Aquatic Invasive Species

In his piece, “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology,” Brendon Larson describes the increased trend toward using militaristic language in literature about non-indigenous nuisance species.  He explains that dramatic metaphors are often used in an attempt to foster a sense of urgency about the non-native species, and rally efforts to control their spread.  He then lists the problems with this approach, specifically the fact that looking at invasion biology as if it were a war is a misguided point of view that can lead to false impressions, unwarranted labeling of species as “enemies”, and loss of scientific credibility.  He concludes by suggesting alternative metaphors that would raise awareness without the negative effects, such as likening invasive species to illnesses, which, as such, need to be treated – not “killed”.

Examples of such militaristic language are virtually ubiquitous in invasive species literature.  One such instance can be seen in a previous post on this blog, “Welcome to Weevil!” (Marks 2010).  The author writes, “Water hyacinth… causes many problems in the places where it invades… In order to combat this dangerous plant, weevils were introduced into Lake Victoria…” (Marks 2010). This employs a few different military themes.  First, although certainly not unique to this post, the very term “invasive species” has a militant tone, suggesting a conscious strike into an enemy territory.  The use of “dangerous” later in the quote serves to emphasize this theme.  Most notably, the verb “to combat” cements the militaristic nature of the post, suggesting a tactical battle between ecologists and water hyacinth.  Similar examples can be seen throughout numerous other pieces of literature in this field as well.

It would be hard to argue that there is no truth to Larson’s argument.  There certainly are plenty of military metaphors to be found in the literature of invasion biology, and it cannot be denied that the light in which something is presented influences how the audience receives it.  Particularly, it is essential that authors of scientific literature maintain their credibility if they wish to be taken seriously, and it is difficult to be entirely credible while using hyperbole and exaggerated metaphors.  However, it seems that in his criticism of others’ sensationalism, Larson gets somewhat sensationalistic himself.  At one point he goes so far as to assert that overly military language will raise fears of a “terrorist attack on the environment [with invasive species]” (Larson 2005), thus wasting scarce conservation funds on precautions for a near impossibility.  It seems highly unlikely that anyone is too worried about terrorists smuggling invasive species into the country.  Later in the article, he claims that “wars against invasive species indirectly contribute to veritable ones” (Larson 2005), an assertion that comes across as an exaggeration if not an outright absurdity.

As a whole, the article raises some important points, most of which should not be discounted.  Larson gets somewhat carried away in his effort to show the importance of demilitarizing invasion biology, but the essentials of his argument still ring true.  Scientists need to retain their credibility, and need to ensure that their literature will evoke positive conservation efforts, not destructive militaristic tendencies.

Larson, BMH. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.

Marks, Jonathan. Welcome to Weevils! (SW2). WordPress Blog. http://sites.duke.edu/aquaticinvasives/2010/01/28/welcome-to-weevil/

In his paper “The war of the roses:  demilitarizing invasion biology,” Larson asserts that, by using militaristic language when discussing the problem of invasive species, we limit our perspective on these creature to one that advocates aggression and urgency and overlooks that some situations may benefit from caution and sympathy.  Larson also asserts that, if invasion biologists are too quick to call this sort of negative attention to a foreign species that does not turn out to be a large threat, organizations that may otherwise be supportive of the goals of these biologists may stop taking them seriously.

Larsen is certainly correct in his assertion that militaristic is quite prevalent in invasion biology.  In the Science magazine article “Biologists Rush to Protect Great Lakes from Onslaught of Carp” (2010), militaristic language is used in the very first sentence.  Erik Stokstad states, “With Asian carp poised to invade Lake Michigan, wildlife managers…are scrambling to shore up defenses.”  Though the dangers of Asian carp invasion are serious and may have far-reaching effects, whether there is need to compare invasion prevention methods to preparing for war is debatable.

Though Larsen makes a good point that militaristic language is overly prevalent in invasion biology literature, I do not believe that militaristic language should be completely absent when presenting information about such species.  Especially in press releases, such as the article from which the quote above is from, militaristic language may be useful in helping the average American–who most likely does not particularly care about the environment–realize the magnitude of the issue.  However, I do agree that metaphoric militaristic language is not appropriate in more formal literature.  As long as  militaristic is kept in its place, it may accelerate efforts to keep invasive species in their respective places, as well.

Larson, Brendon MH.  2005.  “The war of the roses:  demilitarizing invasion biology.”  Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9: 495-500.

Stokstad, Erik.  “Biologists Rush to Protect Great lakes from Onslaught of Carp.”  Science.  19 February 2010.

Emilia Rybak

Brendon MH Larson’s discusses the rise of militaristic metaphor usage in published writing about invasive species. He acknowledges the fact that combative language may be useful in instigating conservation action against invasive species. However, he asserts that this language often contributes to fallacies about invasive species, compromises the notion scientific objectivity in published writing, and promotes militaristic attitudes toward the issue. He explains that these effects may be doing more harm than good with regard to conservation and management strategies for invasive species. (Larson, 2005)

In an article found in New Jersey’s local news, I found multiple examples of words or phrases often associated with war or combat from the start. The title itself, which is “Chinese Mitten Crab Set to Pummel N.J. Ecology,” clearly suggests that the crab is a dangerous invader that is on a mission to destroy its victim, New Jersey’s ecology. Some phrases in the article that are directly linked to war also portrayed the crab as the villain and native species as its victim. In particular, the article states that in some areas, dwindling crayfish populations are “under siege.” (Dinges, 2009) Militaristic language is also used to describe the crab’s invasion, including phrases like they have been “on the march” in North America since 1965, and they have “gained a major foothold” in California. (Dinges, 2009) The article also describes the crab as a “scourge” to invaded areas, and that it is only a matter of time before the crab enters a “destructive phase.” (Dinges, 2009) However, one phrase that stood out to me was a quote from a scientist from a research center in Maryland, who explained how 40 crabs were caught in New Jersey, “making that state ground zero” for the crabs.

While I think that militaristic language is excessively dramatic and unnecessary in some instances, I also think that it can help get the message across to readers when used properly. There are many examples of sentences that use militaristic metaphors when the content can be easily explained without this type of language, such as the stating that a native species is “under siege” instead of simply noting the harmful effects that the native species may encounter due to the invader’s presence. I think Larson makes a valid point that  militaristic metaphors may lead to the reader to misinterpretations and misconceptions about invasive species. In this examplem the reader might think that the native species population that is “under siege” is literally being targeted and destroyed by the invasive species, while the reality may be less extreme. I think that people are generally much more likely to take the issue seriously and take action to resolve it if they believe it is a serious problem. Thus, if militaristic prose is used sparingly, I think it can be effective in spurring action to prevent the invasive species’ spread, which is the most important goal in the long-run. The key is to moderate the inclusion of these metaphors to avoid excessive usage and miscommunication of the author’s overall message.

Larson, B. M. H. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.

Dinges, Tomas. 2009. Chinese Mitten Crab Set to Pummel N.J. Ecology.  http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/chinese_mitten_crab_set_to_pum.html. Viewed 24 Feb 2010.

While military metaphors are quite common in everyday language, Brendan Larson argues in his article The War of the Roses: Demilitarizing invasion biology that these metaphors are actually detrimental to the reputation of invasive species.  Larson argues that, because of the copious use of militaristic metaphors, many authors can inadvertently discredit an invasive species as being an “enemy” just because it is invasive.  Furthermore, he argues that scientists have the tendency to go overboard with their literary militarism for the sole reason of gaining public support to obtain funding.

An example of militaristic metaphors used to describe invasive species is seen in Lisa Foderardo’s New York Times article “Battling a Nasty Green Invader from the Deep”.  In it, Foderardo describes one man who is opposed to the spread of the Eurasian watermilfoil as “on the front lines of the fight against an invasive species”.  This metaphor is clearly militaristic because it describes milfoil as an enemy that is dangerous and must be destroyed (Foderaro 2007).

While it is certainly valid to say that militaristic metaphors can harm the reputation of invasive species, it is also quite a stretch.  Bashing military metaphors for making something sound like an enemy is like bashing cooking metaphors for making things sound like they are food.  The fact of the matter is that a metaphor is something that compares one thing to another thing in order to make a point.  It is not necessarily the intent to completely bash one type of literary style because it makes invasive species look bad, because the underlying purpose of the metaphor is to show that there is a problem.  Additionally, I do not see why it is so unheard of to classify an invasive species as “bad” in the first place.  I feel like it is fairly obvious that no creature is intrinsically “evil” and no type of metaphor is capable of convincing any educated person otherwise.  Finally, the fact of the matter is that invasive species are animals and their feelings are not getting hurt by authors bad-mouthing them.  I feel that defending them so passionately is a little ridiculous because the fact of the matter is that they are not native to the environments they are introduced to and are causing a problem, ergo speaking out against them is necessary.

Larson, BMH. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.

Foderaro W. L. 2010.  Battling a Nasty Green Invader from the Deep. New York Times

Words are abstract, yet powerful aspects of our culture. They can hurt and heal, damn and save. Word choice and connotation are crucial for communicating the intended message. Larson’s viewpoint on the language used in talking about invasive species is that it is too militaristic. He explains that the usage of combat terms paints the situation as having a crude solution, with the ability to “win” the battle. He insists that you cannot judge one side as good and one as evil as the species are only going by natural instinct. He also goes on to say that we can only minimize damage done already. Larson also has the point that this use of language may be too rash and would offend, detracting from the credibility of the struggle.

“The Be Plantwise campaign to urge gardeners to help to keep the foreigners under control is the first of two offensives beginning this year. (Bruxelles 2010) describes the action against the floating pennywort as an offensive, a typical military term. This passage was in a recent article by the Times discussing the impacts of invasive flora in Great Britain. The weed is made out to be an enemy, something we must go on the offensive about and attack. This is the type of language that Larson was talking about in his article.

I think that this language is necessary. Yes, it may be crude for scientists and people who have already been educated about the dangers of invasive species. This does not mean, however, that the average American will react in the same way. If someone doesn’t know about the potential harm invasive species can cause, they can be quick to dismiss it. Only with this language can we express that the issue is actually a battle, with consequences if no action is taken. The presence of these species costs us time, money and threatens the livelihood of American citizens. In this manner, it could be considered an actual war. The language is rough, yes, but necessary to portray the situation.

Bruxelles, S. “War declared on invasive plants that cost Britain 2.7 bn a year” Times Online, February 24, 2010

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7038322.ece



The scientific community’s use of militaristic rhetoric as a metaphor to describe invasive species has recently come under fire. According to these accusations militaristic rhetoric causes inaccurate perceptions of invasive species, xenophobia, and ultimately undermines the goals of the conservation movement. Militaristic rhetoric undoubtedly plays a large role in the communication of invasive species problems to the public. For example, a recent news of the week article published in Science uses three militaristic words or phases within the first two sentences. “With Asian carp poised to invade Lake Michigan, wildlife managers are urgently trying to figure out how many of the voracious 1.5-meter- long fish have already slipped past electric fish barriers in a waterway near Chicago—and they are now scrambling to shore up defenses. A new plan, released by federal agencies and other groups last week, aims to improve coordination among agencies dealing with the immediate threat and divvies up $78.5 million for control and research” (Stokstad, 2010). Use of such language has been deemed “problematic” and “ineffective”; however, critics fail to provide a sufficient replacement for the militaristic metaphor. Examining the use of militaristic rhetoric within the context of scientific writing reveals that it effectively conveys both the scope and urgency of the Asian carp invasion to both the scientific community and the general public. Nothing in the passage suggests that the problem is direr than the reality, nor does it promote xenophobia or undermine the conservation movement. Rather, the militaristic metaphor advances the conservation movement in that it places complex scientific problems into a generally understood light. In the absence of a sufficient replacement for the militaristic metaphor, critics of this rhetoric are left at best with a very weak case. As the scientific community’s understanding of invasives grows, perhaps the metaphors used to describe them will too. In the meantime, an old cliché best describes the issue—if it isn’t broken, don’t’ break it.

Brendon MH Larson wrote a paper titled “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology” in order to scrutinize a militaristic rhetoric that has been appearing in invasion biology papers. Larson feels that associating words such as “weapons” or “enemies” with an invasive species is inappropriate because invasive species issues and solutions do not resemble wars. This can only lead to confusion regarding how threatening a situation actually is, possibly resulting in important invasive species problems being grouped with non imminent problems because of their similar militaristic language. Larson concludes that metaphors other than war may be more apt at describing invasive species; perhaps, an invasive species could be compared to an infectious disease.
This example of militaristic language comes from a classmate’s blog post. “It is therefore surprising to find that the mute swans are an invasive species to the area and are on a warpath of destruction that is reaping havoc on the habitats of indigenous species.” (rd74 2010) Directly before this passage, the author mentioned how the swans were a beautiful tourist attraction that one would probably never guess was an invasive species. I agree with Larson that the use of the militaristic words “warpath, destruction and havoc” are unnecessary and could possibly cause confusion. Although the author does well in noting that just because the mute swan may be beautiful does not make it any less invasive, but then the mute swan is described as if it has a military agenda. We certainly don’t want to forget about these invasive species because of their aesthetics, but why should we bring more negative attention to them than warranted by using the war metaphor. It is best to find a balance, so our writing includes adjectives and verbs that accurately describe the threat the species may be posing to the ecosystem. If our language is not appropriate for the subject, too much concern may be placed on an invasive species.

Blog Link:
“Destruction by the Mute”
http://sites.duke.edu/aquaticinvasives/2010/01/20/destruction-by-the-mute/

Larson, in the war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology, argues that the prevalent use of militaristic language in scientific articles and other media to describe invasive species is counterproductive. Not only do militaristic language over-exaggerates the problem of invasive species, but also promotes drastic measures to eradicate the problem that are completely unnecessary and wasteful. More often than not, exotic species become integrated into the ecosystem that it is introduced into. Consequently, its complete eradication will only harm the indigenous species that have come to rely on it for various reasons. Instead viewing foreign species are invaders, Larson argues that we should see them rather as new visitors, and accept them under a symbiotic relationship.

Quote: “With Asian carp poised to invade Lake Michigan, wildlife managers are urgently trying to figure out how many of the voracious 1.5-meter-long fish have already slipped past electric fish barriers in a waterway near Chicago and they are scrambling to shore up defenses.” (Stokstad 2010)

Though there are definite faults to Larson’s argument, I agreed overall with the author’s argument. Such as the above passage from Science Magazine concerning the “onslaught” of Asian carp, there are too much anxiety and urgency in scientific literature to correct something that does not require such drastic methods. The usage of militaristic promotes an unnecessary false sense of urgency that will only become counterproductive. It is not only infeasible, but also potentially detrimental to the ecosystem, to eliminate invasive species that have integrated themselves into their introduced habitat. It is worth the risk and resources to put poison in the water just deter Asian carps from becoming introduced into Lake Michigan? Do we really need $2.5 million dollars just to eliminate Asian carp? Aren’t there other better venues the money could be used for? However, I must acknowledge that militaristic words are used throughout the vernacular. And that as a result, its use in scientific literature is only reflective of how we speak on a day-to-day basis. At the same time, just as Larson argues, though using militaristic language in scientific literature is nothing to be alarmed about, it is the frequency at which it is used to describe invasive species that we should be concerned with. Too much usage of militaristic language jades the reader against future crises that might be greater than a carp trying to get into a lake. Like the boy who cried wolf, what will we do then?

Larson, BMH. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.

Stokstad, E. (2010). Biologists Rush to Protect Great Lakes From Onslaught of Carp. Science. 327(932)

In his article, Larson argues that the pervasive use of militaristic language to describe invasive species is detrimental to the very cause of conservationism. It presents species as combatants who are to be fought and destroyed rather than simply effectively dealt with. Larson states that this is a symptom of popular and even scholarly work about invasive species and is an attempt to dramaticize the cause of dealing with invasive species. Instead of “battle” metaphors, Larson argues that alternative images should be used, like tumor or illness metaphors.

The article “Battling a nasty Invader from the Deep” begins with war metaphors from the very beginning, starting with the inclusion of the word “battling.” The article goes on to call the field work of ecologists the “front lines” of the fight against watermilfoil. The author also mentions “chemical weapons that could be used against the milfoil: words with a negative connotation for any who are versed in warfare. Other potentially violent metaphors include images of the plants “muscling out” other plants or “choking” the local ecosystem.

Larson’s point is partially valid. It is important to maintain scientific purity when talking about invasive species and not become caught up in a popularized crusade. However, the language used in an article is not the most important part of maintaining scientific purity, and most articles that do contain “charged” language are in fact news articles rather than scientific literature. The very language of “invasive species” is slightly militaristic. Take the word invasive, for example: in context, it is not an emotionally charged word, b ut its denotation implies an invasion of a host of enemies. In addition, Larson’s argument that the words promote xenophobia and are offensive is bordering on nonsense. The connotation of the word “battle” in the context of a report on an invasive trout does not evoke the same type of emotional resonse as it would in the context of a human war. The two situations are not comprable, and this is where Larson’s argument breaks down. Connotation dominates denotation.

Larson, BMH. 2005. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 495-500.

Foderaro, Lisa W. “Battling a Nasty Green Invader from the Deep.” New York Times Online. 12 June 2007. The New York Times Company. Accessed February 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/nyregion/12invasive.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=milfoil&st=cse&scp=16

Kevin Shia

According to Larson, militaristic metaphors are detrimental towards the arguments against invasive species from spreading. Lawson claims this is based on three reasons, which are they bring about an inaccurate perception of invasive species, the research papers that use militaristic phrases lose credibility in their work, and they reinforce militaristic patters, which are not productive towards conversation. Lawson states that instead of using militaristic metaphors, writers should use metaphors that are relevant to the origins of the species.

In Walker’s review about the spread of zebra mussels, in the first line, he states that “Scienctists battle an invasion of zebra mussels” and in the middle of the article with, “these homesteaders are infiltrating and fouling everything… engineers have begun fighting back with a range of toxic agents” (Walker 1991). There are already two words that relate to militaristic rhetoric, which are “battle,” and “invasion.” The context of the first quote is that zebra mussels already spreading at an alarming rate and scientists are trying to figure out a way to alleviate this problem. The second quote explains using poisons to kill the zebra mussels, but the use of “infiltrating” and “toxic agents” make it appear that we are fighting a war to destroy the zebra mussels.

In a way, I agree with Larson’s argument. When militaristic rhetoric is used, it immediately shows bias towards the topic being discussed. Also, the constant use of this rhetoric, makes it seem less and less reliable, eventually making all militaristic rhetoric detrimental to the argument trying to be portrayed. It is possible that the zebra mussels are not an immediate problem, but this article definitely makes it seem that way. Also, this makes it seem that if we “wage a war” against the zebra mussels, we will succeed, but this is very improbable due to the zebra mussels’ adaptability. But in a way, militaristic rhetoric is effective in getting the public attention to a serious issue at hand. It also calls for a quick action for invasive species that are causing extensive damage to habitats and the economy.

The issue that I have is that he does not have complete support of his argument. Even though he discusses the militaristic rhetoric in literature, he doesn’t support them with any statistical data to show if there is an actual influence on the public.

Larson, Brendon MH. The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. (2005). Front Ecol      Environ 3(9), 495-500.

Walker, Tim. Dreissena Disaster (1991). Science News 139(18), 282.