There are number of cases for waste management, land restoration, wasteland development, agroforestry and agriculture where non native species of organisms and external organic input are applied that might be detrimental to the system in the long run.
Derivation of aquatic predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) for 2,4-dichlorophenol: comparing native species data with non-native species data. Chemosphere 05/2011; 84(10):1506-11
From my point of view, regarding the organic waste treatment, or treatment of organic residues from human activities. I personally prefer the methods that use reactors where the non native microorganisms are confined (isolated) from the surrounding environment. Regarding land restoration, I also pro using local resources rather than use non native species. There cases (not sure if they are documented) of reforestation in SouthAmerica using European Trees. That has cause severe drought since the new species consume more water that the native ones...
Thanks to all who have enlighten the topic and to approach possible alternate answer. But my question is not concerned to one or few species with targeted short term solution. The bioenergetic cost-benefit has to be calculated in terms of biodiversity complex and material resource stock of a system that produce resilience for sustainable production and conservation. Take the example of waste management, biofertilization, biremediation, land restoration etc. Short term benefit should not nullify long term holistic development of the system. Bioenergetic cost-benefit analysis could be an integrated management tool for assessment and maintenance of the system.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology