Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: a response to Guiaşu and Tindale

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This critical note responds to Guiaşu and Tindale’s “Logical fallacies and invasion biology,” from our perspective as ecologists and philosophers of science engaged in debates about invasion biology and invasive species. We agree that “the level of charges and dismissals” surrounding these debates might be “unhealthy” and that “it will be very difficult for dialogues to move forward unless genuine attempts are made to understand the positions being held and to clarify the terms involved.” Although they raise several important scientific, conceptual, and ethical issues at the foundations of invasion biology, we believe Guiaşu and Tindale’s attempts to clarify the debate were unsuccessful. Like some other critics of the field, they tend to misrepresent invasion biology by cherry-picking and constructing “straw people,” inaccurately portraying invasion biology, and thus failing to elevate the dialogue. In this critique, we clarify areas in the invasion biology literature misrepresented by Guiaşu and Tindale. We attempt to provide a more balanced view of areas of reasonable debate within invasion biology, including disputes about empirical evidence, diverse risk attitudes, and other diverse ethical commitments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2015) Final risk analysis for the release of Tachardiaephagus somervillei for the biological control of yellow lac scale (Tachardina aurantiaca). Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/biosecurity/risk-analysis/policy-scientific-reviews/final-ra-tachardiaephagus-somervillei.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2019

  • Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Essl F, Genovesi P, Heikkilä J, Jeschke JM, Jones G, Keller R, Kenis M, Kueffer C, Martinou AF, Nentwig W, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Rabitsch W, Richardson DM, Roy HE, Saul W, Scalera R, Vilà M, Wilson JRU, Kumschick S (2017) Socio-economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT). Meth Ecol Evol. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker DG, Barker TM (2012) A discussion of two methods of modeling suitable climate for the Burmese python, Python bivittatus, with comments on Rodda, Jarnevich and Reed (2011). Bull Chicago Herp Soc 47(6):69–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney J, Davis A, Porter R, Simberloff D (2016) A life-cycle approach to low-invasion potential bioenergy production. CAST Commentary QTA 2016-1. CAST, Ames, Iowa

  • Bellard C, Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2016) Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biol Let 12(2):20150623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley YM, Catford J (2016) Does the biogeographic origin of species matter? Ecological effects of native and non-native species and the use of origin to guide management. J Ecol 104:4–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capelli GM (1982) Displacement of northern Wisconsin crayfish by Orconectes rusticus (Girard). Limnol Oceanogr 27:741–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey CJ, Blankinship JC, Eviner VT, Malmstrom CM, Hart SC (2017) Invasive plants decrease microbial capacity to nitrify and denitrify compared to native California grassland communities. Biol Invasions 19(10):2941–2957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clavero M, Garcia-Berthou E (2005) Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol Evol 20(3):110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks JA (2011) Lag times. In: Simberloff D, Rejmánek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 404–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis MA (2009) Invasion biology. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis MA et al (2011) Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474:153–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty TS, Glen AS, Nimmo DG, Ritchie EG, Dickman CR (2016) Invasive predators and global biodiversity loss. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(40):11261–11265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards BA, Jackson DA, Somers KM (2009) Multispecies crayfish declines in lakes: implications for species distributions and richness. J N Am Benthol Soc 28:719–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank DM (2019) Disagreement or denialism? ‘Invasive species denialism’ and ethical disagreement in science. Synthese SI: Disagreement in Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02259-w

  • Guiaşu RC (2016) Non-native species and their role in the environment: the need for a broader perspective. Brill Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guiaşu RC, Tindale CW (2018) Logical fallacies and invasion biology. Biol Philos 33:34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawaii-Pacific Weed Risk Assessment (HPWRA). www.hpwra.org. Accessed 12 Oct 2018

  • Hill MP, Chown S, Hoffmann AA (2013) A predicted niche shift corresponds with increased thermal resistance in an invasive mite, Halotydeus destructor. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:942–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo I, Fridley JD, Frank DA (2017) Invasive plants accelerate nitrogen cycling: evidence from experimental woody monocultures. J Ecol 105(4):1105–1110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauppi L, Norkko J, Ikonen J, Norkko A (2017) Seasonal variability in ecosystem functions: quantifying the contribution of invasive species to nutrient cycling in coastal ecosystems. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 572:193–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumschick S, Richardson DM (2013) Species-based risk assessments for biological invasions: advances and challenges. Divers Distrib 19(9):1095–1105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumschick S, Gaertner M, Vilà M, Essl F, Jeschke JM, Pyšek P, Ricciardi A, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Dick JTA, Evans T, Hulme PE, Kühn I, Mrugala A, Pergl J, Rabitsch W, Richardson DM, Sendek A, Winter M (2015) Ecological impacts of alien species: quantification, scope, caveats, and recommendations. Bioscience 65:55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leclerc C, Courchamp F, Bellard C (2018) Insular threat associations within taxa worldwide. Sci Rep 8(1):6393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge D, Shrader-Frechette K (2003) Nonindigenous species: ecological explanation, environmental ethics, and public policy. Conserv Biol 17(1):31–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDougall AS, Turkington R (2005) Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86(1):42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod ML, Cleveland CC, Lekberg Y, Maron JL, Philippot L, Bru D, Callaway RM (2016) Exotic invasive plants increase productivity, abundance of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and nitrogen availability in intermountain grasslands. J Ecol 104(4):994–1002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAPRA Network (2010) Risk assessment scheme for non-native species in Great Britain. Non-native species secretariat, http://napra.eppo.org/index.php. Accessed 18 June 2015

  • Olsen TM, Lodge DM, Capelli GM, Houlihan RJ (1991) Mechanisms of impact of an introduced crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) on littoral congeners, snails, and macrophytes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48(10):1853–1861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pejchar L, Mooney HA (2009) Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being. Trends Ecol Evol 24:497–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyron RA, Burbrink FT, Guiher TJ (2008) Claims of potential expansion throughout the US by invasive python species are contradicted by ecological niche models. PLoS ONE 3(8):e2931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodda GH, Jarnevich CS, Reed RN (2009) What parts of the US mainland are climatically suitable for invasive alien pythons spreading from Everglades National Park? Biol Invasions 11(2):241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secord D, Kareiva P (1996) Perils and pitfalls in the host specificity paradigm. Bioscience 46:448–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2011) Charles Elton—neither founder nor siren, but prophet. In: Richardson DM (ed) Fifty years of invasion ecology. Wiley, New York, pp 11–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2012a) Nature, natives, nativism, and management: worldviews underlying controversies in invasion biology. Environ Ethics 34(5–25):2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2012b) Integrity, stability, and beauty: Aldo Leopold’s evolving view of non-native species. Environ Hist 17(3):487–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2014) Biological invasions: what’s worth fighting and what can be won? Ecol Eng 65:112–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Souza L, Nunez MA, Noelia Barrios-Garcia M, Bunn W (2012) The natives are restless, but not often and mostly when disturbed. Ecology 93(3):598–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Bever JD, Bezemer TM, Casper BB, Fukami T, Kardol P, Klironomos JN, Kulmatiski A, Schweitzer JA, Suding KN (2013) Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. J Ecol 101(2):265–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Driesche R, Simberloff D, Blossey B, Causton C, Hoddle M, Marks C, Heinz K, Wagner D, Warner K (eds) (2016) Integrating biological control into conservation practice. Wiley, West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Vituousek P (1986) Biological invasions and ecosystem properties: can species make a difference? In: Mooney HA, Drake JA (eds) Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer, New York, pp 163–176

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson M, Fitter A (1996) The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77:1661–1666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young AM, Larson BMH (2011) Clarifying debates in invasion biology: a survey of invasion biologists. Environ Res 111:893–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Jordan Bush and Angela Chuang are supported by NSF Graduate Research Fellowship DGE-2015213059 and DGE-201315897, respectively.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Tennessee, 801 McClung Tower, Knoxville, TN, 37996-0480, USA

    David M. Frank

  2. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, 569 Dabney Hall, 1416 Circle Dr, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA

    David M. Frank, Daniel Simberloff, Jordan Bush, Angela Chuang & Christy Leppanen

Authors
  1. David M. Frank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Simberloff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jordan Bush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angela Chuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christy Leppanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Frank.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frank, D.M., Simberloff, D., Bush, J. et al. Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: a response to Guiaşu and Tindale. Biol Philos 34, 49 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9704-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9704-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation