Critical invasion science: weeds, pests, and aliens · Why Invasive Species aren’t all Bad”, and “Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World” ; while invasion

1

Criticalinvasionscience:weeds,pests,andaliensChristianA.Kull,Univ.LausanneThisistheauthors’pre-printPDFversionofthefollowingbookchapter:Kull,ChristianA.(2018)Criticalinvasionscience:weeds,pests,andaliens.InThePalgraveHandbookofCriticalPhysicalGeography,editedbyLave,R,CBiermann&SNLane.Cham,Switzerland:PalgraveMacmillan,pages249-272.DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_12.Thefinal,definitiveversionispublishedinthebookmentionedabove,availablethroughtheSpringerwebsiteatthislink,orviaaDOIreferenceathttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_12,orviayourbookshoporlibrary.AbstractThestudyofinvasiveplantsandanimalscallsstronglyforacriticalapproachduetothedeeplysocialnatureofinvasionlandscapes,thepowerrelationsaffectingthescienceofinvasions,andthedifferentialimpactsofweedorpestcontrolonlivesandlandscapes.Ifirstexplorewhata“critical”invasionsciencemeans.ThenIinvestigateseveralaspectsofinvasionscienceripeforcriticalanalysis:thehistoryofthescience(tounderstandwhatthescienceisdoingandwhy),theterminologyandcategoriesofanalysis,andthehighlycontestedsocial,political,andethicalcontextwithinwhichinvasionmanagementtakesplace.Iconcludewithfourproposalsforfurtherworkincriticalinvasionscienceandexamplesofthetypesofquestionsitmightask.1.Opening

InJuly2011,NaturemagazineprintedseveralirateresponsestoanarticleaboutthescienceofbiologicalinvasionsbyMarkDavisentitled“Don’tjudgespeciesontheirorigins”.Thefirstresponse,ledbytheeminentscholarDanielSimberloff,wastitledthreateningly“Non–natives:141scientistsobject”.Thespathassincewidened.Sciencewritershavepublishedbookswithtitleslike“TheNewWild:WhyInvasiveSpeciesWillBeNature’sSalvation”,“WheredoCamelsBelong?WhyInvasiveSpeciesaren’tallBad”,and“RambunctiousGarden:SavingNatureinaPost-WildWorld”;whileinvasionscientistshavedefendedtheirfieldwithjournalarticlessuchas“Misleadingcriticismsofinvasionscience:afieldguide”and“Theriseofinvasivespeciesdenialism”.1

Whatisgoingonhere?Themovementsofplantsandanimalsfromonepartoftheworldtoanother,theirestablishmentandsuccessinnewenvironments,andtheirimpactsonhostcommunitieswouldappeartobeafascinating,yetsolidlyscientificendeavor.Aglanceatthetitlesabove,however,showsthatthedebateismorethanscientific--itisaboutterminology,aboutvalues,aboutpolitics.Itappears,then,thatcallsfora“Criticalphysicalgeography”(CPG)haveemergedattherighttimeforstudiesofinvasivespecies,whetherinbiogeographyorelsewhereacrossthenaturalandsocialsciences.

Figure1.Booksandauthorsmentionedinthetext,illustratingsomeoftheconflictingviewsofthescienceofinvasions.

2

Accordingtotheintroductorychapterinthishandbook,CPGhasthreecoreintellectualtenets:(1)thatlandscapesarenotjustbiophysicalbutdeeplyshapedbyhumanactionsandstructuralinequalities;(2)thatpowerrelationsaffectwhostudieslandscapesandhow;and(3)thattheresultingknowledgehasdeepimpactsonlivesandlandscapes.Thesetenetsarestronglyapplicabletothescienceofbiologicalinvasions.Letmeillustratewithwhatmightbeoneofthemoststrikingexamples:SouthAfrica.

Tenet1:Invasionlandscapesdeeplyshapedbyhumanactionsandstructuralinequalities.MostproblematicalieninvasivespeciesinSouthAfricawereintroducedinthecolonialera,withgoalsrelatedtoutility(e.g.,timberresources),landrehabilitation(e.g.dunestabilization),orscienceandaesthetics(e.g.,botanicgardensandpersonalgardens).ColonizationandApartheid-erapoliciesnotonlyseparatedpeople,butalsocreatedstarklydisjunctivelandscapeswhoselegaciesenduretoday(fromperi-urbantownshipstorural‘homelands’;largepropertiesforfarming,forestry,andgameranching;suburbanestates;conservationzones)andwhichformthematrixacrosswhichinvasivespeciesspreadandaremanaged(vanWilgenetal.2011,vanWilgenandRichardson2012).

Tenet2:Powerrelationsaffectwhostudiesinvasions,how,andthequestionsasked.SouthAfricahasbeenagloballeaderininvasionbiology,withstronghistoricalrootsinCapeTown-basedcirclesofbotanists,naturalists,andforesters(Pooley2014).Imaybestickingmyfootinittosaythis,butitislargelya“white”science--seeforinstancethecorestaffoftheworld-renownedCentreforInvasionBiologyatStellenboschUniversity.Tobeclear,thisisnotanaccusationasIrecognizethehistoricalpathdependency,theveryengagedstancesofmanyoftheseresearchers,andthestructuraldifficultiesofattractingstudentsfrompreviouslydisadvantagedbackgroundstothisfieldofstudy(but,thislastelementisperhapspreciselythepointIammaking).AgenerationhaspassedsincetheendofApartheid,butaccordingtosomeobservers,“environmentalengagementdoesnottranscendbutratherpronouncesecologicalandsocialinequities”(Carruthersetal.2011,Bennett2014,Green2014,Lidströmetal.2015,p.21).Significantresearchhasbeenundertakenontheimpactsofbiologicalinvasionsforpoorer,moremarginalSouthAfricans(e.g.,Shackletonetal.2007,Shackletonetal.2015,Mukwadaetal.2016),yetproblemframingsuntilmorerecentlylargelystartedwiththebiologicalandhydrologicalimpactsofinvasions,notwiththeconcernsofruralpeople.

Figure2.DifferentviewsofinvasivesaroundSouthAfrica:(topleft)denseacaciabrushinthefoothillsaboveMuizenbergandFalseBay(WesternCapeprovince);(topright)AcaciamearnsiishrubandwoodlotneartheSwaziborder(Mpumalangaprovince);(bottomleft)AcaciamearnsiiusedtobuildacattleenclosurenearButterworth,formerTranskei(EasternCapeprovince);(bottomright)publicworkslaborercontrollingLantanacamarainfestation(alsonearButterworth).

3

Tenet3:Resultingknowledgehasdeepimpactsoninvasionlandscapesandlivesofpeople.ThescienceproducedoninvasionsinSouthAfricahasnumerousdirectimpacts.Biologicalcontrolprograms(releasinginsectsandpathogenstocontrolinvasions)datebacktoearly20thCenturystruggleswithpricklypearcactus(BeinartandWotshela2011)andcontinuetoday,sometimesdramaticallyshapingtheecologyofinvasiveplantcommunitiesandleadingtocomplaintsbylocalusers(Shackletonetal.2007).TheWorkingforWaterprogram,amajorpost-ApartheidgovernmentprogramforjobcreationandecologicalrestorationpaidandtrainedtensofthousandsofpoorblackSouthAfricansinmechanicalandchemicalcontrolofinvasivespecies(Turpieetal.2008,Neely2010,vanWilgenetal.2011,Lidströmetal.2015).Thereisnodoubtthatthesciencehascontributedtoimportantimpactsonmanyplants(uprooted),people(employed),resource-basedlivelihoods(disrupted),andlandscapes(transformed).

Inthischapter,Iargueforthenecessityofacriticalapproachtothestudyofinvasiveplantsandanimals.Ifirstexplorewhata“critical”invasionsciencemeans.Thenthebulkofthechapterinvestigatesfourmainaspectsofinvasionscienceripeforcriticalanalysis:thehistoryofthescience,theterminology,thecategories,andthesocial-political-ethicalcontext.Iconcludewithfourproposalsforfurtherworkincriticalinvasionscienceandareviewofthequestionsitmightask.

2.Theemergenceofacriticalapproach

First,however,Ipassbyanecessarydetour.Whatis“criticalphysicalgeography”,orwhyhaveItitledthischapter“criticalinvasionscience”?Likemanyagoodterm,“critical”canmeandifferentthingsindifferentcontexts.AstheOxfordEnglishDictionarynotes,while“critical”maybedefinedmostcommonlyas“giventojudging,esp.giventoadversecriticism”,ithasalsomeant“exercisingcarefuljudgmentorobservation”andhasbeenspecificallyassociatedwiththeFrankfurtSchoolofsocialtheoryandphilosophyanditsengagementwiththinkerslikeKant,Hegel,Marx,Weber,andFreud.Thisisthesenseinformingtheuseofthetermingeography,where“critical”hasgoneontosignifyscholarshipinformedbysocialtheories,particularlywithasensibilitytoemancipatoryformsofpoliticsandalsoa“deconstructiveimpulse”withrespecttoscientificknowledge(Forsyth2003,Gregoryetal.2009,p.121)

“Critical”physicalgeographywasproposedbyLaveetal.(2014).Thefactthatthisideatookholdreflects,inmyopinion,threebroaderphenomena.Thefirstisthecommitmentbypractitionerstoanintegrativediscipline,arear-guarddefenseagainsttrendsofsplittinghumanfromphysicalgeography.Suchtrendsaredeeplyironicgivenendlesscallsformoreinterdisciplinarity,especiallyattheboundariesofnatureandsociety(cfKullandRangan2016).Inthissense,CPGemergesasacallforrevitalizingsomeoftheintegrationacrossphysicalandhumanthatmakesgeographywhole.

Second,politicalecologistsarerelativelyprominentamongearlyenthusiastsforCPG.MyintuitionisthatthisenthusiasmbypoliticalecologistsforCPGisduetothefactthatCPGlaysclaimtoandgivesvisibilitytoterritorythathasbeenincreasinglymarginalizedinpoliticalecology.Toputitbluntly:forpeoplewithafootinboththenaturalsciencesandcriticalsocialsciences,politicalecologyhasbeenaproductivehome.Yetpoliticalecologyhasovertimemoreandmoreemphasizedthesocialsideoverthenaturalscience.SoCPGgivesanalternativehomeforpeopleofapoliticalecologicalspiritwitharealcommitmenttothenaturalsciences.Assuch,CPGsharesmanykeyelementswithpoliticalecology,includingthethreetenetsreferredtoinmyintroduction,butalsoanepistemological“doubleposture”(cf.GautierandBenjaminsen2012,Robbins2012).Thatis,ittakesseriouslytheknowledgecreatedbythenaturalsciencesatthesametimeasdeconstructingthecategoriesandtheauthorityofthesesciences.

ThethirdphenomenonIseeascontributingtotheresonanceofcriticalphysicalgeographymightbetheriseofthelabel“science”.Inmyview,“critical”isanecessaryantidoteto“science”,toquestionthemodernistscientificseparationofnatureandsocietyandthepowerrelationsintheproductionofknowledge.Letmeexplain.Inthepastdecadeortwo,ithasbecometrendytore-labelvariousdomainsofinquirywiththeepithet“science”.2Wenowhave,forinstance,conservationscience(KareivaandMarvier2012),landchangescience(Gutmanetal.2004),sustainabilityscience(Katesetal.2001),resiliencescience(LeslieandKinzig2009),vulnerabilityscience(Cutter2003)and,ofcourse,invasionscience(Richardson2011b).Twocontradictorytrendsseemtobepushingthisfad.Oneistheuseof‘science’toreplace‘biology’orsomeotherdisciplinaryepithetinordertorepresentaninterdisciplinaryspirit,particularlyacrossanatural-socialdivide.Thesecondtrendistherecourseto‘Science-with-a-capital-S’toassertasenseofauthority,andsometimestodrawalinebetween‘sciency’epistemologies(whethernaturalscienceorsocialscience)andotherinterpretiveorcriticalapproaches.

Theinterdisciplinarityacrossthenature-societydivideinthese‘sciences’isoftencouchedinthelanguageof‘coupledsystems’.Inmanycases,thereisanimplicitassumptionthatthenaturalscienceswillsetthe“factualparameters”,whereasthehumanitiesandsocialscienceswillassessimpacts,developsolutions,andconvincepeopleoftheissueathand(Demeritt2009,p.128,Lidströmetal.2015,p.9).Ininvasionscienceinparticular,thefeelingthatsometimesemergesisthatsocialscientistsareinvitedtocollaborateonlytohelpinvasion

4

scientistsfindouthowtocopewithattitudes,values,andperceptionsamongthepublicwhichconflictwiththebiologists’goalsofmanaginginvasivespecies(Lidströmetal.2015).Forinstance,Estévezetal.(2015)’sexcellentreviewofsocio-culturalfactorsinconflictsoverinvasionsnonethelessconcludesthatmoreeffectiveriskcommunicationfromscientiststothepublicwillhelpavoidconflict(and,implicitly,allowthefightagainstinvasivestocontinue).Thismodelofknowledgecreationandaction--wheresciencecreatesprivilegedknowledgethatthencallsonsocialsciencestohelpapplythisknowledge--istheoppositeofa‘critical’approach.Theconsequenceisthatcertainformsofknowledgeproductionandcommunicationareexcluded,andsuchcoupledapproachescanbecomeapolitical,technicalapproachesindisposedtointerrogatingthesocialassumptions,values,andpowerrelationsthatunderliethem.Hencetheneedfora“critical”approachtocounter-balancethe“science”approach,notonlytodosciencebutalsotointerrogateunstatedpowerrelations,categories,andideologies.

Inthenextfoursections,Iseektodoexactlythisforthestudyofbiologicalinvasions.Ibeginbybrieflyplacingthefieldinitscontext:whereitcomesfrom,andwhatinheritedassumptionsorpathdependenciesitgainsfromitsparticularhistoricalroots.ThenIinvestigateaseriesofdebatesininvasionscience(includingthosementionedintheintroduction)thatareripeforCPG-stylereflectionandcritique.3Foreach,Idemonstratewhatisatstakeandwhyitmatters.

3.Invasions:HistoryofaScience

Theabilitytotakeastepbackwards,togainperspective,iscrucialtoacriticalreadingofwhataparticularscienceisdoingandwhy(seeDavis,Marchesi,andSayre,thisvolume).Forinstance,ThomasMalthus’swidelyknowntheoriesonpopulationgrowthtakeonadifferentsignificanceifonetakesintoaccountthefactthathedevelopedhisideasasapoliticallyengagedactorinthecontextofcrowded,burgeoning18thcenturyLondonexperiencingthebirthpainsoftheindustrialrevolutionandanassociatedurbanproletariat.Thesamegoesforthestudyofinvasivespecies.Indeed,perhapstellingly,inthe19thcenturyadominantscientificapproachtomanyplantsandanimalsnowconsideredinvasivewasacclimatization.Associatedwithcolonialismandsettlersocieties,acclimatizationsoughtto‘improve’environmentsbypurposefullyintroducingandpropagatingalienplantsandanimals:rabbits,willows,andtroutinAustralia,eucalyptsandacaciasaroundtheMediterranean(Osborne2000).

Thestudyofplants,animals,andotherorganismsthatare‘outofplace’--theircharacteristics,thecausesoftheirdisplacement,theirbehaviorintheirnewenvironments,theirimpactsonecologyandeconomy,people’sreactions,andmanagementstrategies--notcoincidentallygoesbacktothesamehistoricalperiod.Historiesofinvasionbiologyandalliedfieldshavealreadybeenwritten(Davis2009,Johnson2010,ChewandHamilton2011,Richardson2011a,FrawleyandMcCalman2014,Vazetal.2017);hereIhighlightsomekeyfactorsshapingthenatureofthefieldanditsassumptions.

Themodernfieldofinvasionbiologydatestothe1980s.Largeinternationalresearchconsortiaservedascatalysts,suchastheinternational‘SCOPE37’4researchprogramlaunchedin1982(Drakeetal.1989,Simberloff2011a,2013,KullandRangan2015).Inthe1990s,thefieldwasinstitutionalizedintoscience,policy,andprograms.Publicationsoninvasionsgrewten-fold;newspecializedjournalslikeBiologicalInvasionsandDiversityandDistributionswerefoundedunderfield-leadingeditorsandSCOPEparticipantsDanielSimberloffandDavidRichardson;governmentsfundedprogramsliketheEuropeanCommission’sprojecttoinventoryinvasivespecies(DAISIE)ortheGlobalInvasiveSpeciesProgramme(GISP),aswellasdiversenationalandinternationallegislation(Vazetal.2017).

Theinvasionbiologyfieldbuildsonavarietyofpracticalandintellectualheritages.Someofthecategoriesandterminologiesofinvasion--whichaswewillseelater,arehighlycontested--drawonideasofEuropeannaturalistsworkinginperi-urbancountrysidesinthe1800sandearly1900s,suchasHewettWatsonandAlbertThellung(ChewandHamilton2011,KowarikandPyšek2012).Thefieldofweedscience,whichcrystallizedwiththeeditionofafield-definingtextbookin1942categorizingweedtypesaswellasfocusingonpracticalcontrolstrategies,wasexplicitlydesignatedasastepping-stonefortheSCOPEprogram(KullandRangan2015).Inthepost-warperiod,weedsciencesandweedservicesboomedwiththeconversionofwartimeindustriesintotheproductionoffertilizerandchemicalherbicides;thismartiallegacyshadowsinvasionbiologytothisday(AtchisonandHead2013,Tassin2017).Finally,itiscommontorefertoOxfordbiologistCharlesElton,whopublishedtheprescientEcologyofInvasionsbyPlantsandAnimalsin1958,asthefield’sfatherorprophet,despitethethirty-yeargapbetweenhisworkandtheefflorescenceofthefield(Simberloff2011a,Chew2015,Vazetal.2017).Elton’swork,publicizedviaBBCradiobroadcasts,setapatternofuseofmilitarymetaphorsindescribinginvasions.

TheSCOPEprogramre-directedandappliedtheseinheritedconceptsandapproachestothestudyofnaturalecosystemsandbiodiversity(e.g.,Drakeetal.1989,CronkandFuller1995).Fromthe1980s,studiesofinvasioninnaturalareastookoff.Itwasincreasinglyinformedbythebroaderfieldofecology’srelativedisengagementfromanthropiclandscapes.Mostinvasionbiologyworkinthe1990sand2000s,forinstance,largelyignored

5

citiesandotherstronglyhumanizedareas,despitetheironythattheobjectsofstudywerehuman-introducedspecies(SalomonCavinandKull2017).

4.Invasions:WordsandLabels

Anaspectofinvasionbiologythathasalreadyreceivedalotofcriticalattentionisthevocabularyof“alieninvasivespecies”.Alotofinkhasbeenspiltaboutthewarmetaphorsofenemyinvasion,suchasthoseusedbyEltoninhis1958tome,andthetermalienwithitsresonanceinbothpopcultureandimmigrationpolitics.Mypointisnottorehashthesedebates(see,forinstance,Peretti1998,ComaroffandComaroff2001,Subramaniam2001,Simberloff2003,Larson2005,Warren2007,Davis2009,KullandRangan2015),buttopointouttheimportanceofattentiontolabelsandlanguageinhighlightingpotentialunderlyingassumptions,potentialforegoneconclusions,inscientificstudies.Humansareofcourseusedtowordshavingdifferentmeaningsindifferentcontexts(e.g.,invasionasamilitarytermvs.asamedicalterm);anyothertermonecouldchoosewouldcomewithitsownbaggage(forinstancecolonizingorpioneerspeciescarrytheirownmetaphoricalechoes).ButacriticalapproachmightfollowthepracticaladviceofKuefferandLarson(2014)inevaluatingmetaphorsintermsoffactualcorrectness,sociallyacceptablelanguage,neutrality,andtransparency.Itwouldthengofurthertoevaluatewhatkindsofconcreteimpactsthechoiceoftermsactuallyhasontheconductofscience,ontheframingofpolicydebates,andonpracticalmanagementactions(Larson2011).

Practitionersofinvasionbiologyarehighlyawareoftherhetoricalandideologicalimportanceoflabels.Thisapplieseventothenameofthefielditself.Whilethefieldhasforseveraldecadespassedunderthelabelinvasionbiology(orinvasionecology),twonewfieldnameswererecentlyproposed.Thefirstis“speciesredistributionecology”,orSPREDecology,proposedinatextbooktitledInvasionBiologythatbravelysoughttoabolishitsownname(Davis2009).Davis’proposalisbasedontheargumentthatthefundamentalobjectofstudyofinvasionbiology--howandwhyspeciesspreadandmove--fallswithincommunityecologyandbiogeography,anddoesnotmeritadifferentfield.5Henotesthattheterminvasionistooemotive,andthattoomuchunfoundedstockisputonthedistinctionbetweennativeandalien.TheneologismSPREDecologyhas,however,nottakenoff.6Itis,perhaps,hamperedbyitsnarrowfocus,andbythefactthatitwaspromotedbyanauthorsomewhatoutsidethemainstream(Daviswastheauthortowhom141scientistsobjectedinthischapter’sopeningparagraph).

Incontrast,thesuccessfulterm“invasionscience”comesfromatopscientistinthefield,DavidRichardson,visionaryleaderoftheworldrenownedCentreforInvasionBiologyatStellenboschUniversity,alumnusoftheSCOPEprogram,longtimeeditorofDiversityandDistributions,andeditorialboardmemberofBiologicalInvasions(Richardson2011b).AsnotedinSection2,theepithet“science”appearstocarryaparticularstrategicambitoflegitimacyattachedtotheauthorityofscience.Inaddition,thereplacementof“biology”with“science”alsotriestosignalabroadeningofthescopeofthefieldfromjustbiologicalaspectsofinvasionstoconcernswithcostsandbenefitsandhumanvaluesystems(RichardsonandRicciardi2013).Theecumenicalfocusofthetitle‘invasionscience’,itslinkstoinstitutionalcentersofpower,anditsshyingawayfromthornydebatesoverterminologywouldseemtoexplainthelabel’ssuccess.Thusthecontrastbetweenthestoriesofthetwoneologisms--onestuckinthestartingblocks,theotherrunningtoanearlylead--meritsCPG-styleattention,asitdemonstratesnotonlytheimportanceofpowerandnetworksintheproductionofscientificknowledge,butalsothestickinessofparadigmaticconcepts.

5.Invasions:Categories

Definingwhatoneisstudyingiscrucialtoanyscience.Yet,howthisobjectisdefinedinvolveschoicesandboundaries,andthesehaveconsequences--onthesciencethatisdone,andonthewaysinwhichitisrelevanttopolicyandmanagement.AsNathanSayrehasnoted,scientificcategoriesshouldnotbetakenforgranted(Sayre2015).Invasivespeciesisthecentralcategoryforthetypeofresearchthischapterengageswith.Butthedefinitionofthistermisfarfromsettled.Therearethreeideal-typeconceptsthatappearsinglyorinvariouscombinationsinmostdefinitionsofinvasivespecies(cf.Williamson1996p.58-59,Boonman-Bersonetal.2014,Kulletal.2014,Tassin2014).

First,somedefinitionsemphasizeorigins.Inthismodel,aninvasivespeciesisanalien,thatis,aspeciesthatcomesfromelsewhere.Thisdefinitionemphasizesthecrossingofsomebiogeographicalbarrier(Richardsonetal.2000).Thisdefinitioncarriesanunexaminedideologyofnaturalpurityandnativenessandistroubledbyablack-and-whitedichotomybetweenalienandnativethatinmanycasesisnotsoclear--therearequiteafewspecieswhoseoriginsororiginaldistributionsareunclear(Bean2007).Toovercometheseissuessomedefinitionsfurtherspecifythattransportofthespecieshastobeatthehandofhumans(Richardsonetal.2000);ifaspeciesarrivesnaturallythenitdoesnotcount.Whilepractical,thispotentiallyintroducesanideologythathumansareseparatefromnature.

Asecondsetofdefinitionsemphasizebehavior.Inthismodel,aninvasivespeciesisaninvader,onethatgainsterrain,spreadsquickly,andbecomesdominantinagivenecosystem(Valéryetal.2008).Onitsown,thisdefinitionposestheproblemofdistinctionsoftemporalandspatialscale:whatdistinguishesaninvader,then,fromapioneerspeciesoracolonizer?(HoffmannandCourchamp2016a).

6

Thethirdsetofdefinitionsemphasizeimpacts.Inthismodel,aninvasivespeciesisaweedorapest,onethathasnegativeimpactsonnativevegetationoronsociety,publichealth,ortheeconomy(McNeely2001,Simberloffetal.2013).Thisisavaluejudgment,whichraisesthequestionofhowthisvalueisdetermined,bywhom,orfromwhatperspective.Italsopredisposesthefieldtowardsaninvestigationofonlythenegativeimpactsandnotthepositive(TassinandKull2015).

Definitionsoftheinvasivespeciesconcepthavebeenhotlydebatedinthefield(ColauttiandRichardson2009,Blackburnetal.2011);inthatsense,CPG-styleworkhasbeeninitiated.Butdefinitionsareoftennotmadeexplicitinstudies,withconsequencesonthetypesofconclusionthatbecomepossibleandtheimplicitjudgmentsbehindthem.Forinstance,astudybasedontheassumptionthatinvasivesmustbealienmightmissanativespeciesthat--forwhateverreason(climatechange,humandisturbance)--currentlyactsasalandscapetransformer.Or,anarticlesurveyingataxaoraregiontoestablishaninventoryofinvasivespeciesmighthaveasitscriteriathatascientificstudyorexpertopinionhascalledthatspecies‘invasive’withoutregardtothedefinitionused(asIdidmyselfinasurveyofintroducedplantsinMadagascar:Kulletal.2012).Thispotentiallymixestogetherplantsfromelsewherewithnoxiousweedsandthosethatspreadquickly,hidinglargedifferencesinecologicalprocessesandhumaninteractions.

Inadditiontodefiningwhatinvasivemeans,onemustalsoconsiderwhattheimplicationsareofselectingspeciesasthecentralunitofanalysis.Acriticalapproachcontributestohighlightingtheadvantagesanddisadvantages,winnersandlosers,orhiddenassumptionsbehindthechoiceofunitsofanalyses.Ininvasionstudies,ithaslongbeennoted,forinstance,thatitisparticularpopulationsofaspecies,inspecificcontexts,whichareinvasive,notthespeciesitself(ColauttiandMacIsaac2004).TheMonterreypine,orradiata,isacaseinpoint:itisendangeredinitsnativehabitatinCalifornia,butinvasiveinnumerousplacesaroundthesouthernhemispherewhereithasbeengrownforforestry.Theimpressiongiveninstudyafterstudyisthatitisthebiologicalspeciesthatisinvasive,notparticularpopulationsinparticularcontexts.Thisresultsinonlinelistsanddatabasesoffloraandfaunathattypicallylistinvasivespeciesabstractedfromtheirgeographiccontext.Regionallistingsareoftenagglomeratedtolargerregionalornationalscales(aplantexhibitingweedybehaviorinMiamiislistedasinvasiveinFlorida,andthusintheUnitedStates).SoinmanycasesonecanquicklyfindontheinternetorinscientificpublicationsthatspeciesAis‘reportedinvasiveincountryX,Y,andZ’,eventhoughtheinclusionofsomeofthosecountriesmightinvolveveryminorpopulations.Thisresultsinlistsofinvasivespeciesinonlinedatabasesorlegislativeappendicesthatforbidtransport,restrictcultivation,ormandateeradicationwithsometimeslittleattentiontocontext.Whatappearsasaprecautionaryprincipletosomemightconstrainlegitimatechoicesforothers.

Afurtherconsequenceofthefocusonspeciesisthatitdistractsfromtheprocessesfavoringinvasion.Toillustrate,takethecaseofavarietyofoftenthornyAmericanbushes--suchassuchasLantanacamara,Acaciafarnesiana,Mimosapigra,Leucaenaleucocephala,Prosopisspp.--thatarewidelyseenasinvasivespeciesacrossthesub-humidandsemi-aridtropicsoftheeasternhemisphere.Withnumerouspublicationsandreportslistingtheseandotherspecies,theimplicitmessageisthatitistheirfault,andthattheyaretheentitiesthatmustbecontrolled.Yetthesespeciesweretransported(originally)byhumans,andtheytendtobepresentinenvironmentsrendered‘invasible’byhumanactions:byourlightingofgrassorforestfires,byourgrazingpractices,orbyourintroductionofseeddispersers,likethecommonmynahbird.Theoutcomeisthatinvasionbiologistsandenvironmentalmanagersaddressinvasivespeciesmorethanarguablymorerelevantpopulations,humandisturbances,orspecificplaces.

Analternativetospecies-basedapproaches--analternativethatshouldbeofparticularinteresttogeographers--isaplace-basedapproach.TogetherwithJacquesTassin,Isuggestedinanearlierarticlethat:

“Insteadofusinganapriorijudgmenttocallforablanketbanofawidearrayofplantspecies,thefocusshouldbeontheprocessesthatsocieties(communities,governments,agencies)usetoanticipateanddebatethechangestolandscapesandhumanlivesthatarepossibleoutcomesofspecificplantintroductionsanddiffusioninspecificplaces.Whoarethewinnersandlosers,nowandintheforeseeablefuture?…Whohastherighttodecide,andthemighttoenforce?….Wesuggestanevidence-based,context-specific,socially-negotiatedapproach….Thejudgmentof‘weedversususeful’shouldnotbemadeatagloballevel,itshouldremaincontextualtolocalandregionalscales,toparticularecosystemsandlandscapes,particulareconomiesandsocio-politicalsituations.”(KullandTassin2012,pp.2230and2232)

RecentworkintheAustralianoutbackshowshowprioritizing“place-based”managementoverthespecies-basedmanagementimposedbygovernmentinterpretationsofinvasionsciencecouldbetteraddressAboriginalculturalissues,budgetaryconstraints,andon-the-groundoutcomes(Bach2015,BachandLarson2017).Criticalworkcouldfurtherquestionssuchaschoiceofscalesandunitsofanalysesandhowtheyshapescientific,social,andpracticaloutcomes.

7

6.Invasions:Social,Political,EthicalDimensions

Effortstoprevent,control,oreradicateparticularinvasionscanbeembroiledinavarietyofconflicts.Theseincludestrugglesoverpriorities,funding,responsibility,worldviews,ethics,andmore.Aswithanyintervention,therewillbewinnersandlosers.Inanumberofcases,forinstance,thelivelihoodsofcertainmembersofruralcommunitieshavebecomedependentoninvasivespecies,whetherforfodder,woodfuel,orfood,tothepointthattheremovaloftheinvaderwouldhavenegativelivelihoodoutcomes(Shackletonetal.2007,Ellenderetal.2010,Kulletal.2011,Middleton2012).Inothercontexts,theinvasivespeciesismorebroadlydislikedforitsnegativeimpactsonlivelihoods(Awanyo2001,MwangiandSwallow2008).Acriticalinvasionscienceengageswiththeseconflictsandbuildsonthemtoguideresearch.Iillustratethiswithtwoexamples:thequestionoftoxicchemicals,andthequestionoflabor.

First,amajorconundrumininvasionscienceisthebattlingofoneenvironmentalevil(invasivespecies)withanother(chemicalpoisons).Howdoesonebalanceadesiretocombatinvasionsusingherbicidesandpesticideswiththeresultantenvironmentalpollution,andwiththemortalityandsufferingofsentientbeings(inthecaseofinvasiveanimals)?AccordingtoJacquesTassin(2017),thisethicalquandaryhasnotbeenadequatelyandopenlyaddressedininvasionstudies(cf.Orion2015).Thisisallthemorepressinggiventheentanglementofweedsciencewiththepost-warchemicalindustry,asnotedearlier.AsPaulRobbins(2007)notedinhisanalysisoftheAmericanlawn,thechemicalindustryplayedafar-from-neutralroleinthedevelopmentoftheculturalidealofaperfectgreensuburbanlawn,creatingthedemandfortheirproducts.Asimilarroleintermsofinvasivespeciesmanagementisnotfarfetched--asbiologistandhistorianMattChewnotes,invasivespeciesaremarketingopportunitiesforpesticidemanufacturers.7

Thesecondexampleisrelated:thecontrolanderadicationofinvasivespeciesisdifficultwork,potentiallyinvolvingelementssuchasexposuretotoxicchemicals,hardphysicallabor,andthekillingoflivingthings.Theseconsequencesaremorecommonlybornebycertainsectorsofsocietythanothers--alaboringclasscharacterizedbyrelativepoverty,migrantstatus,orindigeneity(cf.Murray1994,AtchisonandHead2013,Headetal.2015).InnorthernAustralia,forinstance,Aboriginalrangerssubmittodifficult,hot,andpoisonousweedworklargelyfollowingtheexigenciesofstateagencylistsandcontractorfundingincentives.Thesetasksare,accordingtotherangers,themostunsatisfyingoftheirjob,andthemostdistantfromtheirofficialmandatetobedoingworkrelatedto‘caringforcountry’(Bach2015,BachandLarson2017).Asimilardisconnectanddissatisfactionwasnoticedamongparkrangerswhosejobsovera30yearperiodcenteredonkillinggoats,cats,andotherferalanimalsintheGalápagosIslands(Hennessy2014).Similarly,SouthAfrica’sWorkingforWateralienmanagementprogramhasbeencriticizedforriskexposureandlowpay(Lidströmetal.2015,p.23).

Thescientificliteratureoninvasionsquiteoftenframesconflictsoverthemanagementofinvasivespeciesas“conflictsofinterest”(CullenandDelfosse1984,Shackletonetal.2007,Estévezetal.2015).Acriticalperspectiveoninvasionstudiessuggeststhatthisliteratureoftentakesonanoverlysimplistic“us-and-them”framing.Ittendstoviewconflictinginterestsinrelativelystraightforwardways:forinstance,communityYopposescontrolofspeciesXbecauseofculturalbeliefZ,orbecauseYmakesmoneysellingtheproductsfromX.Suchaframingsuggeststhattherearerelativelyclearlyboundedinterests,implyingthattheymightberesolvedthroughapproachessuchascost-benefitanalyses(LeMaitreetal.2002)orconflictresolutionandnegotiation(vanWilgenandRichardson2012,Mukwadaetal.2016).Fromacriticalperspective,whatismissingisamorecompletesenseofthecomplexhistoricalandcurrententanglementsthathavedialecticallyshapedtheinvasionproblemindifferentlocales.ConflictsoverProsopisinRajastan,forinstance,cannotbeunderstoodwithoutreferencetoquestionsoflandaccessandinstitutionalincentivestostateforesters(Robbins2001)justasconflictsoverAcaciainPortugalmustgrapplewithruraldepopulation,outmigration,thehistoryofplantationforestry,andperceptionsofwildlifedanger.

Insteadoftakingablack-and-whiteapproachtoconflictsoverinvasivespecies,acriticalapproachmightengagemoredeeplywiththecomplicated,rough-and-tumble,unpredictable,andpracticalnecessityto‘livewith’,accommodate,orcoexistwithinvasivespecies.Thisisnotonlybecausefulleradicationandevenpartialcontrolisoftenunrealistic,butalsobecausecontroleffortsarepoliticallyorsociallyuntenableinsomecontexts(AtchisonandHead2013,Chandrasena2014,Headetal.2015).Ranganetal.(2014,p.124)citeastrugglingcattleandsheeprancherinAustraliawhoisconstrainedbyinvasivespeciespolicies,andwhosays“I’msickandtiredofpoisoningthethingsthatwanttolivehere,andtryingtoraisethethingsthatwanttodie”.Thesekindsofquestionsaroundadaptation,winnersandlosers,andunintendedconsequencesarerichincriticalopportunitiesthatcouldpushinvasionscientiststoposetheirquestionsandframetheirapproachesdifferently.

7.TowardsaCriticalInvasionScience

Theabovediscussionshavehintedatsomedirectionsfora‘criticalinvasionscience’.Inthisconcludingsection,Ibuildontheprevioussectionsandformulatefourproposalsforwhatacriticalapproachtoinvasionsciencemightdo,andwhatquestionsitmightask.

8

(a)Questioningwordsandlabels.Theterminologyusedinresearchispowerful,asitcanreflectassumptionsandbeliefsandthusframeresearchquestionsandinterpretationsofresults.Whataretheconceptsusedinposingquestionsandguidinganalysis,wheredotheycomefrom,whatdotheyshowandwhatdotheyhide?Acriticalapproachwouldencourageinvasionscientiststoaskwhethertheuseofdifferentlabelsmightleadtodifferentresearchquestions,andwhethercertainlabelsreflecttheworldview(orpoliticalstance)ofaparticularinterestgroup(perhapsmoresociallydominant)andthusmightmissalternativeframingsandconclusions.Specifically,forinvasives:onemightbeginwiththename‘invasionscience’ortheterm‘invasives’,asIhavealreadydoneabove.Morespecifically,onecanaskhowtheuseofterminologyaffectsresearch.AstudyIsupervisedineasternMadagascarcanillustratetheneedforthisapproach.Posingtheresearchquestionas“isGrevilleabanksiiinvasiveineasternMadagascar”requiredtheresearchertopresentcriteriaofwhatitmeansto“beinvasive”(which,aswesawabove,involvesconsequentialchoicesbetweencompetingdefinitionsregardingorigins,impacts,andbehavior)andthendatatoassesswhethertheplantmeetstheselectedcriteria.Adifferentquestion,suchas“whyisGrevilleabanksiispreadingineasternMadagascar”wouldhavefocusedtheresearchondifferentprocessesanddifferentdata.Eachwordselectedforaresearchquestion--invasive,spread,alien,native,neophyte,naturalized,transformerspecies,adventive,feral--constrainsthekindofinformationthatwillbesought.Theterminologycanbequestionedbeforeastudyisundertaken,forinstancewhenascientistsaskswhetherherresearchquestionshouldbeframedusingtheconceptof‘invasion’asopposedto‘colonization’(HoffmannandCourchamp2016a).Oritcanbequestionedafterwards,asLarson(2011)doeswhenheaskwhattheimpactsareoftermsandmetaphorslike‘invasionmeltdown’usedtocommunicateresearchresults.

(b)Questioningscaleanditsimpacts.Acriticalapproachwouldaskhowitmattersthatresearchisframedataparticulartemporal,spatial,ororganizationalscale?Doesitchangethequestionsthatareasked,theevidencethatisapplied,ortheanalyticalconnectionsthatcanbemade?Specifically,forinvasives,animportantscalarconsiderationImentionedaboveisthewayinwhichthecategoryofbiologicalspecieshasbecometheobjectofanalysisandcommunication,ratherthanparticularpopulationsofparticularspeciesinparticularplaces.Onecrucialprojectforacriticalinvasionsciencewouldthusbetoassessinvasivespeciesdatabases,theinstitutionalandsociologicalprocessoftheircreation,andtheirimpacts(KullandRangan2015,Lidströmetal.2015),andtoevaluatethebenefitsandconsequencesofamore“place-based”approachtoinvasionscience.

(c)Caringexplicitlyhowthescienceisused,whowins,wholoses.Ofcoursescientistscareaboutthesematters,butacriticalapproachwouldbeexplicitaboutit.Specifically,forinvasives:thedominantdiscourseofthescienceofinvasionbiologyisoftheurgencyandimportanceoftheissue,incessantlypromotedasthe‘secondgreatestthreat’tobiodiversity(Chew2015).Thisleadstoanunder-explorationofopposingviews--thoseofruralresidentswhoselivelihoodsarebasedontheabundantandrobustgrowthofcertaininvaders,orofpeoplewholaborinchemicalprotectionsuitsinthetropicalsuntopoisoninvasiveplants,orofadvocatesforamphibiansmadesickbytoxicchemicals.Thatis,incaringnarrowlyfortheprotectionofbiodiversityorcertainsuitesofecosystemservices,thebroaderimpactsofthisscienceisdownplayed.Forinstance,Courchampetal.(2017,p.13)statethatcriticisms,internalstrife,andanunawaresociety“hindertheprogressofinvasionbiology”.Similarly,vanWilgenandRichardson(2012p.56)basicallysaythatopposingvoicesdonotmatter:theirproposalsregardingtheproblemofpineinvasionsinSouthAfrica“willrequirepoliticalcommitmenttopoliciesthatcouldbeunpopularincertainsectorsofsociety.”Acriticalapproachwouldinterestitselfmoreintheimpactoftheseconclusionsandinopposingviews.Itmight,forinstance,seektoco-constructresearchquestionswithdifferentinterestgroups(perhapsresultinginquestionslike:“howwoulderadicationofspeciesXaffectecologicaldynamicsandtheprovisionofwoodfuelinthisregion”,or“giventhatlocalstakeholdersarenotkeenonfulleradication,whataretheimpactsofpartialcontrolviabio-controlagentsonlivelihoodsandnovelecosystemdynamics”).

(d)Questioningthevoiceofexpertise.BythisIdonotmeanquestioningtheexpertiseofscientistsandtheirresearchoutcomes.Instead,Imeanquestioningthevoice,orattitude,orposturewherebysciencehasamonopolyonexpertiseandontranslatingthatexpertiseintoaction.Specifically,forinvasives:moreattentioncouldbepaidtotheembeddedlandscapeknowledgeoflocalpeopleaboutweedsandpests(Bentleyetal.2005,Vaarzon-MorelandEdwards2012).Thiscouldbeanintellectuallyandpracticallysignificantshift.Intellectually,because,forinstance,itmightcontributetoareconsiderationofthekindsofquestionsasked.Forinstance,PlantagomajorwasknownbyNativeAmericansas‘whiteman’sfootprint’,anamethatusefullydirectsattentiontothesocietythattransportedtheplantandaideditsspreadthroughecologicaldisturbance.Andyetwhileitmaybeseenasaninvader,ithasnotdisplacedotherspeciesandbecamewidelyappreciatedinNativeAmericancommunitiesforitsdifferentuses(Kimmerer2013).Thisisalsoapracticallyimportantshift,becauselocalknowledgebasedonlandscapeexperiencemightrevealpatternsandprocessesnoteasilynoticedbytransientfieldworkers.Morefundamentally,thesharingofknowledgeandco-producedquestioningmightleadtobetterappreciationofthesocialcomplexityinherenttoecologicallydynamicsituationsandorientresearchtowardssolutionsacceptabletoallparties.

Intheintroductorychapter,Laveetal.suggestthatacriticalapproachleadstotheaskingofnewquestions,ortoaddinglayerstoquestionswealreadyask,andprovideanexampleofacaseofasoilscientistworkingin

9

Oakland,California.Thisapplieswelltothecasefora“criticalinvasionscience”.LetmeillustratewithafinalsetofexamplesfromaresearchprojectinwhichIamcurrentlyinvolved--therapidexpansionofpotentially-invasiveAustralianAcaciaplantationsinVietnam(Richardsonetal.2015,Cochardetal.2017).Aninvasionbiologistmightstartandendtheirstudywithmentionofwidespreadcommercialplantationsofthisspecies,followedbyinvestigationsofdispersalmechanisms,seedbanks,soilallelopathy,andspatialspread.Ontopofthis,acriticalinvasionscientistmightaddadditionallayersofinquiry:

• Howdopolitical-economicfactorsshapethedistributionofacaciaplantationsandthus“propagulepressure”?

• Towhatextentdoesstronggovernmentpolicyfavoringtreecoverandeconomicinterestinacaciaplantationsreducelocalscientificattentiontopotentialinvasivebehavior?

• Howdoestheintroductionoftreebreeding,andnotablyhybridstrainsofA.mangiumcrossedwithA.auriculiformis,affectseedviability,dispersal,andinvasivebehavior?

• Towhatextentisthespreadofacaciaconstrainedbydensehumanlanduseoutsideplantationareas?• Forwhichpeople,andinwhatcontexts,isspontaneousacaciaspreadbeneficial,orharmful,orirrelevant?• Howmightthesepeoples’concernsandexperientialknowledgeaffecttheconstructionofresearchquestions

regardingacaciainthelandscape?

Acritical“spirit”isofcoursealreadywidelyheldbymanynaturalandsocialscientists.Muchscientifictrainingpromotes,somewherealongtheline,attentiontotheconstructionofcategories,tothingsthatdonotfitpre-existingmodels,andtotheimplicationsofone’sresearch.Butthisisfarfromuniversal,andoftennotexplicit.Furthermore,inresearchattheinterfaceofsocietyandenvironment,itneedstogomuchfurther,asthisHandbook’sintroductionsuggests.Becauseweliveinapost-naturalworldwheresocialprocessesprofoundlyaffectalmostalllandscapesandenvironmentalprocesses(Urban,thisvolume),acriticalspiritisneededtoincorporateattentiontothesesocialprocesses,oftendeeplystructured,fromtheget-go,andnottreatthemasadd-onstothenaturalscienceproblem.Acriticalspiritalsoinvolvesholdingamirroruptoscience:whataretheideologies,powerrelations,andsociallegaciesthatshapehowweproduceknowledge,andwhataretheeffectsofthatknowledgeontheeco-sociallandscapeswestudyandthepeoplethatliveinthem?Thiskindofcriticalapproachcouldbenefitfrombroadertraining,reflection,encouragement,andattention.

Endnotes1Thepublicationscitedinthisparagraphare,inorder,Davisetal.(2011);Simberloff(2011);Pearce(2015);Thompson(2014)forwhich,interestingly,theAmericaneditionsubtitleis"Whyinvasivespeciesaren'tallbad"butBritainitis"Thestoryandscienceofinvasivespecies";Marris(2011);RichardsonandRicciardi(2013);andRussellandBlackburn(2017).2Foramorein-depthdiscussionofthe“Science”phenomenon,seemyblog:https://christiankull.net/2013/11/25/is-everything-a-science/.3Courchampetal.’s(2016)listof24issuesininvasionscienceprovidesmoreinspirationsforcriticalenquiry.4SCOPEistheScientificCommitteeonProblemsoftheEnvironment,establishedbytheInternationalCouncilforSciencein1969(http://www.scopenvironment.org).Ithassponsoredover70authoritativeinvestigationsofparticulartopics,includingbiologicalinvasions(number37).5Interestingly,asimilarassertionthatbiologicalinvasionsandnaturalcolonisationwerenotthatdifferentrecentlysparkedavehementdebate(HoffmannandCourchamp2016a,b;Wilsonetal.2016).6However,interestingly,aworkshopinvolvinganumberofinvasionscientistsisadvertisedfor2018withoutusingtheword“invasion”(thetitleis“Speciesrangeextensionsandlocaladaptation”).Seehttp://andina4argentina.weebly.com(accessed7April2017).7Seehttps://milliontrees.me/2017/04/01/ecological-restorations-follow-the-money/,accessed4April2017.ReferencesAtchison,J.andL.Head.2013.Eradicatingbodiesininvasiveplantmanagement.EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace31:doi:10.1068/d17712.doi:10.1068/d17712.Awanyo,L.2001.Labor,ecology,andafailedagendaofmarketincentives:thepoliticalecologyofagrarianreformsinGhana.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers91(1):92-121.Bach,T.M.(2015)."Allabouthealthycountry":AboriginalperspectivesofweedmanagementintheKimberley,WesternAustralia.PhDPhD,MonashUniversity.Bach,T.M.andB.M.H.Larson.2017.Speakingaboutweeds:Indigenouselders’metaphorsforinvasivespeciesandtheirmanagement.EnvironmentalValues:inpress;http://www.whpress.co.uk/EV/papers/Bach.pdf.

10

Bean,A.R.2007.AnewsystemfordeterminingwhichplantspeciesareindigenousinAustralia.AustralianSystematicBotany20:1-43.Beinart,W.andL.Wotshela.2011.PricklyPear:TheSocialHistoryofaPlantintheEasternCape,WitsUniversityPress,Johannesburg.Bennett,B.M.2014.Modelinvasionsandthedevelopmentofnationalconcernsoverinvasiveintroducedtrees:insightsfromSouthAfricanhistory.BiologicalInvasions16:499-512.Bentley,J.W.,M.Webb,S.NinaandS.Pérez.2005.Evenusefulweedsarepests:ethnobotanyintheBolivianAndes.InternationalJournalofPestManagement51(3):189-207.Blackburn,T.M.,P.Pyšek,S.Bacher,J.T.Carlton,R.P.Duncan,V.JarosÌk,J.R.U.WilsonandD.M.Richardson.2011.Aproposedunifiedframeworkforbiologicalinvasions.TrendsinEcology&Evolution26(7):333-339.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534711000930Boonman-Berson,S.,E.TurnhoutandJ.vanTatenhove.2014.Invasivespecies:Thecategorizationofwildlifeinscience,policy,andwildlifemanagement.LandUsePolicy38(0):204-212.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.002.Carruthers,J.,L.Robin,J.P.Hattingh,C.A.Kull,H.RanganandB.W.vanWilgen.2011.Anativeathomeandabroad:thehistory,politics,ethicsandaestheticsofAcacia.DiversityandDistributions17(5):810-821.DOI:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00779.x.Chandrasena,N.2014.Livingwithweeds-anewparadigm.IndianJournalofWeedScience46(1):96-110.Chew,M.K.2015.Ecologists,environmentalists,experts,andtheinvasionofthe‘secondgreatestthreat’.InternationalReviewofEnvironmentalHistory1:7-4.Chew,M.K.andA.L.Hamilton.2011.Theriseandfallofbioticnativeness:ahistoricalperspective.PagesinD.M.Richardson,editor50YearsofInvasionEcology:theLegacyofCharlesElton.Blackwell,London.Cochard,R.,D.T.Ngo,P.O.WaeberandC.A.Kull.2017.ExtentandcausesofforestcoverchangesinVietnam’sprovinces1993-2013:areviewandanalysisofofficialdata.EnvironmentalReviews,doi:10.1139/er-2016-0050.doi:10.1139/er-2016-0050.Colautti,R.I.andH.J.MacIsaac.2004.Aneutralterminologytodefine'invasive'species.DiversityandDistributions10:135-141.Colautti,R.I.andD.M.Richardson.2009.Subjectivityandflexibilityininvasionterminology:toomuchofagoodthing?BiologicalInvasions11(6):1225-1229.Comaroff,J.andJ.L.Comaroff.2001.Naturingthenation:aliens,apocalypseandthepostcolonialstate.JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies27(3):627-651.Courchamp,F.,A.Fournier,C.Bellard,C.Bertelsmeier,E.Bonnaud,J.M.JeschkeandJ.C.Russell.2017.InvasionBiology:SpecificProblemsandPossibleSolutions.TrendsinEcology&Evolution32(1):13-22.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.11.001.Cronk,Q.C.B.andJ.L.Fuller.1995.PlantInvaders:theThreattoNaturalEcosystems,Chapman&Hall,London.Cullen,J.M.andE.S.Delfosse(1984).Echiumplantagineum:catalystforconflictandchangeinAustralia.Proc.VIInt.Symp.Biol.Contr.Weeds,Vancouver,Canada,AgricultureCanada.Cutter,S.L.2003.Thevulnerabilityofscienceandthescienceofvulnerability.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers93(1):1-12.Davis,M.A.2009.InvasionBiology,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.Davis,M.A.,M.K.Chew,R.J.Hobbs,A.E.Lugo,J.J.Ewel,G.J.Vermeij,J.H.Brown,M.L.Rosenzweig,M.R.Gardener,S.P.Carroll,K.Thompson,S.T.A.Pickett,J.C.Stromberg,P.DelTredici,K.N.Suding,J.G.Ehrenfeld,J.P.Grime,J.MascaroandJ.C.Briggs.2011.Don'tjudgespeciesontheirorigins.Nature474:153-154.

11

Demeritt,D.2009.Geographyandthepromiseofintegrativeenvironmentalresearch.Geoforum40:127-129.Drake,J.A.,H.A.Mooney,F.diCastri,R.H.Groves,F.J.Kruger,M.RejmánekandM.Williamson,Eds.1989.BiologicalInvasions:AGlobalPerspective.SCOPE37.JohnWiley&Sons,Chichester.Ellender,B.R.,O.L.F.Weyl,H.WinkerandA.J.Booth.2010.QuantifyingtheannualfishharvestfromSouthAfrica'slargestfreshwaterreservoir.WaterSA36(1):45-52.http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1816-79502010000100006Estévez,R.A.,C.B.Anderson,J.C.PizarroandM.A.Burgman.2015.Clarifyingvalues,riskperceptions,andattitudestoresolveoravoidsocialconflictsininvasivespeciesmanagement.ConservationBiology29(1):19-30.10.1111/cobi.12359.Forsyth,T.2003.CriticalPoliticalEcology:thePoliticsofEnvironmentalScience,Routledge,London.Frawley,J.andI.McCalman,Eds.2014.RethinkingInvasionEcologiesfromtheEnvironmentalHumanities.Routledge,London.Gautier,D.andT.A.Benjaminsen,Eds.2012.Environnement,discoursetpouvoir:l'approchePoliticalecology.ÉditionsQuæ,Versailles.Green,L.2014.Ecology,race,andthemakingofenvironmentalpublics:adialoguewithSilentSpringinSouthAfrica.Resilience:AJournaloftheEnvironmentalHumanities1(2):20pp.Gregory,D.,R.Johnston,G.Pratt,M.WattsandS.Whatmore,Eds.2009.TheDictionaryofHumanGeography.Wiley-Blackwell,London.Gutman,G.,A.C.Janetos,C.O.Justice,E.F.Moran,J.F.Mustard,R.R.Rindfuss,D.Skole,B.L.Turner,IIandM.A.Cochrane,Eds.2004.LandChangeScience:Observing,MonitoringandUnderstandingTrajectoriesofChangeontheEarth'sSurface.KluwerAcademicPublishers,Dordrecht.Head,L.,B.M.H.Larson,R.J.Hobbs,J.Atchison,N.Gill,C.A.KullandH.Rangan.2015.LivingwithinvasiveplantsintheAnthropocene:theimportanceofunderstandingpracticeandexperience.ConservationandSociety13(3):311-318.10.4103/0972-4923.170411.Hennessy,E.A.(2014).Onthebacksoftortoises:conservingevolutionintheGalápagosIslands.PhD,UniversityofNorthCarolina.Hoffmann,B.D.andF.Courchamp.2016a.Biologicalinvasionsandnaturalcolonisations:aretheythatdifferent?NeoBiota29:1-14.10.3897/neobiota.29.6959.Hoffmann,B.D.andF.Courchamp.2016b.Whensimilaritiesmattermorethandifferences:areplytoWilsonetal.NeoBiota31:99-104.10.3897/neobiota.31.10290.Johnson,S.2010.Bioinvaders,WhiteHorsePress,Cambridge.Kareiva,P.andM.Marvier.2012.Whatisconservationscience?BioScience62(11):962-969.Kates,R.W.,W.C.Clark,R.Corell,J.M.Hall,C.C.Jaeger,I.Lowe,J.J.McCarthy,H.J.Schellnhuber,B.Bolin,N.M.Dickson,S.Faucheux,G.C.Gallopin,A.Grübler,B.Huntley,J.Jäger,N.S.Jodha,R.E.Kasperson,A.Mabogunje,P.Matson,H.Mooney,B.Moore,III,T.O'RiordanandU.Svedin.2001.Sustainabilityscience.Science292(5517):641-642.http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5517/641.shortKimmerer,R.W.2013.BraidingSweetgrass:Indigenouswisdom,scientificknowledge,andtheteachingsofplants,MilkweedEditions,Minneapolis.Kowarik,I.andP.Pyšek.2012.Thefirststepstowardsunifyingconceptsininvasionecologyweremadeonehundredyearsago:revisitingtheworkoftheSwissbotanistAlbertThellung.DiversityandDistributions18:1243-1252.

12

Kueffer,C.andB.M.H.Larson.2014.Responsibleuseoflanguageinscientificwritingandsciencecommunication.BioScience64:719-724.doi:10.1093/biosci/biu084.Kull,C.A.andH.Rangan.2015.Thepoliticalecologyofweeds:ascalarapproachtolandscapetransformation.Pages487-500inR.L.Bryant,editorTheInternationalHandbookofPoliticalEcology.EdwardElgar,Cheltenham.Kull,C.A.andH.Rangan.2016.Politicalecologyandresilience:competinginterdisciplinarities?Pages71-87inB.HubertandN.Mathieu,editors.InterdisciplinaritésentreNaturesetSociétés:ColloquedeCerisy.P.I.E.PeterLang,Bruxelles.Kull,C.A.,C.M.Shackleton,P.J.Cunningham,C.Ducatillion,J.-M.Dufour-Dror,K.J.Esler,J.B.Friday,A.C.Gouveia,A.R.Griffin,E.Marchante,S.J.Midgley,A.Pauchard,H.Rangan,D.M.Richardson,T.Rinaudo,J.Tassin,L.S.Urgenson,G.P.vonMaltitz,R.D.ZenniandM.J.Zylstra.2011.Adoption,useandperceptionofAustralianacaciasaroundtheworld.DiversityandDistributions17(5):822-836.DOI:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00783.x.Kull,C.A.andJ.Tassin.2012.Australianacacias:usefuland(sometimes)weedy.BiologicalInvasions14(11):2229-2233.Kull,C.A.,J.TassinandS.M.Carrière.2014.ApproachinginvasivespeciesinMadagascar.MadagascarConservationandDevelopment9(2):60-70.10.4314/mcd.v9i2.2.Kull,C.A.,J.Tassin,S.Moreau,H.RakotoRamiarantsoa,C.Blanc-PamardandS.M.Carrière.2012.TheintroducedfloraofMadagascar.BiologicalInvasions14(4):875-888.Larson,B.M.H.2005.Thewaroftheroses:demilitarizinginvasionbiology.FrontiersinEcologyandEnvironment3(9):495-500.Larson,B.M.H.2011.MetaphorsforEnvironmentalSustainability:RedefiningourRelationshipwithNature,YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven.Lave,R.,M.W.Wilson,E.S.Barron,C.Biermann,M.A.Carey,C.S.Duvall,L.Johnson,K.M.Lane,N.McClintock,D.Munroe,R.Pain,J.Proctor,B.L.Rhoads,M.M.Robertson,J.Rossi,N.F.Sayre,G.Simon,M.TadakiandC.VanDyke.2014.Intervention:Criticalphysicalgeography.TheCanadianGeographer/LeGéographecanadien58(1):1-10.10.1111/cag.12061.LeMaitre,D.C.,B.W.VanWilgen,C.M.Gelderblom,C.Bailey,R.A.ChapmanandJ.L.Nel.2002.InvasivealientreesandwaterresourcesinSouthAfrica:casestudiesofthecostsandbenefitsofmanagement.ForestEcologyandManagement160:143-159.Leslie,H.M.andA.P.Kinzig.2009.Resiliencescience.Pages55-73inK.McLeodandH.M.Leslie,editors.Ecosystem-basedmanagementfortheoceans.IslandPress,Washington.Lidström,S.,S.West,T.Katzschner,M.I.Pérez-RamosandH.Twidle.2015.Invasivenarrativesandtheinverseofslowviolence:alienspeciesinscienceandsociety.EnvironmentalHumanities7:1-40.Marris,E.2011.RambunctiousGarden:SavingNatureinaPost-WildWorld,Bloomsbury,NewYork.McNeely,J.A.,Ed.2001.TheGreatReshuffling:HumanDimensionsofInvasiveAlienSpecies.IUCN,Gland.Middleton,K.2012.Renarratingabiologicalinvasion:historicalmemory,localcommunitiesandecologists.EnvironmentandHistory18:61-95.Mukwada,G.,W.ChingombeandP.Taru.2016.Strifesofthefrontier:anassessmentofAcaciamearnsiirelatedpark-communityconflictsintheGoldenGateHighlandsNationalPark,SouthAfrica.JournalofIntegrativeEnvironmentalSciences13(1):37-54.10.1080/1943815X.2015.1130062.Murray,D.L.1994.CultivatingCrisis:theHumanCostofPesticidesinLatinAmerica,UniversityofTexasPress,Austin.Mwangi,E.andB.Swallow.2008.ProsopisjuliflorainvasionandrurallivelihoodsintheLakeBaringoAreaofKenya.ConservationandSociety6(2):130-140.

13

Neely,A.H.2010.Blameitontheweeds:politics,poverty,andecologyintheNewSouthAfrica.JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies36(4):869-887.http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/03057070.2010.527642Orion,T.2015.BeyondtheWaronInvasiveSpecies:APermacultureApproachtoEcosystemRestoration,ChelseaGreenPublishing,WhiteRiverJunction,VT.Osborne,M.A.2000.Acclimatizingtheworld:ahistoryoftheparadigmaticcolonialscience.Osiris2ndseries,Vol15:135-151.Pearce,F.2015.TheNewWild:WhyInvasiveSpeciesWillBeNature’sSalvation,BeaconPress,Boston.Peretti,J.H.1998.Nativismandnature:rethinkingbiologicalinvasion.EnvironmentalValues7:183-192.Pooley,S.2014.BurningTableMountain:AnEnvironmentalHistoryofFireontheCapePeninsula,PalgraveMacmillan,Basingstoke.Rangan,H.,A.WilsonandC.A.Kull.2014.Thornyproblems:Industrialpastoralismandmanaging‘country’inNorthwestQueensland.Pages116-134inJ.FrawleyandI.McCalman,editors.RethinkingInvasionEcologiesfromtheEnvironmentalHumanities.Routledge,London.Richardson,D.M.,Ed.2011a.FiftyYearsofInvasionEcology:theLegacyofCharlesElton.Wiley-Blackwell,Oxford.Richardson,D.M.2011b.Invasionscience:theroadstravelledandtheroadsahead.Pages397-407inD.M.Richardson,editorFiftyYearsofInvasionEcology:theLegacyofCharlesElton.Wiley-Blackwell,Oxford.Richardson,D.M.,J.J.LeRouxandJ.R.U.Wilson.2015.Australianacaciasasinvasivespecies:lessonstobelearntfromregionswithlongplantinghistories.SouthernForests:aJournalofForestScience77(1):31-39.10.2989/20702620.2014.999305.Richardson,D.M.,P.Pyšek,M.Rejmánek,M.G.Barbour,F.D.PanettaandC.J.West.2000.Naturalizationandinvasionofalienplants:conceptsanddefinitions.DiversityandDistributions6(2):93-107.Richardson,D.M.andA.Ricciardi.2013.Misleadingcriticismsofinvasionscience:afieldguide.DiversityandDistributions19:1461-1467.Robbins,P.2001.TrackinginvasivelandcoversinIndia,orwhyourlandscapeshaveneverbeenmodern.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers91(4):637-659.Robbins,P.2007.LawnPeople:HowGrasses,Weeds,andChemicalsMakeUsWhoWeAre,TempleUniversityPress,Philadelphia.Robbins,P.2012.PoliticalEcology:ACriticalIntroduction(2nded),Wiley,Oxford.Russell,J.C.andT.M.Blackburn.2017.TheRiseofInvasiveSpeciesDenialism.TrendsinEcology&Evolution32(1):3-6.10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.012.SalomonCavin,J.andC.A.Kull.2017(inpress).Invasionecologygoestotown:fromdisdaintosympathy.BiologicalInvasions.Sayre,N.F.2015.TheCoyote-ProofPastureExperiment:HowfencesreplacedpredatorsandlaboronUSrangelands.ProgressinPhysicalGeography39(5):576-593.http://ppg.sagepub.com/content/39/5/576.abstractShackleton,C.M.,D.McGarry,S.Fourie,J.Gambiza,S.E.ShackletonandC.Fabricius.2007.Assessingtheeffectsofinvasivealienspeciesonrurallivelihoods:caseexamplesandaframeworkfromSouthAfrica.HumanEcology,(35):113-127.Shackleton,R.T.,D.C.LeMaitreandD.M.Richardson.2015.StakeholderperceptionsandpracticesregardingProsopis(mesquite)invasionsandmanagementinSouthAfrica.Ambio,10.1007/s13280-014-0597-5:DOI10.1007/s13280-13014-10597-13285.10.1007/s13280-014-0597-5.Simberloff,D.2003.Confrontingintroducedspecies:aformofxenophobia?BiologicalInvasions5:179-192.

14

Simberloff,D.2011a.CharlesElton--Neitherfoundernorsiren,butprophet.In:RichardsonDM,editor.FiftyYearsofInvasionEcology.NewYork:Wiley;2010.pp.11–24.Pages11-24inD.M.Richardson,editorFiftyYearsofInvasionEcology:theLegacyofCharlesElton.Wiley,Oxford.Simberloff,D.2011b.Non-natives:141scientistsobject.Nature475.Simberloff,D.2013.InvasiveSpecies:WhatEveryoneNeedstoKnow,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.Simberloff,D.,J.-L.Martin,P.Genovesi,V.Maris,D.A.Wardle,J.Aronson,F.Courchamp,B.Galil,E.GarcÌa-Berthou,M.Pascal,P.Pyaek,R.Sousa,E.TabacchiandM.Vilà.2013.Impactsofbiologicalinvasions:what'swhatandthewayforward.TrendsinEcology&Evolution28(1):58-66.http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169534712001747Subramaniam,B.2001.Thealienshavelanded!Reflectionsontherhetoricofbiologicalinvasions.Meridians:feminism,race,transnationalism2(1):26-40.Tassin,J.2014.Lagrandeinvasion:quiapeurdesespècesinvasives?,OdileJacob,Paris.Tassin,J.2017.Userdepesticidespourcontrôlerlesespècesinvasives:lesfacettesd'unparadoxeéthique.Revued'Écologie(TerreetVie)72(4):xxx-xxx.Tassin,J.andC.A.Kull.2015.Facingthebroaderdimensionsofbiologicalinvasions.LandUsePolicy42:165-169.10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.07.014.Thompson,K.2014.WheredoCamelsBelong?,GreystoneBooks,Vancouver.Turpie,J.K.,C.MaraisandJ.N.Blignaut.2008.Theworkingforwaterprogramme:EvolutionofapaymentsforecosystemservicesmechanismthataddressesbothpovertyandecosystemservicedeliveryinSouthAfrica.EcologicalEconomics65(4):788-798.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.024.Vaarzon-Morel,P.andG.Edwards.2012.IncorporatingAboriginalpeople'sperceptionsofintroducedanimalsinresourcemanagement:insightsfromtheferalcamelproject.EcologicalManagementandRestoration13(1):65-71.Valéry,L.,H.Fritz,J.-C.LefeuvreandD.Simberloff.2008.Insearchofarealdefinitionofthebiologicalinvasionphenomenonitself.BiologicalInvasions10:1345-1351.vanWilgen,B.W.,A.KhanandC.Marais.2011.Changingperspectivesonmanagingbiologicalinvasions:InsightsfromSouthAfricaandtheWorkingforWaterProgramme.Pages377-393inD.M.Richardson,editorFiftyYearsofInvasionEcology:theLegacyofCharlesElton.Wiley-Blackwell,Oxford.vanWilgen,B.W.andD.M.Richardson.2012.ThreecenturiesofmanagingintroducedconifersinSouthAfrica:Benefits,impacts,changingperceptionsandconflictresolution.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement106(0):56-68.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.052.Vaz,A.S.,C.Kueffer,C.A.Kull,D.M.Richardson,S.Schindler,A.J.Muñoz-Pajares,J.R.Vicente,J.Martins,C.Hui,I.KühnandJ.P.Honrado.2017.Theprogressofinterdisciplinarityininvasionscience.Ambio10.1007/s13280-017-0897-7.10.1007/s13280-017-0897-7.Warren,C.R.2007.Perspectivesonthe'alien'versus'native'speciesdebate:acritiqueofconcepts,languageandpractice.ProgressinHumanGeography31(4):427-446.Williamson,M.1996.BiologicalInvasions,Chapman&Hall,London.Wilson,J.R.U.,P.García-Díaz,P.Cassey,D.M.Richardson,P.PyšekandT.M.Blackburn.2016.Biologicalinvasionsandnaturalcolonisationsaredifferent--theneedforinvasionscience.NeoBiota31:87-98.10.3897/neobiota.31.9185.