more on invasives

Following up on my post yesterday, I had two thoughts about adjustments that could be made to the jargon that might avoid misconceptions about the ecology of biological invasions

1. Think of the alien species problem not as a series of unrelated 'invasions', but as an overall homogenization of the world's biota. On a global scale, thats exactly whats happening. Sometimes you hear people refer to non-native plant introductions as environmentally beneficial, as they 'increase biodiversity'. Even if you allow for this to be true on locally (which I would contend it usually isn't, not to mention the fact that biodiversity alone is by no means an accurate yardstick of ecosystem health), what we are seeing across the planet is rapid range expansions by certain groups of organisms, with regionally endemic species losing out. Some of these changes in distributions are driven by changing climate patterns, but others are directly linked to humans shuttling species all around the world for one reason or another.

2. The use of the term 'native plant'. The meaning is far too nebulous for someone who does not come from a science background. Also, as demonstrated by Mike Pollan's article, it incites erroneous accusations of secondary motives and a desire to keep nature 'pure'. I can't say I have a catchy new term in mind, but it would have to frame a species' place in relation to it being vital for the ecological integrity of an area. If anyone has any suggestions, leave a comment!