Biology/Ecology the Global Ecological Problem

Biology/Ecology The global ecological problem of invasive species has been widely documented. Indeed, this is the cause of not only ecological, but also economic and other related problems. What struck me most about Susan McGrath's article, "Attack of the Alien Invaders" in the National Geographic of March 2005, is the sheer extent of the problem. While I was aware of the phenomenon, I had no understanding of the widespread and diverse nature of the problem itself. I therefore believe that articles such as Ms.

McGrath's are vital in the contemporary human fight against global ecological decay. It is only through awareness that human beings can make the changes needed to ensure the future for their future generations. The article also seems to focus on both positive and negative aspects of alien species invading native ecosystems. While the ecological and economic effects are generally negative, I found it interesting that some positive aspects are also associated with the problem. One of these positive aspects is the work opportunities created by the invasive species.

Individual families can benefit economically from helping with the effort to eradicate harmful alien weeds and plants from their native soil. This provides a valuable service while also providing income for persons who have been unemployed for years. According to the author, this provides not only much-needed income, but also a previously unknown boost in self-esteem: the workers are accomplishing a much-needed task. In effect then, such employment opportunities create a positive impact on the economy in terms of unemployment numbers.

This seems to be particularly applicable to third-world countries, where poverty is rampant. Hence one could say that invasive species do have a positive economic impact in certain cases. It must also be mentioned however that some of these "opportunities" are volunteer-based, and the only reward is a sense of assisting with the ecology in an attempt to ensure the earth's and humanity's future. The negative impacts however appear to far outweigh whatever positive outcomes could be extracted from invading species.

Personally, I found the sheer dollar value of eradicating and controlling these species shocking. If the U.S. alone spends $140 billion on the problem, with all the technology and expertise at the country's disposal, surely the crisis must be much worse in less developed countries. An aspect that I never considered with regard to invasive species and the economy is tourism. Ms. Garth for example mentions the case of the coqui frog in Hawaii.

The lightning-speed spread and the noise the frog makes have not only irritated natives, but also had a severe impact on tourism. As Hawaii is a very prominent travel destination, this impact is also severely reflected in the economy. The article appears rather gloomy regarding prospects of eradicating the frog. Another fascinating aspect of the article is the way in which invasive species made their journeys to locations all over the globe. There appears to be two categories: intentional transportation via human assisted means, and unintentional transportation.

Ironically, the intentional transport of exotic animals and plants for collection purposes, is a multi-billion dollar industry. Exotic species are generally imported for purposes such as food, collection purposes, or pets. Considering the market demand for such species, certainly one would assume that the economy of especially poverty-stricken countries is affected positively by exporting their native fauna and flora. Indeed, they are generally gracing the dinner tables and zoos of the rich with their exported items.

It does however become a problem when, as in the case of Florida mentioned in the article, the owner tires of the pet and releases it. Garth for example mentions the case of the Burmese Python, imported to Florida from Asia as pets. When the owners tire of them, they are released into the Everglades where they breed and significantly impact the environment. Other species are transported unintentionally. This is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the problem.

While imported species can be controlled to a degree by Governmental regulation, unintentional imports are a different matter. Garth mentions the example of the brown tree snake that stowed away on ships and military equipment during World War II. During this time, obviously, there was not as much awareness of the invasive species problem as there is today. Basically therefore the current era is faced with a problem unintentionally created decades ago.

Another case of unintentional transport that I found particularly interesting in the article is the movement from port to port of ballast water. Ships take on water for balancing purposes. The water is transported to the destination port and discarded. The cycle is repeated from port to port. The aquatic life in this ballast water is then also transported between the ports. As a solution to this, one of the suggestions mentioned in the article is that ships exchange their ballast water outside of ports.

However, I am not sure how such a strategy would mitigate the problem. Surely local aquatic life is not limited to the boundaries of ports. Wherever ballast water is taken, if it is transported a significant distance, it necessarily transports local aquatic organisms significant distances across the globe. I therefore believe that the suggested strategy, even when widely implemented, is unlikely to make much difference. Another striking element of the article is the focus on interconnectedness.

At the end of her article, McGrath states that significant and global political interaction will be needed to make a significant difference to the problem of invasives. For me, this indicates a parallel between human and ecological interaction. In the ecology, the article makes it abundantly clear that everything in an environment affects everything else. An imported snake that is not particular about its diet and without natural enemies, for example, erode the food sources for other species in the area.

This threatens diversity survival and poses a threat to the nature of the specific local ecology. In the same way, human beings interact either for the benefit or to the detriment of not only the parties involved, but also to the environment surrounding them. A very striking example of this sort of interaction is the case of the argument between Monaco and France regarding an invasive seaweed. The.