Aquatic Invasive Species

War metaphors are pervasive in our society.  They are used to discuss everything from financial markets to sporting events to the spread of invasive species.  Brendon Larson of the University of California-Davis takes issue with this latter trend in a recent article in Frontiers in Ecology.  He argues that the use of militaristic language in discussing invasive species is actually harmful to conservation efforts as it confuses the public and discredits scientists.  An example of such language can be seen in the blog post “Foiled by Milfoil,” which concludes a discussion of milfoil’s harmful ecological effects with the following statement: “The battle of whether to kill off milfoil or to try and control it for human use is currently underway” (clr26 2010).  This phrase depicts milfoil as an enemy that must be either annihilated or harnessed, both militaristic ideas that Larson would find troublesome.

The pervasiveness of militaristic metaphors in discussions of invasive species is hardly debatable, however I disagree strongly with Larson that it is problematic.  Military metaphors are well understood by the general population and so they often serve as an effective way of communicating ecological concepts that may be somewhat abstract.  An example is the use of the term dud to describe an invasive species that fails to spread or have a profound ecological impact.  I think this metaphor is clear and effective and do not understand how it can be construed as discrediting the scientists who use it.  In conclusion, Larson fails to provide any evidence of public opinion for or against the use of military metaphors in the scientific literature and so his argument lacks a serious foundation.

Link to “Foiled by Milfoil?”: http://sites.duke.edu/aquaticinvasives/2010/01/23/foiled-by-milfoil/

Larson argues in “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology” that when people freely misuse militaristic comparisons to describe invasive species, they might ruin scientific objectivity or cause the opposite of an intended reaction. Larson proposes that we should not compare invasive species management to fighting a war; we should instead choose more informative metaphors that could promote prevention and acceptance.

I chose the blog post, Invasion of the Frankenfish (SW3) by ajg31.

The blog post opens, “Aquatic invasive species are a serious threat to environments that they infringe upon…” (ajg31 2010). This firm introduction sets the tone for the rest of the post. The invasive species discussed (the Snakehead) is then viewed as the enemy, and the post ends, “Legislation such as this are major steps in the direction of effectively controlling the Snakehead population.” Taken out of context, the idea of population control brings to mind a militaristic tyranny, a struggle for power.

I agree with Larson’s argument that militaristic metaphors may not be that effective. The war comparison is used so much that I feel that it has become impotent. Invasive species aren’t always the enemies; sometimes it is we humans that are at the root of the problem as Larson suggests with the bulldozers/fire ants example.

References:

Ajg31. 2010. Invasion of the Frankenfish (SW3). WordPress Blog

http://sites.duke.edu/aquaticinvasives/2010/02/09/invasion-of-the-frankenfish-smithsonian-february-2005-aquatic-invasive-species-are-a-serious-threat-to-environments-that-they-infringe-upon-since-many-of-them-tend-to-be-competitors-with-many-of-the/

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

Militaristic Metaphors: The Battle Cry of Invasive Species

By Emily Chang

In his paper, Larson discusses the impact of employing militaristic language to describe invasive species. He talks about how words such as “battle” and “strategy” appear in scientific writing with regard to invasive species, and he asserts that belligerent metaphors should be used cautiously – if, at all – with invasion biology. Then, Larson identifies two major faults in using such rhetoric. The first is that people should not picture themselves as waging a war with invasive species when human activity often has contributed to the spreading and cementing of foreign organisms in their victim environments. In addition, people cannot triumph over invasive species in this supposed “war” because the circumstances surrounding the invasions are generally too complex for a clear-cut solution. Also, Larson states that militaristic metaphors can lose their potency from overuse and can cause anti-xenophobic outcries from people.

I found the following quote from a primary source for my literature review on Eurasian watermilfoil that is considering a weevil species as a means of biocontrol:

“A variety of chemical and physical methods are being used to control M. spicatum infestations….These methods can provide short-term reductions in the extent of aquatic weeds, but neither eradicate them nor provide long-term control.” (Sheldon and Creed 1995)

This quote includes the word “eradicate,” which gives it a militaristic mood. Prior to reading the Larson article, I had not realized that eradication was a militaristic term, for I had seen it in several articles that I had read for my literature review. I believe that I have probably read it in other students’ blog posts or in previous readings about invasive species as well. Because I was so used to seeing this word used with invasive species, I had become accustomed to this militaristic style of depicting species invasions. Therefore, I must agree with Larson on his point about overusing belligerent words and phrases. The excessive use of militaristic metaphors in invasion biology diminishes the effect of such language; the more people see such words used in this manner, the less affective this rhetoric will be. I believe that scientists should employ alternative words and phrasings in their writing to discuss invasive species – particularly those that are more scientific and precise and less descriptive. Perhaps this can ensure that people note the importance of invasion biology on various environments, organisms, and aspects of human life.

References:

Creed, Robert P., Jr. and Sallie P. Sheldon. 1995. Use of a Native Insect as a Biological Control for an Introduced Weed. Ecological Applications 5: 1122-1132.

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

In his paper entitled “The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology:, Brendon MH Larson argues that militaristic language used in invasive species articles to invoke a response in the reader can actually have negative effects. He claims that these metaphors contribute to public misunderstanding of invasive species, and that they support militaristic ways of thinking that make it hard to create a sustainable relationship between humans and the natural world. According to Larson, the problem with militaristic language relies on two fundamental facts about war. 1) A war requires opposing sides. 2) Wars are fought with the belief that good will triumph over evil. These assumptions are leading the public to have a misconstrued view of invasive species. They can also have a boomerang effect, where the readers have the opposite reaction to the language than is intended.

“Currently, the Australian government is preparing to spend between five and seven million dollars over the next 15 years to combat the cane toads…The economic loss resulting from the disturbance and destruction caused by invasive species is huge.” (Butler 2005). This quote is from author Tina Butler, a writer for an online newspaper, who comments about the importance of the elimination of cane toads from Australian ecosystems.

Although Larson raises a few valid points, I have to disagree with his argument. Militaristic language has inspired people to act and take up the “fight” in whatever they believe in for centuries. It’s psychological that more vivid and intense language will influence people’s opinions and possibly lead them to acting on them. I don’t think that the use of militaristic language is problematic nor is it ineffective. These metaphors do not incite riots or violence, but rather they convey the importance of the eradication and removal of invasive species and how large of an effect they have on the general public. Militaristic language is absolutely necessary to gain support from readers and to convince the general public that something must be done.

Butler, Tina. “Overstaying Their Welcome: Cane Toads In Australia.” Mongabay. http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0417b-tina_butler.html. Viewed February 23, 2010.