This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Invasive species article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 100 days

	Invasive species has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 2, 2006 Good article nominee Listed December 22, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted August 1, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed August 5, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 1, 2024 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

This   level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ecology High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Plants High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Climate change Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Category

The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article: Congressional Research Service: Invasive non-native species: Background and Issues for Congress, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain. ‌

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I took a very brief look at the Fred Pearce references regarding the advantages of invasive species. First of all, he's a journalist and not a scientist. Second of all, many of the references in this article to that book don't actually tie to any scientific literature (open up the book! uncited claims abound). In fact, there are numerous scholarly articles that complicate his claims (see, e.g.:

1) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stuart-Ludsin/publication/285891342_The_benthification_of_freshwater_lakes_exotic_mussels_turning_ecosystems_upside_down/links/568178e908aebccc4e0be133/The-benthification-of-freshwater-lakes-exotic-mussels-turning-ecosystems-upside-down.pdf -- "ecosystem engineering by these two nonindigenous species is changing the fundamental, physical nature of an entire category of ecosystems."

2) https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1126/ML112640036.pdf -- this seems to be the source of one of the claims "Since zebra mussels became established in Lake Erie, water clarity has increased from 6 inches to 30 feet in some areas" ... unfortunately, the very next sentence in this document says "Unfortunately, the material removed from the water consists of other live animals and algae that supply food for larval fish and other invertebrates. In response to this changing food supply, populations of some animals have begun to decline." -- this truncation of the quote seems particularly biased towards the "favorable effects" despite experts calling attention to the detriment.

3) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0380133004703718 -- "Since shortly after their introduction, dreissenid mussels have been thought to have improved water clarity in Lake Erie, particularly in the western basin. However, long-term monitoring (1982–2004) has found no evidence of persistent, basin-wide increases in water clarity in either the western or the central basin of Lake Erie since the Dreissena invasion.")

and that's just what I, an amateur, found with a very perfunctory googling.

Additionally, the second footnote linked to his book is a word-for-word copy/paste from his book: "But elsewhere, most of the time, the tens of thousands of introduced species usually either swiftly die out or settle down and become model eco-citizens, pollinating crops, spreading seeds, controlling predators, and providing food and habitat for native species. They rarely eliminate natives. Rather than reducing biodiversity, the novel new worlds that result are usually richer in species than what went before. Even the “terrorists” of the conservation world, such as zebra mussels and tamarisk, Japanese knotweed and water hyacinth, often have a good side we rarely hear about." (Note that there are no scientific sources noted in the text at this point. i'm also skeptical that we should have such large word-for-word copy/pastes from the book unless we specifically mention that is the case?). It also doesn't seem to be on the correct page listed in the citation.

Additionally, in a typical "journalistic" style, there are a lot of value-laden words and weasel words in his book and in this entire section that seem to me to be purely rhetoric and lack scientific substance (e.g. "model eco-citizens" (i think he made that phrase up) that "rarely eliminate natives" (lots of evidence to the contrary given how many people are researching this topic) that create "novel new worlds" which are "usually" (?) "richer" (by what & whose measure? is that "richness" better than "resilience" offered by native plants that are well adapted to environmental variations due to their thousands of years of evolution in a given space?) in species). If there are going to be claims contrary to the rest of the published scientific research in this article, I would at least expect them to be well supported. 24.131.137.118 ( talk) 17:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I've removed the Pearce paragraph, for multiple reasons. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 20:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

So in the introduction, the article is labelled invasive or alien species, as if the two mean the same thing. How so? They're not synonymous (not always). Because many introduced/alien species are NOT invasive; the same way that many native species can be invasive as well. "Alien species" is more emblematic in the introduced species article, since introduced and alien species are the same thing. And also because alien species are introduced species that MAY or MAY NOT be invasive. But the introduction of this article is insinuating (or rather proposing) the idea that invasive species equals alien species and vice versa, when there are native species that are pretty invasive. 220.240.160.126 ( talk) 13:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Invasive species

There's a segment on Gene drives as a solution to invasive species, identifying the pros and cons and such... But at no point does it actually explain what the heck a "gene drive" is. It doesn't even link to anything. Definition, please? 2601:408:C402:F09F:2135:A321:9AB0:39A9 ( talk) 02:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply