Whitetail deer is a southern species in Finland, and even there it has problems dealing with the six-month snow. As a result, whitetail deer are a culture-loving bunch. They utilize much field and garden vegetation, and hide in dense woodland spots right beside the food; extensive wintertime feeding by hunters also occurs.
Moose, forest / fjell reindeer and roe deer are the native species in the deer family here, and their habitats and diets don’t overlap much with the whitetail. Even where there’s overlap, I’m not aware of any “pushing out” by the whitetails.
Moose is by far the most numerous species and the most important game animal here. They like to munch crops as much as anyone, but manage just fine through the winters with no human influence, obviously.
Well apparently, as the article I had cited went into, scientists in the field do not all agree with you that “detrimental” is “by definition” what an invasive species is.
From that article, for those who couldn’t be arsed to click it.
From the scientific perspective “detrimental” is a very subjective term. The article (and “fair use” I think prevents me from quoting any more extensively from it, so those interested will need to actually click) expounds on examples in which judging if the changes immigrant species have caused are “detrimental” or “beneficial” is unclear, and ones in which a species that has clearly replaced one native species has also protected others.
Non-native (invasive) bees are a particularly very interesting case in point with both negative and positive impacts historically, presently, and likely in the future, especially when economic impacts are considered. As the article concludes:
As for the crops aspect, I get the point you make, and yet I’ll be pedantic enough to note that a species niche existing only by virtue of human influence is still a niche. Raising crops changes the ecology from what it otherwise would be very dramatically.
Staying on thread subjects, how do you cinsider the peanut in Africa? Once upon the time there was a native Bambara Groundnut (Vigna subterranea) grown as a crop in Africa. Peanuts from South America were introduced and took the place that groundnut from that niche. Those groundnuts still exist there but not in the same numbers. Toxylon the beaver is an interesting case. The Eurasian beaver was hunted to near extinction. Since then ecologies have changed and now reintroduction of it, either by intent or by escape, is viewed by some as potentially harmful. Wiki’s discussion is not bad.
Can you point me to information about the North American Beaver in Europe? I can’t find it on my own.
I’m a conservation biologist, and am familiar with the term. You asked if a “having a negative impact is required for a species to be considered invasive.” The answer to that question is “yes,” by definition. The article you cited does not change the definition itself, it merely discusses which species should be considered invasive.
The dispute you’re noting is whether all non-native species should be considered invasive. Not all non-native species are harmful, and some have both beneficial and negative effects. Likewise, some native species have increased and become problems. So the situation is complicated.
Sure, but to be considered invasive still requires a domesticated species to be spreading on its own. Feral goats and pigs are invasive in many places. Again, you are seeking to redefine the term.
That doesn’t say that the peanut has replaced the groundnut in the wild, only in cultivation. The peanut would not be considered invasive unless that was the case. You can’t consider hybrid strains of corn to be invasive just because farmers prefer to plant them instead of older varieties.
Arguably the Cane ToadCane toads in Australia - Wikipedia in Australia. Originally meant to control the Cane Beetle in the sugar industry, it totally failed in that and became a menace to indigenous species and pets due to their poison.
As someone who lives in one of the parts of England in which red squirrels still survive, can I just point out that that’s neither true, nor what the website you’ve linked to says.
Cangrejo americano (procambarus clarkii), a type of crayfish which depending on which version of wiki you believe is from northern Mexico and the south and southeastern US (English), or directly from the SE US (Spanish) is classified as a pest in Spain. Fishing them is not only allowed but encouraged in all locations and at all times.
Both largemouth and smallmouth bass have been introduced into Lake Atitlan in Guatemala, with the idea of promoting sport fishing and tourism there. These voracious predators have decimated native fish populations.
Canada geese are considered an invasive species in several counties in Sweden, much hated by farmers. Oddly, they don’t seem to push out the native greylag goose, which rather seems to thrive in its company. You almost never saw a greylag goose here some forty years ago, when Canada geese were newcomers; but today you will nearly always find some, albeit a minority, in a flock of Canada geese.
Most introduced birds in Hawaii are old-world species, but those from North America include the Mockingbird, Cardinal, House Finch, California Quail and Mourning Dove.
Coypu. They reproduce like crazy, have little to no natural predators and do huge damage to river banks. They’re legally shoot-on-sight all year long, in fact the EU has mandated they be destroyed whenever possible.
I believe Wels Catfish are also on the list - at least they were, for a while, 95% of the fish that bit in a 20 miles radius around my old folks’ place. And a giant pain to unhook, half the time they swallow the hook all the way to their arseholes. The fuckers aren’t even barely edible, either (No. No. I don’t care, Louisiana folks. Catfish are nasty, period. You only think they’re OK because they provide token texture in the sea of hot sauce.)
That is kind of weird. The story makes the good suggestion of eating the crayfish. They are tasty, send the Germans instructions for Cajun crayfish boil and problem solved, or is it? I was reminded of an article that I read a while back An Unlikely Way to Save a Species: Serve It for Dinner. I know that this has been recommended in other, similar, situations. But what happens when people really like the tasty, invasive species? Doesn’t that encourage ranchers or fishermen or whoever to maintain the species if there is a market for it?
In some cases, people have intentionally introduced invasive species in order to build a huntable population. Or they are originally intended to be a fenced population but some escape. Such is the case with wild pig or in Texas several exotics.
And tangentially, the turkey. OK, so they’re not running wild over the countryside, but they are a worryingly pervasive alternative to food that tastes of something.
The Wels catfish is native to central and eastern Europe, although introduced in western Europe. So, it may be invasive where you are, but didn’t invade from North America. And I beg to differ - catfish is good - at least the much smaller Channel catfish found in the US.
…
Oh, and the coypu is invasive in North America, too, and a big problem. They originally came from South America.