Hi everyone, a few weeks ago, I briefly talked about the existing tendency to frame invasive species in a bad light in literature and Dr Coleman suggested interviewing 2 professors at NUS who study invasive species. 

The terms “invasive” species and “invasion” biology themselves have negative connotations which suggest similar terms like “attack” to readers (Janovsky and Larson, 2019). Furthermore, invasion biology is often criticised for the use of value-laden language which frames invasive species as bad (Janovsky and Larson, 2019). And it seems like the term “invasive species” bias towards aggressive non-native species. This could lead to the neglection of benefits other non-native species bring about.

I wondered what do they think of such terminologies. 

With that in mind, I went ahead and conducted an email interview with the following questions

1. Do you agree that the terms “invasive” species and “invasion” biology are biased against non-native species? 
2. What do you think of the terms “invasive” species and “invasion” biology? 
3. What do you think about the concept of invaders being beneficial in some context?

Question 1

Professor A mentioned that he is “careful with how I apply the terms” while professor B followed the definition of an invasive species where a non-native species has been established and causes harm in terms of economic, human health and ecological and agreed.

Question 2

Professor A responded with “It’s important to properly define the terms and contexts when using them“. As for professor B, he “view the terms the way they are used in science” through following an accepted definition proposed by a group of botanists where “invasive species should be those that spread very quickly from the site that they were originally introduced to“.

Question 3

Both professor A and B acknowledged that invaders can bring about positive impacts. Professor A also said that “it’s just that in the case of invasive species, the harm probably outweighs the benefits“. Professor B emphasised that it depends on the context where invaders can be both useful or harmful, or neither, or even both. He mentioned one positive impact of invaders in which they prevented the extinction of other species along with an example wherein Hawaii, the survival of native plants are reliant non-native birds to disperse their seeds due to the extinction of native birds. He then ended off saying that we should not forget the negative impacts caused by invaders just because they bring about benefits.

It’s great to see that both professors acknowledged the benefits of invaders and properly explain the terms and context. Objectivity is important as it provides transparency and accuracy. Moreover, objectivity is crucial in research as value-laden language tend to decrease the support for invasion biology (Janovsky and Larson, 2019). However, what surprised me was how professor B mentioned a definition that isn’t inclusive of native species. I guess it’s because the chances of non-natives causing harm are greater than natives (Simberloff et al., 2013)? 

References

Janovsky and Larson, 2019 retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.44.32925

Simberloff et al., 2013 retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/science/article/pii/S0169534712001747?via%3Dihub