Thursday, August 3, 2006
9:48:00 AM EDT
Book Review: 'Out of Eden'
I've been meaning to post this for a while, having read the book this past spring. 'Out of Eden: An Odyssey of Ecological Invasion,' by Alan Burdick was published in paperback in May. Burdick is a senior editor for Discover magazine.
I enjoyed this book. It's a very thorough look at invasive species in different parts of the world, the impacts and the biologists who are studying those species. Burdick travels to Hawaii, Guam, Tasmania, San Francisco and Maryland to see how scientists are studying invasive species and what their opinions are about the problem and possible solutions. His scene descriptions are lifelike and his personal musings are thought-provoking.
Burdick explains how most native birds in Hawaii were wiped out by disease by 1930; how the brown tree snake has killed off most native bird species on Guam; and how container ships spread sealife around the globe via their ballast water. He shows how invasive species have aesthetic and economic impacts.
I took a ton of notes on this book; here are some of the most striking points and facts mentioned:
Nature is entering a new era, the Homogecene, as one scientist calls it. Another says if we're not careful, we'll end up with a "McDonald's ecosystem...the same metropolitan animals across the globe." Another biologist said, "There's a loss of the features that allow you to describe where you live."
Five new plants and 20 new insect species are established in Hawaii each year. Not a single plant and none of the lowland birds in Hawaii are native. Many people view Hawaii as paradise, but is it paradise lost -- because we've altered it so?
One biologist in Hawaii says that the next phase of conservation is going to be "learning to accept some losses." He says we can spend the same amount of money to save one species or hundreds; which will we choose?
The concept of an ecosystem has outlived its usefulness, according to one biologist. There is constant change in nature, not equilibrium. Can we continue to argue against the alteration of the environment?
Biologists do have some hope. One explains that we should care about biological invasions for economic reasons -- to keep out potential (economic) nuisances like the zebra mussel inthe Great Lakes; for scientific reasons, so we can study species and ecosystems before they disappear; and for aesthetic reasons, because beauty does matter to people around the world. It's not an either/or situation, this biologist says; it is worth it for us to make an effort to have more biodiversity, to retain the diversity we have in the world.
What do you all think? Do you care if the woods and waters near your home are unique to your area, or could they become the same the world over and you wouldn't care?
Written by
downtoearthblog
Blog about this entry
| 
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
Archives
8/11/06 5:20 PM