It's interesting that the image used for the article, from the windward side of Oahu, shows only invasive species (or maybe that's the point). Ironically, the biodiversity of plants on the Hawaiian Islands has increased tremendously since the arrival of man. The graphic shows 79 species of plant lost. Anyone that's been to Hawaii knows there are far more than 79 introduced plant species.
I'm not saying this is a good thing by any means, but it's interesting to see that novel forests of invasive species are still maligned even if they contain a greater number of species/area than what was displaced. If anyone is interested in this comment, I can unearth at least one paper that examines these values.
In the end, I suppose we value the total number of different species in existence, and as that number decreases, there is a Great Loss. Yet I do like to mull over why conservationists favor native species that are struggling to survive over the introduced that are flourishing, often at great economic cost to control said invasives.
Note: this comment only considers plant species, which probably makes it very uninformed and bad. Take it with a grain of salt.
> The graphic shows 79 species of plant lost. Anyone that's been to Hawaii knows there are far more than 79 introduced plant species.
But these two things are not directly comparable. On the one hand, you have species that have gone extinct -- no individuals of these species are known to grow in the wild anymore. This does not count species that are declining towards extinction. On the other hand, most lists of introduced plants for Hawaii only count species that are invasive. These are plants that not only grow and reproduce in Hawaii, but whose populations are increasing.
While species diversity as a whole in the Hawaiian islands is likely increasing, due to introduced species, the diversity at smaller spatial scales is likely decreasing as endemics become rarer.
> But these two things are not directly comparable
Correct. You simplified my comment nicely here (though I'm trying to find papers about smaller scales):
> While species diversity as a whole in the Hawaiian islands is likely increasing, due to introduced species, the diversity at smaller spatial scales is likely decreasing as endemics become rarer.
How do conservationists make value judgements in cases like this?
I'm not saying this is a good thing by any means, but it's interesting to see that novel forests of invasive species are still maligned even if they contain a greater number of species/area than what was displaced. If anyone is interested in this comment, I can unearth at least one paper that examines these values.
In the end, I suppose we value the total number of different species in existence, and as that number decreases, there is a Great Loss. Yet I do like to mull over why conservationists favor native species that are struggling to survive over the introduced that are flourishing, often at great economic cost to control said invasives.
Note: this comment only considers plant species, which probably makes it very uninformed and bad. Take it with a grain of salt.