First paragraph: When it comes to deciding which plants and animals to protect and which to remove, our approach might make even the most forthright nationalist blush if it were ever applied to people. The central question in the UK and many other countries is whether a particular species is&nbsp;native or non-native

Jump, Alistair

English

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

8/9/2017 Trying to keep nature the same is a fool's errand – we should embrace changehttps://theconversation.com/trying-to-keep-nature-the-same-is-a-fools-errand-we-should-embrace-change-81963 1/4AuthorAlistair JumpProfessor of Plant Ecology, University ofStirlingAcademic rigour, journalistic flairTrying to keep nature the same is a fool’s errand – we shouldembrace changeAugust 2, 2017 4.44pm BSTWhen it comes to deciding which plants and animals to protect and which to remove, our approachmight make even the most forthright nationalist blush if it were ever applied to people. The centralquestion in the UK and many other countries is whether a particular species is native or non-native.Rarer natives are more likely to have government money spent on their protection. The UK has a long list of them, including the likes of the spiny cockle, the moustached warbler and the sturgeon. Non-natives, on the other hand, may be rightly targeted for extermination if they threaten significantdamage and are spreading fast – Japanese knotweed and rhododendrons being well known “invasive”examples.On the face of it, native is good and non-native is bad. Not only do we make this distinction at UKlevel, we do it for species in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It may seem simple, butthe very definition is less clear cut than it first appears.Unidentified alien beechesTake the beech tree. This tree has long been considered non-native to Scotland and, in some cases,has been treated as an invader. It has been the subject of many back and forth arguments aboutwhether it should be encouraged or removed.Scottish beeches – the slowest invasion in history? Angus Clyne, CC BY-SA8/9/2017 Trying to keep nature the same is a fool's errand – we should embrace changehttps://theconversation.com/trying-to-keep-nature-the-same-is-a-fools-errand-we-should-embrace-change-81963 2/4Beeches colonised the south of England after the last Ice Age. They beganspreading north but failed initially to establish themselves. This was dueto competition with other trees and the subsequent rampantdeforestation of the UK by our ancestors.Nowadays, beeches are found throughout the UK, but considered non-native to Scotland for two reasons. The first relates to the arbitrary cut-off point that decides these things in the UK: about 7,000 years ago, thetime of the post-Ice Age expansion of human agriculture. (Othercountries take a different view of time for native/non-native purposes –the US dates it to 1492, the time of European settlement, for example.)The second indicator is that beeches are considered to have beenintroduced to Scotland by people rather than spreading of their ownaccord. In reality, it has been easier to say this than to prove it. The most recent update to species maps for the UK mapped beeches as native“regardless of status” because it was so hard to figure out which had beenintroduced by people and which had made it themselves.I recently co-published a paper which removed this uncertainty. Bycombining DNA evidence with historic information, we were able toidentify the origin of populations of beech in Scotland and in northernEngland.It is well known that beech grows and reproduces without problems inthe Scottish lowlands. So while humans might have speeded its spread,beeches would have taken root in Scotland anyway. This led us to theconclusion that there is no justifiable reason to maintain its status asnon-native, and we should just embrace it as another natural occupant ofthe Scottish landscape.Dragonflies and bumblebeesThis beech controversy is strongly linked to our tendency to be resistantto change in the natural world. We think in terms of communities ofplants, animals, fungi and bacteria that live together in the same place atthe same time, and tend to view these as fixed and unchanging – something we can describe, quantifyand map.In truth, such communities change constantly as species move in accordance with changes in theirenvironment – little different to how humans shift in response to things like war or economichardship. With plants and animals, we pick a point in time 7,000 years ago and say the communitythat existed at that time is native and the species stops here.The tree bumblebee is another interesting example. It is believed to have arrived from the continentunder its own steam in about 2001 and spread rapidly up the country. Like beech, its spread wasThe warbler. Sergey Yeliseev, CC BY-SAMake like a tree. Pelle Zoltan8/9/2017 Trying to keep nature the same is a fool's errand – we should embrace changehttps://theconversation.com/trying-to-keep-nature-the-same-is-a-fools-errand-we-should-embrace-change-81963 3/4made easier by humans – in this case by providing bird boxes and roof spaces that these bees are adept at colonising.The tree bumblebee is a clear-cut non-native according to our established definitions. Yet itscolonisation of the UK is believed to have been a natural event that would have occurred (moreslowly) without human intervention.It’s also part of a much bigger trend. A wide variety of species including birds, butterflies and otherinsects are on the move as our climate warms. Since 1995, some 11 species of dragonflies have returned to or newly arrived in the UK – one in five of all dragonfly species in the country.We are likely to see many more of these developments as the climate keeps warming, sometimes with serious negative effects. It all challenges one of the fundamental principles of conservation, that ofkeeping things the same. How, then, do we overcome our resistance to change without abandoningefforts to stop the spread of invasive species altogether?Certainly where an area is of particular biological, historical or cultural significance, we mightcontinue to spend money trying to keep it that way. But more broadly, it makes sense to think interms of harm and benefits.With beech, we might say that while its expansion across Scotland is undoubtedly a threat to somewoodlands, it represents a great opportunity when species like ash and oak are at significant risk fromnew pests and diseases. As for the tree bumblebee, rather than damaging ecosystems, it performs vitalpollination services while other pollinators suffer unprecedented declines.We should continue to use our limited conservation funds to fight invasive species that cause the mostdamage, while striving to stop human introductions of new species to ever more areas of the globe.But trying to turn back the clock to an arbitrary time in the past is a fool’s errand. Change is the newBee here now. Howard Marsh8/9/2017 Trying to keep nature the same is a fool's errand – we should embrace changehttps://theconversation.com/trying-to-keep-nature-the-same-is-a-fools-errand-we-should-embrace-change-81963 4/4Climate change Conservation Ice Age Butterflies Scotland Dragonflies Native speciesnorm and will be for the foreseeable future. Perhaps the arguments around native and non-nativeneed to stop forever looking back, and start looking forward, too.We produce knowledge-based, ethical journalism. Please donate and help us thrive. Tax deductible.Make a donation 

Trying to keep nature the same is a fool’s errand – we should embrace change

Stirling Online Research Repository

http://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/25716/1/Jump-Conversation-2017.pdf

Trying to keep nature the same is a fool’s errand – we should embrace change

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

Stirling Online Research Repository