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?
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)
invasive species" is defined as a species that is: 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and. 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.
Thanks to this video many people will not be able to associate invasive species with tremendous environmental destruction. Not everything that is non-native is invasive, all invasives are bad. Invasives species are responsible for MANY of the animals on the endangered species list. Just please, don't release ANY pets into local ecosystems, thanks
3:21 Yes, the birds love the berries, but in the case of invasive bush honeysuckle that's often seen growing around the united states, the negative effects far outweigh the good. These large bushy plants will grow leaves before native species and keep them on much longer too. This means that trees can't replenish their numbers with saplings, because the tiny trees can't get enough sunlight. Meanwhile, the bushes thrive with the vast amount of seeds spread through bird diarrhea. A side note that I've personally noticed with the plant is that the bush honeysuckle by my house will often have many dead branches on the underside of the bush, and these branches seem VERY FLAMMABLE. In the case of a small fire, they would help spread it, whereas large trees can sometimes be used to block fires when they are healthy. This plant shouldn't be located in many of the places it is and the bushes are causing a lot of harm. Saying it is positive just because birds like to eat it is quite narrow-sighted.
Also, and I cannot stress this enough, adding an invasive species to an area almost always causes some trouble in the end. It should only be used as a solution in certain cases. A much better solution is to stop messing up the ecosystems around us to begin with.
In Harmony With Earth You must not live where I do. The place is overrun with rabbits and deer especially, but they seem to have little interest in the honeysuckle. Remember that just because it's a plant doesn't mean a herbivore will rush to eat it. And while I agree with you that we should try to reintroduce native species, it isn't exactly logical to stick a bunch of elk in the middle of a suburban area. The best solution is to kill the stuff to keep it from spreading.
Animals eat honeysuckle.Its the only forage that is producing in winter. The animals are missing. We exterminated the Southern Elk, Passenger Pigeon, Carolina Parakeet, Thick Billed Parrot and many more just 150 years ago. Now we keep the white tail deer and rabbits exterminated too low to eat the honeysuckle all by itself. Just reintroduce some elk or stop exterminating deer. Its beneficial
Humans tend to look at things in terms of our lifespan. Over time, the evolutionary power of natural selection tends to bring things into balance. Native species may adapt to eat invasive species resulting in a reduction of their numbers. Of course, humans can also help by favoring the consumption of destructive species such as the Lionfish and possibly reduce pressures on threatened native species.
#2 Should have done more research sci show.
"Once established, dense tamarisk stands increase fire frequency, lower plant and animal diversity, and significantly alter stream hydrology. Tamarisk consumes a great deal of water, and rarely provides food and shelter necessary for the survival of wildlife. Mature cottonwood communities are declining because shading inhibits the growth of their seedlings."
They also "salt the earth" killing all nearby flora and are inedible to local fauna unlike the flora they displace and kill.
It's nice that a single type of bird does as well with the tamerisks as they did with the Cottonwoods (but remember the decline of cottonwoods is because of the tamerisks so saying they also help is Trumpian logic), but they're literally killing off everything else.
Nice information but I have a gripe with the presenation. Showing the exact words that the person is speaking takes away from the actual information being presented due to redundancy. Rather than just printing the script onto the screen, it would be much more efficient to provide actual visuals to complement the verbal presentation, like statistics, pictures, and animations.
The honeysuckle berries are beneficial to adult birds in the Fall, but provide no nutrition to their babies in the Spring. Almost all baby birds require protein from caterpillars and other insect larva. The invasive honeysuckle plant is host species to NO insects in the US and crowds out those that do support larval-stage insects.
Also, feral horse trails in the snow help out the antelope population significantly. They tried to get rid of the feral horse population once, but soon realized the tracks left behind by horses in the snow help expose green vegetation for antelopes to eat.
0:55 We do know very well why the American horse and many other animals went extinct about 10k years ago. Humans. These animals survived for 100s of thousands of years through all sorts of climatic changes, many of them worse than what happened at that time, and it was only a coincidence they went extinct when humans arrived?
Horses are not invasive, they’re introduced and in some cases feral. Invasives are destructive by definition. And honeysuckle berries are a poor source of nutrition for birds. Birds can starve with a belly full of honeysuckle berries. You need to do better because there are already organizations out there trying to avoid the costs of invasive species management with this kind of equivocating
I'm an ecologist, and as is, this is hella cherry picked-as others have said, it's taking a few isolated circumstances where an invasive might have some slight positive and ignoring the majority negative effects the same species generally on those ecosystems. In conservation we are usually concerned with net effects with exotics--overall is this species causing more harm than good? I would be fine if the video took that angle and said "while overall these species cause major problems"(which the first five certainly do) "but there can be a few surprising upsides in some circumstances that don't make them entirely evil." Currently, the framing of this suggests the exact opposite and is thoroughly misleading. My home state is overrun with amur honeysuckle, for example, and it has fundamentally shifted the structure and composition of forest ecosystems there, outcompeting native plants and creating a dense understory. Their berries are essentially just sugarwater--birds will eat them but they usually have much less nutrition than the native plants provided before they were outcompeted by the honeysuckle. Its a poor substitute at best.
None of these species are surprisingly helpful, from your own arguments. You describe the exceptions as the rule. Horses, only because they can be captured? Tamarisk/Saltcedar is considered invasive by USGS: (not more good than harm)
And at the end, one island is restored by introduction of tortoises - because the native ones were driven to extinct by humans. For that 0.000000001% of the land surface that needs tortoises to distribute seeds, tortoises can be introduced. Good to know. (I didn't list all of them, but each is an oversimplification) Entertaining but not informative.
I get that technically domesticated animals can count as invasive species but it feels like putting down Horse for #1 is kind of cheating, especially if only humans can use/benefit from them. Especially since the horses not used/rescued/culled by people who still free roam and are wild cause significant damage and no benefits otherwise.
Invasive species are not inherently bad necessarily. The worst part about them is actually the fault of Humans spreading them around. I’m sure certain species would find their way out of their natural habitat on their own but it seems like most invasive species come over on a ship or plane. Then we mark them as a bad thing when it’s really our fault.
+In Harmony With Earth Agreed, there are species that were once driven off countries before there were records, and while there are evidence of such species once populating those areas goverments don't help at all with repopulation programs.
On top of my head I remember a type of owl (or maybe a hawk?) was trying to to go back to england, but there were no records of it ever seen in there, later on evidence was found of it living in there and being part of the ecosystem, but the ecology institutions couldn't be funded because it was seen as an "invasive species".
Apparently once a certain species get extinct in an area it automatically loses the right of ever going back.
Yes even the tapir of south america is related to rhinos and hippos. We could save the endangered rhino by returning them to their roots in the Americas if we could get rid of this term "non native invasive."
Lolol. All this arguing over terminology. Won't matter in the end, the most invasive species of all (humans) will end up making the earth uninhabitable for the majority of known species soon.
Too smart to realize how stupid we are. Overpopulating and devouring every resource. The bipedal cockroach.
Hmmm Eurasian milfoil, zebra mussels, “flying” carp... I am pretty sure those are not needed in the Mississippi River watershed. There are plenty of better tasting fish already here than invasive flying carp. Funny thing, I think ladybugs were brought in to fight aphids back in the 180p’s and I haven’t seen many of them but the Asian beetles that resemble them are prolific.
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.