Julian Sprung's lecture must spark a debate
- Thread starter ninjamini
- Start date
jeffbrig
Premium Member
Basically, he was saying that "invasive" species is somewhat of a myth, and suggesting that just because something is foreign to the area, it's not automatically a bad thing.
If you boil it down to that basic point, it's an interesting statement. Perhaps some foreign species aren't necessarily going to cause problems. But, it's practically impossible to assess the impact of a foreign species before it gets into the environment.
He had some interesting examples of pacific corals found in the caribbean. If they were thought to have migrated there naturally, they would be considered endangered, since they're so few in number. On the other hand, if they're considered foreign, they're penciled in for eradication. This thinking even applied to something as benign as a fungia plate in one of his examples.
Still, you have to take the whole thing with a big grain of salt. For the poster child of a bad invasive species, take a look at the kudzu vine covering forests in much of the southeast US. It can literally smothers any other plants it comes into contact with.
If you boil it down to that basic point, it's an interesting statement. Perhaps some foreign species aren't necessarily going to cause problems. But, it's practically impossible to assess the impact of a foreign species before it gets into the environment.
He had some interesting examples of pacific corals found in the caribbean. If they were thought to have migrated there naturally, they would be considered endangered, since they're so few in number. On the other hand, if they're considered foreign, they're penciled in for eradication. This thinking even applied to something as benign as a fungia plate in one of his examples.
Still, you have to take the whole thing with a big grain of salt. For the poster child of a bad invasive species, take a look at the kudzu vine covering forests in much of the southeast US. It can literally smothers any other plants it comes into contact with.
Husky_1
Premium Member
I find it a relief that there are scientist, or people that think using a scientific method, dont believe the hype that seems to be going on these days. I especially agree with his thoughts on global warming. I have always felt that global warming is a normal cycle that the earth is going through. Sure humans may be nudging it along, but overall its a cyclical event. After all we are at the end of an ice age.
As far as "foreign" species being introduced, I would have to say that I sit somewhere in the middle of that discussion. I do not necessarily think it is a bad thing to introduce a new species. Take for example when he was speaking about the Caribbean Acropora speicies that may now be endangered, on first reaction I agree that maybe a controlled introduction of other strains should be introduced to help strenghthen the gene pool.
However, there are examples of bad species being introduced such as Melaleuca q. I am sure everyone in S. Florida is familiar with the fact that these guys "aggressively invades a variety of wetland habitats including sawgrass marshes, wet prairies, and aquatic sloughs. It often forms impenetrable thickets, reducing biodiversity, displacing native vegetation and reducing the value of these habitats for wildlife. It also accelerates the loss of groundwater due to increased evapotranspiration" .
Honestly, I have not given my position on "invasive species" enough thought. As I said, my knee jerk emotion on this was somewhere in the middle ground. My fear would be that if the Earth was made into one big bowl of many species, and not compartmentalized as it is now, the bio-diversification that we enjoy may not exist.
As far as "foreign" species being introduced, I would have to say that I sit somewhere in the middle of that discussion. I do not necessarily think it is a bad thing to introduce a new species. Take for example when he was speaking about the Caribbean Acropora speicies that may now be endangered, on first reaction I agree that maybe a controlled introduction of other strains should be introduced to help strenghthen the gene pool.
However, there are examples of bad species being introduced such as Melaleuca q. I am sure everyone in S. Florida is familiar with the fact that these guys "aggressively invades a variety of wetland habitats including sawgrass marshes, wet prairies, and aquatic sloughs. It often forms impenetrable thickets, reducing biodiversity, displacing native vegetation and reducing the value of these habitats for wildlife. It also accelerates the loss of groundwater due to increased evapotranspiration" .
Honestly, I have not given my position on "invasive species" enough thought. As I said, my knee jerk emotion on this was somewhere in the middle ground. My fear would be that if the Earth was made into one big bowl of many species, and not compartmentalized as it is now, the bio-diversification that we enjoy may not exist.
gasman059
The OG mad scientist
well take the Caribbean elk horn mostly in the west coast of P.R. we certainly don't need any more stress on that particular species.
I'm on the other side of the fence. No more invasive species !
Have had the opportunity to look first hand and dive those endangered species area back home and its a true shame.
I'm on the other side of the fence. No more invasive species !
Have had the opportunity to look first hand and dive those endangered species area back home and its a true shame.
loyalrogue
New member
I think that debate and critical thinking was the whole goal to the lecture.
It definitely wasn't the typical education presentation where you walk away with a wealth of answers.
As a matter of fact, I don't feel like I walked away with any answers... just a lot more questions.
While I certainly don't agree with a lot of the positions he put forward, it was really thought provoking to hear a completely different point of view to what most of us believe and practice.
My personal beliefs on invasive species is very similar to my beliefs on global warming.
Yes, it is a natural process (and/or cyclic) over a geological period of time, and is a necessary process for evolution, adaption, mutation, natural selection, and is basically responsible for the current state of life on the planet.
The problem I see is when we (humans) start drastically speeding up (or mucking up) the process beyond what other species (or even our own) can successfully adapt to and survive.
A natural process of warming the oceans, or a gradual spread of foreign species over thousands of years can result in several generations of natuaral selection and adaptation, and can allow competition to add a balance and create greater biodiversity and hardier, healthier species.
If a species spreads naturally and gradually, then you would expect the same ecological environment (food, predators, competing species, etc.) would also spread with it keeping the checks and balances in place.
When that change happens quickly, over decades instead of centuries, or when one species is instantly transplanted without it's checks and balances, then you can only expect some (most?) of the results to be just as drastic.
Of course you can find benign examples of the unnatural introduction of foreign species (like the caribbean fungia), but I suspect that there are a far greater number of examples that have caused harm.
I videotaped the presentation to share with those who couldn't make it, but when I got home last night I found out that my camcorder software and drivers are completely incompatible with my new (piece of ****) Vista PC.
I'm going to have to put together my old XP box to get this downloaded before I can make you a copy, Mel.
It definitely wasn't the typical education presentation where you walk away with a wealth of answers.
As a matter of fact, I don't feel like I walked away with any answers... just a lot more questions.
While I certainly don't agree with a lot of the positions he put forward, it was really thought provoking to hear a completely different point of view to what most of us believe and practice.
My personal beliefs on invasive species is very similar to my beliefs on global warming.
Yes, it is a natural process (and/or cyclic) over a geological period of time, and is a necessary process for evolution, adaption, mutation, natural selection, and is basically responsible for the current state of life on the planet.
The problem I see is when we (humans) start drastically speeding up (or mucking up) the process beyond what other species (or even our own) can successfully adapt to and survive.
A natural process of warming the oceans, or a gradual spread of foreign species over thousands of years can result in several generations of natuaral selection and adaptation, and can allow competition to add a balance and create greater biodiversity and hardier, healthier species.
If a species spreads naturally and gradually, then you would expect the same ecological environment (food, predators, competing species, etc.) would also spread with it keeping the checks and balances in place.
When that change happens quickly, over decades instead of centuries, or when one species is instantly transplanted without it's checks and balances, then you can only expect some (most?) of the results to be just as drastic.
Of course you can find benign examples of the unnatural introduction of foreign species (like the caribbean fungia), but I suspect that there are a far greater number of examples that have caused harm.
I videotaped the presentation to share with those who couldn't make it, but when I got home last night I found out that my camcorder software and drivers are completely incompatible with my new (piece of ****) Vista PC.
I'm going to have to put together my old XP box to get this downloaded before I can make you a copy, Mel.
I don't know where I stand on it, but has anyone seen the pictures of the Caulerpa racemosa invasion in the Mediterranean? I can't seem to find it now, but basically there is a non-native Caulerpa outbreak in and around Crete and elsewhere in the mediterranian, and there are no local fishes that can eat the toxins in the Caulerpa, so it grows unchecked, and smothers all of the native seagrasses.
Just thought I would throw it out there. Apparently there is a problem with it in California too.
Just thought I would throw it out there. Apparently there is a problem with it in California too.
ninjamini
New member
I think it comes down to a few questions:
Dose it matter?
Can we make an real effect?
Can it be bad to introduce a new species.
Let me address the last question first. It is hard to look at clauripa and know if its good or bad. Its too soon. So lets look at something that we did 500 years ago. When the Spaniards sailed to s. America they had an effect of the incas. A new species was introduced and about 80% of the native species was wiped out through disease and overgrowth.
300 the english came to n. America and almost wiped out the native americans through disease and genocide.
There are plenty of examples of us inter fearing with "nature" and it causing a bad effect. There are also examples where it does not matter either way. And there are still examples where we improved the situation.
Can we make a real effect? In the short term. Absolutely. However given time. centuries, it will all even it self out.
Does it matter? Well yes and no. If it effects us. man, then yes i guess it does. However nature does not care. And time will heal all wounds.
If we take a assumption that we are the sole cause of global warming and that is killing off the coral reefs and the bees. Thus reducing our food production. We could face starvation and eventual thinning of our numbers(the human race) or even our own extinction. However it would never come to that. Sure millions of people could die. But humans would probably survive and if not there will be a lot of other species to take our place. Picture HomoRATus.
Does it matter? not in the grand scheme. But to us it matters alot.
So why not let them restrict whats going on? "CRISIS" gets dollars "Every thing is all right gets page 27 in the health and bueaty section.
So the answer is 47.
What are your thoughts?
Dose it matter?
Can we make an real effect?
Can it be bad to introduce a new species.
Let me address the last question first. It is hard to look at clauripa and know if its good or bad. Its too soon. So lets look at something that we did 500 years ago. When the Spaniards sailed to s. America they had an effect of the incas. A new species was introduced and about 80% of the native species was wiped out through disease and overgrowth.
300 the english came to n. America and almost wiped out the native americans through disease and genocide.
There are plenty of examples of us inter fearing with "nature" and it causing a bad effect. There are also examples where it does not matter either way. And there are still examples where we improved the situation.
Can we make a real effect? In the short term. Absolutely. However given time. centuries, it will all even it self out.
Does it matter? Well yes and no. If it effects us. man, then yes i guess it does. However nature does not care. And time will heal all wounds.
If we take a assumption that we are the sole cause of global warming and that is killing off the coral reefs and the bees. Thus reducing our food production. We could face starvation and eventual thinning of our numbers(the human race) or even our own extinction. However it would never come to that. Sure millions of people could die. But humans would probably survive and if not there will be a lot of other species to take our place. Picture HomoRATus.
Does it matter? not in the grand scheme. But to us it matters alot.
So why not let them restrict whats going on? "CRISIS" gets dollars "Every thing is all right gets page 27 in the health and bueaty section.
So the answer is 47.
What are your thoughts?
A.T.T.R
Active member
its not a bad thing unless the area is under stress already and cant handle one more " problom" ( like our reefs are dead well close enough ) so a new coral lets say that is stronger ( lets say xenia) may compleatly take over right now.. where as if this happened 100 years ago i think it would of lived here just like anywhere else
im not sure if he was pinning this on fish nerds but i heared things get brought over in the ballast waters of ships pretty often.
im not sure if he was pinning this on fish nerds but i heared things get brought over in the ballast waters of ships pretty often.
I am no expert or know too much about the subject matter. Stepping away from the ocean, the introduction of the burmese python here in Florida has been and will continue to be an issue.
This thing can take out a gator!! Anyone remember that picture in the Herald a few years ago???!!!
This thing can take out a gator!! Anyone remember that picture in the Herald a few years ago???!!!
I personally believe that since man is the top of the food chain, and there are no real predators of us left, (except us), that mother nature is finding "her" own way of thinning the herd... aka tsunamis, hurricanes, global warming, food shortages, etc etc.
"Can we make a real effect? In the short term. Absolutely. However given time. centuries, it will all even it self out"
Your statement, ninja, doesn't exactly work. First of all, for your statement to be true, we have to stop screwing with nature. In the long run, then it will even itself out. However, it is not in man's nature to "stop screwing with nature." There will always be something we're doing to harm the planet. We just don't know what the next thing will be (or is). We could be harming it right now in a way we don't realize.
I've always held a theory that we're causing ourselves problems by going into space. (Not that I'm against it, though). Now bear with me, and keep an open mind. Gravitational orbit, in its simplest definition is basically 2 objects attracted to each other, who have reached a happy medium and have settled into a certain distance apart. Every time we send a shuttle into space, it's burning fuel in space. Every time we add to the space station or put a satellite into orbit, it takes mass away from the earth. Think of the probes we send to mars, jupiter, and beyond. That's mass we'll never get back. On top of that, we're moving dirt and ground, creating huge pits (I know you've seen the excavation sites on Discovery channel, with the huge machines), and moving that dirt elsewhere. Now we're changing (albeit slightly) the shape of the earth. Now granted, it's a miniscule amount that really probably doesn't matter, but then again, we're putting more stuff into space every year. I always thought it was an interesting theory, even if it can be proven false.
Now for a little about Julian's topic, hopefully he reads this in its entirety because I found one thing really funny... even though it is true. As a coral species nears extinction, the gene pool shallows (with coral spawnings, anyway.) Basically, the corals are becoming more and more inbred. Are we going to find a new species, acropora hillbillyensis?
Also, one thing he said, I would love for him to clarify, I know what he meant, but maybe I got it wrong... How can one change genetic history? You can change genetic future...
I got alot from the discussion, and it enlightened me on quite a few points, and I will be reading a couple of the books he recommended. I want in no way to discredit him, as I said, the points I found to make fun of were actually valid points, just put in a funny way.
Thanks, Julian, for giving us your time!
"Can we make a real effect? In the short term. Absolutely. However given time. centuries, it will all even it self out"
Your statement, ninja, doesn't exactly work. First of all, for your statement to be true, we have to stop screwing with nature. In the long run, then it will even itself out. However, it is not in man's nature to "stop screwing with nature." There will always be something we're doing to harm the planet. We just don't know what the next thing will be (or is). We could be harming it right now in a way we don't realize.
I've always held a theory that we're causing ourselves problems by going into space. (Not that I'm against it, though). Now bear with me, and keep an open mind. Gravitational orbit, in its simplest definition is basically 2 objects attracted to each other, who have reached a happy medium and have settled into a certain distance apart. Every time we send a shuttle into space, it's burning fuel in space. Every time we add to the space station or put a satellite into orbit, it takes mass away from the earth. Think of the probes we send to mars, jupiter, and beyond. That's mass we'll never get back. On top of that, we're moving dirt and ground, creating huge pits (I know you've seen the excavation sites on Discovery channel, with the huge machines), and moving that dirt elsewhere. Now we're changing (albeit slightly) the shape of the earth. Now granted, it's a miniscule amount that really probably doesn't matter, but then again, we're putting more stuff into space every year. I always thought it was an interesting theory, even if it can be proven false.
Now for a little about Julian's topic, hopefully he reads this in its entirety because I found one thing really funny... even though it is true. As a coral species nears extinction, the gene pool shallows (with coral spawnings, anyway.) Basically, the corals are becoming more and more inbred. Are we going to find a new species, acropora hillbillyensis?
Also, one thing he said, I would love for him to clarify, I know what he meant, but maybe I got it wrong... How can one change genetic history? You can change genetic future...
I got alot from the discussion, and it enlightened me on quite a few points, and I will be reading a couple of the books he recommended. I want in no way to discredit him, as I said, the points I found to make fun of were actually valid points, just put in a funny way.
Thanks, Julian, for giving us your time!
ninjamini
New member
OOOhh I love a debate. Thank you.
We can not harm the planet. We are not that big. We might temporally destroy the environment. But its temporary. The environment will recover.
Intriguing. But asteroids hit the earth all the time. increasing its mass. But only like 0.000000000001% That does not matter. And if something happened to change the mass of the earth enough to where it would change gravity. Well gravity would not be the issue.
Moving dirt around. That happens daily. moving plates, uplift of mountains. rising magma from deep in the earth. Again we can not really make an effect here. We just can not dig that deep.
Well that may be true. However it does not have a real effect to life. Which keeps on mutating and changing. I remember a butterfly study in london. When london burt coal as there heating fuel the butterflies became gray. When they stopped they went back to white. This needs a long explanation about natural selection that I dont have the time to make. But I can later if anyone wants to read it.
LOL We change history all the time.
I thinks its obvious that the point of his discussion was to get us talking and to stop getting us just hearing the big words "acid rain", "extinction". "global warming"...
We can not harm the planet. We are not that big. We might temporally destroy the environment. But its temporary. The environment will recover.
Intriguing. But asteroids hit the earth all the time. increasing its mass. But only like 0.000000000001% That does not matter. And if something happened to change the mass of the earth enough to where it would change gravity. Well gravity would not be the issue.
Moving dirt around. That happens daily. moving plates, uplift of mountains. rising magma from deep in the earth. Again we can not really make an effect here. We just can not dig that deep.
Well that may be true. However it does not have a real effect to life. Which keeps on mutating and changing. I remember a butterfly study in london. When london burt coal as there heating fuel the butterflies became gray. When they stopped they went back to white. This needs a long explanation about natural selection that I dont have the time to make. But I can later if anyone wants to read it.
LOL We change history all the time.
I thinks its obvious that the point of his discussion was to get us talking and to stop getting us just hearing the big words "acid rain", "extinction". "global warming"...
Data
Member
some are really hiding behind a rock.
slow changes over thousands of years?????
this planet can change in an instance of a second, it happened before and will happen again.
97% of all species that walked this planet are extinct and all that without our (human) interference, but I'm sure that one smart politician will figure out a way to blame some future generation and make a few $$$$ off of it.
this planet goes by two rules for all living things:
multiply and survive.
so only the strong will survive.
if we like a species we want it to just do that, if we hate a species we try to erraticate it.
with all our modern weapons and great minds, no matter how hard we try, we can't get writ of something as simple as a mosquito, an ant, a cockroach or so many other species that we love to call pests or invasive, simply because they can adapt fast to any situation, which is a true survivor in the book of nature and there is nothing we can do about that.
long before there was us, this planet has gone from a hot lava mass to an ice ball and anything in between.
long after we're gone it will keep on doing the same.
some changes happen over thousand of years and others can happen within days and only then will the true survivor and ruler of this planet show up and it won't be us.
one little side note:
I love Al Gore, after he invented the internet he saved planet earth and possibly the human race.
in a thousand years, people will celebrate his birthday as the second coming, he will be known as the (insert your favorite religious figure here) for some future generations.
slow changes over thousands of years?????
this planet can change in an instance of a second, it happened before and will happen again.
97% of all species that walked this planet are extinct and all that without our (human) interference, but I'm sure that one smart politician will figure out a way to blame some future generation and make a few $$$$ off of it.
this planet goes by two rules for all living things:
multiply and survive.
so only the strong will survive.
if we like a species we want it to just do that, if we hate a species we try to erraticate it.
with all our modern weapons and great minds, no matter how hard we try, we can't get writ of something as simple as a mosquito, an ant, a cockroach or so many other species that we love to call pests or invasive, simply because they can adapt fast to any situation, which is a true survivor in the book of nature and there is nothing we can do about that.
long before there was us, this planet has gone from a hot lava mass to an ice ball and anything in between.
long after we're gone it will keep on doing the same.
some changes happen over thousand of years and others can happen within days and only then will the true survivor and ruler of this planet show up and it won't be us.
one little side note:
I love Al Gore, after he invented the internet he saved planet earth and possibly the human race.
in a thousand years, people will celebrate his birthday as the second coming, he will be known as the (insert your favorite religious figure here) for some future generations.
Diseased planet
Diseased planet
The Earth Is infested with a disease and it is Man with his science. Do you remember when you were a kid and you got your first chemistry kit. You started mixing all kinds of crap and putting things in the chemicals from your house. well now were older and we've expanded are hap hazard science application to include the entire planet. Mans expanded scientific knowledge has become a bad chemistry experiment. There will be results and consequences,paid by generations not born yet. Now, Genetic engineering, You ain't seen nothin yet just wait. Less is more, touch it less, take less, produce less. basically take what you need, not in excesses, the American way. I'm guilty, not pointing a finger with out pointing it at myself also. I'm part of the problem and I don't like it and am changing. A good way as reefer's might be to put back three of what we take. Think about putting frags back from where they were harvested. we still would have an impact, in nature the undisturbed coral would most likely fair better and be larger but still putting back would have a give and take relationship with nature. Mother nature has given and given it is time to repay her generosity. We need to turn off the TV's and get involved Wake up were not in a dream there is a reality ahead of us we will/can effect it one way or another. I think all the issues discussed last night ate a moot point, wont' matter because we are killing of the atmosphere and ocean's with man made derivatives that destroy the smallest and most fragile basic elements. So until we stop the massive polluting, put everything on hold, lets take a step back to give the planet time to catch its breath, so to speak from all our technology Sorry for the rant but last night touched a nerve
Diseased planet
The Earth Is infested with a disease and it is Man with his science. Do you remember when you were a kid and you got your first chemistry kit. You started mixing all kinds of crap and putting things in the chemicals from your house. well now were older and we've expanded are hap hazard science application to include the entire planet. Mans expanded scientific knowledge has become a bad chemistry experiment. There will be results and consequences,paid by generations not born yet. Now, Genetic engineering, You ain't seen nothin yet just wait. Less is more, touch it less, take less, produce less. basically take what you need, not in excesses, the American way. I'm guilty, not pointing a finger with out pointing it at myself also. I'm part of the problem and I don't like it and am changing. A good way as reefer's might be to put back three of what we take. Think about putting frags back from where they were harvested. we still would have an impact, in nature the undisturbed coral would most likely fair better and be larger but still putting back would have a give and take relationship with nature. Mother nature has given and given it is time to repay her generosity. We need to turn off the TV's and get involved Wake up were not in a dream there is a reality ahead of us we will/can effect it one way or another. I think all the issues discussed last night ate a moot point, wont' matter because we are killing of the atmosphere and ocean's with man made derivatives that destroy the smallest and most fragile basic elements. So until we stop the massive polluting, put everything on hold, lets take a step back to give the planet time to catch its breath, so to speak from all our technology Sorry for the rant but last night touched a nerve
lpsluver
New member
Maybe the introduction of a non-native species is not necessarily a bad thing. But chances are that it is or will be. It is all about checks and balances or predator/prey, if you will.
It may not be a problem now but if there are no predators, natural predators (not one that is introduced to "solve the problem"), then things will get out of hand.
Someone mentioned Cudzu. I'll add Zebra mussels, Feral Pigs, Iguanas, the Snakehead fish and we have the best case study in Australia. Cane toads, European Rabbits and Foxes, Feral Camels, horses, cats. All out of control. Lets ask them if there is a problem with invasive species.
I think the debate is good and thought provoking but if this is what Julian truely believes then ...
It may not be a problem now but if there are no predators, natural predators (not one that is introduced to "solve the problem"), then things will get out of hand.
Someone mentioned Cudzu. I'll add Zebra mussels, Feral Pigs, Iguanas, the Snakehead fish and we have the best case study in Australia. Cane toads, European Rabbits and Foxes, Feral Camels, horses, cats. All out of control. Lets ask them if there is a problem with invasive species.
I think the debate is good and thought provoking but if this is what Julian truely believes then ...
