Subjectivity and flexibility in invasion terminology: too much of a good thing?
- 469 Downloads
Invasions biologists have frequently debated whether the definition of invasive should include ecological and economic impacts. More recent criticisms posit that objective definitions are impossible in any absolute sense, while subjectivity is desirable for its flexibility and motivational qualities. We argue that such criticisms underestimate the extent of subjectivity already present in invasion biology. Ecological questions may be methodological if they relate directly to other ecological theories and models, or motivational if they focus on issues important to society as a whole. Motivational questions are important for engaging scientists, improving public understanding of science, and often have applied benefits. In contrast, methodological questions are constrained by established scientific theories, and are therefore more efficient for the development of scientific knowledge. Contrary to recent critiques, we suggest that greater objectivity is both achievable and desirable for the discipline of invasion biology and ecology generally.
KeywordsInvasive species Methodological questions Motivational subjectivity Terminology Objective definitions
We are grateful to S. Barrett, S. Yakimowski, A. Colautti, J. Wilson and S. Ganjbakhsh for feedback on early drafts of this paper. Our research is supported by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship to R. Colautti and funding from the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology and the Hans Sigrist Foundation to D. Richardson.
- Daehler CC (2001) Two ways to be an invader, but one is more suitable for ecology. ESA Bull 82:101–102Google Scholar
- Davis MA, Thompson K (2000) Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader: a proposed nomenclature scheme for invasion ecology. ESA Bull 81:226–230Google Scholar
- Davis MA, Thompson K (2001) Invasion terminology: should ecologists define their terms differently than others? No, not if we want to be of any help. ESA Bull 82:206Google Scholar
- Feyerabend P (1993) Against method. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Forrest B, Gross PR (2004) Creationism’s Trojan horse: the wedge of intelligent design. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Rejmánek M, Richardson DM, Barbour MG, Crawley MJ, Hrusa GF, Moyle PB, Randall JM, Simberloff D, Williamson M (2002) Biological invasions: politics and the discontinuity of ecological terminology. ESA Bull 83:131–133Google Scholar
- Valéry L, Hervé F, Lefeuvre J-C, Simberloff D (in press) In search of a real definition of the biological invasion phenomenon itself. Biol Invasions. doi: 10.1007/s10530-007-9209-7
- van Wilgen NJ, Richardson DM, Baard EHW (2008) Alien reptiles and amphibians in South Africa: towards a pragmatic management strategy. S Afr J Sci 104:13–20Google Scholar
- Williamson M (2001) Can the impacts of invasive species be predicted? In: Groves RH, Panetta FD, Virtue JG (eds) Weed risk assessment. CSIRO, Collingwood, pp 20–33Google Scholar