How Do We Manage "Invasives?" Nature-based-Solutions
- Laura A. Weber
- 8 hours ago
- 3 min read
It's Springtime in the Midwest, and native plants and trees are emerging, along with the perceived enemies of biodiversity, namely "invasive" species, the ones that take over and eradicate everything in their vicinity. These are human-introduced non-native species that are ubiquitous in the biosphere, whose dominant presence is perceived as a threat to biodiversity and ecological health and wholeness.
"These introduced alien species and the socio-ecological disruptions they cause have become emblematic of human-driven global change and are collectively referred to as biological invasions." (source)
Sound familiar? Honeysuckle hacks and Bradford pear buy-backs are aplenty in our neck of the woods. Glyphosate-based herbicide application is often the response, harmful as it may be to human and more-than-human health. Still, we persist in our efforts to kill the "invasives." The military metaphor unveils the paradigm in which we are operating. An "invasive" must be repelled and eradicated in order to protect what we value more, in this case, biodiversity and ecological health and wholeness. In the context of our current geopolitical crises, in which the threat of virulent invaders, destroying at will, and decimating critical survival infrastructure is perceived by some as effective "control," managing biological invasives may seem remedial.
It's not.
The way we understand perceived threats to global health and wholeness, and the language markers we employ to justify destruction - even and especially to the detriment of the whole, including ourselves, the ones doing the damage - is part of the problem.
In a recent study that advocates a "Resist-Accept-Direct/Adapt" (RAD+) framework, rather than traditional "invasives" management, researchers explain why the time is ripe for Nature-based-Solutions (NbS) to gain ground.
"...interventions have typically focused on intensive management across large spatial scales (Sankaran et al., 2024), including control or eradication of invasive species through engineering-based solutions that rely heavily on industrial, chemical or biotechnological tools. These approaches often imply continuous human oversight, such as weeding or culling, and rarely result in ecosystems free of invasions or resilient to invasions (Kopf et al., 2017). The cost of such methods has exceeded USD 120.5 billion over the last five decades (Diagne et al., 2021), yet despite this investment, invasive species remain increasingly difficult to manage in our highly interconnected world (Seebens et al., 2021). Moreover, the indiscriminate use of lethal methods has raised ethical questions, especially when outcomes fall short of intended goals (Estévez et al., 2015; Kopf et al., 2017)." (Source)
The authors of the study advocate a robust framework called RAD+ that addresses the root causes of the persistence and spread of invasives. They propose developing more nuanced ways to respond to perceived threats. Their aim is to reassess how invasions are prioritized and managed through a paradigm shift, not merely to eradicate invasives, but to imitate natural ecological processes to promote biodiversity with resilient outcomes.
"We argue that NbS offer a pathway to mitigate the undesirable impacts of invasive species while simultaneously sustaining biodiversity, enhancing ecosystem services and reinforcing the long-term viability of management interventions." (Source)
First, we require a paradigm shift: How might we shift away from our current paradigm that persists in eradicating invasives with toxic chemicals, industrial removal, and labor-intensive human intervention that fall short of our desired goals? Here's a visual schematic for RAD+:
And an introduction to RAD+:
Resist: Employing minimally intrusive actions that reduce the invasion of species (e.g., natural consumption, competition, native ecological communities, mutualistic interactions between native species, removal from natural disturbances)
Accept & Direct: Accepting the presence of non-native species and advocating interventions that guide ecological trajectories toward desirable states (e.g., native biodiversity recovery), harnessing ecological processes to encourage native species dominance (e.g., restoring trophic diversity, introducing novel biological consumer, recovery of Nature in abandoned human landscapes or areas with reduced biodiversity, designing ecologically resilient systems)
Accept & Adapt (+): Acknowledging the importance of societal responses to invaded novel ecosystems, followed by a suite of interventions that either control the abundance of invasive species in ecosystems or mitigate the undesirable impacts of invasions (e.g., harnessing values of invasion induced alternate state, autochthonous adaptations by human societies, planned adaptations by human societies)
Now, an invitation: We have an opportunity for a creative NbS paradigm shift, both in how we conceive of and adapt to perceived "invasives." If we can utilize a RAD+ framework in our understanding and response to the issue of biodiversity loss, perhaps the sociopolitical realm can follow suit.
Or, we can keep addressing perceived threats in a dualistic framework, and respond with lethal force, doing things the way we've always done them. Kill the invasives. How's that working out for us and the planet?
Isn't it time we pay attention to the way of Nature?