How on Earth did I miss the Economist’s coverage of Josh Donlan’s proposal to introduce African megafauna to the American Great Plains? (See yesterday’s post.)

As expected, the Economist’s coverage is much more comprehensive, and as such is more persuasive (in that the substantive arguments behind both views are better represented). The author covers specific roles of extinct animals that introduced African animals are expected to fill, the proposed order of introducing species in order to make sure that the experiment goes as planned, and the trepidations many ecologists have about introducing non-native species in an attempt to ‘fix’ environmental problems.

Another detail that the CNN piece I quoted yesterday left out – the introductions would be on tracts of land referred to as reserves, which to me indicates that they might be enclosed. On the one hand, enclosing the experimental area (incredibly high costs aside) allays my concern about the potential economic damage that might be caused by a few overzealous big cats; on the other hand, it could exacerbate potential problems with an ecological experiment becoming a tourist trap or even a local big game hunting ground.

If I suddenly sound more amenable to the project, don’t be fooled. It’s a terrible idea, but I thought that I’d make some attempt to echo the more balanced perspective of the Economist on the issue, and let readers make up their own minds.

If I was appalled when I first saw this headline – Lions and elephants on the Great Plains? – then I was especially shocked to read the lead sentence of the article: “If a group of prominent ecologists have their way, lions and elephants could someday be roaming the Great Plains of North America.” The clincher is the poll currently on CNN’s front page, where so far 44% of over 77,000 respondents support the idea (though I doubt many of them actually read the article).

The “ecological” argument behind the idea is that African megafauna might replace the North American megafauna that went extinct some 10-15,000 years ago. The definite cause of this mass extinction is unknown; though theories support both overhunting by native Americans and climatic change during the recession of the last glaciation (it’s likely that both were factors).

With regard to my staunch opposition to the idea, I’m primarily sympathetic to the ecological argument, best phrased in the article by University of Washington anthropologist Donald K. Grayson: “It is not restoration to introduce animals that were never here.” But since most Americans know lamentably little about ecology, I would think that the more effective argument would to be the economic one; even if Ted Turner foots the entire bill for introducing enough elephants and lions to support viable populations, I doubt very much that said animals care enough about private property rights to stay within the bounds of Turner’s ranches and off others’.

"Just when you think the world has gotten as weird as it can get, something like this comes along," said Steve Pilcher, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association.

"I wonder how many calves or lambs it would take to feed a family of lions for a month?" Pilcher mused. "We sort of know what it takes for wolves, but something tells me we would be in a whole new ball game."

Here in Southern California it’s the height of ant season, and while I hear a lot of bitching and moaning about ants on peoples’ counters and ruining peoples’ food, I don’t hear much about ‘common’ ‘household’ ants as an invasive species. And yet, if you live in the southern United States, they probably are.

Linepithema humile. Image care of BugGuide.net.

This is going to be a quick one, but I wanted to make sure to point readers to last week’s fantastic L.A. Times article on striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in the San Joaquin Delta. Striped bass – or “stripers” to those who know them well – are a native East Coast fish that spend much of their adult life in coastal waters but return to fresh water to spawn. They were introduced into the San Francisco Bay in the late 19^th century, and now they’re one of the most popular sportfish in California oceans and waterways.

Because they’re a non-indigenous species that’s high on the aquatic food chain, stripers take the blame for diminishing levels of other fish, including young salmon, but there’s a significant controversy as to whether the stripers are truly to blame or are actually being made into a scapegoat for more pervasive environmental problems.

The piece caught my eye because my dad and I used to fish for stripers in Southern California lakes (they were obviously stocked since the lakes in question have no ocean connection). I might have simply read the article for my own volition and walked away, but by the time I got all the way to the end I was startled at how comprehensive the author was on the natural history of the fish and both sides of the debate about its impact on California waterways. Most environmental articles are rife with phrases like “industry representatives assert” and “environmentalists claim,” diminishing the substance of both sides’ arguments to a mere “he said, she said” name-calling contest. The author of this piece, Dick Russell, opts instead for a nuanced and holistic look at a situation that leaves the reader with a proper understanding of why environmental issues are often so complicated. This is what environmental journalism ought to look like.

C’mon, that’s a beautiful fish, ain’t it? This photo is from another article worth reading, which deals with the status of the striped bass fishery on the East Coast.

Before the week lets out I’d like to point y’all to an AP article that talks about some of the heretofore ignored effects of the tsunami that struck Southeast Asia six months ago.

Nearly six months after the disaster that killed more than 31,000 people in Sri Lanka, studies have found that the tsunami waves have pushed seeds of so-called alien invasive species from their coasts farther inland on the tropical island, the United Nations Environment Program said.

Much of the article explains how the massive wave aided the invasion of Sri Lanka by mesquite (Prosopis spp.) and prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), but it also deals with other findings of the United Nations Environment Program, including destruction of mangrove and offshore reef habitat throughout Southeast Asia, and the burden placed on natural resources by efforts to rebuild damaged and destroyed areas.

In my plant systematics lecture this morning we touched (very) briefly on the subject of so-called "invasive species." I realize that my use of the qualifier "so-called" and my use of quotation marks go against the grain, at least in environmental circles, but I have a serious philosophical problem with how the issue of "invasive species" is handled.

It's not at all that I object to the goals of invasive species management, but I object to the philosophy and reasoning that underlies a lot of the arguments as to why it is important. Specifically, I can't abide those who believe that preventing the spread of species is to hold back some insidious unnatural process.

The spread of species is a natural process. Many plants depend on animals to disperse seeds and human beings are perfectly valid disperses. We're not special just because we're human. One of the prime reasons that an animal might be complicit in spreading plant seeds is that the plant provides some reward to the animal for doing so -- often some kind of food reward -- but for whatever reason, the plant is attractive to the animal. Plants make themselves attractive to us in many ways: agriculturally, pharmaceutically (both for therepeutic and recreational purposes) and aesthetically. Many of the rewards we get from plants cause us to grow them in locations where they did not previously exist, and in many circumstances they have a competitive advantage in the preexisting plant communities. Nothing here should be considered unnatural or immoral.

Via the Invasive Species Weblog (newly blogrolled), a story that’s all over Central Cost news – the Nature Conservancy and the National Park service have teamed up to eradicate feral pigs (Sus scrofa) from Santa Cruz Island. This is a local story, but it deals with a controversy that’s unfortunately relevant in just about every inhabited place on Earth – how to deal with invasive exotic species.