Perspectives on the `alien' versus `native' species debate: a critique of concepts, language and practice

Abstract

The classification of species as either `native' or `alien' is one of the organizing principles of conservation, but the validity of this dualism has increasingly been questioned, sparking debates which raise quintessentially geographical questions about place, space, nature and humanity-nature interactions. This discussion reviews the key criticisms of the native/alien construct, including its spatiotemporally arbitrary character, its disturbingly xenophobic associations, the logical problems of attributing native or alien status to our own species, and the ethical disjunction between the promotion of a multicultural human society and the persecution of `foreign' species. Given that the native/alien polarity is a subset of the discredited nature/culture duality, its conceptual foundations seem irredeemably fractured. An alternative framework based on a `damage criterion' rather than putative biogeographical origins is advocated.

Climate change adaptation and sustainable regional development: a case study for the Federal State of Brandenburg, Germany

“…The opinions on Douglas-fir amongst forest stakeholders range from euphoric support of timber producers to requests from forest conservationists to ban and completely eradicate this non-native species. Emotional and ideological arguments dominate this debate and alternative approaches such as a careful replacement of the 'non-native' versus 'native' species concept by a 'damage criterion' approach as presented by Warren (2007) are not pursued. Douglas-fir outcompetes native species in terms of growth and its climatic amplitude, especially its lower susceptibility against summer drought, means that it is likely able to cope with a certain degree of climate change (MIL 2009).…”

Pour une autre représentation métaphorique des invasions biologiques

“…Les modes verbaux conspuant les espèces invasives procè-dent eux-mêmes d'une communication fondée sur la menace (Selincourt, 1992 ;Meinesz, 1997 ;Kendle et Rose, 2000 ;Low, 2001 ;Baskin, 2002 ;Meyer et Lavergne, 2004 ;Clergeau et Nunez, 2006 ;Lambertini et al, 2011 ), même si de nombreux auteurs militent pour l'utilisation de termes neutres (Subramaniam, 2001 ;Dalla Bernardina, 2003 ;Colautti et MacIsaac, 2004 ;Brown et Sax, 2005 ;Gobster, 2005 ;Larson, 2005 ;Warren, 2007 ;Rémy et Beck, 2008 ;Tassin, 2010 ;Davis et al, 2011). À tel point que l'invasion biologique est moins, aujourd'hui, un concept écologique qu'un « objet » anxiogène à peu près vidé de son contenu informatif et, à l'inverse, « surgonflé » d'une dimension émotionnelle parfois indécente (Davis et al, 2001 ;Colautti et MacIsaac, 2004 ;Brown et Sax, 2005 ;Sagoff, 2005 ;Warren, 2005 ;Moore, 2006 ;Rémy et Beck, 2008 ;Larson, 2010).…”

How to Achieve Effectiveness in Problem-Oriented Landscape Research: The Example of Research on Biotic Invasions

“…However, many authors have argued that the use of the native/alien dichotomy for judging a species is problematic because such an argumentation has close affinities to xenophobia or racism (Larson, 2005;Sagoff, 2005;Simberloff, 2003;Theodoropoulos, 2003;Warren, 2007). Nevertheless, given the weak predictability of the impacts of individual alien species, a precautionary approach has been proposed for invasive species risk assessment systems, which is based on the assumption that an alien species is problematic until proven otherwise (Simberloff, 2005;Wittenberg and Cock, 2001).…”