Biological Invasions - PDF document

BiologicalInvasions179–192,2003.©2003KluwerAcademicPublishers.PrintedintheNetherlands.Confrontingintroducedspecies:aformofxenophobia?DanielSimberloffDepartmentofEcologyandEvolutionaryBiology,UniversityofTennessee,569DabneyHall,TN37996-1610,USA(e-mail:dsimberloff@utk.edu;fax:+1-865-974-3067) anditsactivitieswerestrengthenedin1997bytheestablishmentofagovernmentBiosecurityCouncil(ParliamentaryCommissionerfortheEnvironment2001).In1995,theSouthAfricangovernmentini-tiatedamassivepublicworksproject,theWorkingforWaterProgramme,tograpplewiththeproblemofintroducedplants(McQueenetal.2000).IntheUnitedStates,acknowledgingthatexistinglegalandmanage-mentframeworkshadprovedfartoolax,PresidentClinton’sExecutiveOrder13112of1999mandatedtheformationofafederalNationalInvasiveSpeciesCouncilthatproducedaNationalManagementPlanin2001,therstattemptatacoordinatednationalresponsetotheproblem(NationalInvasiveSpeciesCouncil2001).Othernationshaveproducedini-tialsurveysofthescopeofbiologicalintroductions(e.g.,Sherley2000;Weidema2000;Claudietal.2002),whiletherearerecentsynthesesontheimpactsofintroducedspeciesonlessstudiedenvironmentssuchasmarineecosystems(e.g.,Pederson2000).Popularauthorshavewrittenmanybooksforthelayaudi-enceonthesubjectinthelastdecade,bothsyntheticoverviews(e.g.,Bright1998;Devine1998;Cox1999;Low1999;VanDriescheandVanDriesche2000;Baskin2002)anddetailedaccountsofspecicinvaders(e.g.,Goldschmidt1996;Meinesz1997).Popularmedia–newspapers,newsmagazines,television–nowprominentlyfeatureboththegeneralproblemandthe‘invaderoftheweek’–Formosantermites,snakeheads,killerbees,spottedknapweed,MadagascanhissingDocumentedimpactsofintroducedspeciesaremany.Forconservationists,themainthreatistotheveryexistenceofnativespecies.Forthemostcom-prehensiverosterofthreatenedspeciesintheUnitedStates,includingthoselistedundertheEndangeredSpeciesActandintheNaturalHeritageSystemdatabases,Wilcoveetal.(2000)wereabletodeter-minethecause(s)ofthethreatfor1880ofthenearly2500species.Manyarethreatenedbymorethanonefactor.Introducedspeciesarethesecond-leadingcause(afterhabitatdegradation/loss),causingorcontribut-ingtothethreatto49%ofthesespecies–morethanthenextthreecategories(overexploitation,pol-lution,anddisease)combined.Thereisnocompre-hensiveglobaltabulationofcauses,butexaminationofthreatsforspecicregionsortaxadepictsasimi-larimportanceforintroducedspecies.Forinstance,arecenttabulation(BirdlifeInternational2000)ofthecausesofthreattothe1186birdspeciesbelievedtobeimperiledshowsthreemajorfactors,sometimesworkinginconcert.Habitatdegradation/lossisagaintheleadingcause(1008species),followedbyover-exploitation(367species)andintroducedspecies(343species).Forbirds,directharvest(overexploitation)isbelievedtobeagreaterfactorthanformostothertaxa.Theparticularwaysthatintroducedspeciesthreatentheexistenceofnativespeciesareremarkablydiverse;themainmechanismsarepredation,parasitism,her-bivory,vectoringofpathogens,modicationofcriticalhabitat,hybridization,andcompetition(SimberloffIntroducedspeciesalsothreatentheexistenceofcommunity-levelbiodiversity.Itismoredifculttoassessthequantitativeextentofthisthreat,partlybecausetheclassicationofcommunitiesissomewhatsubjective(Shrader-FrechetteandMcCoy1993)andpartlybecausetheconservationstatusofcommuni-tieshasnotbeenstudiedaswellasthatofmanyspecies(cf.Grossmanetal.1994).Thereareprobablyca.7000–9000vegetationassociationsintheUnitedStatesthatwouldqualify,bymanycriteria,asdis-tinctcommunities,ofwhich4500havebeensodes-ignated(Bryeretal.2000).Ofthese,atleast371arerecognizedasthreatened(Grossmanetal.1994),butthefractionthreatenedbyparticularfactorscan-notyetbeestimated.Itisevident,however,thatentirecommunitiescandisappearbecauseofintro-ducedspecies.Forexample,theAsianchestnutblightfungus(Cryphonectriaparasitica)arrivedinNewYorkonnurserystockinthelatenineteenthcenturyandspreadover100millionhaofeasternNorthAmericainlessthan50years,killingalmostallmaturechestnutsCastaneadentata)(Anderson1974;vonBroembsen1989).Chestnuthadbeenadominanttreeinmanyforests,and,thoughitisnotextinct,largeindividualsareextremelyrare,anditis‘functionallyextinct’inthesensethatitissouncommonthatitnolongerfulllsitspreviousecosystemfunctions.Thiswasmorethanjustastructuralchangeinthecommunity;forexample,chestnutdecomposesveryrapidly,andnutrientcyclingprobablysloweddownsubstantiallyaschestnutswerereplacedbyoaks(K.Cromack,pers.comm.).Severalcommunitytypesdominatedbychestnutsurelydisap-pearedentirely.Morerecently,theredspruce-FraserrforestcommunityofthesouthernAppalachianshasbeeneliminatedfrommostareasandisdeclin-inginallbecauseofattackbytheEuropeanbalsamwoollyadelgid,Adelgespiceae,onFraserrs(fraseri)(Grossmanetal.1994;WearandGreis2002). ThoughFraserrasaspeciesisnotinimminentdan-gerofdisappearing,thecharacteristicforestinwhichitwascodominantwillalmostcertainlynotpersistinsimilarform.Inadditiontothreateningtheexistenceofnativespeciesandcommunities,introducedspecieshavehadmanyotherconsequences,includingsomehighlyinimicaltoagricultureandpublichealth.Forinstance,tworecentlyintroducedAsianmosquitoes(A.japonicus)areamajorfactorinthespreadofWestNilevirusinNorthAmerica(Baskin2002).DamagebyintroducedspeciestoagricultureiswellknownandrecentlysummarizedbyHuberetal.(2002).Otherimpactsarelessheraldedbutcostlyandfar-reaching.Forexample,inNorthAmericazebramussels(Dreissenapolymorpha)clogwaterpipesandthusthreatendrinkingwatersuppliesandcommercialuses;through1994thecostofattemptingtoclearthemwasover$100million(Dextrase2002).Strikingly,justaspolicymakers,managers,scien-tists,andthepublicaregraspingthemagnitudeofintroducedspeciesasanenvironmentalissue,agrow-ingnumberofcriticshaveattackedattemptstocon-trolintroducedspeciesasacovertformofnativism,racism,xenophobia,orworse.Thecriticismisremark-ablydiverse,fromtheeldsofhistory,philosophy,sociology,gardening,landscapearchitecture,andevenpopularculture.Below,Iexaminethehistoryofthiscriticismandattempttoassessitsimplicationsforpolicyonintroducedspecies.Gardenarchitecture,gardening,andtheNazisOnestrandofthiscriticismconcernspreferencesfornativeplantsamonggardenersandlandscapearchi-tects.Theargumentinthisarenaisanoldone.Forinstance,in1882,themostprominentAmericanland-scapearchitect,FrederickLawOlmsted,engagedinaheateddebatewiththebotanistCharlesSpragueSargentaboutintroducedspeciesinaprojectreha-bilitatingandlandscapingtheMuddyRiverbetweenBostonandBrookline(Olmsted1888;Sargent1888;Zaitzevsky1982);OlmstedadvocatedandSargentdeploredtheiruse.TheupshotisthattheBrooklinesideoftheriverwasplantedsolelywithnatives,whiletheBostonsidehadmanyexotics(Zaitzevsky1982).However,thetermsofthedebatewerewhollyaes-thetic,withSargent(1888,p.266)admitting,‘Itisnoteasytoexplainwhycertainplantslookdistinctlyinplaceincertainsituationsandwhyotherplantslookasdistinctlyoutofplace’andclaimingthatnon-indigenousspecies‘inevitablyproduceinharmoniousresults’Olmsted(1888,p.418),concedingthat‘plant-ingfar-fetchedtreeswithlittlediscriminationhasledtodeplorableresults’,wasnotwilling‘totabooalltreescomingfromoverthesea.’Themostdamningchargeagainstanti-introducedspeciesactivitywasarticulatedbytwoGermangardenarchitects,JoachimWolschke-BulmahnandGertGroning(GroningandWolschke-Bulmahn1992,1994;Wolschke-BulmahnandGroning1992;Wolschke-Bulmahn1992,1995,1997a,b).Broadly,theydocumentaNazicampaignto‘cleansetheGermanlandscapeofunharmoniousforeignsubstance[plantspecies]’(R.Tuxen1939,citedbyGroningandWolschke-Bulmahn1992).TheanalogytoHitler’scallfortheGermanvolktobecleansedofforeigncom-ponentsispatent(GroningandWolschke-Bulmahn1992).ThevigorwithwhichtheNazispursuedthisbotanicalobjectiveischilling,especiallyinlightoftheirfrenziedpursuitoftheirhumanobjective.Forinstance,ReinholdTuxen,headoftheReichCentralOfceforVegetationMapping,demandeda‘warofextermination’againstAsianImpatiensparvißoraanalogizingtheghtagainstthis‘Mongolianinvader’tothelargerbattleagainstBolshevism(R.Tuxen1942,citedbyGroningandWolschke-BulmahnHowever,Wolschke-BulmahnandGroningassailnotonlytheNazis.TheytracethisNazistanceback-wardtoperceivedracist,nationalistic,andanti-SemiticviewsofthepioneeringGermanlandscapearchitectWillyLange(1864–1941)andIrishgardendesignerWilliamRobinson(1838–1935)andforwardtopartsofthecurrentnaturegardenandnativeplantmovements.Thechargeofanti-SemitismagainstLangerestsonthelatter’sseeingtheOldTestament,whichgrantedhumansdominionoverothercreatures,asapossibleinspirationfortheformalFrenchandBritishgardendesignsthathewishedtocontrastwithhis‘naturegarden’.AsimilarindictmentoftheanthropocentrismoftheOldTestamentbythehistorianLynnWhite(1967),inhisclassicpaper‘Thehistoricalrootsofourecologiccrisis’,hasnever,tomyknowledge,elicitedachargeofanti-Semitism.ThisfactalonedoesnotexculpateLange,butitsuggeststhathispercep-tionoftheroleoftheOldTestamentneednotspringfromanti-Semitism.Wolschke-Bulmahn’slabelingof RobinsonrestsonhisdescriptionofasceneinapublicparkinParis:Inoneinstancewesawasparrowortwoalightonaman’shand,andpluckilyrootoutcrumbsthatheheldrmlybetweenhisngerandthumb.Hewasanancientandperseveringpersonage,evidentlyoftheJewishpersuasion;andhowevermuchIregrettoadmitit,asafaithfulchroniclerImuststatethatnotonesparrowapproachedwithinteninchesofthehandofaGentile.(Robinson1869,citedbyWolschke-Bulmahn1992)Thewordingofthispassagemayreectaperva-siveanti-Semitismofthetime,butitalsoappearstometoexpressacertainamountofaffection.TherewascertainlyanationalisticcasttosomeofLange’swritings:‘Germanyhasbeenchosentolenditsnametothisstyleinthehistoryofgardensandtobecomeonceagainan“improveroftheworld”’(Lange1922,citedbyWohlschke-Bulmahn1992).However,suchnationalismisnotequivalenttoxenophobia.Ihavebeenunabletondspecicevidenceinthewrit-ingsofeithermanthatindicatesracism.PerhapsWohlschke-Bulmahn(1992,p.198)isadmittingalackofevidencewhenheusesanargumentofguiltbyasso-ciation:‘BothLangeandRobinsonweremembersofaconservativebourgeoisieinwhichattitudeslikenation-alism,biologismandanti-Semitismwerewidespread.’Itisinstructivethatbothmenadvocatedtheuseofintroducedspeciesinparticularcircumstances,thoughbothenthusiasticallyendorsedusingnativeplants.ThehistorianAnneHelmreich(1997)similarlylam-bastesRobinson,notingthat,eventhoughheattimesrecommendedusingintroducedplants,thesewereallfromNorthAmerica,Greece,Spain,Italy,AsiaMinor,andtheAlps.Robinsonhimselfarguedthatplantsfromtheseareas,withclimatessimilartothatofBritain,wouldmorelikelysurvivethanwouldtropicalplants.Helmreich,however,seesthechoiceoftheselocationsasRobinson’sreafrmationofimperialistnotionsofEnglishsuperiority,onthegroundsthateachhadbeenthehomeofagreatempireor,inthecaseofNorthAmerica,athrivingcivilizationsimilartothatofGreatThesesamehistoriansclaimthatbothRobinsonandLangewereinuencedintheirracistattitudesbyillustriousforebears.Wolschke-Bulmahn(1992)notesthatAlexandervonHumboldtinuencedLange.vonHumboldt(1806)rmlybelievedininnatechar-actersofvariouspeoples,relatedtotheirclimaticcon-ditions,aprevailingviewinhistimebutonethatishighlyquestionabletoday.ThisnotionaccordswellwithLange’sideathatnativeplantgardensaresome-howsuitableforthetemperamentsofthenativepeopleofaregion.Helmreich(1997)documentsRobinson’sdebttoAlfredRusselWallace,whomsheindictsasanationalistandimperialist,apparentlyforthispas-sageinalettertohissister,FannySims,in1861:‘Ahillofgorse,orofheath,abankoffoxgloves&ahedgeofwildroses&purplevetchessurpassinanythingIhaveeverseeninthetropics’(Raby2001,p.159).AtvarioustimesWallaceespousedideasofEuropeansuperiorityontheonehandandlackofsuperiorityontheother(Raby2001).However,ratherthananaestheticjudgmentbasedonracistthinking,thispassageabouttherelativebeautyofEnglishplantsmightsimplyhavebeenanexpressionofhomesick-ness.WallacehadbeenintheMalayArchipelagooversevenyearsatthispoint,sufferingconstantdeprivationandoccasionallyseriousillness.oningandWolschke-Bulmahn(1992,1994)andoning(1997)taratleastsomemodernnativeplantenthusiastswiththebrushofNazism.Forexample,referringtoabookonnaturegardensbyU.Schwarz(1980),Groning(1997,p.232),says,Schwarzhadnointerestwhatsoeverinknowingaboutthehistoryofplantcultivationorearliernaturegardenconcepts,suchasthatofWillyLange,whosupportedracistandnationalistideasandworkedactivelytosupportNationalSocialistideasingar-oningandWolschke-Bulmahn(1994)suggestthattheentirehistoryofecology,includingconcernaboutintroducedspecies,isinfectedbyNazism.ThattheNazisopposedintroducedspecies,andthattheyrelatedthisagendatotheircampaigntoridGermany(andperhapstherestoftheworld)ofpeopletheyconsideredforeignandinferior,neednotmeanthateveryonewhoopposesintroducedspeciesdoessoforxenophobic,racistmotives(Dawson1994;Sorvig1994a,b),justaseveryItalianwhostrivestomakethetrainsrunontimeneednotbeaFascist.EvenastheNazisbecameenamoredofnativeplants,Dutchlandscapearchitectsworriedthattheirmovementtousenativeplantsoutofconcernforthelossofnaturalareaswasbeingco-optedbytheNazisfornefariousreasons(Woudstra1997).Theywereatpainstotry,gingerly,todissociatetheirideasfromthoseoftheiroccupiers(Woudstra1997). TheAmericanwriterMichaelPollan(1994)seesanativistideologylurkingbehindincreasingconcernamonggardenersaboutintroducedspecies.Citingtwoleadingnaturalgardeningauthors,KenDruse(1994)andSaraStein(1993),heasks‘AmIimplyingthatnaturalgardeninginAmericaisacrypto-Fascistmove-ment?Ihopenot.Imentionthehistoricalprecedentpartlytosuggestthatthe“newAmericangarden”isneitherasnewnorasAmericanasitsproponentswouldhaveusthink’(p.54).Infact,bothDruse(1994)andStein(1993)explic-itlybasetheiradvocacyofnativespeciesonthethreatposedbyintroducedspeciestonativespeciesandcommunities.Forinstance,Stein(1994,p.37)notes,Inalastexquisiteirony,theburgeoninginter-estingardeningthataccompaniedthemovefromcitytosuburbstimulatedthenurserytradetoimportortotoutNorwaymaple,alderbuckthorn,Japanesebarberry,kudzuvine,Japanesehoney-suckle,Orientalbittersweet,purpleloosestrife,mul-tiorarose,andother‘easy’ornamentalsthataresoinvasiveindamagedhabitatsastoprecludetheirnaturalrecovery.Druse(1994,p.27)similarlyobserves,‘anon-nativecauseextirpation[localextinction]orevenextinctionofanativeplant’.Throughouttheirwritings,bothauthorsconsistentlyemphasizetheconservationconsequencesofintroducedspecies,nottheaestheticones.YetPollan(1994)doubtsthatthereareseriousconsequences,muchlessthattheyaretherealmotivesfortheadvocacyofnativeplantsingardens.ReferringtoDruse(1994),hewrites,‘Heoffersnoscienticproofforthiscontention,leavingthereadertowonderifthedarkeningspecterofalienspeciesinthegardenmighthavelesstodowithecologythanideology’(p.54).Theconservationconsequencesofintroducedspeciesnotedabove,andtheirmagnitude,vindicateDruse’sandStein’sconcern.Itisalsoworthnotingthatneitherauthoropposestheuseofintroducedspeciesinallcircumstances.Stein(1993,p.202)respondsdirectlytothechargethatsheisideologicallymoti-vated:‘Restorationpuristsinsistonremovingallexoticspecieswhethertheyareweedsornot.Ihaven’ttheper-sonalityforethniccleansing.MuchasItakeprideinbeingbotanicallypatriotic,Istopshortofthatdegreeofxenophobia.’Druse(1994)frequentlyemphasizesthattheproblemisnotwithintroducedplantspersebutwiththeirpossibleimpactonnatives.Forexample,laudingthepoliciesoftheDesertBotanicalGarden,heobserves,ThephilosophyofthePhoenixpublicgardenhasfromthestartallowedforcertainnonnativeplants.Butwhentheyarerecommendedforlandscapeuseoutsidethelivingarchive,thecriteriabecomemuchstrictertopreventpossibleinvasionbydisruptiveAestheticsaside,thereisonehard-and-fastrule.Youalwayshavetobeverycareful.(Druse1994,p.108)ThatgroundsforimputingxenophobiatoDruse,Stein,andsomehistoricalguresarequestionabledoesnotmeangardeningandlandscapearchitecturearealwaysfreeofsuchmotives.JensJensenprovidesanexample.Inhisearlycareer,Jensen,aDanishimmi-granttotheUnitedStatesandtheleadingexponentofthePrairieStyleoflandscapearchitecture,didnothes-itatetouseintroducedspecies,includinghighlyinva-siveoneslikeRussianolive(Elaeagnusangustifoliaandtree-of-heaven(Ailanthusaltissima),generallyongroundsofhardiness(cf.Grese1992).Helatercametoopposeintroducedplantsstrenuously,however,andhiswritingsaboutgardens(Jensen1990)adducethreereasonsforthisstance:aesthetic,functional(intro-ducedplantsarelesslikelytothrive),andecological(whentheydothrive,theycanharmnativespeciesandcommunities).Wolschke-Bulmahn(1995,1997a)discountsthelattertwoandseestherstassimplyareectionofxenophobiaandracism.HeisconvincinginsofarasJensen’sownwritingsaboutplantssoclearlymirrorracistpoliticalscreedsthatitishardnottoseeattitudestowardshumanslurkingbehindsomeofhisattitudestowardsplants:ThegardensthatIcreatedmyselfshall,likeanylandscapedesignitdoesnotmatterwhere,beinharmonywiththeirlandscapeenvironmentandtheracialcharacteristicsofitsinhabitants.TheyshallexpressthespiritofAmericaandthereforehavetobefreeofforeigncharacterasfaraspossibletheLatinandtheOrientalcreptandcreepsmoreandmoreoverourland,comingfromtheSouth,whichissettledbyLatinpeople,andalsofromothercentersofmixedmassesofimmigrants.TheGermanicchar-acterofourrace,ofourcitiesandsettlementswasovergrownbyforeign[character].Latinhasspoiledalotandstillspoilsthingseveryday.(Jensen1937,citedinWolschke-Bulmahn1995,1997a)Similarly,NellieDoubleday,anearlytwentiethcenturyAmericangardenwriter,believedthenatural garden‘accordswithourracialtemperament,there-foreitisdestinedtobecomethedominantstyleofgardeninghereforthesamereasonthattheEnglishlanguageprevailsonthiscontinent’(Doubleday1908,citedbyClayton2000).ThisstatementisquiteclosetoapersistentthemeinthewritingsofJensen(1990)–thatdifferentsettings‘lookright’todifferentpeople(races)becausetheenvironmentshapesacertainracialtemperament.Itis,ofcourse,notpoliticallycorrecttodaytosubscribetosuchaquestionableview,thoughitisprobablywidelyheld.Thisfactneednotreduceallindividualaestheticjudgmentsonthesuitabilityofaparticularintroducedspeciestoaformofracismorxenophobia,however,asIdiscussbelow.Chargingnativeplantenthusiastsandinvasionbiolo-gistsandmanagerswithxenophobiahaspracticalcon-sequences.Largesegmentsofthehorticultureindustryhavefoughtmorestringentregulationofimportationofexotics(see,e.g.,Hudson1998),anditisnotsur-prisingthattheyhavecitedsomeoftheabovecriticstoimpugnthemotivesofwould-beregulators.Forexample,theon-linecatalogofJ.L.Hudson,Seedman(1998)citesGroningandWolschke-Bulmahn(1992)incallingrecentcriticsofexotics‘eco-fascists’anddeniesthatintroducedspeciescauseanyenvironmen-talorconservationproblems:‘Tosafeguardthisfreemovement[ofgermplasm]wemustbegintoeducatethepublicconcerningthepseudoscienticfoundationsoftheanti-exoticsmovement,,theiroriginsinanideologyofrace-hatred,andtheiragendaoftotalcontrol’(p.4).Immigrationpolicy,nativism,andintroducedspeciesSeveralauthorsrelateconcernwithintroducedspeciestotheevolutionofimmigrationpolicy,especiallyintheUnitedStates.ThehistorianPhilipPauly(1996a)seesearlyactivityagainstintroducedspeciesintheUnitedStatesaspartofthenativismthatpervadedthisnationduringtheProgressiveEra:‘attitudestowardsforeignpestsmergedwithethnicprejudices:thegypsymothandtheorientalchestnutblightbothtookonandcon-tributedtocharacteristicsascribedtotheirpresumedhumancompatriots’(p.54).Similarly,‘itshouldbeclearthatattitudesaboutforeignandnativeorganismswereintimatelylinked,throughbotheverydayexpe-rienceandanalogiesofpolicy,toviewson“alien”and“native”humans’(Pauly1996a,p.70).Heespe-ciallyindictsscientistsforwhathecharacterizesasTable1.RegulationsandlawsrelatingtohumanimmigrationandintroducedspeciesintheUnitedStates. IntroducedspeciesImmigration Californiastatequarantine1881ChineseExclusionAct1882Californiafruitpestlaw1883BeginningofEllisIslandrestrictions1901LaceyAct1900Nationalquotas1921PlantQuarantineAct1912ImmigrationAct1924 stringentregulationsgoverningspeciesintroductionssincethattime.Inparticular,hechargesearlyAmericanadvocatesofcombatinginvasions,TheodorePalmer,CharlesMarlatt,andLelandHoward,withxenophobicmotivations.Palmer(1899)wasoneofthersttoraisealarmsaboutintroducedanimals.In1899heobservedthatpigs,goats,rabbits,cats,andespeciallythesmallIndianmongoosehadrepeatedlydevastatednativebio-tasintheWestIndiesandPacicislands,andhearguedthattheUnitedStatesshouldtakeresponsibilityforpreventingsuchdevastationintheHawaiianislandsandPuertoRico.Marlatt(1917)similarlywarnedaboutthepotentialimpactofintroducedinsectsandplantpathogenssuchaschestnutblightandwhitepineblisterrust,callingforstringentquarantinelawsontheplantsthatcarriedsuchpests.Howard(1898)wroteaboutthethreatofintroducedinsects.Pauly’sevidenceforthesescientists’nativismrestsontheapproximatesynchronyofanti-immigrationreg-ulationsontheonehandandintroducedspeciesregu-lationsontheother(Table1).Xenophobiacertainlyplayedamajorroleinnativistrhetoricsurroundingtheincreasinglyrestrictiveimmigrationpolicies(Kraut1994;Tomes1998).Thereis,however,nodirectevi-dencethatthemotivationsofthepioneersofUnitedStatesintroducedspeciespolicywereotherthanwhattheystatedthemtobe:concernforthedamagecausedbyintroducedspeciestonativespeciesandcommuni-ties,andtoagriculturalandsilviculturalecosystems.Pauly(1996b,p.677)admitsasmuchwithhisimpli-cationthatallindividualslivingataparticulartimearetaintedbythepopularattitudesofthatperiod:‘ScholarsoftheProgressiveEraarewellawareofthepervasive-nessofprejudicialattitudesatalllevelsofAmericansocietyduringthisperiod.Genteelscientists,however,seldomdisplayedtheirprejudicesinprint.’ItisnoteworthythateachpieceoflegislationinTable1confrontingintroducedspeciesrespondedtospecicdamage.TheCaliforniaquarantinewasimposedafterpressurefromgrowersdevastatedbya waveofintroducedpestinsectspeciesthatdestroyedcrops.Resultsofthisearlyeffortwereambiguous,leadingtotighterrestrictionsinthestatefruitpestlawof1883(whichPalmer(1899)creditedwithhavingkeptthesmallIndianmongoose(HerpestesjavanicusoutofCalifornia).ThefederalPlantQuarantineActof1912,whichPauly(1996a)interpretsasfurtherhinderingplantintroduction,ismoretraditionallyseen(e.g.,SegarraandRawson1999)quitedifferently,asawayforthefederalgovernmenttopre-emptanincreas-ingnumberofstatestatutes.Themainstateinterestwasgenerallytheneedtoprotectnaturalresources,whilethemainfederalinterestwastoprotectinterstateandinternationalcommerce,particularlyofagricul-turalproducts,bysupersedingstatestatutesthatmightimpedecommerce.TheLaceyActof1900wasprimar-ilyaimedatenlistingfederalaidinimplementingstategamelaws,byprohibitinginterstatetransportationofwildlifethatviolatedstatestatutes.Itwasoriginallyinspiredbythedeclineofmanygamebirdspecies.RegulationofintroductionswasaddedatthebehestofAgricultureSecretary,JamesWilson(Pauly1996a),whonotedtheproblemsalreadycausedbyintroducedspeciessuchasthemongooseinHawaiiandtheWestIndies.AlthoughPauly(1996a)seestheLaceyActasdraconian,itwasandremainsaveryweaklawinthisregard(Kurdila1988;Peoplesetal.1992;U.S.Congress1993),astheonlyspeciesforbiddenentryarethefewona‘blacklist’,andthosefewarethosethathavealreadybeenproblematicelsewhere.Inaddition,ithasproveddifculttoaddspeciestothelist.Anyotherspeciescanbeimported,subjecttoquarantineregulationssothatdiseasesarenotinadvertentlyintro-duced.ThisentireapproachhaslargelyfailedtocontrolSeveralcritics(Peretti1998;Sagoff1999;HellerandMatza2000;Subramaniam2001)seethesamedarkmotivesofxenophobia,nativism,andracismatworktodayincurrentenhancedactivityagainstintroducedspeciesintheUnitedStatesandelsewhere.GroningandWolschke-Bulmahn(1992)depictthecurrentmaniafornativeplantsaspartofanativismdrivingarecentwaveofxenophobiainGermany.ThemostcomprehensivecriticinthisveinisanAmericanbiologistandfem-iniststudentofscience,BanuSubramaniam(2001),whoperceivesa‘panic’aboutintroducedspeciesasareectionofaxenophobicsurgetriggeredbyuneaseaboutchangingracial,economic,andgendernorms:Theparallelsintherhetoricsurroundingforeignplantsandthoseofforeignpeoplesarestriking.alienplantsareaccusedof‘crowd(ing)outnativeplantsandanimals,spread(ing)disease,damag(ing)crops,andthreaten(ing)drinkingwatersupplies’(Verrengia1999a).Thexenophobicrhetoricthatsur-roundsimmigrantsisextendedtoplantsandanimals.(p.29)Subramaniamwrotejustbefore9/11,and,inherview,themainmotorofnativistanxietythenwasglobalization;whateverthemeritsofherper-ceptionofawaveofxenophobia,theattacksof9/11havesurelyincreasedpublicconcernaboutfor-eignimmigrantsandvisitorstotheUnitedStates.Andthisconcernhasspreadtotheissueofintroducedspecies.Forexample,thepotentiallinkofintroducedspeciestoecoterrorismandbioterrorismwasrecog-nizedbefore9/11andquicklyreceivednewemphasis(e.g.,Knobleretal.2002;NationalResearchCouncil2002).However,itisimportanttonotethattheverystatementsSubramaniamascribestoxenophobiaare,infact,true–asnotedabove,introducedspecieshavecrowdedoutnativespecies,theyhavebroughtandspreadnewdiseases,theyhavedamagedcrops,andtheydothreatendrinkingwatersupplies.Thisfactdoesnot,ofcourse,demonstratethemotivesofpersonsraisingtheseissues,anymorethandoesthesimilarityinlanguagetothatusedinhistoricandrecentwavesofnativism.Itdoes,however,suggestthepossibilityofnonefarioussubtexttosuchconcerns.Subramaniam(2001)doesnotdenythatintroducedspecieshavemanyharmfulimpacts,butsheviewsnativismratherthantheimpactsasthekeymotivationofpeopleconcernedwiththem:wearelivinginaculturalmomentwheretheanxietiesofglobalizationarefeedingnationalismsthroughxenophobia.Thebattleagainstexoticandalienplantsisasymptomofacampaignthatmisplacesanddisplacesanxietiesabouteconomic,social,political,andculturalchangesontooutsidersandforeigners.(p.34)JonahPeretti(1998),anAmericansocialandscien-ticcritic,alsodetectsarecentwaveofxenophobia(e.g.,California’sproposition187of1994).HedoesnotassailalltheincreasingconcernwithintroducedspeciesintheUnitedStatesasnecessarilywhollymoti-vatedbyxenophobiaandnativism,buthepositsalink.HesuggeststhattheSouthAfricanresponsetointroducedspeciesisutterlycompromisedbyracism, andbecauseoftheheavySouthAfricaninuenceoninternationalprograms,thelatterarealsotainted:AmorerecentandsubtleexampleofthiscanbefoundinSouthAfricainthe1980s.ThisiswheretheinitialproposalfortheScienticCommitteeonProblemsoftheEnvironment’s(SCOPE)invasivespeciesprojectwasproposedSouthAfricansci-entistshavehadagreatdealofinuenceovertheSCOPEproject.Theyhavebeenover-representedatinternationalSCOPEconferencesonbiologicalinvasionandhavepublishedadisproportionatenum-berofarticlesonthesubject.WhyarescientistsfromSouthAfricaespeciallyconcernedwithbio-logicalinvasions?TheanswermaybesimilartotheNaziproclivityforthenaturegarden.LikeNazism,apartheidthinkingisconcernedwithseparatingthepurefromtheimpureItisnotsurprisingthatSCOPE’shard-linebiologicalnativismhasrootsinSouthAfrica.(p.188)ItistruethatSouthAfricanscientistshavebeenheavilyrepresentedbothinSCOPEintroducedspeciesprojectsandintheliteratureonintroducedspeciesgen-erally.Thiswastrueduringapartheidandremainstruetoday.Infact,theSouthAfricanWorkingforWaterProgramme,apost-apartheidinitiative,isoneofthemostcomprehensiveresponsestoproblemsgeneratedbyintroducedspecies.Itisimportanttoconsider,however,thatnega-tiveimpactsofintroducedspeciesaredisproportion-atelyhighinSouthAfrica,fortwomainreasons,onebiologicalandtheotherhuman.Biologically,thekeyproblemisthatSouthAfricahasalargenumberofendemicspecies,manyofthemcharacteristicofthe‘fynbos’plantassociationthatcovers77,000km(MacdonaldandRichardson1986).Thespeciesinthisremarkablydiversecommunityevolvedindrycondi-tionsandadaptedtooccasionalhigh-intensityres.Thedominantnativeplantsareshrubs,nottrees.SouthAfricaalsohasoneofthemostpronouncedintro-ducedplantinvasionsintheworld.About10millionha(8.28%ofthenation)areinvaded.Whentreesandlargeshrubswereintroduced(especiallyspeciesof,andHakea),someprovedtobere-adaptedandhighlyinvasive,spreadingtoproducelarge,impenetrablestandsinmanyplaces,attheexpenseofthenativebiota,particularlyinthepre-viouslytreelessfynbos.Thistreeinvasionhasgreatlyincreasederosion,modiedsandmovements,andchangedreregimesandgeochemicalcycling;alltheseimpactshaveharmedthenativecommunity.However,probablythebiggestimpactisonthehydrologyofadrynation.Theplantinvadersuse6.7%moreofthemeanannualrunoffnationwidethanthenativesdid,withtheanalogousgureforpartsofthefynbosrisingto17%(LeMaitreetal.2000);theimpactonnativebiotaofadryregionofsuchmassivewaterwithdrawalsissevere.Consequencesforgroundwaterhavenotyetbeenquantied.Thiswaterlossisalsoofgreatconsequencetohumanendeavors–agricultureandsilviculture–aswellastoecosystemservicessuchasoodcontrolandsupplyingbasichumanneeds.Itamountstoover200literperpersondailywhenthebasicminimumallowanceis25literdaily(McQueenetal.2000).ThisiswhytheMandelagovernmentinitiatedtheWorkingforWaterMarcSagoff(1999),anAmericanphilosopher,isanothercriticwhoanalogizesthecurrentconcernwithintroducedspecieswithxenophobia,pointingexplic-itlytonativistswhoattemptedtoimpedehumanimmi-gration.Heargues,asdoTsing(1995),HellerandMatza(2000),andSubramaniam(2001),thatthesametraits(suchassexualrobustness,uncontrolledfecundity,aggressiveness,lackadaisicalparentalcare)withwhichnativistsstigmatizehumanimmigrantsareascribedtointroducedspecies.Thecruxofhisargu-mentisthatthereisnothinggenericallywrongwithintroducedspecies–afterall,henotes,somenativespeciesareinvasive,aggressive,andcauseeconomicdamage.Further,hearguesthattheeconomiccostsattributedtointroducedspecies,asaclass,donotout-weighthebenetsofintroducedspecies(suchasfoodplants),asaclass,andthatanyaestheticjudgmentabouttheirsuitabilitycanonlybesubjective.Thus,anygenericpleaagainstintroducedspeciesmustbexenophobic.Iagreeinpartwiththispoint,andIwilldiscussitinclosing.Africanizedbees,racism,andthesexualconnectionAheraldedinvasionthatepitomizesthecontrastinginterpretationsofconcernaboutintroducedspeciesisthatofApismelliferascutellata,theAfricanizedhon-eybee(NationalInvasiveSpeciesCouncil2003a).In1957,26queensofthisAfricansubspeciesescapedfromcaptivityinBrazil,andhybridsofthissubspeciesandtheEuropeansubspecies(previouslyintroduced) havespreadnorthatca.500km/year.Despiteamas-siveattempttoforestalltheirarrivalwithabee-free‘MaginotLine’inMexico,theyreachedtheUnitedStates(Texas)in1990andsubsequentlybecameestab-lishedinCalifornia(1995)andothersouthwesternstates.Thesubjectofmanystoriesinthepopularmedia,theyhavebeentermed‘killerbees’becausetheyarefarmoreaggressivethantheEuropeansubspecies–theyreacttodisturbancemuchmorequickly,chasevictimsforgreaterdistances,andmassandstinginmuchgreaternumbers.Thoughtheycausefarfewerdeathsthandogorsnakebites(JohnstonandSchmidt2001),thebeesdomeritthe‘killer’sobriquet.Theyhavekilledover1000peo-plesinceescapingcaptivity(SmithsonianInstitution2003),including175inMexicobetween1988and1995alone,and10intheUnitedStatesthrough1998.Inaddition,vastlymorestungindividualshaverequiredmedicalattention.Becausemanyofthedeathsentailhundredsofstings,theyarebelievedtobeexcruciating.Africanizedbeesalsostinglivestock,butthereisnotallyofdamagetodate.Otherconcernsincludewhethertheywillinterferewithcroppollinationservicesand/ordepresstheapiarytrade.Brazilianhoneyproductionplummetedinthewakeoftheinvasionbutrecoveredasbeekeepersacquiredexperiencedealingwiththesemoreaggressivebees.AnnaTsing(1995,p.127),anAmericananthropol-ogist,seesadifferentmotiveforthegreatpublicityandalarm:‘Inordertomakesenseofthisnewalienhazard,however,itseemsimportanttothinkaboutthelong-termsignicanceofraceandnationinU.S.beeculture.’Inherview,thefearhasaracistorigin,resonatingwithracialfear.DescribingthearrivaloftheAfricanizedbeesinCalifornia,shenotesthattheypenetrated‘man-agedapiariesproperlyreservedfor“European”bees.Thenewspaperswentwild.Thistime,briey,themulattoswouldberemovedanddestroyedforaEuropeans-onlyCalifornia’(Tsing1995,p.113).Theracismin‘bee-panic’sheattributestoparticularaspectsofhumanracism:NorthAmericanbeekeepingderivesfromalongEuropeantraditioninwhichbeeshavebeen,ifany-thing,emblematicofdomesticity.Honeybeesaredevotedtotheirhomeinahive;busy,theyworkhard;helpful,theycooperatewithinanaturaldivisionoflabor;loyal,theyprotecttheirhomealtruistically;parental,theyprovisiontheirbrood;frugal,theysaveupafulllarder.(Tsing1995,p.116)Inshort,theseEuropeanbeesarethequintessentialfamilyorganisms,justasWASPspresumablyformthequintessentialhumanfamily.TheAfricanizedbees,whicharefarlessdomesticatedtowardshumans,arealsofarlessdomestic:theytendtoabscondathigherratesthanEuropeanbees.Worse,fromthestand-pointoffamilysanctity,AfricanizedbeeshybridizewithEuropeans:‘FromtheperspectiveofthosewhoseknowledgebeginswiththeunmarkedEuropean-originhoneybee,Africanbeesarepotentialrapists’(Tsing1995,p.128).TheAmericanlmmakerMichaelMoorehasrecentlytakenupTsing’sthemesasacentralmetaphorinhisscathingindictmentoftheviolenceofUnitedStatesculture,‘BowlingforColumbine’(2002).HeinterweavesnewsclipsandeducationallmsaboutAfricanizedbees(includingoneextendedsequencewithaleadingauthorityonthistopic,Justin.O.Schmidt)withmanyshortclipsofyoungAfrican-Americanmenbeingarrestedandrestrainedbypolice.TheconstantjuxtapositionandthecontextofthelmimplythatthefearofbothAfricanizedbeesandAfrican-Americanmenisgeneratedbyracismratherthanbytheiractivities.EvenTsing’spointthattheultimatefearissexualiscleartoviewers:‘Withtrickycutting,Mooreevenmakesaconvincingargu-mentthatmediafrenzyoverKillerBeeswasapieceofinferentialracism,paranoiathatthemoreaggres-sive“Africanized”beesmightmatewithourmeekandrespectable“European”bees’(Fienberg2002).Subramaniam(2001)believesthatantipathytowardsintroducedspeciesisalsopartofageneralizedfearofthefertilityofoversexedimmigrantwomen:Oneoftheclassicmetaphorssurroundingimmi-grantsistheover-sexualizedfemale.Foreignwomenaretypicallyassociatedwithsuperfertility–reproductiongoneamuck.(p.31)Thisrhetoricofuncontrollablefertilityandrepro-ductionisanotherhallmarkofhumanimmi-grants.Repeatedly,alienplantsarecharacterizedasaggressive,uncontrollable,prolic,invasiveandexpanding.(p.30)TheparticularintroducedspeciesSubramaniamchoosestoexemplifythisfear–the‘Canada’thistleCirsiumarvense),anativeofEurope–wouldseemtoundercuthercasesomewhat,asIdonotbelievethatCanadianwomenarestereotypedasoversexedornotablyfertile.However,thekeypointisthatatleast onereasonthisplantisabhorredinNorthAmericacouldsimplybethestatedreason:itismajoragri-culturalpest(ontheU.S.FederalNoxiousWeedList)becauseofmillionsofdollarsofdamageannually,anditalsothreatensthelocalexistenceofspeciesinanum-berofnaturalplantcommunitiesofprairies,savannas,meadows,barrens,glades,andsanddunes(UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture2003).Areintroducedspeciesuglyorunnatural?Asnotedabove,theearlylandscapearchitectureandgardenliteratureisrifewithassertionsthatnativespeciesareaestheticallypleasingandintroducedspeciesaresomehowaestheticallydiscordant,whilemuchofthemodernnaturegardenliteraturestressesthreatstonativespeciesandcommunities,asdoinva-sionbiologistsandpolicymakers.Icontendthatcon-cernwitharealthreattotheveryexistenceofnativespeciesandcommunitiesneedhavenoconnectiontonativism,racism,andxenophobia,nordoattemptstopreventeconomiccoststovarioushumanendeavors,suchasagricultureandsilviculture.However,anaspectofthiscontentionbearsfurtherdiscussion.Thefactsthatearlyactivistsinthecampaigntolimitspeciesintroductions,suchasPalmerandMarlatt,citedonlyecological,agricultural,andsilviculturalthreats,thattheirdescriptionsandpredictionswereval-idated,andthattheynowhereusedracistorxenophobicterms,doesnoteliminatethepossibilitythat,eitherconsciouslyorsubconsciously,theyweremotivatedatleastpartlybyracismorxenophobia.Afterall,Pauly(1996b)arguesthatsuchattitudeswerecompletelyper-vasiveintheUnitedStatesatthattime,butthateducatedscientistswerecarefulnottodisplaytheirprejudices,particularlyinprint.Theassumptionthatitisdifculttodisentangleindividualmotivationfromlargerculturalandinstitutionalcurrentsunderpinsmuchofmodernhistoriography(cf.Tosh1991,p.114;Applebyetal.1994,p.306).Iwouldonlysay,however,thatIfeeltheburdenofproofshouldbeontheaccuserwhenclaimsofracismandxenophobiaareadvanced(cf.MarinelliAseconddifcultissueiswhetheranaestheticpref-erencefornativespecies,particularlynativeplants,cantrulybeuninfectedbynativismandxenopho-bia.Someofthosewhobasedtheirconcernonaes-thetics(e.g.,Humboldt,Doubleday,Jensen)explicitlyappealedtoasenseofpsychologicalwell-beingasso-ciatedwithnativevegetation,thustothenotionthattheenvironment,includingthebioticenvironment,hasshapedthepsychologyofdifferentnationalgroupsdif-ferently,atleasttotheextentofmoldingaestheticpref-erences.Thoughnowhighlypoliticallycharged,thiswasandperhapsstillisawidelyheldidea.Athoroughtreatmentisbeyondthescopeofthispaper;sufceittosaythatatleastsomewhocriticizedintroducedspeciesonthesegrounds(e.g.,Jensen)adoptedter-minologysosimilartothatofcontemporarynativistsandxenophobesthatitisdifculttobelievethetwosentimentswereunlinkedintheirminds.Mostappealstoaestheticsasanargumentagainstintroducedspeciesdonotrelateaestheticpreferencestogrouppsychol-ogy,nordotheyusetheterminologyofracismorxenophobia.However,theyareunconvincingexactlybecauseaestheticappealissofranklyamatteroftaste.Perhapsthispointismoststrikinglymadebynot-ingthatadvocatesofintroducedspecies(e.g.,Cronon1991;Pollan1994;Pauly1996a)alsoappealtoaesthet-ics,seeinggreatbeautyinmixturesofintroducedandnativespecies.Further,asindicatedbySagoff(1999),manypeoplehavegrownupsurroundedbyspeciesthatwereintroducedbeforetheywereborn,and,forthem,whateveraestheticisassociatedwithasenseofplacemayattachtothosespeciesaswell.Inshort,aestheticsisobviouslytoosubjectiveabasisforpolicyonintroducedspecies.Onevariantofthisaestheticargumentissubtler–thecontentionthatintroducedspeciesaresome-how‘unnatural’,sotheirpresenceisanoffenseagainstnature.Forinstance,thisthreadrunsthroughgarden/landscapearchitecturewritingsfromSargentthroughStein,evenwhenadifferentpoint,suchasenvironmentalsuitabilityorprotectionofnativespecies,isstressed.Theviewthatintroducedspeciesareunnaturaliseasilyassailed(e.g.,Pauly1996a;Gould1998;Peretti1998),usuallybyappealtotheworksofthehistorianWilliamCronon(1983,1996a),whohasdepictedtheenormousimprintofnativeAmericansbeforethearrivalofEuropeans.CrononthusquestionswhetheranypartofNorthAmericaqual-iesas‘natural’or‘wilderness’ifthesetermsaremeanttomean‘unaffectedbyhumans.’Theargumentthengoesthat,ifwecannotsaythathumanshadnotalready‘tampered’withnaturebeforeEuropeansgottoNorthAmerica,howcanweassailintroducedspecies,eventhosebroughtbyhumans,onthegroundsthattheyaresomehowunnatural?Cronon’sviewsonwildernessandnatureareextremelycontroversialandhavebeenbothadoptedassupportbyopponentsofenvironmentalism (e.g.,Budiansky1995)andcastigatedasanti-environmentalist(seeCronon1996b).WithoutaddressingthecogencyofCronon’srebuttal(1996b),whichassertsthathisprofoundquestioningabouttherelationshipofhumanstonatureandwildernesswasmeanttostrengthentheenvironmentalmovement,Ibelievehisargumentsdoimpugnappealsagainstintroducedspeciesbasedontheargumentthattheyareunnatural.Hemarshalsstrongsupportingevidenceforhiscontentionthattheconceptofnatureisahumanconstruct.Ifthisisso,viewsofwhatisnaturalarepersonaljudgmentsjustasaesthetictastesare.Insum,Ibelievethestrongestethicalbases,andpos-siblytheonlyethicalbases,forconcernaboutintro-ducedspeciesarethattheycanthreatentheexistenceofnativespeciesandcommunitiesandthattheycancausestaggeringdamage,reectedineconomicterms,tohumanendeavors.Thissaid,ImustaddresswhatIbelieveisaredherringintroducedbyaphilosopher(Sagoff1999)andtwoecologists(Slobodkin2001;Rosenzweig2001).Thisisthenotionthatcurrentconcernwithintroducedspeciesisfocussedonallintroducedspeciesandfoundedonthenotionthatintroducedspeciesaregenerically‘bad’andnativespecies‘good’.Althoughsomeextremeadherentsofanaestheticstancefavoringnativespeciesdoubtlessholdsuchaview,invasionbiologistsdonot,andthemanyrecentgovernmentandinternationalactivitiesonintroducedspeciesexplicitlyrecognizetheenormousbenetsofsomeintroducedspecies.The1992RioConventiononBiologicalDiversity(article8h)calledfordealingnotwithallintroducedspecies,but‘withthosealienspecieswhichthreatenecosystems,habi-tats,orspecies’.PresidentClinton’sExecutiveOrder13112aimednottoforbidintroductionofallspecies,but‘topreventtheintroductionofinvasivespeciesandprovidefortheircontrolandtominimizetheeco-nomic,ecological,andhumanhealthimpactsthatinva-sivespeciescause’(NationalInvasiveSpeciesCouncil2003b).By‘invasive’,theExecutiveOrdermeans‘analienspecieswhoseintroductiondoesorislikelytocauseeconomicorenvironmentalharmorharmtohumanhealth’(NationalInvasiveSpeciesCouncil2003b).Similarly,reviewsoftheissue(e.g.,Simberloff2000;Huberetal.2002)rarelyfailtonotethegreatbenetsconferredbysomeintroducedspecies.Thus,noneofthesubstantialeffortsformoreeffec-tivecontrolofintroducedspeciesaimtopreventallintroductionsortoremoveallestablishedintroducedspecies.Theytargetintroducedspeciesthatarelikelytocauseecological,economic,orpublichealthproblems.Agoodanalogyistosyntheticchemicals.Thoughweknowfullwellthatcarcinogensthatoccurnat-urallyinfoodsaremoreabundantinhumandietsthansyntheticcarcinogens(NationalResearchCouncil1996),weintheUnitedStatesaresurelygladtohavetheToxicSubstancesControlActof1976,underwhichtheEnvironmentalProtectionAgencytracksandteststhousandsofnewchemicalssynthesizedeachyeartondtheonesthatcausecancer.Unfortunately,attemptstopredictwhichspecies,amongasuiteofpotentialintroductions,arelikelytobeproblematichavehadverymixedsuccess(Macketal.2000).Becausethestakesaresohigh,anditisfarmoredifcult(oftenimpossible)toremoveintro-ducedspeciesoncetheyareestablishedthantokeepthemoutintherstplace,the‘innocentuntilprovenguilty’philosophythathasguidednationalandinter-nationalpolicyuntilnow(see,e.g.,NationalResearchCouncil2000)isinadequateandshouldbereplacedwithaphilosophyof‘guiltyuntilproveninnocent’(Panettaetal.1994;Macketal.2000).Inpractice,ofcourse,thisapproachcouldnotrequireproof,butratherrigorousexpertassessmentofallproposedintro-ductions;currently,inmostnations,suchassessmentisnotrigorousandis,inanyevent,restrictedonlytospeciesforwhichthereisalreadysomesuspicionofathreat,oftenanagriculturalone.TheNewZealandBiosecurityActof1993(ParliamentaryCommissionerfortheEnvironment2001)includedtherstnationallawthatdoesnotpresupposeinnocence.AcknowledgementsIthankLouiseE.Robbinsforcontinuingdialogueonthistopic,ToddCampbell,WilliamCronon,andMaryTebofordiscussiononcertainpoints,andNathanSanders,JustinSchmidt,EvanSugden,andMichaelTurelliforhelpfulinformation.ReferencesAndersonTW(1974)ThechestnutpollendeclineasatimehorizoninlakesedimentsineasternNorthAmerica.CanadianJournalofEarthScience11:678–685ApplebyJ,HuntLandJacobM(1994)TellingtheTruthaboutHistory.Norton,NewYork BaskinY(2002)APlagueofRatsandRubberVines.IslandPress,Washington,DCBirdLifeInternational(2000)ThreatenedBirdsoftheWorld.LynxEdicions,BarcelonaBryerMT,MayburyK,AdamsJSandGrossmanDH(2000)Morethanthesumoftheparts.Diversityandstatusofecologi-calsystems.In:SteinBA,KutnerLSandAdamsJS(eds)PreciousHeritage.TheStatusofBiodiversityintheUnitedStates,pp201–238.OxfordUniversityPress,OxfordBrightC(1998)LifeoutofBounds.Norton,NewYorkBudianskyS(1995)Nature’sKeepers.TheNewScienceofNatureManagement.FreePress,NewYorkClaytonVT(ed)(2000)TheOnce&FutureGardener.GardenWritingfromtheGoldenAgeofMagazines.DavidR.Godine,ClaudiR,NantelPandMuckle-JeffsE(eds)(2002)AlienInvadersinCanada’sWaters,Wetlands,andForests.NaturalResourcesCanada,CanadianForestService,OttawaCoxGW(1999)AlienSpeciesinNorthAmericaandHawaii.IslandPress,Washington,DCCrononW(1983)ChangesintheLand:Indians,Colonists,andtheEcologyofNewEngland.HillandWang,NewYorkCrononW(1991)Nature’sMetropolis:ChicagoandtheGreatWest.Norton,NewYorkCrononW(ed)(1996a)UncommonGround.Norton,NewYorkCrononW(1996b)Forewordtothepaperbackedition.In:CrononW(ed)UncommonGround,pp19–22.Norton,NortonDawsonK(1994)Lettertotheeditor.LandscapeJournal13:DevineRS(1998)AlienInvasion.America’sBattlewithNon-nativePlantsandAnimals.NationalGeographicSociety,Washington,DextraseA(2002)PreventingtheintroductionandspreadofalienaquaticspeciesintheGreatLakes.In:ClaudiR,NantelPandMuckle-JeffsE(eds)AlienInvadersinCanada’sWaters,Wet-lands,andForests,pp219–231.NaturalResourcesCanada,CanadianForestService,OttawaDrakeJA,MooneyHA,diCastriF,GrovesRH,KrugerFJ,anekMandWilliamsonM(eds)(1989)BiologicalInva-sions.AGlobalPerspective.Wiley,Chichester,UKDruseK(1994)TheNaturalHabitatGarden.ClarksonPotter,NewYorkEltonCS(1958)TheEcologyofInvasionsbyAnimalsandPlants.Methuen,LondonFienbergD(2002)MichaelMooregoes‘BowlingforColumbine,(http://www.epinions.com/content GoldschmidtT(1996)Darwin’sDreampond.MITPress,Cambridge,GouldSJ(1998)Anevolutionaryperspectiveonstrengths,fallacies,andconfusionsintheconceptofnativeplants.Arnoldia58:11–19GreseRE(1992)JensJensen.MakerofNaturalParksandGardens.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore,MarylandoningG(1997)Ideologicalaspectsofnaturegardenconceptsinlatetwentieth-centuryGermany.In:Wolschke-BulmahnJ(ed)NatureandIdeology.NaturalGardenDesignintheTwentiethCentury,pp221–248.DumbartonOaks,Washington,DConingGandWolschke-BulmahnJ(1992)SomenotesonthemaniafornativeplantsinGermany.LandscapeJournal11:116–126oningGandWolschke-BulmahnJ(1994)Response:Iftheshoets,wearit!LandscapeJournal13:62–63GrossmanDH,GoodlinKLandReussCL(eds)(1994)RarePlantCommunitiesoftheCoterminousUnitedStates.TheNatureConservancy,Arlington,VirginiaHellerNandMatzaT(2000)Being,time,andalltherest.Speak,Fall80–87HelmreichAL(1997)Re-presentingnature:Ideology,art,andscienceinWilliamRobinson’s‘WildGarden’.In:Wolschke-BulmahnJ(ed)NatureandIdeology.NaturalGardenDesignintheTwentiethCentury,pp81–111.DumbartonOaks,Washington,DCHowardLO(1898)Dangerofimportinginsectpests.YearbookoftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture1897,pp529–552.GovernmentPrintingOfce,Washington,DCHuberDM,Hugh-JonesME,RustMK,ShefeldSR,SimberloffDandTaylorCR(2002)Invasivepestspecies:impactsonagricul-turalproduction,naturalresources,andtheenvironment.Issuepaperno.20.CouncilforAgriculturalScienceandTechnology,Ames,IowaHudsonJL(1998)J.L.Hudson,Seedman,theethnobotanicalcatalogofseeds(http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/NativeVsExotics.htm)JensenJ(1990)(reprintof1939ed.)Siftings.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore,MarylandJohnstonANandSchmidtJO(2001)TheeffectofAfricanizedhoneybees(Hymenoptera:Apidae)onthepetpopulationofTucson:acasestudy.AmericanEntomologist47:98–103KnoblerSL,MahmoudAAFandPrayLA(eds)(2002)BiologicalThreatsandTerrorism:AssessingtheScienceandResponseCapabilities:WorkshopSummary.NationalAcademiesPress,Washington,DCKrautAM(1994)SilentTravelers:Germs,Genes,andthe‘ImmigrantMenace’.BasicBooks,NewYorkKurdilaJ(1988)TheintroductionofexoticspeciesintotheUnitedStates:theregoestheneighborhood!BostonCollegeEnvironmentalAffairsLawReview16:95–118LeMaitreDC,VersfeldDBandChapmanRA(2000)TheimpactofinvadingalienplantsonsurfacewaterresourcesinSouthAfrica:apreliminaryassessment.WaterSA26:397–408LowT(1999)FeralFuture.Viking,Ringwood,AustraliaMacdonaldIAWandRichardsonDM(1986)Alienspeciesinter-restrialecosystemsofthefynbosbiome.In:MacdonaldIAW,KrugerFJandFerrarAA(eds)TheEcologyandManagementofBiologicalInvasionsinSouthernAfrica,pp77–91.OxfordUniversityPress,CapeTownMackR,SimberloffD,LonsdaleM,EvansH,CloutMandBazzazF(2000)Bioticinvasions:Causes,epidemiology,globalconsequences,andcontrol.EcologicalApplications10:689–710MarinelliJ(1995)Nativeornot?Debatingthelinkbetweenfascismandnative-plantgardening.Plants&Gardens10(3):14–15MarlattCL(1917)Lossescausedbyimportedtreeandplantpests.AmFor23:75–80McQueenC,NoemdoeSandJezileN(2000)TheWorkingforWaterProgramme.In:PrestonG,BrownGandvanWykE(eds)BestManagementPracticesforPreventingandControllingInvasiveAlienSpecies.SymposiumProceeedings,pp51–54.TheWorkingforWaterProgramme,CapeTownMeineszA(1999)KillerAlgae.UniversityofChicagoPress,MooneyHAandDrakeJA(eds)(1986)EcologyofBiologi-calInvasionsofNorthAmericaandHawaii.Springer-Verlag,NewYork MooneyHAandL.NevilleL(2000)Addressingthecomplexprob-lemofinvasivespecies.In:PrestonG,BrownGandvanWykE(eds)BestManagementPracticesforPreventingandControllingInvasiveAlienSpecies.SymposiumProceeedings,pp30–33.TheWorkingforWaterProgramme,CapeTownNationalInvasiveSpeciesCouncil(2001)ManagementPlan:MeetingtheInvasiveSpeciesChallenge.NationalInvasiveSpeciesCouncil,Washington,DC(http://www.invasivespecies.gov/council/nmp.shtml)NationalInvasiveSpeciesCouncil(2003a)(http://www.invasivespecies.gov/proles/afrhonbee.shtml)NationalInvasiveSpeciesCouncil(2003b)(http://www.invasivespecies.gov/laws/execorder.shtml)NationalResearchCouncil(CommitteeonComparativeToxicityofNaturallyOccurringCarcinogens)(1996)CarcinogensandAnticarcinogensintheHumanDiet:aComparisonofNaturallyOccurringandSyntheticSubstances.NationalAcademyPress,Washington,DCNationalResearchCouncil(BoardonAgricultureandNaturalResources)(2000)IncorporatingScience,Economics,andSoci-ologyinDevelopingSanitaryandPhytosanitaryStandardsinInternationalTrade.NationalAcademyPress,Washington,DCNationalResearchCouncil(CommitteeonBiologicalThreatstoAgriculturalPlantsandAnimals)(2002)CounteringAgriculturalBioterrorism.NationalAcademyPress,Washington,DCOlmstedFL(1888)Lettertotheeditor.ForeignplantsandAmericanscenery.GardenandForest1:418–419PalmerTS(1899)Thedangerofintroducingnoxiousanimalsandbirds.YearbookoftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture1898,pp87–110.GovernmentPrintingOfce,Washington,DCPanettaD,PheloungP,LonsdaleWM,JacobsS,MulvaneyMandWrightW(1994)ScreeningPlantsforWeediness:aProcedureforAssessingSpeciesProposedforIntroductiontoAustralia.AReportCommissionedbytheAustralianWeedsCommittee.AustralianWeedsCommittee,CanberraParliamentaryCommissionerfortheEnvironment(2001)NewZealandunderSiege.ParliamentaryCommissionerfortheEnvironment,AucklandPaulyPJ(1996a)ThebeautyandmenaceoftheJapanesecherrytrees.Isis87:51–73PaulyPJ(1996b)Inreply.Isis87:677–678PedersonJ(ed)(2000)MarineBioinvasions.ProceedingsoftheFirstNationalConference.MITSeaGrantCollegeProgram,Cambridge,MassachusettsPeoplesRAJr,McCannJAandStarnesLB(1992)Introducedorganisms:PoliciesandactivitiesoftheU.S.FishandWildlifeService.In:RoseneldAandMannR(eds)DispersalofLivingOrganismsintoAquaticEcosystems,pp325–352.MarylandSeaGrantCollege,CollegePark,MarylandPerettiJH(1998)Nativismandnature:rethinkingbiologicalinvasion.EnvironmentalValues7:183–192PollanM(1994)AgainstNativism.NewYorkTimesmagazine(section6),pp52–55,May15RabyP(2001)AlfredRusselWallace:aLife.PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,NewJerseyRosenzweigML(2001)Thefourquestions:whatdoestheintro-ductionofexoticspeciesdotodiversity?EvolutionaryEcologyResearch3:361–367SagoffM(1999)What’swrongwithexoticspecies?ReportfromtheInstituteforPhilosophy&PublicPolicy19(4):16–23SargentCS(1888)Editorial.GardenandForest1:266SchwarzU(1980)DerNaturgarten.WolfgangKrugerVerlag,FrankfurtamMain,GermanySegarraAEandRawsonJM(1999)AgriculturalQuarantine:CongressDebatesReformofPlantProtectionAuthorities.CongressionalResearchServiceReportforCongress.UnitedStatesCongress,Washington,DCSherleyG(2000)InvasiveSpeciesinthePacic:aTechnicalReviewandDraftRegionalStrategy.SouthPacicRegionalEnvironmentalProgramme,SamoaShrader-FrechetteKSandMcCoyED(1993)MethodinEcology.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UKSimberloffD(2000)Nonindigenousspecies:aglobalthreattobio-diversityandstability.In:RavenPandWilliamsT(eds)NatureandHumanSociety:theQuestforaSustainableWorld.NationalAcademyPress,Washington,DCSlobodkinLB(2001)Thegood,thebadandthereied.EvolutionaryEcologyResearch3:1–13SmithsonianInstitution(2003)KillerBees.InformationSheetNo.45.SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,DCSorvigK(1994a)NativesandNazis:animaginaryconspir-acyinecologicaldesign.CommentaryonG.GroeningandJ.Wolschke-Bulmahn’s‘SomenotesonthemaniafornativeplantsinGermany’.LandscapeJournal13:58–61SorvigK(1994b)Lettertotheeditor.LandscapeJournal13:194SteinS(1993)Noah’sGarden.RestoringtheEcologyofourOwnBackYards.HoughtonMifin,BostonSubramaniamB(2001)Thealienshavelanded!Reectionsontherhetoricofbiologicalinvasions.Meridians:Feminism,Race,Transnationalism2(1):26–40TomesN(1998)TheGospelofGerms:Men,Women,andtheMicrobeinAmericanlife.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,ToshJ(1991)ThePursuitofHistory:Aims,Methods,andNewDirectionsintheStudyofModernHistory,2nded.Longman,TsingAL(1995)Empoweringnature,or:somegleaningsinbeecul-ture.In:YanagisakoSandDelaneyC(eds)NaturalizingPower.EssaysinFeministCulturalAnalysis,pp113–143.Routledge,NewYorkUnitedStatesCongress(OfceofTechnologyAssessment)(1993)HarmfulNon-indigenousSpeciesintheUnitedStates.UnitedStatesGovernmentPrintingOfce,Washington,DCUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture(2003)(http://plants.usda.gov/cgi bin/plant VanDriescheJandVanDriescheR(2000)NatureOutofPlace.IslandPress,Washington,D.C.vonBroembsenSL(1989)Invasionsofnaturalecosystemsbyplantpathogens.In:DrakeJA,MooneyHA,diCastriF,GrovesRH,KrugerFJ,RejmanekMandWilliamsonM(eds)BiologicalInvasions:aGlobalPerspective,pp77–83.Wiley,Chichester,vonHumboldtA(1806)IdeenzueinerPhysiognomikderGewCotta,Tubingen,GermanyWearDNandGreisJG(eds)(2002)SouthernForestResourceAssessment.DraftReport.U.S.D.A.ForestServiceSouthernResearchStation,Asheville,NorthCarolinaWeidemaIR(ed)(2000)IntroducedSpeciesintheNordicCountries.NordicCouncilofMinisters,Copenhagen WhiteLJr(1967)Thehistoricalrootsofourecologiccrisis.Science155:1203–1207WilcoveDS,RothsteinD,DubowJ,PhillipsAandLososE(2000)Leadingthreatstobiodiversity.In:SteinBA,KutnerLSandAdamsJS(eds)PreciousHeritage.TheStatusofBiodiversityintheUnitedStates,pp239–254.OxfordUniversityPress,OxfordWolschke-BulmahnJ(1992)The‘WildGarden’andthe‘NatureGarden’–aspectsofthegardenideologyofWilliamRobinsonandWillyLange.JournalofGardenHistory12:183–206Wolschke-BulmahnJ(1995)ReviewofR.E.Grese,‘JensJensen:Makerofnaturalparksandgardens’.JournalofGardenHistory15:54–55Wolschke-BulmahnJ(1997a)Introduction.In:Wolschke-BulmahnJ(ed)NatureandIdeology.NaturalGardenDesignintheTwentiethCentury,pp1–9.DumbartonOaks,Washington,DCWolschke-BulmahnJ(1997b)ThenationalizationofnatureandthenaturalizationoftheGermannation:‘Teutonic’trendsinearlytwentieth-centurylandscapedesign.In:Wolschke-BulmahnJ(ed)NatureandIdeology.NaturalGardenDesignintheTwentiethCentury,pp187–219.DumbartonOaks,Washington,DCWolschke-BulmahnJandGroningG(1992)Theideologyofthenaturegarden.NationalistictrendsingardendesigninGermanyduringtheearlytwentiethcentury.JournalofGardenHistory12:WoudstraJ(1997)JacobusP.Thijsse’sinuenceonDutchlandscapearchitecture.In:Wolschke-BulmahnJ(ed)NatureandIdeology.NaturalGardenDesignintheTwentiethCentury,pp187–219.DumbartonOaks,Washington,DCZaitzevskyC(1982)FrederickLawOlmstedandtheBostonParkSystem.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Massachusetts