Great essay! First, thanks so much for telling people they don't need to squash Lanternflies. I am all for avoiding needless killing. We need less callousness and cruelty in our society, not more! You provide a much needed correction on a false narrative here that I much appreciate.
Second, I also very much appreciate that you brought up some of the cultural reasons why people gravitate to these "invasive species" scare stories. You listed three reasons: 1) an urge to return nature to a "primordial" state, 2) a need to have enemies, and 3) an attraction to simple (dualistic) maxims. Because I'm currently co-authoring a book on the the "invasive plant" narrative, these ideas are all on my mind right now, so I just want to add to what you're saying.
1. The "deep desire to cleanse and restore a kind of primordial purity to a natural world that we see as disrupted and polluted by humans" is definitely a motivation in much conservation and restoration work. There's too much to unpack about these ideas in this comment, but Sonia Shaw, author of "The Next Great Migration," sees this perspective of the natural world as stemming in part from a "Christian paradigm of an unchanging, orderly world." Due to this paradigm, we consider the movement of plants and animals into new places as "anomalous and disruptive" [Shah] although range expansion and contraction over time (sometimes rapidly, sometimes slowly) has been a basic function of all life on the planet since the beginning. As for the "by humans" part, I'll be the first to point out how environmentally destructive agriculture and industry are, but I would ascribe these to a particular way-of-life specifically, not to humans generally. After all, when it comes to identifying a baseline of pre-colonial disturbance, we must acknowledge that in what is now the US, nearly all landscapes were managed or inflected by humans. The "natural" state of ecosystems here, as found by Europeans, included humans as a native species.
2. Regarding "the need for enemies," it's worth reflecting on the fact that the increasing popularity of the "invasive species" narrative since the '90s has tracked with the increasing vilification of human immigrants in that same time period, especially since 9/11. As the cultural atmosphere has become more fearful/hateful of newcomers in general, the "invasive species" narrative has provided a socially-sanctioned way for people who are not anti-immigration when it comes to humans to hop on the xenophobia bandwagon too. Peer pressure is a powerful force.
3. Simple maxims: Dividing the world into good and bad is not a universal human trait, though it is emblematic of Western cultures, going back at least to the Greeks. There are other ways of looking at the world too, but we tend not to think about that. For example, some indigenous cultures view the introduction of new animals and plants in a much more nuanced way, in part because they view all other more-than-human creatures as relations not subjects. (I recommend the paper, "Anishnaabe Aki: an indigenous perspective on the global threat of invasive species," which was authored by indigenous researchers.) This is not to generalize across indigenous cultures--only to point out that some perspectives found in indigenous cultures are distinctively indigenous and distinctively non-Western.
Regarding simple maxims and dichotomies, it's also worth noting that you would have to look long and hard through the actual published literature of invasion biology to find any scientist who would say anything like native=good and introduced=bad. That's just not a stance in the world of the people who are actually studying these things. That good/bad dichotomy is definitely part of the popular "invasives" narrative as found on social media, but it's cultural, not scientific. (As you know.)
My substack is called, "Speaking for the Trees (No Matter Where They're From)" so I have to say something about the Tree of Heaven!
You wrote, "Most nature-oriented people would probably love to see it eradicated from the United States" and I hope you're wrong about that! I would like to think that there are many nature-oriented people who are leery about eradication as a way of approaching nature, and, that there are some who recognize that the presence of the tree signals an underlying disturbance to be addressed, and that merely focusing on getting rid of the tree will not accomplish that. It is central to my own work to help guide people away from this urge to eradicate.
The Tree of Heaven thrives in disturbances from industrial civilization. It is most common in urban areas. Outside such areas, it is usually found in disturbed sites like rights-of-way, logged areas, and old mines. The species has an unusually high tolerance of pollution and toxic conditions, and can grow in places with high levels of sulfur and mercury, more so than the native plants formerly found in such sites. (It concentrates mercury in its leaves so can be used to rehabilitate mining spoils.) Rather than labeling the tree as an "invader" we should recognize that we have made the species totally at home by affecting landscapes the way we have. Some research suggests that the success of the tree is also due to fire suppression, including the cultural burning practiced before colonization.
The most popular form of eradication of "invasive" plants is herbicides, which I oppose in all cases. The killing of "non-target" plants is virtually inevitable, and herbicides also harm insects and animals, especially aquatic ones. While much of this damage comes from over-spray, at one site where Tree of Heaven eradication was being attempted, imazapyr injected directly into the tree ended up killing neighboring (native) trees. Apparently, Tree of Heaven exuded the toxin from its roots or passed it along in mycorrhizae networks. So if people must attempt to removal, they should limit themselves to mechanical means.
In China, the tree has a long history of medicinal, culinary and craft use, and is used as a host tree for silk production. So there's that to consider too.
As someone who has dedicated their life to invasive control and restoration I will be thrilled to learn they are not the threat we thought they were from APHIS however, it is fairly egotistical and simplified to say make fun of all the scientists and land managers that are sounding the alarm on invasive lantern fly, writing them off as a human "deep seated enemy". This happens in all arenas of study, threats sometimes are not as bad as they predicted but to have the ego to say that scientists wanted to scare folks does not seem true. It is better to be cautious. You admit they have not reached your personal living area nor your park or back yard and are you a scientist? It would be a relief to discover that the threat posed by invasive lantern flies isn't as severe as initially thought. However, it's important to avoid dismissing the concerns raised by scientists and land managers as merely attempts to scare people. While it's true that threats sometimes turn out to be less severe than anticipated, it's crucial to approach such situations with caution and heed the advice of experts.
Nailed it! I’ve been waiting for someone to write this. Thanks!
Agreeing mostly. Also it may be that we live in a time when things just aren't allowed to be 'not that bad.'
Great essay! First, thanks so much for telling people they don't need to squash Lanternflies. I am all for avoiding needless killing. We need less callousness and cruelty in our society, not more! You provide a much needed correction on a false narrative here that I much appreciate.
Second, I also very much appreciate that you brought up some of the cultural reasons why people gravitate to these "invasive species" scare stories. You listed three reasons: 1) an urge to return nature to a "primordial" state, 2) a need to have enemies, and 3) an attraction to simple (dualistic) maxims. Because I'm currently co-authoring a book on the the "invasive plant" narrative, these ideas are all on my mind right now, so I just want to add to what you're saying.
1. The "deep desire to cleanse and restore a kind of primordial purity to a natural world that we see as disrupted and polluted by humans" is definitely a motivation in much conservation and restoration work. There's too much to unpack about these ideas in this comment, but Sonia Shaw, author of "The Next Great Migration," sees this perspective of the natural world as stemming in part from a "Christian paradigm of an unchanging, orderly world." Due to this paradigm, we consider the movement of plants and animals into new places as "anomalous and disruptive" [Shah] although range expansion and contraction over time (sometimes rapidly, sometimes slowly) has been a basic function of all life on the planet since the beginning. As for the "by humans" part, I'll be the first to point out how environmentally destructive agriculture and industry are, but I would ascribe these to a particular way-of-life specifically, not to humans generally. After all, when it comes to identifying a baseline of pre-colonial disturbance, we must acknowledge that in what is now the US, nearly all landscapes were managed or inflected by humans. The "natural" state of ecosystems here, as found by Europeans, included humans as a native species.
2. Regarding "the need for enemies," it's worth reflecting on the fact that the increasing popularity of the "invasive species" narrative since the '90s has tracked with the increasing vilification of human immigrants in that same time period, especially since 9/11. As the cultural atmosphere has become more fearful/hateful of newcomers in general, the "invasive species" narrative has provided a socially-sanctioned way for people who are not anti-immigration when it comes to humans to hop on the xenophobia bandwagon too. Peer pressure is a powerful force.
3. Simple maxims: Dividing the world into good and bad is not a universal human trait, though it is emblematic of Western cultures, going back at least to the Greeks. There are other ways of looking at the world too, but we tend not to think about that. For example, some indigenous cultures view the introduction of new animals and plants in a much more nuanced way, in part because they view all other more-than-human creatures as relations not subjects. (I recommend the paper, "Anishnaabe Aki: an indigenous perspective on the global threat of invasive species," which was authored by indigenous researchers.) This is not to generalize across indigenous cultures--only to point out that some perspectives found in indigenous cultures are distinctively indigenous and distinctively non-Western.
Regarding simple maxims and dichotomies, it's also worth noting that you would have to look long and hard through the actual published literature of invasion biology to find any scientist who would say anything like native=good and introduced=bad. That's just not a stance in the world of the people who are actually studying these things. That good/bad dichotomy is definitely part of the popular "invasives" narrative as found on social media, but it's cultural, not scientific. (As you know.)
My substack is called, "Speaking for the Trees (No Matter Where They're From)" so I have to say something about the Tree of Heaven!
You wrote, "Most nature-oriented people would probably love to see it eradicated from the United States" and I hope you're wrong about that! I would like to think that there are many nature-oriented people who are leery about eradication as a way of approaching nature, and, that there are some who recognize that the presence of the tree signals an underlying disturbance to be addressed, and that merely focusing on getting rid of the tree will not accomplish that. It is central to my own work to help guide people away from this urge to eradicate.
The Tree of Heaven thrives in disturbances from industrial civilization. It is most common in urban areas. Outside such areas, it is usually found in disturbed sites like rights-of-way, logged areas, and old mines. The species has an unusually high tolerance of pollution and toxic conditions, and can grow in places with high levels of sulfur and mercury, more so than the native plants formerly found in such sites. (It concentrates mercury in its leaves so can be used to rehabilitate mining spoils.) Rather than labeling the tree as an "invader" we should recognize that we have made the species totally at home by affecting landscapes the way we have. Some research suggests that the success of the tree is also due to fire suppression, including the cultural burning practiced before colonization.
The most popular form of eradication of "invasive" plants is herbicides, which I oppose in all cases. The killing of "non-target" plants is virtually inevitable, and herbicides also harm insects and animals, especially aquatic ones. While much of this damage comes from over-spray, at one site where Tree of Heaven eradication was being attempted, imazapyr injected directly into the tree ended up killing neighboring (native) trees. Apparently, Tree of Heaven exuded the toxin from its roots or passed it along in mycorrhizae networks. So if people must attempt to removal, they should limit themselves to mechanical means.
In China, the tree has a long history of medicinal, culinary and craft use, and is used as a host tree for silk production. So there's that to consider too.
[ For more info, see the Forest Service's Fire Effect Information System, where I got this info. The entry on Tree of Heaven has 328 endnotes, so it's a great summary of the science. https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/ailalt/all.html ]
Anyway, I appreciate your work, Gabe. Just wanted to add some thoughts for you and your readers.
As someone who has dedicated their life to invasive control and restoration I will be thrilled to learn they are not the threat we thought they were from APHIS however, it is fairly egotistical and simplified to say make fun of all the scientists and land managers that are sounding the alarm on invasive lantern fly, writing them off as a human "deep seated enemy". This happens in all arenas of study, threats sometimes are not as bad as they predicted but to have the ego to say that scientists wanted to scare folks does not seem true. It is better to be cautious. You admit they have not reached your personal living area nor your park or back yard and are you a scientist? It would be a relief to discover that the threat posed by invasive lantern flies isn't as severe as initially thought. However, it's important to avoid dismissing the concerns raised by scientists and land managers as merely attempts to scare people. While it's true that threats sometimes turn out to be less severe than anticipated, it's crucial to approach such situations with caution and heed the advice of experts.