Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (3):215-236 (2005)
|Abstract||Conservation biologists and other environmentalists confront five obstacles in building support for regulatory policies that seek to exclude or remove introduced plants and other non-native species that threaten to harm natural areas or the natural environment. First, the concept of “harm to the natural environment” is nebulous and undefined. Second, ecologists cannot predict how introduced species will behave in natural ecosystems. If biologists cannot define “harm” or predict the behavior of introduced species, they must target all non-native species as potentially “harmful”. an impossibly large regulatory task. Third, loss of species richness may constitute harm to an environment, but introduced organisms typically, generally, and significantly add to species richness in ecosystems. If species richness correlates with desirable ecosystem properties, moreover, such as stability and productivity, as some ecologists believe, then introduced organisms, by increasing species richness, would support those desirable properties. Fourth, one may plausibly argue that extinction constitutes environmental harm, but there is no evidence that non-native species, especially plants, are significant causes of extinction, except for predators in certain lakes and other small island-like environments. Fifth, while aesthetic, ethical, and spiritual values may provide a legitimate basis for invasive species policy, biologists often cite concepts such as “biodiversity” and ecosystem “health” or “integrity” to provide a scientific justification. To assert that non-native species threaten biodiversity or undermine ecosystem health, however, may be to draw conceptual entailments or consequences from definitions of “biodiversity” and “integrity” that arbitrarily exclude non-native species or make the presence of exotic species a per se indicator of decline.|
|Keywords||Biodiversity ecosystems invasive species plant breeding|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Julio A. Camargo (2008). Revisiting the Relation Between Species Diversity and Information Theory. Acta Biotheoretica 56 (4).
Isis Brook (2003). Making Here Like There: Place Attachment, Displacement and the Urge to Garden. Ethics, Place and Environment 6 (3):227 – 234.
Marc Ereshefsky (2010). Darwin's Solution to the Species Problem. Synthese 175 (3):405 - 425.
David B. Kitts & David J. Kitts (1979). Biological Species as Natural Kinds. Philosophy of Science 46 (4):613-622.
Hugh Lehman (1967). Are Biological Species Real? Philosophy of Science 34 (2):157-167.
Ingo Brigandt (2003). Species Pluralism Does Not Imply Species Eliminativism. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1305–1316.
Claus Emmeche, Bioinvasion, Globalization, and the Contingency of Cultural and Biological Diversity - Some Ecosemiotic Observations.
Mark Ridley (1989). The Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem. Biology and Philosophy 4 (1):1-16.
M. Zisenis (2012). EU DAISIE Research Project: Wanted—Death Penalty to Keep Native Species Competitive? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (4):597-606.
Daniel Simberloff (2005). Non-Native Species DO Threaten the Natural Environment! Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (6):595-607.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads61 ( #18,734 of 722,729 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,344 of 722,729 )
How can I increase my downloads?