Talk:Invasive species/Archive 2

Unsourced statement
This unsourced statement was removed from the text. If it can be sourced, they it will be replaced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC) The Pied Currawong of south-east Australia is an example; as a result of human changes to the landscape, Pied Currawongs increased greatly in range during the 20th century and have caused substantial declines in the populations of the smaller birds whose nestlings they prey on.
 * see http://www.eeb.ucla.edu/Faculty/Blumstein/pdf%20reprints/Bayly&Blumstein2001_Emu.pdf

study gives mixed results and would not back up the above statement. Hardyplants 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)\

The picture of the Pied Currawong now appears orphaned from the text. Hardyplants 01:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed
I have passed this article's GA because I feel it meets the GA criteria. Nice work! The only thing I'd suggest is to add some more sources - it never hurts, and although there are a lot of references already, since this is a relatively long article, it could do with a few more sources spread throughout the article. Cheers, Corvus coronoides  talk 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to GA review Invasive species. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Weapons of some invasive plants discovered
Acids emitted from some invasive plants destroy nearby plants. Brian Pearson 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Allelopathy is well known in invasives, and discussed in several places in the article. Circeus (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Allelopathy is not a trait limited to, let alone consistent among, so-called invasive plant species.  Many 'native' species also utilize this so-called 'weaponry' including most species of sunflowers and many nut trees (from the top of my head).  Furthermore, using language that anthropomorphizes invasion as a military offensive is not helpful to scientific ecological discourse on this subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinus jeffreyi (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone PLEASE actually add the DEFINITIONS!!
Three "definitions" of the term are mentioned (in the first paragraph), but NONE are actually defined. Someone (e.g., whoever added that first paragraph) please actually include the DEFINITIONS... Thanks, 64.75.224.234 (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on validity of common invasive species traits
The list of 'common invasive species traits' are no more characteristic of invasives than of pioneer species in normal ecological succession. Proclaiming they are characteristic of 'invasives' suggests to the lay person that these traits are not to be found in non-invasive introduced species nor native species to the lay person. The implication is that all pioneer species are actual or potential invasives, which is invalid. This list should either be stricken or clarified.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinus jeffreyi (talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know the source for the following statement "A recent study by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health found the Asian oyster could significantly benefit the bay's deteriorating water quality.[41]" ? I searched for the article, but I couldn't find it. (Jeffreyjoh (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

The item "Other successful invasions" should be deleted, as it is not an actual trait, but the expression of the species' genetic/phenotypic traits. Bkmertz (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Eradication and control efforts and criticism thereof
There should be more on the human efforts to eradicate and/or control invasive species, and the pro and con of those efforts. If you can provide it, please add such information. -- 77.187.41.231 (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Economic impacts
The Benefits and Economic Opportunities subheadings could be combined. It appears that the Economic Opportunities section simply lists other potential economic benefits of an invasive species. Bkmertz (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Really like the structure of the article. Very thorough and seems to have covered all aspects of invasive species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnpatton (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys - sorry for the late editing job. I've got nothing worth adding here. The article looks great. IUrangerb (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)IUrangerB

Actually, I do have a suggestion. You guys may be doing some editing outside of Wiki, but I would suggest a small section mentioning the US regulatory measures for invasive species, or even just some links to the relevant laws. Regulation or policy does not seem to play a big role in this article, which is fine, but you could definitely touch on the subject. IUrangerb (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)IUrangerB

GA?
I don't see how this article qualifies for GA. It has 13 citation requests, some open for more than 1 year. I did a one-pass copyedit and removed 700+ words from the original 4100, and reorganized it as well. I'm still not lovin' the result. GA should be removed and the process restarted. Lfstevens (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph
The first paragraph is unclear, it does not say in few words what an invasive species actually is. Where's the bioligy departement? Crystalkaloid (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, . Further, the object of an article is to explain the definition, not provide an array of competing definitions. There should be a single one that explains what it really is. For now, maybe a comment added to the first line or so will help. I'm going to modify it a bit and change up the first sentence to make it clearer.


 * I have issues with this statement in the second sentence: "An invasive species also called invasive exotics or simply exotics, is a nomenclature term and categorization phrase used for flora and fauna, and for specific restoration-preservation processes in native habitats, with several definitions." Alternate definitions of non-native species are discussed in the article Introduced species. "Exotics" are really an alternate definition of "non-native species". I don't see Invasive species on their own being called exotics. Am going to take this sentence out.


 * I was going to keep in the three alternate more detailed definitions after the first sentence. They are a bit messy however.


 * I found an online reference for the article that was footnote 4, which was given as a reference for aspects of the competing definitions, http://www.esf.edu/efb/parry/502_reading/colautti2004.pdf. I included it instead of the current citation and moved the named reference ("neutral") to the list of references rather than within the text, and added page numbers for references accordingly.


 * The second definition gives no reference at all: "The second definition includes the first, but broadens the boundaries to include indigenous or native species, with the non-native ones, that disrupt by a dominant colonization of a particular habitat or wildlands area from loss of natural controls (i.e.: predators or herbivores). Deer are an example, considered to be overpopulating their native zones and adjacent suburban gardens, by some in the Northeastern and Pacific Coast regions of the United States." It makes an interesting point however, that at times "non-native" is stretched.


 * The first definition paragraph is really cumbersome: "The first definition, the most used, applies to introduced species (also called "non-indigenous" or "non-native") that adversely affect the habitats and bioregions they invade economically, environmentally, and/or ecologically. Such invasive species may be either plants or animals and may disrupt by dominating a region, wilderness areas, particular habitats, or wildland-urban interface land from loss of natural controls (such as predators or herbivores). This includes non-native invasive plant species labeled as exotic pest plants and invasive exotics growing in native plant communities.[1] It has been used in this sense by government organizations[2][3] as well as conservation groups such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the California Native Plant Society.[4] The European Union defines "Invasive Alien Species" as those that are, firstly, outside their natural distribution area, and secondly, threaten biological diversity.[5] It is also used by land managers, botanists, researchers, horticulturalists, conservationists, and the public for noxious weeds.[6] The kudzu vine (Pueraria lobata), Andean Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) are examples." This really needs work, for another day perhaps.


 * Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Colonialists
Can we modify the language of this article so it's not so easy to sweep colonialists up in the dragnet term "invasive species?" As its written (particularly the first paragraph) the article could easily apply to the mass immigration of non-indigenous industrially-dependent humans to North America. This is unacceptable, obviously, as it reflects poorly on colonialists and characterizes them as "invasive" whereas the real truth is that they are merely "explorers."

The article does specify that "invasive species" can only be fungus, plant, or animal; but the science of the distinction between animal and human comes off as rather spurious in light of 21st century enlightenment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.253.38.27 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

^ "merely"? They were a lot of things. Explorers, yes, but also invaders who committed many deliberate acts of genocide over the course of hundreds of years, wiping out many local populations, including humans and non-humans. Why do you consider it unacceptable to reflect poorly on something that was a major ecological disaster, with many invasive species intentionally introduced, and the local human and animal populations intentionally exterminated? There is no human/animal distinction in science. There is a consensus that humans are animals. However, one note against looking at colonialists as an "invasive species" is that they're the same species as the indigenous humans, with a common ancestor in the very recent past. So they can't really be considered an "invasive species" without also describing the indigenous people, who probably did upset the ecosystem at an earlier time, for example it's suspected that the movement of humans into what's now the Americas led to the extinction of numerous large mammal species. This would tend to characterise humans as invasive, or at least suggest that humans can adopt invasive behaviour given certain conditions. The existence of indigenous groups who live in relative equilibrium with their ecosystem also shows that humans don't need to always be invasive. An analogy could be grasshoppers and locusts. Human exceptionalism just won't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.45.176 (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Nile crocodile in Florida
2016-05-22 Man-eating crocodiles surface in Florida swamps https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/21/african-nile-crocodiles-captured-florida 200.187.116.13 (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Management tools for controlling invasive species
It is a well written wiki article, but this article can be improved by adding some management tools for invasive species. Especially, management of Yellow Starthitle can be crucial to some National parks in California to keep their biodiversity and to manage problematic invasive species. Consider. Impacts of Invasive Species on Rangelands, John M. Conner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongchanyang (talk • contribs) 04:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Dongchanyang (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Invasive species" aren't necessarily introduced
The definition of "invasive species" in the lede of this article is incorrect. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Simberloff, 2010: "Although the great majority of invasive species are introduced, occasionally native plant species have become invasive, spreading rapidly into previously unoccupied habitats. These invasions fall into two categories, both involving human activities. In the first, a native species that is rather restricted in range and habitat is supplemented with introductions from afar that have new genotypes, and the new genotypes, or recombinants involving the new genotypes, become invasive...The second category of native invasives arises from human modification of the environment."

Rather than flag the text as dubious, it would have been more productive to edit it. "Dubious" refers to a source that is unreliable or unverifiable. The source for the original definition was a web page published by the Society for Conservation Biology (conbio.org), an international academic/professional organization composed of researchers and others involved in environmental science. The "new" definition comes from a book published by the same organization, thus reaffirming it's reliability rather than casting doubt on it. The effect is confusing. Jbrockettm (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Correction: original source was not SCB, but the non-native plant society. The original definition given focused on non-native invasives, but was not dubious. Jbrockettm (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

New controversy section
I'm going to add a controversy section. I guess there are two issues, the definition being ambiguous - but that I've addressed in the first section. The main controversy I see as Nathan Winograd's argument that the whole concept of invasion biology is xenophobic, saying that some species are more valuable than others. He puts it quite interestingly. Will write that up with a shorter intro to it in the intro section.

Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello there, per WP:BRD you have been bold, I have reverted, and now we shall discuss. Unfortunately I have to argue against addition of this material for the following reasons. Firstly, Winograd is not an expert in the field, and the book being used to cite his viewpoints is self-published. Since the material of this section is based upon a single source and that source is not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards (seeWP:RS) I've had to remove it. Additionally I find the content of the section to be problematic in a few ways. Comparison of support for native species to Nazi Germany is unnecessarily provocative, and stating as fact that it has its roots in Nazi ideology would need extremely good sourcing before it could be added. Invasion ecology has its roots in Charles Elton's 1958 book The Ecology of Invasion by Animals and Plants. Charles Elton is one of the founders of modern ecology and his works formed the basis for what much is being studied today, and I see no evidence that his works were influenced by Nazi ideology. Additionally Winograd makes many arguments which clearly underline his lack of knowledge on the subject.
 * To claim that 'native' species are somehow better than 'introduced' species equally or better adapted to the environment is to deny the inevitable forces of migration and natural selection
 * This argument completely ignores the reality being that virtually all modern invasions are driven by human causes, either through breeding and accidentally releasing invasives such as Caulerpa taxifolia or by transplanting organisms that could never by natural means be transplanted to their new locations(black rats from Europe occurring throughout islands in the Pacific). To portray the introduction of species into areas where they never could have arrived without human aid as "the inevitable forces of migration and natural selection" is thus misleading.
 * Winograd states that identifying which plants or animals were first at a certain location is difficult to ascertain, and often arbitrary
 * This is also completely incorrect. It is almost trivial to identify which organisms are native to a region.
 * non-native, ignoring that they provided habitat for birds and other ecological benefits
 * This was certainly taken into consideration, and it appears Winograd has not considered the substantial theoretical support and (admittedly limited) empirical support for environments composed of native species as ultimately allowing increased numbers of organism to occupy an area as well as improved ecological benefits. This second paragraph reduces the topic of biological invasions to a case study of a single event which it does not provide adequate coverage of.
 * I will state ideas for criticism that can be included in this article. For one thing, while individual biological invasions can often be shown to be harmful, the fundamental basis for much of invasion biology lacks strong empirical support. Some find the term "invasive" to be applying a negative value judgement to a physical phenomenon which is seen as unscientific, and also there is significant concern over the fact that "invasive" lacks a precise definition.
 * As a final note I will add that many on Wikipedia, myself included, disapprove of criticism sections(see Criticism)). For one thing, in order to abide by our neutral point of view policy(WP:NPOV) it doesn't make sense to have a criticism section unless you also have a praise section. I would urge you to consider trying to integrate criticism into the article, rather than isolating it into its own section.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I just came across your edit,. For this discussion, I think it's important to include the text of my original edit in the Controversy section which was removed:


 * "Animal advocate Nathan Winograd critiques the underlying concept of invasion biology, stating that favouring "native" species over "non-native" has its "roots historically in Nazi Germany, where the notion of a garden with native plants was founded on nationalistic and racist ideas 'cloaked in scientific jargon'" (p. 56). "To claim that 'native' species are somehow better than 'introduced' species equally or better adapted to the environment is to deny the inevitable forces of migration and natural selection" (p. 57). Winograd states that identifying which plants or animals were first at a certain location is difficult to ascertain, and often arbitrary; whereas "all plants and animals were introduced (by wind, humans, migration, or other animals) at some point in time" (p. 56). In particular, humans "are the biggest non-native intruders in the United States", causing environmental and species decimation through habitat destruction and pollution (p. 57).


 * "Winograd adds that when the environmental movement targets "species for eradication using traps, poisons, fire, and hunting, all of which cause great harm, suffering, and environmental degradation", it is acting against its ultimate goal of creating a peaceful and harmonious relationship between humans and the environment (p. 57). He identified a stretch of healthy trees which were cut down in a national park in the San Francisco area simply because an environmental organization targeted them as non-native, ignoring that they provided habitat for birds and other ecological benefits. Further clear-cutting of half a million eucalyptus trees was expected in the San Francisco Bay area, which would be followed by thousands of gallons of toxic herbicide, reducing forest habitats to "empty, stump-filled graveyards." Winograd states that the invasive biology movement would better be labelled "biological xenophobia" (p. 58).

I agree that mentioning the favouring of native plants in Nazi Germany is challenging, and may disturb some people. Elton's work came long after the phenomenon of Nazi Germany. Perhaps some further research on this subject will shed some light.

Identifying which organisms are "native" or not is really the crux of the issue that Winograd raises, and in my view, his arguments are strong. The time of the organisms' first appearance at a location is indeed an issue. For example, a 2008 study of the "effects of invasive rats on seabirds" comments that "rat introductions began over 2000 years ago" (p. 23). I kid you not. In a period of over 2,000 years, many species of seabirds and other flora and fauna may have emerged; while the rats were there before them! Yet rats are still considered invasive and non-native in locations where they existed for millennia.

I'm not sure why you take issue with the example of tree clearing provided by Winograd in his article on Huffington Post. The article has photographic evidence of what occurred, the loss of trees which contain obvious habitat for birds and other living things; along with photos of an owl and monarch butterflies in eucalyptus trees. You comment that the trees' ecological benefits were "certainly taken into consideration" without providing any references. He is simply pointing out the downside of removal and eradication of targeted tree species.

Winograd's argument about environmental degradation and harm caused by the process of removing or eradicating species is also an important one. Knee-jerk eradication and removals based on a label of "invasive" can lead to unintended consequences for the environment. Winograd is raising issues like this for people to think about.

I appreciate your comment that "the fundamental basis for much of invasion biology lacks strong empirical support. Some find the term 'invasive' to be applying a negative value judgement to a physical phenomenon which is seen as unscientific, and also there is significant concern over the fact that 'invasive' lacks a precise definition." This statement reflects some of what Winograd is saying.

You commented that Winograd's book Irreconcilable Differences, the main source I used, is self-published. That is true, but his arguments can be backed up by independent sources, like the Seabirds study mentioned above. When I first posted this I also included an article Winograd wrote and a website dedicated to the preservation of trees in California. I will keep a lookout for other sources.

Thank you for linking the Wikipedia article about avoiding Controversy sections and the like. When I have seen them elsewhere I have found them helpful as a place to hear about competing views, for a balanced view of the subject. I wonder how the information can otherwise be integrated. One alternative wording suggested is "Critiques", which may be appropriate. It is important to provide a full understanding of a subject by sharing competing views. No one has to agree with the points raised, but they need to be told.

Canadianknowledgelover (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, here is my response:
 * ’’I agree that mentioning the favouring of native plants in Nazi Germany is challenging, and may disturb some people. Elton's work came long after the phenomenon of Nazi Germany. Perhaps some further research on this subject will shed some light.’’

The only type of research that could support a claim connecting invasive plant species to Nazism is research performed by a qualified historian looking into primary sources about Charles Elton detailing such a connection and published by a reliable publisher. I should note to Nathan Winograd that you could make similar claims about animal rights, the Nazis had the most progressive laws on animal rights in their time period, and much of Germany’s current animal rights laws today were originally enacted under the Nazi regime. But it would be similarly inappropriate to state that modern animal rights advocates have their roots in Nazism without a very strong source to support it.
 * ’’Identifying which organisms are "native" or not is really the crux of the issue that Winograd raises, and in my view, his arguments are strong. The time of the organisms' first appearance at a location is indeed an issue. For example, a 2008 study of the "effects of invasive rats on seabirds" comments that "rat introductions began over 2000 years ago" (p. 23).[4] I kid you not. In a period of over 2,000 years, many species of seabirds and other flora and fauna may have emerged; while the rats were there before them! Yet rats are still considered invasive and non-native in locations where they existed for millennia.’’

This example doesn’t highlight the difficulties in determining if something is native or not because anything younger than 2,000 years old would be considered non-native. As far as rats go though, they are obviously invasive, they were introduced throughout the world’s islands in the past few thousand years by man sailing around, and where they have landed they have wreaked havoc on local ecosystems, wiping out thousands of populations of birds/insects/plants/mammals/invertebrate/etc. A good example of a borderline case is the California walnut. ‘’Juglans californica’’ was previously distributed throughout California, but during the last ice age 10,000 years ago its distribution was pushed down to southern California. It is currently debated whether or not California walnut should be considered an invasive in northern California. But that debate doesn’t stem around not knowing when ‘’Juglans californica’’ last existed in northern California, that is already known.
 * ’’I’m not sure why you take issue with the example of tree clearing provided by Winograd in his article on Huffington Post.’’

I take issue with the idea that its an example of “Knee-jerk eradication and removals based on a label of "invasive””. Here is the 1084 page Draft Environmental Impact Report for the UCSF Mount Sutro Management Project. The University of California San franscico developed this plan over many years, and after looking at it I do not believe you will still agree with the statement that thinning the eucalyptus was planned “simply because an environmental organization targeted them as non-native, ignoring that they provided habitat for birds and other ecological benefits.” It should also be noted that fire fighting organizations hugely support the removal of eucalyptus as it is seen as being extremely flammable and is partly blamed for a very large and deadly fire in Oakland in 1991. Ultimately you need to just find something like an article published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal talking about misguided removal of invasives causing ecological harm. If that is occurring then it should be getting reported on somewhere in academia.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, there are numerous examples of introduced species where (especially ecological) harm was misattributed and/or exaggerated and where control efforts either exacerbated affects of the introduced species or accelerated its spread. Furthermore there are numerous other examples of introduce species (especially plants) that hybridize with native species, conserving the native's genetics. How does this not constitute controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinus jeffreyi (talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Invasive species. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725040002/http://www.wsg.washington.edu/mas/pdfs/leastwanted.pdf to http://www.wsg.washington.edu/mas/pdfs/leastwanted.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222092651/http://www.nativeseednetwork.org/article_view?id=13 to http://www.nativeseednetwork.org/article_view?id=13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

There's more to life than plants, fungi and animals.
I changed the definition of an invasive species to start with "An invasive species is a species...". Before it was "An invasive species is a plant, fungi or animal...". Bram Jacobs (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Islands
To New Zealand and South Georgia Island I'd add Hawaii. Significant work being done there. GeeBee60 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that Hawaii is certainly a locus of many invasive species, but given the dispute on the authoritativeness of Winograd, above, we'd need  more-reliable sources. --Thnidu (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Helpful to specify where these are invasive
The article currently says "Notable examples of invasive plant species" and then gives a list of species. It would be very helpful to identify where these plants ae invasive. That is, each of these species is indigenous somewhere, so they are not invasive everywhere. Pete unseth (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Reordering of Article Elements; Consideration of a Sharply Debated Question
Respecting others' contributions, I have no intention of deleting content, but I do intend in the next several weeks to raise to higher placement in the article general topics such as scientists' struggles re. pejorative connotations for "invasive" (one mention in the current article, positioned in 5, "Study and eradication," just above 5.1 "Introduced species on islands"). Such edits will lower the placement of some detailed discussions: for example, the ballast water paragraphs in 2.2.1 "Within the aquatic environment". Content I expect my edits to add will include my best effort at NPOV treatment of the sharp debates over whether/when/where Homo sapiens qualifies for classification as an invasive. Canhelp (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind WP:RGW. Invasive is the WP:NPOV language used by mainstream sources, and Wikipedia isn't the place to try to change that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping ensure NPOV. Canhelp (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The draft edited article I wish to install is viewable in my user space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Canhelp/sandbox/Invasive_species. I started my edits from a copy of the then-current article several days ago, and, before installing a new draft, I need to update the new draft with changes made to Wikipedia's published article since the time when I made my baseline copy.

Almost all content from the article I started with is retained in the draft. Some sentences were re-worded in minor edits required for smoother transitions in a changed ordering for the content. The draft changes the article structure significantly:

current structure:
 * Overview
 * Contents
 * 1 Causes
 * 1.1 Species based mechanisms
 * 1.2 Ecosystem-based mechanisms
 * 2 Ecology
 * 2.1 Traits of invaded ecosystems
 * 2.2 Vectors
 * 2.2.1 Within the aquatic environment
 * 2.3 Effects of wildfire and firefighting
 * 3 Effects
 * 3.1 Ecological
 * 3.1.1 Benefits
 * 3.2 Geomorphological
 * 3.3 Economic
 * 3.3.1 Economic opportunities
 * Invasiorism
 * 3.3.2 Costs
 * 3.3.3 Plant industry
 * 3.3.4 Aquaculture
 * 3.3.5 Forestry
 * 3.3.6 Tourism and recreation
 * 3.4 Health
 * 3.5 Biodiversity
 * 3.5.1 Genetic pollution
 * 4 Invasive exotic diseases
 * 5 Study and eradication
 * 5.1 Introduced species on islands
 * 5.1.1 Hawaii
 * 5.1.2 New Zealand
 * 5.1.3 South Georgia Island
 * 6 See also
 * 7 References
 * 7.1 Citations
 * 7.2 Sources
 * 8 External links

draft replacement structure
 * Overview
 * Contents
 * 1 Causes
 * 1.1 Ecosystem-based mechanisms
 * 1.2 Species-based mechanisms
 * 2 Vectors
 * 2.1 Within the aquatic environment
 * 2.2 Effects of wildfire and firefighting
 * 3 Adverse effects
 * 3.1 Ecological
 * 3.2 Environmental
 * 3.3 Economic
 * 4 Favorable effects
 * 5 Eradication and study
 * 5.1 Reestablishing species
 * 5.2 Taxon substitution
 * 5.3 Invasivorism
 * 5.4 Terminology
 * 6 See also
 * 7 References
 * 7.1 Citations
 * 7.2 Sources
 * 8 External links

During the next couple of days, I'll gratefully receive any comments, corrections, etc. that other editors deem desirable. I still expect to do minor wordsmithing and perhaps to add more inline references, and I will follow that with proofreading. I don't anticipate structure changes from what you can see now in the draft. Canhelp (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * From a quick check-over, seems fine to me. I'd throw out the oxygenation example in the lede - that certainly wasn't "beneficial" for the pre-existing anoxic biota, and it is probably more distracting than anything to present these extreme boundary cases (both in terms of impact and terminology) first thing in the article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have taken your good advice and have just now removed the oxygenation example. Canhelp (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Edited article discussed above is now installed. Canhelp (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Status as a GA
This article has been a GA for over 13 years, and in that time our standards have evolved. I don't believe this meets the standards for a GA - I'd say it probably fails criteria 1, 2, and 3. The biggest problem though is that the article leans towards anecdotes and examples at the expense of trying to provide generalised information about the subject.

I'm inclined to list it at WP:GAR, but I thought I'd leave a note here in case anyone thinks I'm far off track. Guettarda (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, it has acquired a lot of peripheral details over the years that just clutter up the article. and it needs to be reorganized and trimmed down more in that regard.Hardyplants (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Genetic modification
Perhaps that in regards to combating invasive species with GM, focus can be on adaptations of predators to defend against toxins of invasive species, ie lionfish in Barbados, toads in Australia, ... --Genetics4good (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A dish that features whole fried invasive lionfish at Fish Fish of Miami, Florida.jpg

"Invasive native" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Invasive native and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by  the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term.

Above message substituted from on 14:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023
— Assignment last updated by Realpandapang (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

author-link=
Hello I don't think that author-links should be removed. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a better way to talk about "introduced species", the pros and cons
Many plants and animals have traveled to new areas. Some are deliberately introduced by humans, some not. Some of these species become major problems, others are beneficial. There are similarities and differences. Mango fruit has spread from South Asia to many new places. Similarly, apples have spread from Central Asia to many new places.his is seen as positive. The article says that zebra mussels have become helpful in Lake Erie, but they are seen as a major problem in Texas. When is a species considered invasive? The article is not well organized to make this clear.Pete unseth (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)