What do you think?
Rate this book
Where Do Camels Belong?
Where do camels come from? In the Arab world may seem the obvious answer. But they are relative newcomers there. They evolved in North America and retain their greatest diversity in South America, while the only wild dromedaries are in Australia.
This is a classic example of the contradictions of 'native' and 'invasive' species, a hot issue right now as the flip-side of biodiversity. Do we need to fear invaders? Can we control them? Do we choose the right targets? And are the natives always good guys?
Thompson puts forward a fascinating array of narratives to explore this crucial question.
This is a classic example of the contradictions of 'native' and 'invasive' species, a hot issue right now as the flip-side of biodiversity. Do we need to fear invaders? Can we control them? Do we choose the right targets? And are the natives always good guys?
Thompson puts forward a fascinating array of narratives to explore this crucial question.
262 pages, Paperback
First published March 20, 2014
90 people are currently reading
1379 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
December 30, 2015
The subtitle of this book is 'The story and science of invasive species" which I thought would be right up my alley having studied ecology and having worked briefly in biocontrol.
A quick google of the author shows that he has extensive credentials in botany and ecology and so it was with high anticipation that I took this book home. In it, the author draws upon his extensive experience to take us step by step on a description of how and when species have distributed in the world, he then examines the notions of 'natural' and 'artificial' species distribution in light of the very busy historical distribution patterns. Having set up the background for invasive vs native plants he then sheds an uncomfortably bright light on some of the human biases about invasive species and uses some case histories to highlight some of the downright ridiculous things humans have done in the name of controlling invasive species.
Why did I not give this book four stars? In many ways it deserved them, well written with undeniably vast information, well formed opinions and certainly well defined opinions...
It was the well defined opinions really, that lost a star and often my attention while reading. There is the strong sense that this book was pushing some very strong personal opinions rather than giving you information and letting you make up your own mind. There was also a definite element of 'this book is a bit of a frustration outlet', well, lets call it as we see it, a personal rant.
Early on in the book Thompson begins developing his pet theory of "should we really be trying to control invasive species at all?" To an Australian, this is practically anathema and I felt as though I had accidentally picked up a book about climate denial (Which Thompson, is definitely not). As he expands his topic I start to see his point; in Great Britain the question of native vs invasive is clearly a completely different question to Australia because of its proximity and species sharing with Europe. There the question of 'native?' is clearly very different and it was refreshing reading about it.
The US has also had a lot more species sharing, in waves with glaciation events, and also it has Americans in it. Apparently the big thing in America is assigning dollar values to conservation and bio-control. Apparently Thompson finds this very annoying. Very! and I guess I don't blame him though as a reader, a human reader, it gets a bit old being told how stupid humans are to do things and think things that I, personally, never have. Again, can feel like blog rant.
Most of the abundant, and enjoyable case studies are from GB and US, where apparently 'invasive' is the word they use instead of our 'introduced' or 'exotic'. Considering Australia and New Zealand's unique positions in ecology there were few examples from this side of the world, (though Hawaii gets more of a look in) and I was underwhelmed with the cases that were included. At the end of the day though, the author is concentrating on the areas he knows best, and that is reasonable.
Thompson is clearly a botanist. Even if you had not googled and read the author introduction this would be amazingly clear because his main focus is on botany and animals only sneak into the equations in the most peripheral of ways. I think this is another reason why a lot of this book and its conclusions grated on me at first, I am more into animalia to begin with and am rather strongly convinced of damage that invasive species can do. Hello, Bufo marinus , Lantana camara,- I noticed that the cane toad got a very, very glancing mention in this text.
A note to those of my friends to whom grammar and punctuation is as life blood; this book needed more editing. I personally don't often notice or care, however a previous reader of this library book had gone through with a red pen and corrected a lot of punctuation. They used a blue pen for the grammar. There were a lot of marks.
So all in all, a book that got me thinking and expanded my horizons about several biocontrol issues (I didn't even know 'invasive biology' was a thing) I'm glad I read it, would read more. I did not like the rant element, being lectured about how stupid 'I' was to prefer cute cuddly animals and to believe the media that billions of dollars (US dollars, I assume) go into eradicating innocent inoffensive introduced species.
A quick google of the author shows that he has extensive credentials in botany and ecology and so it was with high anticipation that I took this book home. In it, the author draws upon his extensive experience to take us step by step on a description of how and when species have distributed in the world, he then examines the notions of 'natural' and 'artificial' species distribution in light of the very busy historical distribution patterns. Having set up the background for invasive vs native plants he then sheds an uncomfortably bright light on some of the human biases about invasive species and uses some case histories to highlight some of the downright ridiculous things humans have done in the name of controlling invasive species.
Why did I not give this book four stars? In many ways it deserved them, well written with undeniably vast information, well formed opinions and certainly well defined opinions...
It was the well defined opinions really, that lost a star and often my attention while reading. There is the strong sense that this book was pushing some very strong personal opinions rather than giving you information and letting you make up your own mind. There was also a definite element of 'this book is a bit of a frustration outlet', well, lets call it as we see it, a personal rant.
Early on in the book Thompson begins developing his pet theory of "should we really be trying to control invasive species at all?" To an Australian, this is practically anathema and I felt as though I had accidentally picked up a book about climate denial (Which Thompson, is definitely not). As he expands his topic I start to see his point; in Great Britain the question of native vs invasive is clearly a completely different question to Australia because of its proximity and species sharing with Europe. There the question of 'native?' is clearly very different and it was refreshing reading about it.
The US has also had a lot more species sharing, in waves with glaciation events, and also it has Americans in it. Apparently the big thing in America is assigning dollar values to conservation and bio-control. Apparently Thompson finds this very annoying. Very! and I guess I don't blame him though as a reader, a human reader, it gets a bit old being told how stupid humans are to do things and think things that I, personally, never have. Again, can feel like blog rant.
Most of the abundant, and enjoyable case studies are from GB and US, where apparently 'invasive' is the word they use instead of our 'introduced' or 'exotic'. Considering Australia and New Zealand's unique positions in ecology there were few examples from this side of the world, (though Hawaii gets more of a look in) and I was underwhelmed with the cases that were included. At the end of the day though, the author is concentrating on the areas he knows best, and that is reasonable.
Thompson is clearly a botanist. Even if you had not googled and read the author introduction this would be amazingly clear because his main focus is on botany and animals only sneak into the equations in the most peripheral of ways. I think this is another reason why a lot of this book and its conclusions grated on me at first, I am more into animalia to begin with and am rather strongly convinced of damage that invasive species can do. Hello, Bufo marinus , Lantana camara,- I noticed that the cane toad got a very, very glancing mention in this text.
A note to those of my friends to whom grammar and punctuation is as life blood; this book needed more editing. I personally don't often notice or care, however a previous reader of this library book had gone through with a red pen and corrected a lot of punctuation. They used a blue pen for the grammar. There were a lot of marks.
So all in all, a book that got me thinking and expanded my horizons about several biocontrol issues (I didn't even know 'invasive biology' was a thing) I'm glad I read it, would read more. I did not like the rant element, being lectured about how stupid 'I' was to prefer cute cuddly animals and to believe the media that billions of dollars (US dollars, I assume) go into eradicating innocent inoffensive introduced species.
March 22, 2016
In the first few chapters of this book, I was moaning and rolling my eyes a lot. of course nativeness is subjective. of course ecology is value laden. At first this book felt to me like one written by an ecologist who suddenly had these rather jarring revelations that what he'd spent his career believing was objective and pure science was actually rather messy and complicated. Of course that's the case, I thought, how could he have believed otherwise? As I read on, and Thompson got to the real thesis of the book, I realised that this was a book that was going to challenge some of my own assumptions and even change my view. It did both. Although ostensibly about how we should judge species on their effects, rather than their modern origin, to me the real point of the book is the underlying theme: for the most part, it's what we have done to ecosystems that causes the problem, and too often it's an invasive species that takes the blame. I wish that point had been highlighted more, as a think many people will read the book defensively, not picking up on the finer points of the argument. I also appreciated the analysis if the effect of invasives on biodiversity and ecosystem function, but as an environmental scientist myself, I wanted more on this. I certainly recommend this book to people who care about the environment and are interested in ecology, but you have to come to it with an open mind. It is not without its flaws, so your mind can't be so open that your brain falls out, but it's the sort of book that challenges what you think you know...in a non-conspiratorial sort of way... and that's a rare thing to find.
March 16, 2014
Some of the best popular science books are the ones that change your way of looking at something. They might show you, for instance, that time travel is real, not just science fiction, or that quantum theory is not just for Nobel Prize winners – or, in this case, that our whole attitude to invasive species is down to emotional knee-jerk response, not to real science.
Ken Thompson’s fascinating and highly readable book takes us on a tour of the way that ecologists have made invasive species public enemies without any good basis. He shows how it is very difficult to say whether a species is native or alien, and whether this matters. Often, it seems to come down to whether we like the species or not. He shows how many of the invaders we panic about actually improve species diversity, how it’s a perfectly natural thing for species to move from place to place, and how bad science means that ecologists confuse correlation and causality – a classic scientific error.
While turning the view of invasive species on its head, Thompson also keeps us reading with well-crafted and often drily humorous turns of phrase. Describing the brown tree snake (one of the few genuine baddies in these circumstances) and its invasion of the island of Guam, he comments ‘Small, highly gregarious, white eyes [a local bird] roost together on a branch, shoulder to shoulder, and can be taken one at a time without the others taking flight, in a kind of ornithological kebab.’
This is an important and thought provoking book that deserves widespread exposure. At risk of hyperbole, I’d say it is to ecology what Darwin’s Origin of Species was to evolution. Not because it’s as important as Origin, but because like that book, it shows us a piece of biological theory that is entirely obvious and logical once you see it, yet it’s one that most of the people working in the field simply haven’t acknowledged or noticed.
Highly recommended, and without doubt one of the best popular science books so far in 2014.
Ken Thompson’s fascinating and highly readable book takes us on a tour of the way that ecologists have made invasive species public enemies without any good basis. He shows how it is very difficult to say whether a species is native or alien, and whether this matters. Often, it seems to come down to whether we like the species or not. He shows how many of the invaders we panic about actually improve species diversity, how it’s a perfectly natural thing for species to move from place to place, and how bad science means that ecologists confuse correlation and causality – a classic scientific error.
While turning the view of invasive species on its head, Thompson also keeps us reading with well-crafted and often drily humorous turns of phrase. Describing the brown tree snake (one of the few genuine baddies in these circumstances) and its invasion of the island of Guam, he comments ‘Small, highly gregarious, white eyes [a local bird] roost together on a branch, shoulder to shoulder, and can be taken one at a time without the others taking flight, in a kind of ornithological kebab.’
This is an important and thought provoking book that deserves widespread exposure. At risk of hyperbole, I’d say it is to ecology what Darwin’s Origin of Species was to evolution. Not because it’s as important as Origin, but because like that book, it shows us a piece of biological theory that is entirely obvious and logical once you see it, yet it’s one that most of the people working in the field simply haven’t acknowledged or noticed.
Highly recommended, and without doubt one of the best popular science books so far in 2014.
July 19, 2025
Should be required reading for ALL biology and ecology students!!
May 6, 2015
I think the book makes some valid points, but he cherry picked his examples. It wouldn't be hard to come up with more examples of species doing serious economic/eco system damage: emerald ash borer, pine beetle, kudzu to name a few off the top of my head.
And why not go into more detail about solutions? What's the ultimate goal in his estimation? Preserve diversity? Healthy Eco systems?
He pays lips service to other threats like climate change, habitat loss, and resource management with little attention to the big picture ripple effects. Invasives put additional stress on already weakened systems. What should environmentalists focus on then?
And why not go into more detail about solutions? What's the ultimate goal in his estimation? Preserve diversity? Healthy Eco systems?
He pays lips service to other threats like climate change, habitat loss, and resource management with little attention to the big picture ripple effects. Invasives put additional stress on already weakened systems. What should environmentalists focus on then?
August 16, 2018
What a fantastic book!
Thompson's work has challenged and changed all my views on species conservationism in such a dramatic view that I may need time to come to terms with it.
It's serious and humourous, simple and complex, yet always enlightening. I got thrilled about the reintroduction of lynx in the UK to save the species, but I wonder what I should do the next time my local rangers email me to remove rhododendron from my country park. Should I join them? Or should I tell them that rhododendron has all the right to stay?
Thompson's work has challenged and changed all my views on species conservationism in such a dramatic view that I may need time to come to terms with it.
It's serious and humourous, simple and complex, yet always enlightening. I got thrilled about the reintroduction of lynx in the UK to save the species, but I wonder what I should do the next time my local rangers email me to remove rhododendron from my country park. Should I join them? Or should I tell them that rhododendron has all the right to stay?
November 30, 2014
Good stuff! Challenged my preconceptions, made me wish the author was here so I could ask follow up questions.
April 1, 2015
This book addresses the issue of the concept of native species versus invasive or alien species. The author shows that the distinction is problematical and popular ideas of invasions and the need to address them are frequently flawed. Many examples are given, most surprising. Camels are his first illustration, having evolved in North America for 10 million years and migrated to South America and Asia before disappearing in NA around 8000 ya, making it unclear where they "belong".
Chapter 1 "Species On The Move" reviews the movements of the continents and the resulting changes in distribution of plants and animals. During glaciations, species "retreat" to warmer areas, then during warmer periods they expand their ranges. During glaciations, land bridges for between Europe and Britain. When it warms, species are able to expand into Britain. Which species make it vary for each interglacial. Collared Doves and Tree Bumblebees are just now making it back to Britain. Migration and human dispersal are covered.
Chapter 2 "A Short History of Nativeness" looks more closely at the concept of native plants. Species are always on the move, so nativeness implies a timing. In the U.S. the benchmark is pre-Columbus while in the U.K. it is an agricultural landscape of Jane Austen's time. Issues such as re-introduction of extinct animals, whether introduction was by man test the idea of nativeness. In some cases, animals were known to exist in the previous interglacial, but not currently. Some movements seem to be natural extensions of range such as the Collared Dove and the Tree Bumblebee in Britain. Historical thinking that natives have rights over aliens has continued today.
Chapter 3 "First Some Bad News" looks at the troubles that four alien species have caused - the Brown Tree Snake in Guam (native to Australia and New Guinea), the Zebra Mussel in the Great Lake (native to Russia), the Tamarisk in the U.S., and the Purple Loosetrife.
Chapter 4 "Guilty as Charged" looks at the introductions again, showing that they have not always been as bad as portrayed.
Chapter 5 "If It's Nice, It Must Be Native" shows that a number of plants considered native to the U.K. are likely not so, but their attractiveness trumps their non-native status (Fritillaria meleagris, Papaver rhoeas). Crayfish were brought to England about 600 ya and are considered native, but were brought to Scotland 150 ya and are not considered native. Scotland is trying to reintroduce western European beavers, but trying to get rid of the Tay beavers which are somewhat more genetically diverse. The dingo arrived in Australia only 4000 ya and yet is important in limiting foxes and feral cats that prey on endangered marsupials. Native is a frail concept.
Chapter 6 "A Short Course in Ecology" at ecological communities and the idea of niches. Current thinking is that virtually all niches in a community are filled, and a increase in one species will result in a decrease in other species. One study has apparently shown the converse. Some studies shown that introduced plants have not lead to the extinction of natives; rather the diversity has increased. This seems to be true for fishes and insects, but not for birds. It is possible that alien birds are successful due to the earlier extinction of native birds due to other causes. The number of plant species in the alpine in the European Alps is increasing. While some believe this to be due to species being forced upward by recent climate warming, it turns out that these species already occur on other mountains and the Alps are still catching up after the Little Ice Age (1550-1850).
Chapter 7 "Spotting the Bad Guys" looks at theories as to why invaders are successful. Studies show not difference between expanding aliens and expanding natives. Some species are more successful in the disturbed lands characteristic of human dominated landscapes. The Enemy Release Hypothesis suggests that invasive species thrive because they leave their predators and parasites at home. However, studies suggest that the aliens often bring same along and encounter new ones in the new land. Example of American starlings that carry more parasites than those in the Old World. Similarly, the Evolution of Increased Competency Ability Hypothesis suggests that aliens have less predator pressure and can evolve to become stronger. However, no research has shown greater size or robustness in alien plants. Propagule Pressure suggests that the best invaders are those that are introduced most often and in greater numbers. This theory is well supported by the Rhododendron ponticum history in Britain and by the records of acclimatisation societies.
Chapter 8 "Out of Control" shows that control of aliens has been difficult as they are part of a web, often involving native species. Removal of cattle from California to protect wildflowers failed as the reduced grazing allowed grass growth. Protection of the Santa Catalina fox required not only removal of the feral pigs, but restoration of the bald eagles which competed with the golden eagles, fox predators, for nesting sites. This complexity makes control programs problematical and expensive.
Chapter 9 "No Going Back" describes how a landscape dominated by an alien invasive can evolve into mixed cover through succession. Often this can take decades. Aliens evolve in their new home. Bumblebees introduced to New Zealand from Britain have evolved to become genetically distinct from the originals. Two species of radish have been introduced into California - the cultivated radish and a wild one. They have hybridized and the hybrid is replacing the original wild radish.
Chapter 10 "Leveling the Playing Field" largely discusses the gardening industry which introduces many new plants, but also a variety of insects. The South African Iridaceae are beautiful and a third of the species have been introduced elsewhere. Escape is inevitable and some have gone on to become troublesome weeds. Some are considering the possibility of moving threatened species to new locations which might suit them. Ideas include trans-locating Iberian Lynx and the Spanish Imperial Eagle to Britain.
Chapter 11 "Five Myths About Invasions" corrects these myths:
- Alien invasions reduce biodiversity and ecosystem function
- Alien species cost us a fortune
- Aliens are always to blame
- Aliens are out to get us
- Aliens are bad, natives are good
Chapter 12 "Where Do We Go From Here?" recaps the ideas of the book. While alien introductions should be avoided, attempts at control should be examined closely. The benefits must outweigh the costs. "Finally, in a world where the spread of alien species is only one small part of the complete transformation of the biosphere by human activity, we should stop thinking we can turn the clock back to some pristine, pre-human golden age, even if we had any idea what that pristine state looked like."
Chapter 1 "Species On The Move" reviews the movements of the continents and the resulting changes in distribution of plants and animals. During glaciations, species "retreat" to warmer areas, then during warmer periods they expand their ranges. During glaciations, land bridges for between Europe and Britain. When it warms, species are able to expand into Britain. Which species make it vary for each interglacial. Collared Doves and Tree Bumblebees are just now making it back to Britain. Migration and human dispersal are covered.
Chapter 2 "A Short History of Nativeness" looks more closely at the concept of native plants. Species are always on the move, so nativeness implies a timing. In the U.S. the benchmark is pre-Columbus while in the U.K. it is an agricultural landscape of Jane Austen's time. Issues such as re-introduction of extinct animals, whether introduction was by man test the idea of nativeness. In some cases, animals were known to exist in the previous interglacial, but not currently. Some movements seem to be natural extensions of range such as the Collared Dove and the Tree Bumblebee in Britain. Historical thinking that natives have rights over aliens has continued today.
Chapter 3 "First Some Bad News" looks at the troubles that four alien species have caused - the Brown Tree Snake in Guam (native to Australia and New Guinea), the Zebra Mussel in the Great Lake (native to Russia), the Tamarisk in the U.S., and the Purple Loosetrife.
Chapter 4 "Guilty as Charged" looks at the introductions again, showing that they have not always been as bad as portrayed.
Chapter 5 "If It's Nice, It Must Be Native" shows that a number of plants considered native to the U.K. are likely not so, but their attractiveness trumps their non-native status (Fritillaria meleagris, Papaver rhoeas). Crayfish were brought to England about 600 ya and are considered native, but were brought to Scotland 150 ya and are not considered native. Scotland is trying to reintroduce western European beavers, but trying to get rid of the Tay beavers which are somewhat more genetically diverse. The dingo arrived in Australia only 4000 ya and yet is important in limiting foxes and feral cats that prey on endangered marsupials. Native is a frail concept.
Chapter 6 "A Short Course in Ecology" at ecological communities and the idea of niches. Current thinking is that virtually all niches in a community are filled, and a increase in one species will result in a decrease in other species. One study has apparently shown the converse. Some studies shown that introduced plants have not lead to the extinction of natives; rather the diversity has increased. This seems to be true for fishes and insects, but not for birds. It is possible that alien birds are successful due to the earlier extinction of native birds due to other causes. The number of plant species in the alpine in the European Alps is increasing. While some believe this to be due to species being forced upward by recent climate warming, it turns out that these species already occur on other mountains and the Alps are still catching up after the Little Ice Age (1550-1850).
Chapter 7 "Spotting the Bad Guys" looks at theories as to why invaders are successful. Studies show not difference between expanding aliens and expanding natives. Some species are more successful in the disturbed lands characteristic of human dominated landscapes. The Enemy Release Hypothesis suggests that invasive species thrive because they leave their predators and parasites at home. However, studies suggest that the aliens often bring same along and encounter new ones in the new land. Example of American starlings that carry more parasites than those in the Old World. Similarly, the Evolution of Increased Competency Ability Hypothesis suggests that aliens have less predator pressure and can evolve to become stronger. However, no research has shown greater size or robustness in alien plants. Propagule Pressure suggests that the best invaders are those that are introduced most often and in greater numbers. This theory is well supported by the Rhododendron ponticum history in Britain and by the records of acclimatisation societies.
Chapter 8 "Out of Control" shows that control of aliens has been difficult as they are part of a web, often involving native species. Removal of cattle from California to protect wildflowers failed as the reduced grazing allowed grass growth. Protection of the Santa Catalina fox required not only removal of the feral pigs, but restoration of the bald eagles which competed with the golden eagles, fox predators, for nesting sites. This complexity makes control programs problematical and expensive.
Chapter 9 "No Going Back" describes how a landscape dominated by an alien invasive can evolve into mixed cover through succession. Often this can take decades. Aliens evolve in their new home. Bumblebees introduced to New Zealand from Britain have evolved to become genetically distinct from the originals. Two species of radish have been introduced into California - the cultivated radish and a wild one. They have hybridized and the hybrid is replacing the original wild radish.
Chapter 10 "Leveling the Playing Field" largely discusses the gardening industry which introduces many new plants, but also a variety of insects. The South African Iridaceae are beautiful and a third of the species have been introduced elsewhere. Escape is inevitable and some have gone on to become troublesome weeds. Some are considering the possibility of moving threatened species to new locations which might suit them. Ideas include trans-locating Iberian Lynx and the Spanish Imperial Eagle to Britain.
Chapter 11 "Five Myths About Invasions" corrects these myths:
- Alien invasions reduce biodiversity and ecosystem function
- Alien species cost us a fortune
- Aliens are always to blame
- Aliens are out to get us
- Aliens are bad, natives are good
Chapter 12 "Where Do We Go From Here?" recaps the ideas of the book. While alien introductions should be avoided, attempts at control should be examined closely. The benefits must outweigh the costs. "Finally, in a world where the spread of alien species is only one small part of the complete transformation of the biosphere by human activity, we should stop thinking we can turn the clock back to some pristine, pre-human golden age, even if we had any idea what that pristine state looked like."
September 23, 2020
A vibrant attack on the scare-mongering about invasive species you typically find in newspapers, magazines and news reports, as well as in the questionable discipline of invasive species ecology and among so-called animal and plant 'conservationists.' Essentially, Thompson's point is that in the large majority of cases, invasive species do not cause harm to their new environments and that, if anything, they actually lead to an increase in biodiversity. It is only due to faulty scientific methodology and certain biases that this truth is somehow missed. More precisely, Thompson points to the disproportionate attention given to the few cases where invasive species do cause harm (think brown tree snakes on Guam) and our failure to look at long-term consequences (i..e, not looking at a time-scale of > fifty years, which would give indigenous species the necessary time to readjust and restore the balance). Ecosystems are remarkably pliable and animal and plant species are impressively resistant towards foreign 'invaders'.
A deeper problem is that even the language of invasive species ecology is shot through with evaluative biases: 'invasive' seems to already carry a conviction with it, whereas 'conservation' seems a noble goal in and of itself. Of course we don't have to ditch these words, but we have to be wary of the fact that prima facie an indigenous species is not 'better' than an invasive one.
Reading this book also strengthened my desire to one day have a pair of invasive bactrian camels in my backyard.
A deeper problem is that even the language of invasive species ecology is shot through with evaluative biases: 'invasive' seems to already carry a conviction with it, whereas 'conservation' seems a noble goal in and of itself. Of course we don't have to ditch these words, but we have to be wary of the fact that prima facie an indigenous species is not 'better' than an invasive one.
Reading this book also strengthened my desire to one day have a pair of invasive bactrian camels in my backyard.
April 26, 2018
The main theme of this book is basically that non-native species are being unfairly demonized and that we're better off trying to learn to live with them than put so much effort into eradicating them. I think I at least partially agree with that idea but I feel like this guy is probably overcompensating with some of this stuff. I agree that many of these eradication efforts are just pointless wastes of energy that will never be able to accomplish their goals. We're not going to perfectly recreate the pristine landscapes of whichever time period we consider most ideal, and we definitely won't keep our landscapes how they are indefinitely. I also agree that reintroducing species that haven't been around for a while can be beneficial. However, there's a big difference between tolerating invasives that have already established themselves and allowing more to keep coming in. There's also a big difference between bringing wolves back to our parks a hundred years after overhunting has wiped them out and bringing in elephants to fill the niche of the mastodons that were here 10,000 years ago. There isn't too much in here on these types of extreme rewilding proposals that are being pushed by people like George Monbiot but he does mention the possibility of using Africa's megafauna in Europe and the U.S. a couple times. What is mentioned a lot in here is that invasives are hardly ever worth worrying about, which I think is pretty dangerous. Sure, everything on this planet moves around and invasions are technically "natural" but with this rate of change and at this scale it's definitely not "normal." I do agree with a lot of the general ideas in here, like when he says that invasives tend to be blamed for taking over ecosystems when other human-caused problems are what made these areas so vulnerable in the first place. He also says that since non-native species so rarely cause major problems we should treat them as innocent until proven guilty, which seems like a risky strategy to me. In my opinion, his arguments are at least worth listening to. If you haven't read much else on this subject already though, I'd recommend not reading this book alone. Compare it to a few others before deciding who you think is right.
March 15, 2017
Although the author is clearly an expert in this area, I have read many similar books and I don't like how he used this book to take such an aggressive stance. He disparaged so many theories that, although some prove not to be universally true (which is typical for ecology), they still work well in particular situations and should not be disregarded as they have some merit. Every invasion is unique and may have complicated effects and the author seemed to pick examples of invasive species to fit his point of view of them not being much to worry about when there are clear examples causing serious damage all over the world and they weren't even touched upon, one I can easily think of would be the lionfish in the Atlantic. The lionfish situation pretty much defies every point made in this book (thought to have started from a single introduction of not many individuals, not many natural predators in new environment, very economically costly and ecologically disastrous, etc.) He is right to challenge the commonly held view that all invasives are 'bad' and to claim that so many things were technically invasive at some point that it's hard to say what is really a "native" species (those are the parts of the book I liked). Overall, I learned some cool things, especially about plants which was really interesting, and I liked many parts of the book but didn't like the overall vibe and attitude that made it kind of hard to read.
May 1, 2019
Great to see a critical take on invasion biology get some headway in the mainstream of popular science writing. Thompson is very credentialed and writes well, and this certainly helps his case. Critiques of invasion biology have also been covered elsewhere. David Theodoropoulos' 2003 book "Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience" is a must read if you are really interested in the subject, and Tao Orion's "Beyond the War on Invasive Species" is another good take. That invasion biology continues to get lip-service is a bit mystifying to me. I am an amateur botanist and ecologist who learned through my own experiences directly in the field, often alongside "real" botanists. As I found over and over again that what I had been told about invasive plants was not only incorrect at best, but an outright lie at worst, from the beginning I learnes to question the invasive species dogma. This is not to say that exotic introductions never have negative effects -- sometimes, they do -- rather, it is the way an invasion is framed which proves philosophically problematic. Ken Thompson does a good job covering these ideas. Yes, it is an opinion piece, but well-formed contrarian opinions are needed when battling entrenched, conventional ones.
October 1, 2018
This book is an extroverted ecologist at a party where the music is too loud and he's had a few too many wines.
A defensive stream of consciousness. Facts and scenarios piled onto the page. Haphazard, repetitive, poorly organised, and poorly constructed. It's just generally a bit of a ramble.
There's some good stuff in here! But he's peppered these case studies with distractions and side stories. He's attempted some jokes and sarcasm. So in the end I can't be sure I learned anything from this book at all.
Two pages from its conclusion, the author begins: "Previous experience tells me that there are people who, for one reason or another, will misunderstand the message of this book. So, just to make absolutely sure we understand each other..."
Mate. I'm over two hundred pages in. If you can help me understand your point in two pages, you should have tried that a long time ago.
Potentially interesting, but overall a massive disappointment.
A defensive stream of consciousness. Facts and scenarios piled onto the page. Haphazard, repetitive, poorly organised, and poorly constructed. It's just generally a bit of a ramble.
There's some good stuff in here! But he's peppered these case studies with distractions and side stories. He's attempted some jokes and sarcasm. So in the end I can't be sure I learned anything from this book at all.
Two pages from its conclusion, the author begins: "Previous experience tells me that there are people who, for one reason or another, will misunderstand the message of this book. So, just to make absolutely sure we understand each other..."
Mate. I'm over two hundred pages in. If you can help me understand your point in two pages, you should have tried that a long time ago.
Potentially interesting, but overall a massive disappointment.
May 23, 2017
This was a great book to cause one to think about invasive species in a new light. Before, I just accepted the "native = good, introduced = bad" doctrine that so many of us foresters, naturalists and biologists have never questioned. This book made me think about species moving around in a whole new, more dynamic way. I think it will really help improve my morale when walking in areas that are dominated by non-natives (as so many human disturbed areas are) - if I want to admire the flowers of scotch broom or yellow flag, I'll do so without my former feelings of guilt or grumpiness about knowing they are "bad" plants - I will just think of them as the winners in the ecological adaptation game.
February 28, 2020
This book brings me to the end of a long road in which my thoughts about what is nature and how do we, as humans, deal with it, do a complete turn about. It swims hard against the invasive aliens = bad point of view that dominates how we think about and deal with our ecosystems. The science isn't there, and our track record of messing up and messing up trying to clean up the messes and making bigger messes, speaks for itself. Complicated interlinked systems do not make for easy study, or simple easy answers and the more we try and find those mythical beasts the more we are led astray.
January 14, 2018
Good and interesting read. Is much more of an open critique of modern conservation theory and policy than an in-depth review of the field. Not sure if I believe everything he claims but I certainly understand and agree with many of his concerns. Competently written for the most part.
April 9, 2021
On the one hand this book does an excellent job of reminding you to question subjectivity when it comes to ecological headlines. Are we seeing a problem caused by an invasive species or are we seeing a problem caused by humans, taken advantage of by a hard species? Are we seeing a problem or just noticing a plant that appears to be everywhere? When we call something native, do we know its native? And what do we even mean by that?
I appreciated the call to think more on ecological value - biodiversity for example - and less on arbitrary notions of native and invasive.
I did find though that it is somewhat polemic and its hard to know what is strawman and what isn't. I got a whiff that there is a heated debate in an academic community and this is an opportunity to vent some frustrations. For that I have just a little cynicism, not least because I'm not qualified to know better and polemic arguments make me nervous.
Overall though I enjoyed it and would recommend as a thought provoker.
I appreciated the call to think more on ecological value - biodiversity for example - and less on arbitrary notions of native and invasive.
I did find though that it is somewhat polemic and its hard to know what is strawman and what isn't. I got a whiff that there is a heated debate in an academic community and this is an opportunity to vent some frustrations. For that I have just a little cynicism, not least because I'm not qualified to know better and polemic arguments make me nervous.
Overall though I enjoyed it and would recommend as a thought provoker.
Read
December 11, 2024It was nice to get some confirmation for the fact that alien vs native species being bad and good is a silly human construct, while retaining that it doesn't mean we should let species invade areas uncontrollably. The book also pushed a lot of responsibility towards humans changing landscapes through their activity, contributing to habitat loss as the main reason for native species biodiversity decline. At the same time, such landscape changes just create conditions ideal for certain alien species that are good at developing fast instead of slow.
October 28, 2019
Este libro nos explica que muchas veces se oye hablar de especies invasoras (alóctonas) versus especies autóctonas. Realmente, la historia de la Tierra está plagada de cambios en los ecosistemas y si volviéramos 200, 400 0 1000 años atrás, las especies serían muy diferentes de lo que hay hoy día en las mismas áreas geográficas.
Por otro lado, es el ser humano quien, según su criterio, califica de malas o buenas esas invasiones según su criterio económico.
Y cuando llega una nueva especie, al principio es posible que se propague mucho, pero llega un punto en que acaban con los recursos y decrecen para luego transformarse en una especie que convive con las demás. Por otro lado, a veces, cuando se dice que una especie invasora ha desplazado a una local, quizás es porque hay otras razones subyacentes y no por la nueva especie.
Es muy interesante su punto de vista, ya que nos hace perder un poco el miedo a los alarmismos que muchas veces nos hacen creer por una nueva especie que ha aparecido en un lugar inesperado.
Le pongo 3 estrellas porque por momentos se puede hacer un pelín pesado y, a veces, no me da la sensación de acabar con el tema y dejar alguna cuestión en el aire.
Recomendada para gente a la que le gusten los temas ecológicos, plantas y un poco de zoología.
Por otro lado, es el ser humano quien, según su criterio, califica de malas o buenas esas invasiones según su criterio económico.
Y cuando llega una nueva especie, al principio es posible que se propague mucho, pero llega un punto en que acaban con los recursos y decrecen para luego transformarse en una especie que convive con las demás. Por otro lado, a veces, cuando se dice que una especie invasora ha desplazado a una local, quizás es porque hay otras razones subyacentes y no por la nueva especie.
Es muy interesante su punto de vista, ya que nos hace perder un poco el miedo a los alarmismos que muchas veces nos hacen creer por una nueva especie que ha aparecido en un lugar inesperado.
Le pongo 3 estrellas porque por momentos se puede hacer un pelín pesado y, a veces, no me da la sensación de acabar con el tema y dejar alguna cuestión en el aire.
Recomendada para gente a la que le gusten los temas ecológicos, plantas y un poco de zoología.
June 3, 2022
It does not come as a particularly shocking surprise that the native-alien division is problematic, but it does come as a surprise just how often, for how long, and with how much money our governments have dedicated themselves to unnecessary and futile schemes to undo the results of human-made errors. Thompson shows that these schemes usually function as self-perpetuating cover-ups of results that are detached, through these schemes, from their real causes—mostly climate change and agricultural expansion.
October 17, 2022
Every chapter in this book is the perfect length. I also now have a huge crisis about my masters project on invasive species so that's great.
August 15, 2015
This book cleverly disguises itself as a pop-sci, “Wow, I never knew that,” fun-fact, kind of book. It puts a point to its intriguing titular question by further asking: Where did camels evolve? Where did they attain their greatest diversity? What region do we generally associate camels with? Where is the largest living wild population? The answers, as the the clickbait writers like to say, will surprise you. Google it.
Once you get past that fun stuff in the first page or so, though, the author settles down to the thesis of his subtitle. It appears that in the heady world of ecological research and policy, quite a lot of effort, and considerable money, is spent on the vilification of “alien species,” and attempts to eradicate them from where it is felt they don’t belong. You may have heard of the brown snakes that ate all the birds in Guam or the huge and prolific cane toads that are eating everything in Australia. Those are clear bad guys. They are unmitigated disasters. On the other hand, zebra mussels, which are known for clogging the pipes of power plants on North American rivers and lakes, are actually very effective at clearing up dirty water, which brings more plant life, which brings more fish — so, maybe not so bad. Purple loosestrife, which appears to be usurping cattails all over the world, turns out to serve a very similar function, ecologically, to cattails, and biodiversity continues to thrive wherever loosestrife does.
What these and countless other alien species have in common is that humanity is trying to wage war against them, to make the world safe for “native” species. Like all wars, this is very costly and usually causes unforeseen consequences that may be worse than the original perceived problem. Like most of the wars in our lifetime, this ecological war is almost never winnable.
At some point in this book, I began to wonder if this guy is a shill for some shadowy corporate anti-Ecology lobby. Nope. As he recounts scenario after scenario, where an alien species arrives and appears to push out endearing and beloved local species, the usual culprit, the root cause of all the trouble, is us. We farm, we build highways and malls, we use chemicals and dump things into rivers, we overfish, we move things around. We generally disrupt things. We destroy old habitats. It’s what we do. We should not be surprised that the natural world of today is vastly different from the world of a few decades or centuries ago. If you look on the time scale of evolution, which an ecologist really should, things change a lot. Thanks to us, and the climate change we have wrought, it will be very different again, and all too soon. We may not be happy about it, but maybe we shouldn’t be quite so sentimental. No matter what we do, we can’t turn back the clock to some Edenic ideal by attempting to eradicate “unwanted” species. For one thing, it just doesn’t work. And sometimes it results in policies that are just plain stupid.
One nice example he gives is the decision to remove alien Eucalyptus trees from Angel Island State Park in California? Why Eucalyptus? Not because it was particularly pernicious, but because it was alien (planted by the State of California in less enlightened times), and because it was affordable. Since it’s a useful wood, there were contractors who would pay for the privilege of cutting them down and carting them away. The thing is, 98% of people who use the park actually liked them, for the shade and the smell, and so actually, did a lot of birds, the characteristic local salamanders, and millions of wintering monarch butterflies. Luckily, in this case, enthusiasm petered out, and so did plans for eradication.
I doubt you’ll find this a compelling read. It’s not a call to action. It’s a call for moderation, and for an appreciation that the natural world is not so easily divided into good guys and villains. You may or may not have been as emotionally caught up in that way of thinking as the author seems to imagine we are. It’s for policy wonks. For the casual reader, unfortunately, most of his examples are about sedge grasses, knotweed, starlings and soapberry bugs. These are not nearly as sexy as camels, trust me. It might sneak up on you though. I went back to the library today and got another shiny new title on the same subject -- The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature’s Salvation, by Fred Pearce. Don’t tell me how it ends. I hate spoilers.
Once you get past that fun stuff in the first page or so, though, the author settles down to the thesis of his subtitle. It appears that in the heady world of ecological research and policy, quite a lot of effort, and considerable money, is spent on the vilification of “alien species,” and attempts to eradicate them from where it is felt they don’t belong. You may have heard of the brown snakes that ate all the birds in Guam or the huge and prolific cane toads that are eating everything in Australia. Those are clear bad guys. They are unmitigated disasters. On the other hand, zebra mussels, which are known for clogging the pipes of power plants on North American rivers and lakes, are actually very effective at clearing up dirty water, which brings more plant life, which brings more fish — so, maybe not so bad. Purple loosestrife, which appears to be usurping cattails all over the world, turns out to serve a very similar function, ecologically, to cattails, and biodiversity continues to thrive wherever loosestrife does.
What these and countless other alien species have in common is that humanity is trying to wage war against them, to make the world safe for “native” species. Like all wars, this is very costly and usually causes unforeseen consequences that may be worse than the original perceived problem. Like most of the wars in our lifetime, this ecological war is almost never winnable.
At some point in this book, I began to wonder if this guy is a shill for some shadowy corporate anti-Ecology lobby. Nope. As he recounts scenario after scenario, where an alien species arrives and appears to push out endearing and beloved local species, the usual culprit, the root cause of all the trouble, is us. We farm, we build highways and malls, we use chemicals and dump things into rivers, we overfish, we move things around. We generally disrupt things. We destroy old habitats. It’s what we do. We should not be surprised that the natural world of today is vastly different from the world of a few decades or centuries ago. If you look on the time scale of evolution, which an ecologist really should, things change a lot. Thanks to us, and the climate change we have wrought, it will be very different again, and all too soon. We may not be happy about it, but maybe we shouldn’t be quite so sentimental. No matter what we do, we can’t turn back the clock to some Edenic ideal by attempting to eradicate “unwanted” species. For one thing, it just doesn’t work. And sometimes it results in policies that are just plain stupid.
One nice example he gives is the decision to remove alien Eucalyptus trees from Angel Island State Park in California? Why Eucalyptus? Not because it was particularly pernicious, but because it was alien (planted by the State of California in less enlightened times), and because it was affordable. Since it’s a useful wood, there were contractors who would pay for the privilege of cutting them down and carting them away. The thing is, 98% of people who use the park actually liked them, for the shade and the smell, and so actually, did a lot of birds, the characteristic local salamanders, and millions of wintering monarch butterflies. Luckily, in this case, enthusiasm petered out, and so did plans for eradication.
I doubt you’ll find this a compelling read. It’s not a call to action. It’s a call for moderation, and for an appreciation that the natural world is not so easily divided into good guys and villains. You may or may not have been as emotionally caught up in that way of thinking as the author seems to imagine we are. It’s for policy wonks. For the casual reader, unfortunately, most of his examples are about sedge grasses, knotweed, starlings and soapberry bugs. These are not nearly as sexy as camels, trust me. It might sneak up on you though. I went back to the library today and got another shiny new title on the same subject -- The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature’s Salvation, by Fred Pearce. Don’t tell me how it ends. I hate spoilers.
June 27, 2023
I first heard of this book through Isabella Tree's wonderful Wilding. If she hadn't already introduced me to the concept, I think I might've had a harder time accepting Thompson's thesis, simply because I found him to be quite unlikeable stylistically. That said, I still recommend the book because it is full of fascinating anecdotes that will probably change the way you think about conservation and nativeness. The bulk of his argument is very persuasive and the evidence he has compiled compelling. He does not, unfortunately, ever talk about camels.
I don't know if it's because of some lost-in-translation Britishness, or because Thompson is the kind of person who gets so excited about his argument that he pushes it too far, beyond the reach of strict reason, but I was very often annoyed by his wording or little things he said. Now, many months after reading the book, I have only the vague sense that I felt this way, but I only remembered one instance:
Thompson is starting with an exaggeration--the study cited only looked at biomass as a measure of success--and even then, there is no possible way that the stated result could be true. Indeed, the quote he pulls from the study itself uses those old standby weasel words "Understanding why [our data doesn't make any logical sense] is one of the foremost challenges in this field," which in scientific paper speak means, "this seems like bullshit to us too; we probably did something wrong but aren't going to admit it". Imagine this: a monoculture of 10 steers would have significantly LESS biomass than a polyculture of 8 steers and 2 adult elephants. Indeed, one cannot have a true monoculture experimentally anywhere, since there are trillions and trillions of bacteria everywhere, but even if we take it at face value and read "multicellular organisms", one cannot have a self-sustaining ecosystem that is a monoculture of animals, because animals have to eat something other than just each other. As for resource utilization--how in the world did they measure that? Finding more water, for example, left on the study site might not be proof that less water was taken up by the organisms in the polyculture, but rather that the monoculture lost more water through evaporation. Just as a thought off the top of my head.
For the results of the study to be plausible in any way, it HAS to be referring only to monoculture vs. polyculture commercial agriculture, which perforce must be plants and not animals, and of course, they would be comparing something like a monoculture cornfield with chemical inputs to a cornfield with a single cover crop, probably much smaller than a corn plant, in which the same chemical inputs can't be used (for example an herbicide that targets dicot plants, which couldn't be used on a field with, say, clover planted between the rows). A more appropriate experiment would be to compare wild corn, which is to say teosinte grass, grown as an industrial agriculture monoculture, vs. in its native habitat--which again, would automatically have greater biomass simply because it is certain to contain shrubs, trees, and large animals.
ANYWAY. That having been said, I still found Thompson's book very valuable and thought-provoking. I was especially fascinated by the case studies of the harlequin ladybugs (which just reached my garden for the first time this year), the creeping thistle in the Canadian quarry, the spotted knapweed, and the whole chapter looking at brown tree snakes on Guam, zebra mussels, tamarisk, and purple loosestrife.
Thompson's thesis boils down to that because there is no place on Earth that has not been deliberately shaped by the actions of human beings, and because we are faced with an unprecedented challenge to our survival, we might as well choose to manage the world in a way that provides the greatest collective benefit, rather than waste our money and energies futilely attempting to "go back" to some idyllic past that never existed.
Which leaves me with two anecdotes of my own, that were not in this book, but relate directly to it.
The first is that one of the most endangered ecosystems in the United States, the southeastern grassland (particularly found in Georgia and South Carolina), is an ecosystem that was most likely deliberately preserved by indigenous people through controlled burning continuously since the end of the Pleistocene. That is to say, that a small but significant portion of "our" American biodiversity is directly due to the conscious management of human beings, and without their efforts for thousands of years, all those unique species would be long extinct, many of them never known to science.
The second is that Thompson has an extremely good point about the excesses and exaggerations and even, dare I say, mass hysteria, in the field of Invasion Biology (a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one). There is a frequently recurring example, which you have likely seen, regarding the financial costs to the U.S. taxpayer of domesticated cats eating wild birds. The number comes from a single study, whose author fabricated data, and made up the dollar amount literally off the top of his head without sources. It is really bad science, and all of his data has been refuted by multiple other studies. And yet it persists perennially, cited by conservation organizations, governments, and even scientists in other specialties, simply because it fits into so many of our existing cultural biases. Same with all invasion biology. The whole field is looking for examples of noxious aliens to scapegoat for our larger human destruction of life on this planet, so naturally, that is all it ever finds. Confirmation bias codified with its own professional journal.
We have certainly wreaked great destruction on our only home, and we must try to mitigate what we can, but like Pandora, now that we've let evil out of the box, we'll never fully get it back in. There is reason to feel hope, however, in that we are only living in one minuscule moment of history. Right now harlequin ladybugs are enjoying unusual success because of the genetic purging they underwent in the depths of their failure. But give them time: they will develop spontaneous new genetic mutations that will weaken them again, or perhaps one of their declining relations will undergo genetic purging and a new resurgence themselves, and take over what they have currently lost. The nature of life is that it is never static, and things only look good or bad for a moment, depending on your perception.
Highly recommended to anyone interested in conservation, alien invasion, or land management for biodiversity.
I don't know if it's because of some lost-in-translation Britishness, or because Thompson is the kind of person who gets so excited about his argument that he pushes it too far, beyond the reach of strict reason, but I was very often annoyed by his wording or little things he said. Now, many months after reading the book, I have only the vague sense that I felt this way, but I only remembered one instance:
A 2006 study [...showed] beyond reasonable doubt that monocultures (of plants or animals) routinely outperform mixtures of species
Thompson is starting with an exaggeration--the study cited only looked at biomass as a measure of success--and even then, there is no possible way that the stated result could be true. Indeed, the quote he pulls from the study itself uses those old standby weasel words "Understanding why [our data doesn't make any logical sense] is one of the foremost challenges in this field," which in scientific paper speak means, "this seems like bullshit to us too; we probably did something wrong but aren't going to admit it". Imagine this: a monoculture of 10 steers would have significantly LESS biomass than a polyculture of 8 steers and 2 adult elephants. Indeed, one cannot have a true monoculture experimentally anywhere, since there are trillions and trillions of bacteria everywhere, but even if we take it at face value and read "multicellular organisms", one cannot have a self-sustaining ecosystem that is a monoculture of animals, because animals have to eat something other than just each other. As for resource utilization--how in the world did they measure that? Finding more water, for example, left on the study site might not be proof that less water was taken up by the organisms in the polyculture, but rather that the monoculture lost more water through evaporation. Just as a thought off the top of my head.
For the results of the study to be plausible in any way, it HAS to be referring only to monoculture vs. polyculture commercial agriculture, which perforce must be plants and not animals, and of course, they would be comparing something like a monoculture cornfield with chemical inputs to a cornfield with a single cover crop, probably much smaller than a corn plant, in which the same chemical inputs can't be used (for example an herbicide that targets dicot plants, which couldn't be used on a field with, say, clover planted between the rows). A more appropriate experiment would be to compare wild corn, which is to say teosinte grass, grown as an industrial agriculture monoculture, vs. in its native habitat--which again, would automatically have greater biomass simply because it is certain to contain shrubs, trees, and large animals.
ANYWAY. That having been said, I still found Thompson's book very valuable and thought-provoking. I was especially fascinated by the case studies of the harlequin ladybugs (which just reached my garden for the first time this year), the creeping thistle in the Canadian quarry, the spotted knapweed, and the whole chapter looking at brown tree snakes on Guam, zebra mussels, tamarisk, and purple loosestrife.
Thompson's thesis boils down to that because there is no place on Earth that has not been deliberately shaped by the actions of human beings, and because we are faced with an unprecedented challenge to our survival, we might as well choose to manage the world in a way that provides the greatest collective benefit, rather than waste our money and energies futilely attempting to "go back" to some idyllic past that never existed.
Which leaves me with two anecdotes of my own, that were not in this book, but relate directly to it.
The first is that one of the most endangered ecosystems in the United States, the southeastern grassland (particularly found in Georgia and South Carolina), is an ecosystem that was most likely deliberately preserved by indigenous people through controlled burning continuously since the end of the Pleistocene. That is to say, that a small but significant portion of "our" American biodiversity is directly due to the conscious management of human beings, and without their efforts for thousands of years, all those unique species would be long extinct, many of them never known to science.
The second is that Thompson has an extremely good point about the excesses and exaggerations and even, dare I say, mass hysteria, in the field of Invasion Biology (a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one). There is a frequently recurring example, which you have likely seen, regarding the financial costs to the U.S. taxpayer of domesticated cats eating wild birds. The number comes from a single study, whose author fabricated data, and made up the dollar amount literally off the top of his head without sources. It is really bad science, and all of his data has been refuted by multiple other studies. And yet it persists perennially, cited by conservation organizations, governments, and even scientists in other specialties, simply because it fits into so many of our existing cultural biases. Same with all invasion biology. The whole field is looking for examples of noxious aliens to scapegoat for our larger human destruction of life on this planet, so naturally, that is all it ever finds. Confirmation bias codified with its own professional journal.
We have certainly wreaked great destruction on our only home, and we must try to mitigate what we can, but like Pandora, now that we've let evil out of the box, we'll never fully get it back in. There is reason to feel hope, however, in that we are only living in one minuscule moment of history. Right now harlequin ladybugs are enjoying unusual success because of the genetic purging they underwent in the depths of their failure. But give them time: they will develop spontaneous new genetic mutations that will weaken them again, or perhaps one of their declining relations will undergo genetic purging and a new resurgence themselves, and take over what they have currently lost. The nature of life is that it is never static, and things only look good or bad for a moment, depending on your perception.
Highly recommended to anyone interested in conservation, alien invasion, or land management for biodiversity.
November 15, 2017
Just finished reading this book and I can't decide what I really think. I found many of the ideas very interesting and it made me think. I also found his conclusions and sometimes his arguments a bit muddy and wasn't sure what he was really driving at. The final few paragraphs summarize his intentions but I'm not always sure he really communicated them clearly through the book. However, all in all, I liked the suggestion that we need to observe our natural world at the moment as a mere snapshot of a system always in flux. Species ebb and flow and many of our definitions of native or invasive are actually arbitrary or built on other values such as usefulness, prominence or inconvenience. Often the plants or animals we deem invasive and attack are actually just symptoms of an underlying problem, usually human caused, and fighting them is costly and pointless without resolving the underlying issue. He points out how often our attempts to eradicate or manage 'invasive aliens' actually cause more problems and are immensely costly. I will definitely be mulling this book over for a long while.
April 3, 2018
This is a very good, informative and thoughtfull book. If you are -just like I was- xenofobic towards exotic/invasive species this book will cure you forever. The author has a clear message he wants to convince the reader of, he does so by giving examples that highlight different perspectives on the problem. The only "downside" of the book is that the author has a few collegues in the scientific community he has a bone to pick with and he does that via this book, but then that gives a nice human touch an a realistic insight in to functioning of scientic communities/debate. The short summary is this:
1) some invasive species are just plainly bad for biodiversity and should be stopped or prevented from dispersion
2) most invasive species are merely an effect to disruptive changes that we as humans have caused. they are the effect and not the cause of biodiversity loss.
3) many invasive species cannot be removed realistically so why bother
4) allmost all species are invasive from some perspective,
5) in many cases talking about the "original" biodiversity is pointless as it keeps changing due to a multitude of factors
1) some invasive species are just plainly bad for biodiversity and should be stopped or prevented from dispersion
2) most invasive species are merely an effect to disruptive changes that we as humans have caused. they are the effect and not the cause of biodiversity loss.
3) many invasive species cannot be removed realistically so why bother
4) allmost all species are invasive from some perspective,
5) in many cases talking about the "original" biodiversity is pointless as it keeps changing due to a multitude of factors
November 12, 2017
I really enjoyed this book. Challenges the dogma of invasiveness while still honoring the stewardship and caution with which we should treat the introduction of new species into an area. Far from advocating for the proliferation of alien species to new lands, the author still reminds me to question how we define invasive species, and to consider the costs and benefits of "controlling" populations. It is a strong argument that sometimes the best course of action is to do nothing, and that skepticism is a tool best used frequently. The only gripe I have is that some of the arguments and examples are drawn out; things started out a bit slow and far reaching. I was concerned that the whole premise of the book would not move beyond the evolutionary arguement that "everything was invasive at one point in history". The author did a great job of incorporating different angles to support his point, he could have moved through each of them more quickly.
May 12, 2017
A controversial but also deeply compelling book about our relationship with invasive species. In lucid, readable prose, Thompson deconstructs the idea of biological invasion, arguing that our hysteria about invasive species stems from faulty science, an anthropic understanding of time, and old-fashioned nativism. Further, he argues that our devotion of resources to solving the insoluble problem of invasive species distracts us from larger (and more damaging) environmental problems, like habitat destruction and climate change. Highly recommended.
August 27, 2020
Thompson gives a professional, maybe too professional, rebuttal to widespread beliefs about the danger of invasive life forms. He takes apart the data behind commonly cited studies on "foreign" creatures, showing that the damage assessments usually fail to consider any benefits that migrating plants or animals may bring. While at it, he questions the whole basis for classifying the world's plants and animals into "native" or "foreign" categories, by making detailed investigations of where and when various species have appeared over the course of environmental history.
February 12, 2016
3 Stars
An interesting read with some compelling arguments about how to best deal (or not deal) with 'invasive species' and what even constitutes 'invasive'. While I agree in theory with a lot of what is argued, the rather arrogant 'I know best' tone of the writing is off-putting and makes me more sceptical of some of his more radical arguments. Would have appreciated proper use of end-notes rather than the unnumbered 'chapter notes'.
Full review probably to come
An interesting read with some compelling arguments about how to best deal (or not deal) with 'invasive species' and what even constitutes 'invasive'. While I agree in theory with a lot of what is argued, the rather arrogant 'I know best' tone of the writing is off-putting and makes me more sceptical of some of his more radical arguments. Would have appreciated proper use of end-notes rather than the unnumbered 'chapter notes'.
Full review probably to come
November 12, 2019
This book is well written and almost a page turner. In some instances I felt it was a bit light on detail,
but with google at my fingertips I could quickly get the information I wanted.
The writing style is engaging and never gets boring.
The author makes a convincing argument for his point of view, and gives a fresh look on an emotional and mostly illogical dislike for non native plants an animals.
but with google at my fingertips I could quickly get the information I wanted.
The writing style is engaging and never gets boring.
The author makes a convincing argument for his point of view, and gives a fresh look on an emotional and mostly illogical dislike for non native plants an animals.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews