I have a pretty "far on the other side of things" type of view. I don't want to do things to introduce invasive things. Like others I don't like big sweeping changes to things we hold dear, like wooded forests and native plants.
On the other hand I don't believe we can do anything about it. Spraying chemicals to stop one plant or bug or another as a whole species? I don't do this kind of work, but I'm against it. To top it off I question the motives and science of some of things labeled "invasive". I'm sure some of it is very sound. I'm pretty convinced some of it isn't.
As humans we sometimes think that we can just change the course of nature on a whim. In reality, we are lucky with even our best coordinated efforts to have any impact at all. We are also doing a pretty good job of trampling the face of the earth at a surprising rate with our mobility systems. Plants and bugs can take advantage of this. It isn't all about bad choices.
It is all just my opinion, and I'm not trying to convince anyone. feel free to ignore me if I anger you.
Good thoughts/points.
I'd say it is all about management objectives. There are certain objectives that are significantly hampered by invasive species. Others don't matter so much. I've done a bit of work with a large, very active public park district who does a lot of pretty intense management to 'restore natural ecosystems'. They also have other areas with paved playgrounds so that is not their only goal. One of their highest used areas is absolutely covered with Honeysuckle. Nothing else in the understory, nothing at all. I asked one day "you going to do anything about that?". The manager told me "No. that is not an ecologically significant area and we don't have all the resources to address those areas that are. Additionally, it is difficult to explain to people why you are clearing an area - and that area will generate a lot of questions and complaints no matter how many signs we put out explaining it". There are other areas that same park district aggressively fights invasive species.
There is a really good article in one of the birding magazines that I can't seem to find by Amanda Rodewald outlining some of the problems with honeysuckle. It was a well-written narrative summarizing several points from well-documented research. I'll try to bullet point the ones I remember here:
*Higher nest predation of bird nests in thick honeysuckle stands. (they aren't sure why, but there is some speculation...)
*Lower bone density when birds feed on honeysuckle
*The birds that use honeysuckle are "generalists" (like a robin or cardinal, will nest anywhere), but the more fragile bird species need specific habitats that are lost with heavy invasive species pressure.
*Traditionally the stronger male cardinals were brighter red because their diets were better. Today in urban areas, the stronger cardinals are eating from feeders, getting a lot of good nutrients, but not the carotenoids that gave them bright red color. Cardinals feeding off of honeysuckle are getting plenty of carotenoids but not much nutrition. Therefore the more attractive looking cardinals are the weaker individuals.
As I mentioned earlier, if your goal is timber management, you loose 30% of the annual growth of your canopy trees in thick honeysuckle stands.
And that is just honeysuckle. Not to mention EAB, Ailanthus, HWA, Reed canary grass, Kudzu, ALB, etc.... Some will be (have been) much worse than others.
UConn says Japanese barberry is great for black legged ticks, so there is that benefit.
If you just care about seeing something green, yes...that will continue.
While I obviously think the invasives are a problem, I do agree that we need to be smart about how we address them,
