The Return of FISHZILLA!

I introduced the snakehead fish in last week’s post and I was really eager to explore some of the reactions this fish has evoked.

I am ecologically aware of the detrimental effects the snakehead fish is having on host ecosystems, however the irrational response of the people who have found themselves ‘invaded’ by this fish is troubling me. I understand that there is a justified need to eradicate or control snakehead populations in non-native ecosystems where natural predators are lacking, however some of the management methods that have been implemented to control the snakehead in the US, including poisoning whole lakes, and shooting them with sniper rifles are just bizarre!

In this video in which two people discuss the ‘Monster ‘Land Fish’’, the woman says that she has seen ‘horror films that weren’t this scary’.  The fact that the snakehead is a top predator and has the ability to breathe and move out of water has made this fish particularly susceptible to being demonised.  

However, I am afraid that I detected a definite element of xenophobia in these people, especially when the man emphasises that the fish is ‘NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE’. I am concerned that this attitude towards invasive species will misinform management in cases where the introduced species doesn’t actually pose any harm to the ecosystem and may in fact prove to be beneficial.

As Chris Thomas said in his article in Nature, ‘deliberate prosecution of the new – just because it is new – is no longer sustainable in a world of rapid global change’. I think there is a definite need to review our attitude towards introduced species if management and control programmes are going to be as efficient as possible.

Invasive species, not all that bad!

I read an article by Chris D. Thomas in Nature this week titled 'The Anthropocene could raise biological diversity' and I liked it!

The article begins by explaining how the distribution of plants and animals is changing in response to the warming temperatures of our changing climate. So far nothing I’ve not heard before; nothing worth writing home about. Next I read of the ‘irrational’ response of those who find themselves ‘invaded’ by such ‘displaced’ species, and that the ‘persecution of the new – just because it is new – is no longer sustainable in a world of rapid global change’.  This I find refreshing and interesting. It fills me with a certain confidence and reassures me that my thoughts and opinions regarding introduced species are perhaps not all that ignorant and taboo.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have never understood why native species are always given conservation priority over introduced species. In an increasingly globalized world, it seems that the flow of species is the only ‘flow’ that is not being actively encouraged. I can’t help but draw parallels to ethnic diversity, something that is greatly celebrated and promoted in globalized countries today, and without entering into these debates (human geography does not interest me), I wonder why it is that mixing of species is not seen in the same light.

One reader who has commented on the article, reminded me of the conventional stance taken by commentators of introduced species… He argued that populations living “on the edge” are not being irrational in seeking to eliminate potential threats to crops. In order to at least appear impartial, I decided to research (briefly) the adverse effects introduced species can have on ecosystems.  Who better to fight in the corner of the ‘anti-invasives’ than fishzilla himself - the snakehead fish. This fish is monstrous! It has many adaptations that make it an expert invader and it can even survive on land for up to four days! It has had decimated native food chains in the US.

In the red corner: ‘fishzilla’ – the snakehead fish

Snakehead fish, meet the Japanese white-eye. This non-native bird is actually helping to prevent the extinction of native rainforest shrubs in Hawaii by propagating their seeds.

And in the blue corner: Japanese white-eye (show them what you’ve got)

The article concludes that our default attitude to introduced species is ‘antagonism or ambivalence’. Introduced species are demonized often having caused no damage to their host ecosystems. All species should be given equal conservation value, irrespective of where they originate. I do recognize that some introduced species do damage ecosystems, and efforts should be concentrated on preventing the invasion of these species.

I am eager to discuss further the issue of invasive species as well as the other ways Chris D. Thomas says the Anthropocene is raising biodiversity.

Welcome!

Biodiversity: Life, variety, the world - the variety of life in the whole entire world

As a Geography student I have done extensive reading on the detrimental effects human activity is having on the planet (although I can’t claim to have ever read a full reading list…). I read and I read and I read but I am afraid that thus far my motivation for reading has been all wrong. There’s no right way of saying this, it’s going to sound bad and immoral and it is: I read these papers because I want to do alright in my essays, not because I have a deep, embedded need to save the planet. It’s time for change. The planet is changing (I know that much) and now I am too. In the foreseeable future I’m going to blog about biodiversity. I’m not going to preach environmentalism because I am not qualified (I’m yet to discover my inner activist). Instead I’m going to explore the issue of biodiversity loss at a different level to what I have been used to. I’m going to try and see beneath the political and corporate agendas of many environmental discourses and empathise with the real issue at hand.

I’ve read somewhere that:

-     ‘Human activities have caused and will continue to cause a loss in biodiversity…’ (IPCC, 2002);

-  ‘The monetary value of goods and services provided by ecosystems is estimated to amount to US$33 trillion per year.’ (IUCN, 2004) and that;

-  The WWF ‘promises’ that ‘by 2050, the integrity of the most outstanding natural places on earth is conserved, contributing to a more secure and sustainable future for all.' (WWF, 2008)

   

However what I want to know is:
-       How exactly are humans causing loss of biodiversity;
-       What are the consequences of reduced biodiversity and;
-       How can biodiversity be protected.
 
I’m also curious:
-       Whether all loss is bad loss and;
-       Why native species get conservation priority over invasive species.
 
So, best case scenario: I will shed a tear (cue polar bear pictures) but I’ll keep you posted.
 
IPCC (2002), ‘Climate Change and Biodiversity’, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
IUCN (2004) ‘Assessing the Economic Value of Ecosystem Conservation’, The World Bank Environment Department.
WWF, ‘What’s WWF doing about this growing loss of biodiversity’, 2008, (http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/wwf_and_biodiversity/) [accessed 9.10.2013].