Invasive species, most of which are exotic, have become significant threat to our environment, economy, health and well-being. The best way of control is to prevent establishment in the first place by adopting prompt eradication action. However, if an invasive species is established, options like chemical control or mechanical excavation for removal can cause environmental damage. Target specific biological control can work well; otherwise there is a risk that the control organism might also become an invasive species. Alternative, such as manipulating existing natural enemies and/or the environment to enhance biological control, are also on hand. Despite all these tackling the problem of invasive species remained a great challenge. Hence what should be the sustainable solution and practicable strategy to deal with the continually growing problem of invasive species?
Dr. Yogesh, contol of invasive species was developed best of all for Plant Quarantine agents. Like http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_health_biosafety/legislation/emergency_control_measures_en.htm or http://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/biosecurity/incursion-management/what-happens-in-a-pest-incursion/
Potential harm of invasive species can be much higher than environmental damage caused by eradication, Establishing of quarantined area around the invasive species introduction site can be even more costly than chemical treatment or total plants destruction at the affected site. Usually, it is mantained for several years with regular testing.
Dear Yogesh,
Until the population density of an invasive species is low eradication can be effective. E.g. the successful eradication of Metcalfa pruinosa by pesticides in UK and the Czech Republic. However, strict quarantine is the best solution that is thorough investigation of all kinds of goods and products in order to hamper the introduction of dangerous species.
"Stop all unnecessary commerce on planet earth" some would say. Invariably it comes back to the sad fact that humans are stressing the planet out - but that equation always works out in a bad way. We may have to live in our own filth after a while. Then, and only then, we might learn to not be so stubborn in our seeming current inability to change. The sooner we see ourselves as the primary problematic invasive species on the planet, the sooner funds and self-preserving ideas might someday be used correctly. We take risks in the way we tamper with the balance of things... and sometimes, the consequences of mother nature are just that. Why do we always tend to kick the dog that bites us for a good reason?? We are the victims of our own activities, and there may not be a convenient solution to this problem. it will take discipline and a hell of a lot of trust, love and confidence in one another to do the right thing. Some things never recover from the damage done to them.
Dear @Yogesh, this is a complicated matter because nature integrate and it is questionable that there is a best mean to control invasive species; however, humans have to protest themselves, the following report discusses methods how and what we have to do to stop invasive species:
http://www.nwf.org/what-we-do/protect-wildlife/invasive-species.aspx
I guess I have a solution for the invasive plants through the use of remote sensing monitoring of plants and issues warning to eliminate harmful ones.
Dear Tripathi
In my opinion, human being should understand the value of these species and try their best to save these species.
I advise to check very carefully whether the targeted plant is an "invasive species" and not an "envrionmental present & treasure". Prosopis juliflora for example is hated in East and West-Africa and disregarded, while soberly looking it is a highly valuable, multi-usable tree/shrub for forage, fuel, food, timber, eco-treasure--- if properly managed....and coping wonderfully with climate-change. If search-machines do not reveal any positiv feature, the well-established measures have to be applied. While applying traditional measure, pursue the ecological features and interdependancies to trace probably a much cheaper, easier approach and method of control. Widened creativity is an option.
Quoting and paraphrasing Ryan Cole of Colgate University in December of 2000: “Ultimately, it is society’s relentless urge to grow and expand with little thought going toward environmental damages and reactions. There is a fine line separating the balance between man and nature and their mutual destruction, and we need to know when we have gone too far and are damaging the environment” and/or inviting biological ‘pestilences’ by our own, often too-hasty activities. The human community has already crossed some dangerous lines. So, rather than continuing to persist like kids in a candy shop, shouldn’t we lend a more mature acumen and start taking responsibility for the things we ourselves have caused? Does eradication of all unwanted, ‘inconvenient’ life-forms always have to be our signature rally cry on the way to correct what we’ve already irreversibly broken? Creative co-existence may have to be attempted in more ways than previously thought.
Hi all
There is a lot of sound resoning behind the idea of playing with nature trather than against it. the key idea behind this is to get our ecosystems as much in equilibrium (or climax) as possible, becuase that lends them both productivity ( in terms of biomass) and resilience (because of complex interactions and functional redundancy). However, this has not been done by man since its populations grew enough to take him out of the hunting-gathering stage and into agriculture - the prototype of unstable, constantly disturbed ecosystem. It is at this price that man has been able to feed ever growing populations, and to colonise the largest parts of this planet.
I don't think we can decide to go back toi the hunting-gathering mode of exploiting the nature, not i we are to decently feed the 9 billion humans that are expected to be living on Earth by 2050 (an appalingly short term).
Therefore, my own suggestions to the original question would be:
* first, to learn much more about the ecological mechanisms at work in disturbed ecosystems, so as to mitigate the unwanted effects of strong biological disequilibria ( which is what thappens when a species becomes invasive) and possibly to be able to predict the invasiveness of any given species in any given environment. This is what niche modelling does, and it should be much more developed to both predict and prevent biological invasions;
* second, to accept that nature is not fixed, and that change is part of life. I am always surprised that conservation biologists - all trained in biologoical sciences and hence in evolutionary theory - often serve speechs to the general public as if we could live in a fixist world ( protection, maintainance, etc..), as if yesterday was necessarily better than today. This may be true sometimes, but we still have to trust - and possibly use- nature and life's ability to change to avoid the simplistic view that no move is the solution. It is not, I'm afraid!
@ Jack M. Gallup and Didier Andrivon - You are very correct "Invasive species are also the part of over living ecosystem". Migration of a species from his native place to a non-native place due to human activities that has already crossed some dangerous lines has now become a great problem due to a wide diversity of economic and environmental loss. We all should take some responsibility for reducing the problems caused by invasive species by adopting both proactive and reactive management. Some very simple steps include careful selection of garden plants, use species that are not likely to be invasive. When travelling everyone should notify customs officials at ports of entry if he/she bringing in food, fruit, plants, wood and animal products, fishing, hiking, and camping equipment. These things can be quickly examined by experts and determined if they pose a risk or not. Biological control approach can be effective as it re-associates natural enemies with the invader in the new area in which the pest is causing problems. Natural enemies like predators, parasites, and pathogens have been used most commonly to successfully control invasive weeds, and insect pests. This form of pest control can be very safe if the correct natural enemies are used, and once established, effective natural enemies can provide permanent control of the invasive species.
Invasive species require integrated management and control approach. The reason being inter-relationship of the invasives and other species and their role in the ecosystem. for example, some species like Opuntia stricta and Prosopis juliflora inhibit groth of other species and once they invaed the ecosystem their eradication would leave the soil bare thus prone to the agents of erosion. therefore there is need to remove as rehabilitation and re-introduction of the native species to improve the ecosystem integrity.
Classical biological control has a good record and is underutilized for environmental weeds. Yes, there have been disasters, but the examples we all know - mongooses, cane toads, Euglandina etc. - did not go through the screening that would be routine today. Still risky but probably often worth it, particularly if you can use a biological control agent that has been tried elsewhere. Gene drives may work for fast-breeding animals bur are probably several years away from practical application.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology