, with bon mots like that? read the book. then dismiss it. however, removal of the link to the book would represent an attempt to prevent other points of view being presented - that would be POV.Anastrophe 06:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

i'm going to 'withdraw' here, as i'm certainly doing my fair share of bloviating as well. my fundamental issue is this: invasion biology (or however one wishes to characterize it) is not *settled* science. it is still open to debate. on that basis, the contrary viewpoint should be represented, even if as little as a link to the availability of the book, as it stands now.Anastrophe 06:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to have the last word ;^) I stand by the obvious statement. I can cite plenty of examples, but I qualified it by saying in many places (I am not qualified to state it is true for all places and instances). I dismissed no arguments and not the book either; I requested only that scholarship rule. I wish there was some of what I saw before of the book to debate; have no idea when I would find time to get it from a library; next visit, I presume. "Dreaming" was a dig at your comment, not an expression of my emotional involvement. I admited I could be entirely wrong. Also, you are being a bit hard on me; I was the one that listed the book in the article; but the website link is not going to stand because it is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. You do not need to take my word on that assertion. There is no such thing as "settled science" and I explained why contrary viewpoints are very much accepted but why the approach taken by your brother is problematical at best. - Marshman 07:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

(honestly, i am not trying to steal back the last word! my reference to the link was imprecise - what i meant was that the existing mention of the book in 'further reading' with the link to the ISBN is adequate.)(and my apologies for wading into this discussion page and spitting kudzu seeds at everyone)Anastrophe 07:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I understood that. Thanks for not allowing things to get too heated - Marshman 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Biodiversity argument

I have modified the section on impact of Invasive Species in a manner which is a compromise.

PLEASE! Comparing introduction of exotic species to land masses they arguably would have never reached in the history of their existence IS NOT comparable to climatic process (Ice Ages) or geological processes (continental drift) that take place on vast time scales. AND PLEASE! The suggestion that human beings can notice the impacts of species colonising new areas due to natural processes is highly debatable, due to the long time scales of these natural processes.

I think the compromise is very reasonable and should be left as is now.

Codman 01:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

A compromise involves more than one person and involves more than someone shutting down a discussion because they believe they have more knowledge in a particular area. My whole point was that the concept of invasive species is humanity's - which is a poofteenth of the timeline of this planet. I was not making a comparison; I was adding a broader perspective. As humans we tend to have an overinflated view of our own importance in the grand scheme of things. I would also argue that our impact on the environment has a much greater impact on biodiversity than introduced species but that is already discussed in the biodiversity article. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've not had time to follow your arguments (both of you) and I apoligize if I do not get what you are saying just right, but consider: 1) What "poofteenth" of geological time human existence represents is not even germain. What we do in that time period (especially the last several centuries) is what matters, and what percent of life of the earth that represents has no bearing on the magnitude of the damage caused; so I'm not sure where that argument is even coming from. 2)Clearly, the whole idea of introduced and invasive species can not be separated from the environmental damage that humans cause. And I do not mean that in a relative or comparative sense. It seems to me that a significant number (if perhaps not most) problems caused by invasive species are due to the introduced species taking advantage of ecosystem disruptions caused by man (I think the "natives gone bad" section alludes to this). Put another way: it is not the introduction of non-native species that is the central cause we should be concerned about; it is the ability of the non-natives to take better advantage of disruptions to native ecosystems that is at the heart of the lossd of native biodiversity. - Marshman 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to dilute an emotive and inaccurate argument that humans are aggressively destructive to the environment in a willful and deliberate manner through introduction of new species. Putting things in perspective with long term natural changes to the environment was an attempt to down play the suggested massive impact of introduced species as compared to the broader biodiversity issues caused by our alteration of the environment. (who the hell said this, names and posts are getting mixed up.)

Does this comment pertain to asny of the new material from PBG250 that I have been adding in? - Marshman 03:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I see a lot of fuzzy talk here. Things are guaranteed to get fuzzy when we start talking about long term geological and evolutionary times scales. And with the greatest respect (and I do respect your contributions here Marshman), I think you've both missed the point. 1) The biota that surrounds us is importance to us - e.g. Edward Wilson's concept of biophilia. Functioning natural ecosystems and icon species and communities to are important to us. It can be aruged that in the extreme geological/evolutionary long run no species' extinction matters a jot. But they matter to us now! We are the poorer for losing them. Also, if we accept Stephen Jay Gould's rough estimate of an average 5 million year life span for the average species (complicated issues associated with this concept not withstanding) then we're still talking about bloody long time spans by human standards in which we will be missing the species we make extinct. Plus the ethics issue that we have no right to send species to extinction because of our malevolent activities including the stupid, thoughtless transport and introduction of exotic species around the world... 2) Marshman, there are many instances that simply don't support the "it's really man-modified ecosystems that allow introduced species to thrive" argument. You overlook the simple fact that species ABC that have evolved thousands of miles from other species DEF evolve weaknesses and vulnerabilities precisely because species DEF are not there competiting with them. Humans stupidly then introduce species DEF and species ABC are stuffed, unable to compete because of their evolutionary weaknesses. I see this all the time in Australia - eg native frogs in small upland streams in SE Australia that are hopelessly vulnerable to introduced Trout and are now being predated to extinction to introduced Trout? Why? Because their habitat used to be predator/Trout free, so they developed vulnerabilities, or perhaps more accurately, didn't develop ways of surviving predation. Now we introduce Trout and they're stuffed. These streams are in a pristine state. It's evolutionary issues at play here. Another example is the lack of competitiveness of our native fish larvae compared to mongrel (illegally) introduced Carp larvae. Why? Because Carp came from incredibly competitive fish communities in Europe, much more complex and with many more species than in Australia, and so Carp evolved to become more competitive. Now our native fish larvae are up against them and severely disadvantaged. Australia's arid zones are arguably also a good example of this - with the exception of reduced burnings by aboriginals (is the loss of this degradation?) many parts are pretty pristine, no human activity, little or no cattle grazing. How come it's mammal fauna dominated by exotic crap like camels, goats, rabits, foxes and cats??? There are innumerable examples like this, particularly in Australia, but in many parts of the world overall. Bottom line is, introduced/invasive species are NOT just a problem because of man-degraded ecosystems. They can be a shocking menace in undegraded ecosystems because they simply have evolutionary advantages over native fauna. Codman 04:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You keep adding to the above, but I'm unclear if you are expecting a response? I do not see anyone disagreeing with you. You are saying it is not always the case that man-made disturbance of the environment is necessary for an introduced species to cause harm (i.e., invasive species impact on pristine ecosystems as well). I certainly have no problem with that. And I do not see that being said in the article. - Marshman 20:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are exactly right. It is the alteration of environments that is central to most invasive species problems. Of course, there are exceptions: if I dump a load of rabbits or goats off in an isolated place where neither existed before, and the introduced herbivore sucessfully establishes a population, destruiction will follow without any other intervention by humans (thus, the introduction is the cause of the loss of native biodiversity). But in many (most?) cases, the introduction is more benign--a ticking time bomb that wreaks damage only after humans greatly disturb the environment. I think most native ecosystems are pretty resistant to admitting introduced species, requiring other destabilizing factors; but there certainly are species capable on their own once introduced to cause havoc. We have lots of examples of both situations on Pacific Islands. The Brown Tree Snake introduced to Guam is a good example of the latter, although when the introduction was made there was probably not much intact native ecosystem left on the Island. And it is pretty pointless to go down the "willful and deliberate" nature of introductions as if by just stopping those bad actors we could stop the problem. Fact is, many introductions are made by caring and intelligent people (but certainly diliberate as opposed to accidental) that simply could not forsee the consequences of their actions. - Marshman 18:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure some invasives have only the capacity to replace or pray on other organisms,but there are cases in which they construct an entirely new ecosystem.Example:in Wales it seems that the Japanese knotweed has created an appropriate environment for herbivorous insects,spiders,frogs and grass snakes;in the Danube Delta the introduced species Elodea canadensis is providing food and good selter for aquatic insect larvae which in turn are food for fish communities.86.121.132.24 14:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)mihnea

Proposed New Additions

We would like to propose the following additions to the Invasive Species page: 1) a section called "Ecology of Invasive Species and Invasive Ecosystems" to provide a brief overview of some of the ecological research of biological invasions, including subsections on characteristics of invasive species, characteristics of invaded ecosystems, and vectors of spread. 2) a section called “Impacts of Invasive Species” with subsections on impacts that affect ecology (currently there is a section that deals only with loss of biodiversity), economics and health (neither of these are currently covered) 3) a “Control of Invasive Species” section describing some general background information and control techniques, with subsections including mechanical, chemical, and biological control and also prevention. We feel that these additions will give the general public a more comprehensive view of the invasive species story and plan to post these changes on December 9. Any feedback would be greatly welcome (We are new to Wikipedia!). --PBG250 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No commemts until I see your work. But I applaud the idea! - Marshman 04:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

We posted our work a day early. We tried to respect and incorporate what had already been writtten. Some links will be repaired after we have altered the other pages. We look forward to your comments.--PBG250 02:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

a large, wholesale change to the page such as this is inappropriate. I have reverted the page to the last revision. wikipedia works by consensus and cooperation. no doubt many of your edits are good; but it's far too much change in one fell swoop. Anastrophe 02:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

to expand on my comments a moment ago, revise one paragraph. let it sit so those who watch the page can digest the changes, and if the community vets the info and accepts it, then revise another paragraph. it will be slow, but it is the way of the wiki.Anastrophe 02:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Lots of pages could use significant improvement, but it is unwise to just rewrite a whole article given that the history is that of lots of little tweaks towards perfection. All those "tweakers" are going to want to know why you changed their "pearls." I also note that one of the first things done by PBG250 was to eliminate all external links in favor of ext. links preferred by that editor. This amounts to POV; best to leave ext. links alone when adding new ones. Please consider that most articles have histories, and you cannot make massive changes until you understand those histories. Please also consider my invite to Wikibooks. I like your stuff, just your approach shows immaturity at Wikipedia. Remain open-minded, and you will do just fine! - Marshman 03:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am one member of PBG250, speaking for myself and not for the whole group. We did not re-write the whole article. We incorporated large chunks of text or similar ideas into a more cohesive and encyclopedia-like form. At the rate this page was being tweaked, it would take forever to evolve into the form that we just posted, and frankly I would rather get more correct information up there sooner than later for people who are not as educated in invasive species as ourselves. The page, as is, needs a lot more information on it, and if you don't think that is the case, I would love to hear why. Neither of you had any complaints about the content, so why did you erase it? I think that to outright negate additions just because it happened quickly, and not because you disagree with the content, is preposterous. We posted the mission statement as a warning, and you said to bring it on. I feel like we paid respect to what was there and added large chunks of entirely new text that you have no basis for deleting. You just trashed a lot of new and important information, and since no one has touched this page in a while, I think it is ridiculous. The least you could do is try to improve what we put up there, or repost important things that we left out. What is up there right now is not up to par.--Melpomene107 04:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Realize first, you are addressing a community as if it were one person (pl. "you"). Please read the comments I have been leaving on your user page to understand where I am coming from; and, as I point out there, nothing you added and was reverted was erased, just "backed off". I think your stuff is great with one caveate, that you need to always consider your audience. But we can edit stuff to improve that minor problem. I'd suggest adding your new material first; that is, add new sections that do not require erasing already existing material. In general, if you remove nothing, it would be hard for "us" to complain or revert. Then go after the sections you want to improve, and do that in steps so those of us here can understand the changes. What you do not realize is that this article has been the subject of some edit wars, and while I am am very sympathetic to your editing (as are the others commenting so far), there will be some not so sympathetic who might think you are goring their ox. Be a bit more wary - Marshman 04:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I will be more pointed than Marshman, who is a cooler headed fellow than I. I'm not a 'believer' in the invasive species dogma. Most of it is based on anecdotal evidence, rather than falsifiable data ( see falsifiability ). as i've noted in comments above, i am related to the author of a book that skewers the ideology of invasive species. however, you will note that the edits i have performed on this and related articles have primarily been to bring articles towards NPOV, rather than imposing my POV onto the existing content. my one main (and minor) contribution to this article was the reference to my brother's book, which you swept away with many other things. all that said, in time you'll learn that if what you want doesn't meet various 'tests' of consensus, cooperation, and NPOV, you'll never get anywhere on wikipedia. i happen to believe that wikipedia is fatally flawed; see my user page for that screed. i skimmed some of the content you posted - what i read was excellent, though occasionally POV. since we are all editors here, we have to cooperate with one another. by posting your changes in smaller chunks, it allows your 'co-editors' to vet the material, and make adjustments if they see fit, and if they are significant or contentious, we can all discuss them here, and likely come to an equitable understanding. i said a moment ago that wikipedia is fatally flawed - my paradoxical comment here is that from what i've seen in my brief time here, wikipedia is also one of the most remarkable examples of collaboration i've ever participated in. true, sometimes articles wind up sounding like they were written by a committee; since the goal is to be encyclopediac, that can perhaps be forgiven. Anastrophe 05:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the fact that some species are particularly adept at establishing in entirely new areas and spreading rapidly (after a lag period, usually) is pretty undeniable. There is a lot of good, falsifiable ecology about the the dynamics of species introduced to an area by human agency and spreading widely (I particularly enjoy a lot of the work on the Argentinian ant). Whether or not you think that the species causes "harm" is a philosophical issue based on what you consider "harm." I think that the idea of harm gets fuzziest when you move away from money issues and move into ecological issues. One might replace the word "harm" with "change," becuase the changes are there in the cases of many of the species that we deem "invasive." So I'm not sure where you see falsifiable evidence lacking, though undoubtedly there will be some studies that do lack it. The values, I agree, should be minimized or at least presented in as full of an array as possible in a section dedicated to exploring the debate around invasive species. What we can do is tell people about how species that are transported to a new area and spread widely are often termed "invasive species," what is typical of their ecology, why people are concerned and not concerned about them, and to what lengths people go to control them. I agree that invasion biology can be way too emotive and that that should be minimized.

On a random note, I apologize for removing that reference (I mean it, I'm not being insincere). We thought we had incorporated all of the references into the actual text, and I do believe that all points of view should be presented. I disagree with you, however, that we swept away many things.The intro is just expanded, the "native versus non-native" was barely touched and just moved so that it went with the flow, and the other two sections were summarized elsewhere. Would it be better if we took the two sections that were really shortened and replaced them in their entirety within the content of our text? If we left them and pasted our work underneath everything, things would be pretty disjointed. Anyway, I'm out for a week. Have fun debating.--Melpomene107 16:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your material remains available. I will reinsert it in pieces so we can "debate" to our hearts content! - Marshman 17:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Also need reference cited as Cassey et l., 2005. - Marshman

I have re-added PBG 250's section on control of invasive species. It seems like a part of this topic that is too important to leave out. What do you think? Hydrated 02:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had put all the PBG250 material back in (that was my intention). If I missed something, I apologize. By all means finish up for me - Marshman 02:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I think invasive plants should redirect to invasive species and that anything worth saving should be merged. Any comments? -- Kjkolb 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not know we had an Invasive plants! I would agree with you, except both articles are now getting pretty large and therefore it is better to reduce redundancy between them, but keep them separate; make Invasive plants a sub-article of this one. - Marshman 02:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC) However, after checking out Invasive plants it may be that reducing redundancy would strip that one down pretty small, so your original suggestion may be viable - Marshman

Agreed. If the articles are that redundant, then might as well merge them. Kerowyn 08:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the invasive species article should be an overarching one dealing with all invasive species. There is also value in having additional articles dealing with specific types of invasive species (e.g. plants, insects and other arthropods, other invertebrates, mammals - I can think of examples of all of these in the UK - an also fish elsewhere). However, the articles should supplement not duplicate each other. Maccheek 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with proposal to merge. If one could point to distinctive characteristics of plant invasives, or distinctive ecological properties of plant invasions, there might be a rationale for separate page, although, even then, I think a section within general article would be preferable. As is, I can't think of distinctive properties, and would take general position that organization should be around ecological properties and processes rather than taxonomic distinctions. Separate articles for each taxonomic group could multiply rapidly (at what taxonomic level should we stop?) and become extremely redundant. Kerry Woods 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 5 Feb 2006

I would agree to an invasive plants subsection in invasive species page with a {{main|invasive plants}}. __earth ^(Talk) 04:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Test post of merge. Most material in the invasive plant article can be applied to invasive species in general. If there is to be separate articles, the plant article should be an offshoot of this one. In the test post, I merged most of the material from the plant article. There was some content that I put in a separate plant section. The rest of the material talking about plants was using them as examples for concepts. They stayed where they were. The resulting article was large, but a some of that was the huge references section (I merged the references from the other article, except for a few that were not used in the new article). Also, I think that the article would have been trimmed down later in merges within the article. I could have put all of the plant examples in the plant section, or in their own article, but they explained things that are not in the invasive species article. -- Kjkolb 05:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes we definitely need a sub-article on Invasive plants. the present article is much too large and unwieldy Covalent 16:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur that the current article should be merged with info on other taxa that are invasive (rabbits in Australia are an aggregious non-plant example, along with rats and mongoose in Hawaii and Nutria in Louisiana). In turn, "invasive" could be sub of "exotic" as others have suggested - not all exotics become invasive, although by general definition, invasives are mostly exotic. There are lots on interesting examples of well-intentioned introductions of exotics that have become invasive (the introduction of kudzu into the US for erosion control is one). Phavensindy 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note. Introduced species is also proposed for a merge, and alien species redirects to it. ENeville 15:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

An intoduced species and an invasive species are entirely different things. For example, the black locust is native to the southeastern US but due to changes in forest composition it has become invasive over much of its range. Same with the red maple. I'm going to remove the tag since this idea is flat out wrong. An alien species is more or less the same thing as an introduced species. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your comment or your recent edit. I agree that the two terms are distinct, but your objection is confusing since the first sentence of the article fits what your comment (which I agree with) seems to suggest. As defined in the first sentence, "invasive" is a subset of "introduced", so I don't understand why you object. As a definition (which may necessarily be somewhat arbitrary), a request for a citation would not seem necessary or appropriate. Please clarify. Thanks, Arjuna 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A plant being invasive, in my understanding, is not necessarily associated with introduction. To say that "invasive is a subset of introduced" is not true, because it only is in certain cases. As I noted above, native, i.e. non-introduced species, can be invasive. I asked for a citation for that reason. I suggest that the phenomenon of introduced species being invasive be discussed later on, but not in the first sentence as they are not always connected. It would be like having the first sentence of an article on vanilla saying "vanilla is an ice cream flavour", which it sometimes is, but is not necessarily. I hope that's clearer, but if not just let me know and I can try to formulate it better. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I getcha. I don't disagree with your take, but the lack of clarity reflects lack of agreement as to definitions, neither of which is incorrect. At the same time, an article has to pick one definition and go with it, and I'm not sure that such a thing is amenable to requesting a citation for a definition. Cheers, Arjuna 05:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bye Bye Northern Quolls

Northern quolls are now headed for extinction on the Australian mainlaind. Why? Because they are being poisoned by exotic cane toads invading their very pristine habitats including Kakadu National Park. This sad story reflects what I've been trying to say - introduced/invasive species can have an advantage simply due to evolutionary differences, can invade pristine habitat that has NOT been degraded, and lead to the complete extinction of native species. We have seen it over and over and over again Australia. From this perspective - my perspective - there should be a harder line against introduced/invasive species articles on Wikipedia but I've done my best...

Codman 08:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A few quolls here and there might get poisoned from time to time by eating a poisonous toad. But those that survive stop eating the poisonous toads, either because they learn social skills to avoid the poison, or they develop genetic resistance to the poison, or they develop an instinctual dislike for preying on toads. In any case the quolls are not going to become extinct just because a poisonous toad is hopping around Australia. 65.100.213.65 17:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

GA awarded

I would go for a Peer review and even a FAC since it covers almost every aspects important for this subject. Lincher 15:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

removed link

I took out "Friends of the Ravines"; could find nothing about invasive species there. If there is a specific sub page there that is useful, perhaps the interested party could link directly to that.Dmccabe 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional references

Someone added these:

Albert, S., and T. Trimble. 2000. Beavers are partners in riparian restorations on the Zuni Indian Reservation. Ecological Restoration 18:87-92.

Anderson, B. W. 1996. Salt cedar, revegetation and riparian ecosystems in the Southwest. Pages 32-41 in Lovich, J., J. Randall, and M. Kelly, editors. Proceedings of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council, Symposium '95. Pacific Grove, California.

Anderson, M. G. 1995. Interactions between Lythrum salicaria and native organisms: A critical review. Environmental Management 19:225-231.

Arthington, A. H., and D. S. Mitchell. 1986. Aquatic invading species. Pages 34-53 in R. H. Groves, and J. J. Burdon, editors. Ecology of Biological Invasions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Barrett, S. C. H., and B. J. Richardson. 1986. Genetic attributes of invading species. Pages 21-33 in R. H. Groves, and J. J. Burdon, editors. Ecology of biological invasions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Berman, J., L. Harris, W. Lambert, M. Buttrick, and M. Dufresne. 1992. Recent invasions of the Gulf of Maine: Three contrasting ecological histories. Conservation Biology 6:435-441.

Brennan, L. A. 1991. How can we reverse the northern bobwhite population decline? Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:544-555.

Brennan, L. A. 1993. Fire ants and northern bobwhites: A real problem or a red herring? Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:351-355.

Brooke, R. K., J. L. Lockwood, and M. P. Moulton. 1995. Patterns of success in passeriform introductions on Saint Helena. Oecologi2.

Coblentz, B. E. 1990. Exotic organisms: Dilemma for conservation biology. Conservation Biology 4:261-265.

Courtenay, W. R. J. 1993. Biological pollution through fish introductions. Pages 35-61 in B. N. McKnight, editor. Biological pollution: The control and impact of invasive exotic species. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.

Crivelli, A. J. 1995. Are fish introductions a threat to endemic freshwater fishes in the northern Mediterranean region? Biological Conservation 72:311-319.

Dahlsten, D. L. 1986. Control of invaders. Pages 275-302 in H. A. Mooney, and J. A. Drake, editors. Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Devine, R. 1998. Alien invasion: America's battle with non-native animals and plants. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.

Drost, C. A., and G. M. Fellers. 1996. Collapse of a regional frog fauna in the Yosemite area of the California Sierra Nevada, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 10:414-425.

Duncan, R. P. 1997. The role of competition and introduction effort in the success of passeriform birds introduced to New Zealand. American Naturalist 149:903-915. Ehrlich, P. R. 1986. Which animal will invade? Pages 79-95 in H. A. Mooney, and J. A. Drake, editors. Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Everitt, B. L. 1980. Ecology of saltcedar - A plea for research. Environmental Geology 3:77-84.

Everitt, B. L. 1998. Chronology of the spread of tamarisk in the central Rio Grande. Wetlands 18:658-668.

Hager, H. A., and K. D. McCoy. 1998. The implications of accepting untested hypotheses: A review of the effects of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:1069-1079.

Hight, S. D. 1993. Control of the ornamental purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) by exotic organisms. Pages 147-148 in B. N. McKnight, editor. Biological pollution: The control and impact of invasive exotic species. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.

Holmquist, J. G., and J. M. Schmidt. 1998. High dams and marine-freshwater linkages: Effects on native and introduced fauna in the Caribbean. Conservation Biology 12:621-630.

Karieva, P., I. M. Parker, and M. Pascual. 1996. Can we use experiments and models in predicting the invasiveness of genetically engineered organisms? Ecology 77:1670-1675.

Kowarik, I. 1995. Time lags in biological invasions with regard to the success and failure of alien species. Pages 15-38 in P. Pysek, Prach, K., Rejm�nek, M., Wade, M., editors. Plant invasions: General aspects and special problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam.

Larson, F. 1991. Before and after. San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, 25 October 1991.

Lawton, J. H. 1998. Small earthquakes in Chile and climate change. Oikos 82:209-211.

Lymn, N., and S. A. Temple. 1991. Land-use changes in the Gulf Coast region: Links to declines in midwestern loggerhead shrike populations. Passenger Pigeon 53:315-325.

Malakoff, D. 1999. Plan to import exotic beetle drives some scientists wild. Science 284:1255.

Marriott, D. 1997. Where to see the monarchs in California. Monarch News: 6-9.

Maunder, M., A. Culham, B. Alden, G. Zizka, C. Orliac, W. Lobin, A. Bordeu, J. M. Ramirez, and S. Glissmann-Gough. 2000. Conservation of the Toromiro tree: Case study in the management of a plant extinct in the wild. Conservation Biology 14:1341-1350.

Morrison, M. L. 1991. Developing a methodology for wildlife habitat restoration plans. Restoration and Management Notes 9:125-127.

Moulton, M. P., and J. G. Sanderson. 1999. Fate of passeriform introductions: Reply to Duncan and Young. Conservation Biology 13:937-938.

Pimental, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of non-indigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50:53-65.

Reichard, S. H., and C. W. Hamilton. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conservation Biology 11:193-203.

Rejmanek, M., and D. M. Richardson. 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77:1655-1661.

Roughgarden, J. 1986. Predicting invasions and rates of spread. Pages 179-188 in H. A. Mooney, and J. A. Drake, editors. Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Schmitz, D. C., J. D. Schardt, A. J. Leslie, F. A. J. Dray, J. A. Osborne, and B. V. Nelson. 1993. The ecological impact and management history of three invasive alien aquatic plant species in Florida. Pages 173-194 in B. N. McKnight, editor. Biological pollution: The control and impact of invasive exotic species. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.

Sharples, F. E. 1983. Spread of organisms with novel genotypes: Thoughts from an ecological perspective. Recombinant DNA Technical Bulletin 6:43-56.

Stein, A. B., and J. C. Moxley. 1992. In defense of the nonnative: The case of the eucalyptus. Landscape Journal 11:35-50.

Stromberg, J. C. 1998. Functional equivalency of saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) along a free-flowing river. Wetlands 18:675-686.

Theodoropoulos, D. 1999. Invasion of the aliens: Science or pseudoscience? 26th Annual Natural Areas Association Conference, Tucson, Arizona, October 1999.

Treberg, M. A., and B. C. Husband. 1999. Relationship between the abundance of Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) and plant species richness along the Bar River, Canada. Wetlands 19:118-125.

Tschinkel, W. R. 1993. The fire ant (Solenopsis invicta): Still unvanquished. Pages 121-136 in B. N. McKnight, editor. Biological pollution: The control and impact of invasive exotic species. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.

U.S. Congress, O. T. A. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. OTA-F-565. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Vondracek, B., D. M. Baltz, L. R. Brown, and P. B. Moyle. 1989. Spatial, seasonal and diel distribution of fishes in a California (USA) reservoir dominated by native fishes. Fish Research (AMST) 7(1/2):31-54.

Williamson, M. 1999. Invasions. Ecography 22:5-12. Wilson, J. B., J. C. E. Hubbard, and G. L. Rapson. 1988. A comparison of realized niche relations of species in New Zealand and Britain (UK). Oecologia (Berlin) 76:106-110.

Yamada, E., and C. Sandoval. 2000. Weeding aids restoration of some coastal dune plants (California). Ecological Restoration 18:59-60.

Yosef, R., and F. E. Lohrer. 1995. Loggerhead shrikes, fire ants and red herrings? Condor 97:1053-1056.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed arbitrary letters and spaces in life history section

Removed arbitrary letters and spaces in life history sectionDmccabe 02:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research?

"While this mechanism sounds reasonable to the casual reader, the data itself is much more mixed. Various experiments have shown positive, negative and neutral correlations between ecosystems with high diversity and invasiveness. From this I would argue that while this mechanism may make sense in theory, it does not pan out that well in the literature. Perhaps its effect is simply too weak, and is over powered by other mechanisms, or perhaps the concept of a missing niche is too broad in its application, and needs to be more strictly defined, or better yet, combined into one of the other ecosystem based models (Dukes 2001)."

Is this original research, or just a quote? Either way, it's sort of jarring to see first-person on a Wikipedia entry, at least one that's not within quotation marks. Trappleton 23:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review

Since the merge with the article "invasive plants", the article focuses mainly on plants, rather than discussing invasive species in general. I think a thorough review work is needed.

Gidip 15:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

delisted Gidip 09:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn. MikeHobday 19:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

This is the IUCN definition: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/publications/policy/invasivesEng.htm#2

"Alien species" (non-native, non-indigenous, foreign, exotic) means a species, subspecies, or lower taxon occurring outside of its natural range (past or present) and dispersal potential (i.e. outside the range it occupies naturally or could not occupy without direct or indirect introduction or care by humans) and includes any part, gametes or propagule of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce. "Alien invasive species" means an alien species which becomes established in natural or semi-natural ecosystems or habitat, is an agent of change, and threatens native biological diversity.

Please note: At the time of adoption of these Guidelines by IUCN, standard terminology relating to alien invasive species has not been developed in the CBD context. Definitions used in this document were developed by IUCN in the specific context of native biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive species.

This is the CBD definition: http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/alien/terms.shtml

The CBD defines an invasive alien species (IAS) as ‘an alien species whose introduction and/or spread threaten biological diversity’ (decision VI/23). (This has been changed from ‘an alien species whose introduction and spread threatens ecosystems, habitats or species with socio-cultural, economic and/or environmental harm, and/or harm to human health’: UNEP/CBD/COP/6/18/Add.1/Rev.1.)

A glossary in the new CBD IAS portal sets out the CBD’s definition of terms such as alien species, IAS and introduction (see http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/alien/terms.shtml).

This is a reply from Ms. Shyama Pagad, Species Information, Global Invasive Species Database, http://www.issg.org/database, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, University of Auckland (Tamaki Campus)TimVickers 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Damage caused by I.S.

Quoting the last sentence in the first paragraph: "The majority of introduced species do not cause significant ecological change or environmental harm because they exist primarily in habitats already subjected to intensive human alteration; such species may not be considered 'invasive'."

Is it really so? To my best knowledge, the definition is dependent only on factors of population spread, regardless of the negative impact on man or ecosystems.

Gidip 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfilled niches

I'm not sure where this is from, but the sentence "From this I would argue that while this mechanism may make sense in theory, it does not pan out that well in the literature" makes me think that it's either a quote or someone's POV, either way it should be fixed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees4est (talk • contribs) 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

change title

just change the title to "invasive plants" that should solve the problem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.131.64.214 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Then we wouldn't have an article on invasive species - splitting the content off if there is too much would be a better idea. Richard001 03:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

problems with definition

The first sentence is problematic, not all invasive species are non-native, some native species become invasive when the local environment changes. Poison-ivy is just one of many examples. Hardyplants 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before, but nothing's been done about it. I think in the previous discussion we more or less agreed that it should change, so if you go ahead and improve it I don't think anyone will mind. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 09:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about "Invasive Alien Species", but simply invasive species. The opener should reflect this and explain that invasive species are simply organisms that out-compete others and often cause or threaten their extinction. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

thats going to make it hard to write a coherent article, since most of the literature is based on invasive alien species or weeds. With some original research we can apply the info to the wide definition above. I think that this article needs to cover alien species and one could be composed for the process of species succession. Hardyplants 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead section needs work

I feel that the lead to this article is far too brief considering the size of the article. Furthermore it doesn't come close to summarising the article. The Manual of Style states: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Furthermore I find it a bit strange that the bold text is Invasive Alien Species since that is not the name of the article. The MoS states: "The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face.". Therefore, I would say that it should appear in the first sentence and should ideally be identical with the article's title. There are exceptions to what should be in bold, but I don't think this falls into that category. I liked that someone made mention of native plants also being invasive, but that is not the most pertinent information and should not be in the first line. Instead, a definition of an invasive species should be there. Please see the MoS article about a lead section for ways to improve it. Thanks Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 09:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am going to gut this beast of an article, its just a mis mash of redundant information. Since no one wants to do the lead paragraph, the rest of the page is going to have to conform to the head so to speak.Hardyplants 09:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Invasive species are plants and animals (flora and fauna) that a) were introduced by human agents to a non-native or alian ecosystem and b) reproduce in the new location without the aid of human agents, and c)cause economic or environmental harm[1]. Invasive alien species are "life forms from other parts of the planet"[2]: introduced species or non-indigenous species that are expanding outside of their native range and are likely to cause harm to the economy or environment or human health. [3] In simple terms, the invasive species are all those animals, plants, fungus and microbes that arrive, survive, thrive and deprive.
Native species - that is species native to a neighboring ecosystem - can become invasive when adjacent ecosystems experience environmental or habitat change allowing a pioneer population to expand beyond the native species' historic boundaries and spread to the new ajacent area resulting in the quick proliferation and domination of this new ecosystem.

Thank you for the impute, though I am biased tword my version. The use of a) or numbered conditions in the first paragraph makes it hard to follow. On a factual note the sentence about native species is incorrect because native plants and animals often do not move but are already around but the environment changes giving them a chance to become invasive. An example would be our trusty friend poison-ivy. It grows in woods around here in small scattered groups but when the city cuts a trail through the woods in multiplies quickly and covers the edge of the trail in dense carpets. Hardyplants 13:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardyplants, thank you for your work. I'll copy edit the intro paragraph a bit more. The issue about native species causes me concern. I don't know of any reference works that includes native species in the definition of invasive species. We need an in-line reference to justify its inclusion or else it falls into the Wiki category of original research - Wikipedia:No original research. In general, this article needs more in-line citations. Of course, there is overlap in the definition of a weed and of an invasive species. Weeds certainly can be native - and this definition can be easily sourced. I certainly don't agree with the argument concerning native species - just need a reliabe and verifiable source. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The definition can't be so limiting (and wrong). That is a government definition, not an ecological one. For example: "Some scientists also categorize certain native species that are capable of dominating a disturbed environment as invasive species."... and "According to Roy Blomquist, director of horticulture for the Boston Department of Parks and Recreation, poison ivy is the most problematic invasive species in Franklin Park and other parts of the Emerald Necklace."...and "In 1998, ecologist Richard Kelty determined that greenbriar (a native rather than introduced species) was the most widespread invasive species/ aggressive species in the Wilderness area of Franklin Park." (all from [2]). The definition needs to change. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being misunderstood. We just need in-line source for our definition. The whole article needs to be properly cited. It is irrelevant whether the definition's source is governmental or scientific: it simply must be published in a reputable, reliable and verifiable way outside of Wikipedia and blogs. see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The source that is provided isn't quite good enough: my opinion. I think that native species should be included but my opinion counts for nothing in a Wiki article. We need a good source. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me that you were supporting a stricter definition for the word and I apologise. At any rate, I've replaced the definition using a great source whose topic is identical to our discussion. It essentially states that the term 'invasive species' has well over 5 commonly used definitions. You should all have a look, as I think it will be quite helpful. I listed three of those definitions and stated at the end that this article is about an invasive species in the sense of a native or non-native species that invades a habitat and causes economic or environmental harm. Everyone agree (the source supports that definition, of course)? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Great job! I'm impressed with the source. The intro now seems to cover all the main points of Wiki policy. Thanks Djlayton4. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Just to note that according to Wikipedia policy a good article is broad in its coverage, focused without going into unnecessary details - see Wikipedia:What is a good article. Perhaps the top 5 articles or books that would lead the interested reader further into the topic would suffice. As it is, the list of references looks more appropriately appended to someone's PhD thesis, rather than an encyclopedia article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:18, 5 July 2007

Referencing should be by inline citation. Several of the listed references seem to be orphaned:there is no text referencing them. A separate "Further reading" section should be added with - say - five relevant, recent, reliable and regarded books that would take the interested reader further. The References section should be references found in the inline citations. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've culled out 21 orphaned references. Next step is to use one of the inline citation tags to keep track of active and orphaned references. And to find a "Top 5" Further Reading texts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"opposing view" does not need 'contextualizing'

Arjuna808 seems to be intent on having the opposing viewpoint "contextualized' by inclusion of a book review. when i added another review that countered the first review, he complained that the article is not an article on 'book reviews'. fine. i agree. no counterpoint to the opposing view is needed at all - it is just that - an opposing viewpoint to an entire article that presumes the other point of view. having that helps to maintain a NPOV. adding a review serves no purpose at all. Anastrophe 05:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anastrophe seems intent on pushing a POV that is, to put it mildly, not well-regarded in the scientific community. That this book of dubious merit is provided six lines is more than generous. As per WP:UNDUE it is a disservice not to provide proper context of the book's reputation within the scientific community, and as such the properly cited book review is appropriate and will remain -- undiluted by the promotions of Anastrophe, who also happens to be the author's brother. There is also probably a Wikirule that suggests his pushing of a self-published book is a violation. Cheers, Arjuna 05:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So much for assuming good faith. the fact that i'm the author's brother is not a secret. You seem to place great weight on that, and make great assumptions based upon that, which is not reasonable. Many articles on controversial scientific topics on wikipedia also contain opposing viewpoints. Mr. theodoropoulos's viewpoint is shared by others. You however are playing a game of brinksmanship. It is worth noting that i played no role in the inclusion of the opposing viewpoint. However, i think it is similarly unfair to proclaim that one biologist's review that is favorable to the opposing view needs to be excluded, while another reviewer's unfavorable opinion must be included. That, my friend, is POV pushing. An "opposing view", which the section indeed provides, needs no qualification or review. Or are we to understand that the invasive species article cannot stand any criticism? If not, then surely its scientific basis must be questioned. Anastrophe 05:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am at 3RR (and so are you) and I do not wish to go over the limit, but your POV pushing and promotion is inappropriate and this will be revisited. That you seem intent on pushing a fringe POV without wishing to allow this to be called out as such is untenable. Arjuna 05:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ahem. i'm not pushing anything 'fringe'. i'm pushing for NPOV. i posted a biologist's review that was favorable to the opinion. now then, why is one biologist's opinion of the material legitimate, while another biologist's is not? i know why. because one biologist supports your point of view. well, that's POV. the opposing view is not 'balanced' by insisting that a harsh review of it be included. refusing the inclusion of a favorable review belies your intent. Anastrophe 05:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. To a fringe view, context is required. See WP:UNDUE. Arjuna 05:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd go even farther than Arjuna here. The book (like Hemenway's review) is self-published, so it's not a reliable source in itself. The only way it would be notable enough for this article would be because of coverage of the book by published sources, like Raven's review. So if anything, Raven's review should be emphasized over the claims of the book itself. But really I think the whole section should be deleted. If the viewpoint of Theodoropoulos/Hudson is really notable, then it will probably have been expressed (not merely refuted) in published sources. --Allen 06:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If the source is self-published and it is a relation of the self-published author who is promoting the source then under Wiki policy - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources - the source might be considered unreliable due to the conflict of interest - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. However, as elaborated at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper):

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so

If the theory is novel and not mainstream, then one should consult the following guidline:Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

"Mainstream" here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications

Also according to Wikipedia policy a good article is broad in its coverage, focused without going into unnecessary details - see Wikipedia:What is a good article. A Wiki article should be an encyclopedic overview of a topic. On the whole, I agree with Allen and the section removed. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"If the source is self-published and it is a relation of the self-published author who is promoting the source[...] " Let me repeat what I already stated, because i resent the implication that i am "promoting" the material: I played no role in the inclusion of the opposing viewpoint.. I don't know who created the section. I don't really care. what i care about is fair/balanced treatment of the material that is included in the article. Clearly, the five sentences providing an opposing view of this pseudo science are far too threatening to those who are emotionally invested in "Invasion Biology". I'm not at all surprised that it's been removed. Silencing dissenting views isn't new or novel. Mr. Theodoropoulos's book has received a fair bit of discussion in academic and non-academic settings; he is by no means alone in his view. That, of course, doesn't validate the view, but neither does a 'consensus' of those threatened by a dissenting view invalidate it. In time, I'm sure some coverage of the dissenting view will return. Anastrophe 16:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers to Allen and Wassupwestcoast -I was trying to be polite by simply adding context and not deleting the section pending consensus to do so. But I agree that Theodoropoulous does not fall in the category of mainstream scientific criticism (he is generally only "discussed" in scientific circles as a polemicist to be avoided as though he were a plague) and therefore deletion was more than justified. I don't think anyone is opposed to including legitimate constructive criticism of invasion biology, but fringe theories by self-appointed, self-published "biologists" have no place, as per the rules already mentioned. One additional heads up: a week ago or so I deleted an external link (prominently placed as the first link) to an even more objectionable "article" by some weirdo comparing invasion biologists to Nazis, which was completely beyond the pale. Something to be vigilant towards. Cheers, Arjuna 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

there was no politeness on your part in accusing me of bias and having an agenda because i'm related to the author. i've proven by my disinterest in restoring the section that your contentions were at best offensive. your emotional attachment to the issue, and unwillingness to have that challenged, is one of the things covered in depth in the book. i expect you'll never actually read that which you're condemning. i'm particularly amused by your contention that "(he is generally only "discussed" in scientific circles as a polemicist to be avoided as though he were a plague)". your direct experience with this is? he regularly is invited to universities here and abroad to present his work and engage in academic debate on the matter. the number of scientists who immediately use ad hominem to try to discredit the work - well, it's even further amusing. if the science of invasion biology weren't so tenuous, there'd be no need for that nonsense. but again - you'll never actually read the book, so do continue to use as many emotional words as possible to characterize the work, while being palpably ignorant of the actual content. oh, and the sociological basis for the comparison to nazis is covered in detail in the book. i'd have preferred mr. theodoropoulos had stuck with a less obvious choice, perhaps mao, since 'nazi' is so overused. but the comparison is indeed apt, and it's the really tragic and unfunny part of it. tremendous habitat destruction is committed in service to eradicating relatively benign 'non natives'. Anastrophe 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you feel better now. Thank you also for the personal attack, which proves my point about who is the unhinged party here. When I said I was being polite, I was not referring to my interactions with you (although I have tried to remain civil), but rather to the fact that I was politely 1. not first resorting to deletion of the material but rather trying to put it into the context in which it belongs and 2. seeking consensus before supporting deletion of what is, as you have now demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever, a fringe POV. I wish you the best. Arjuna 22:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

no, certainly you don't, but it's a pretty turn of phrase to try to deflect the offensiveness of what preceded it. have you read the book?Anastrophe 22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

sigh. well, here i am again. my personal malfunctions aren't anyone else's problem, however, i apologize for my incivility. i wouldn't *mind* a reciprocal apology for incivilities flung my way, but, in the end that's irrelevant. i get worked up about a subject (this one is not unique, nor is my relationship to the author in question more than a fractional factor, believe me), and i get aggressive and unpleasant. i'm a passionate person and passions don't play out too well in text (unless you're writing romance novels). i apologize Arjuna808 for being an ass about this. It's a contentious matter, my stance hasn't changed, but nastiness is not generally a good mechanism changing other's minds. Anastrophe 00:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Anastrophe, while I stand by my comments and do not feel I was being uncivil, at the same time I want to make it clear that I do not think you are a terrible person. When I said that I wish you the best, I actually do mean that sincerely. Aloha, Arjuna 01:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)