Not all non-native species are totally terrible! Here are six of them can actually do more good than harm.
Hosted by: Stefan Chin
Head to https://scishowfinds.com/ for hand selected artifacts of the universe!
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/scishow
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters: Lazarus G, Sam Lutfi, D.A. Noe, الخليفي سلطان, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Patrick D. Ashmore, charles george, Kevin Bealer, Chris Peters
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Regarding how you described the relationship between birds and honeysuckle plants... That’s literally how fruit works. Of course birds are going to eat berries and crap out the seeds while on the wing, this particular type of mutualism is borderline old news.
Humans are so smart. They introduced rabbits into Australia, lion-fish into the gulf, freshwater clams into the great lakes, Pythons into Florida, antibiotic resistant bacteria into a hospital near you! Every time we have tried to f*** with nature it has backfired. People that do not understand natural selection should not f*** with deciding to bring in an invasive species to solve their problems - it never ends well.
Not exactly helpful, but pheasants were introduced in most of Europe and US im pretty sure and theyve adapted quite well, to the point where many people ive talked with were very surprised they are introduced 😀
This video infuriates me. While for the most part, I think SciShow does a pretty good job with their videos, making complex scientific ideas more accessible to a wider range of people, the framing of this video is inexcusably bad. It is framed as "the benefits outweigh the harms" (literally in the video description "here are six of them that can actually do more good than harm") which for many of these invasive species is completely incorrect. As someone who lives in the Western United States, I especially find fault with their defense of feral horses. The argument presented is that wild horses are good because, even though they destroy native habitat, outcompete native elk, deer, and antelope, spread diseases which can be devastating to native populations, and generally wreak havoc on the environment, domestic horses are good so therefore so are these feral horses? This ignores the fundamental difference between domestic and feral horses: that domestic horses are carefully controlled by humans, well trained and living on land that has already been appropriated and altered by humans, while feral horses live in environments that we are trying to protect, and actively destroy and alter them. This video also seems to imply that feral populations of horses are the only way to get domesticated horses? Furthermore, arguments like this are exactly what lead to the federal government making it a FELONY in the United States to control the populations of feral horses through hunting, which effectively means that this invasive and destructive species is infinitely more protected by law than beneficial and native elk, deer, and antelope, which can be killed with the correct permit. Not only does this video present a totally unrelated argument as to why feral horses are good, it also perpetuates harmful ideologies, and prevents people from examining their beliefs, in order to address this huge problem. Believe me, feral horses do not need any more good press, that's all they have, and its leading to the destruction of our environment. This video seems to advocate complacency and inaction in the face of invasive species, because in some very specific and small instances they can help the environment, even though these same species still cause immense harm which far outweighs the tiny benefits they produce, which often could also be filled by the native species they are outcompeting as well. In short, this video allows people to continue to do nothing in face of these environmental threats, by saying "oh, these species do more harm than good" and then proceeding to only talk about the very tiny amount of good they do and leave out most of their destructiveness on the environments they invade. It also completely ignores the difference between an invasive species, and a purposely introduced species to fill a specific niche, vacated by a similar species or population.
Nature will strike a balance either way. But the challenge is what do we lose in the process. Some invasive species are definitely worse than others, several over time can actually naturalize and fit into a ecosystem, like common carp in N. America. However, other invasive species like the emerald ash borer have the potential to functionally expirated a entire tree species, fraxinus spp. It's a complex problem, with no clear answer. But we should try to prevent new invasions and spread existing ones, and slow down the process.
I have not ever hit dislike on a video before now, this video was clearly made with a complete and total misunderstanding of the subject matter in question. To start off with, one or two positive things does not offset the immeasurable damage that each of these species have caused (minus the number one, which was nearly the same thing as the reintroduction of an extant species) even the description of the video "Here are six of them can actually do more good than harm." "do more good than harm" is a tall order to fill, and you did not deliver in the slightest. "Horses can be retrained to be helpful to humans" .....really? Yeah, that is clearly a benefit worth sacrificing the ecosystem for. The Tamarisk is an invasive plant that is actively outcompeting the trees that the bird in question needs to survive. The birds are not flocking to the tamarisk because the tamarisk is a good plant. It's because the tamarisk has had a hand in killing the trees that the birds REALLY need, and the birds have no other choice. The Honeysuckle one....I don't even know which honeysuckle you're talking about. There are FOUR HIGHLY INVASIVE and destructive honeysuckle in Pennsylvania: Lonicera morrowii, L tatarica, L maackii, AND L japonica..... and you put up a picture of not a single one of those.... no, you showed your audience a picture of Lonicera sempervirens, THE NATIVE ONE!!! I was screaming, this is some next level incompetence. To add insult to injury, saying that simply 'being a foodsource' to some birds that are already 'not picky' (which is part of the reason there is such a pervasive invasive problem in Pennsylvania) is a really lame excuse. There are plenty of native plants that WOULD be a great help to those birds as well. Plants such as Cornus florida, Cornus canadensis, Amelanchier canadensis, Aralia racemosa, Ilex verticillata, Arisaema triphyllum, Vaccinium angustifolium, Mianthemum canadense, Mitchella repens, I could literally go on for hours, which are ALL both native and provide both ecological diversity, as well as food at different times of the year are being outcompeted by these invasive honeysuckles, to a point at which finding any of them is almost considered a 'rare' occurrence unless you are a scientist actively searching for them. I fully came into this video expecting to see the likes of the alfalfa leafcutter bee, an introduced species that is a phenomenal pollinator and managed to save the alfalfa crop industry from collapsing and whose negative impact on the ecosystem has been comparatively negligible. I expected to see more stories like that. Instead, what was presented here was a narrow view of an ill-researched subject with rose tinted lenses and a strange agenda to look at damaging misplaced species as something to be unconcerned with. Thankfully, I have seen from the comments that there are many people who are educated enough to see past this misinformed view presented here. That gives me hope.
Invasive species aren't a problem. It's just nature adapting to a changing environment. I find it more disturbing that mankind thinks preventing the change that is occurring (even if we're responsible for it) is the way to preserve and save things.
This video is a little poor, horses may have many uses in North America but they're still a problem, especially in other parts of the world they're incredibly bad for the environment, e.g. Brumbies in Australia where they destroy plant life and ruin soil with the grazing.
None of these examples show that the invasive species are beneficial. Horses being used by humans is not helping the environment. And the other examples are mostly about species replacing native ones that have been wiped out by human activity.
You forgot to mention that Gracilaria "seed weed" (hate that term, not a weed) is edible, and nutricious, and considered a delicacy in many places including Japan (ogo), and Hawai'i (Limu Manauea). When you harvest pinch or cut the stem leaving the hold-fast (root) to grow some more. To prepare rinse well then quickly dip in boiling water just for a couple seconds then rinse in cold water. It changes color almost instantly when it hits hot water. After rinsing in cold water just chop up and mix into to your ahi poke for added texture and nutrition. Japanese style it is great cut into shorter strands and made into a salad mixed with sliced tomatoes, onions, and cucumber and tossed in a sweet rice vinegar dressing. The thinner varieties you can even simmer in water until completely dissolved creating a neutral flavored gelatin that you can add sweetening and flavors to before cooling and and solidifying. You can add it to sweetened azuki bean paste to create a Japanese sweet treat called Yokan.
Saying that taming feral horses helped humans settle North America doesn't change the fact that feral horses are bad for the environment. I don't get that example. There are plenty of species that humans have found a use for that nonetheless have been destructive and killed off other species. Even the crab example wasn't very good. It was helpful in one particular place where humans had destroyed the local ecosystem, but it's only "helpful" because we screwed things up. Everywhere else it's decidedly UNhelpful. The common factor with invasive species is human interference, and the harm or good a species does is being judged by its value to humans rather than any value it might add to existing species. Not impressed with the spin they put on this.
So because of eight examples, we should stop using the term "invasive species"? I don't think that math works, how about we just reclassify the eight species here and others, since you know most of the invasive species are rapists of the areas they spread, or just rapist in general, your call. :P
The damage caused by feral horse is actually minor. It is false precieved by the cattle industry that horse are eating food that cattle could use. The last feral horse are on the way out. Sadly, it's believed that the horse was wiped out with the other mega animals when the native Americans came to the Americas. The sad fact is feral horse in America have a unique genetic makeup, which makes them robust healthwise. Feral horse are not much to look at, but they are tough as hell. Feral horse should be gone in the next ten years, so there they go.
I agree with these comments, it is nice to see a video that touches on the complexity of introduced species and how their effects are neither simplistic nor entirely bad in most cases. That said, I am not sure how the Aldabra tortoise classifies as an invasive species (rather than as an introduced species) if it is not adversely impacting the natural ecosystems. More importantly, the argument about whether the term 'invasive' should be retired is non-sequitar. I agree that it is easy to cast blame on individuals of an invasive species even though it is our fault they arrived and that they are just trying to live their lives like every other organism. But to say that they should not be considered 'invaders' because they are not being orchestrated like a human army is a strange, anthropomorphic argument that ignores the fact that they are causing problems regardless if a subset also confer benefits. The final argument is especially dangerous. While it is true that not all introduced species become invasive (the majority of introduced species die out and many of those who do become established are relatively innocuous or sometimes even beneficial), the feasibility of stopping an invasion decreases exponentially the longer that species has to establish itself while the cost of managing it concurrently increases rapidly. Slow responses to identified injurious species, whether due to negligence, resource constraints, or because too much time is spent studying what it will do (as advocated in this video), are one of the main reasons that invasive species become established. Unfortunately, most unintentionally introduced invasive species are far more deleterious than beneficial for ecosystem functioning. Even the species discussed in this video (with the exception of the tortoise) are still having adverse impacts on certain taxa or ecosystem services even if they are beneficial or invaluable in certain situations. This is a complex and context-specific issue but generally, the benefits of proactive monitoring and elimination of injurious species greatly outweighs the benefits of procrastination or hoping for unintended benefits. Regardless, I appreciate the purpose of this video for demonstrating the complex interactions invasive species have on their environments.
The Russian olive is another example. They've become so naturalized that almost all bird species in Washington state eat their fruit over the winter. In fact, their fruit is the only reason that yellow rumped warblers are seen in parts of the state during the winter. Its been documented that if you remove the berries from the russian olives in the winter the wintering warblers will move south or just die from lack of food
Another example: freshwater mussels. Some native American species are picky about the water they live in, and increased pollution from industrial sources drove them into extinction. Meanwhile Asian species are much hardier and can tolerate even heavily polluted water, eat and poop about as much of the same things as the native ones, and people brought them over as a delicacy in the first place. In the predators' eyes Asian and native American mussels makes as good a dinner as each other, so they just don't mind either. As of Now the Asian mussels replaced native American ones supporting an ecosystem that was supposed to be vulnerable to pollution.
Another fact on #1. The most significant impact horses have in North America were to the Native Americans. They learned how to tame them and it revolutionized their lifestyle. No longer would they hunt bison by foot, they hunted their food source more efficiently and had a great impact on their culture to the point of worshiping them.
I don't think you should call something invasive that was only absent from its native range for 10,000 years. So what if horses compete with our livestock? That's not the criterion for invasiveness. If anything our livestock is invasive.
Invasive is a person's opinion. Invasive is a profain and rude word. Native is not accurate as many plants and animals are "native" to several continents and many brand new islands. Lets use Endemic and Naturalised instead. Oh i forgot the non native removal program going on is a marketing tool,to charge taxpayers for Monsanto Herbicides as they are in control of most countries agriculture departments especially the U.S.D.A.
Great video. I agree 100% lets retire the ugly rude word invasive species, stop funding the poison companies to exterminate and eradicate everything new to an area and fix the empty niches we've caused by extinctions by replacing the lost animals and plants with simular species. It works.
Read The New Wild. By Fred Pearce. There is no way to stop diversity and change. To do so is detrimental especially with the use of poisons charged to taxpayers by governments controlled by Monsanto's herbicide corporations.
America has a helpful invasive subspecies called the "huWhite Man". Mysteriously, this endangered subspecies of bipedal ape seems to exhibit an almost pathological level of altruism towards outgroups. (and in rare cases, other species) This level of pathological altruism is so extreme that they will even generously gift resources to hostile tribes. (despite many of these hostile tribes clearly vocalizing their aggressive intentions)
The class of drugs that Levitra, Viagra, Stendra, and Cialis belong to are called PDE5 inhibitors. They work by relaxing tight blood vessels, allowing more blood to surge into the penis and cause an erection, says Gregory Bales, M.D., an associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago.
The little pills do the trick for more than two-thirds of men with Viagra protects the heart (ED). They also work for guys who simply need them for a short time to get their “confidence back,” says Michael Eisenberg, M.D., director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford University.