Classifying species as ‘native’ or ‘alien’ carries prescriptive force in the valuation and management of ‘nature’. But the classification itself and its application are contested, raising philosophical and geographical questions about place, space, rights, identity and belonging. This paper discusses leading critiques of the native/alien paradigm, including its conceptual fluidity, dichotomous rigidity and ethical difficulties, as well as the incendiary charge of xenophobia. It argues that valorizing ‘native nature’ as inherently the ‘best nature’ is not only obsolete but impracticable in (...) the Anthropocene, and that the preeminence of biogeographic origins should be replaced with a pragmatic focus on species’ behavior. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

Invasive alien species (IAS) are globally considered major drivers of biodiversity loss. Because invasion science—the field studying IAS—informs policy and management, its normative underpinnings have become a subject of controversy. Historically, invasion science has aligned with traditional conservation, which is an ecocentric approach to conservation that recognises intrinsic value in natural collectives. This article examines debates surrounding the field's normative assumptions—focusing on the concepts of ‘origin’, ‘harm’ and ‘naturalness’—and explores three alternative conservation approaches that challenge them: new conservation, convivial conservation (...) and compassionate conservation. New conservation highlights the ecosystem services IAS may offer in novel ecosystems. Convivial conservation stresses the interconnectedness of humans and nature. Compassionate conservation focuses on individual animal welfare, regardless of native or invasive status. Each of these approaches questions rigid native-alien distinctions. They argue that invasion science's focus on nativeness and undisturbed environments overlooks contemporary ecological challenges, urging a re-evaluation of how these categories influence conservation decisions. Discussing these approaches highlights the interplay between scientific evidence and diverse value systems in IAS debates, and reveals controversies often stem from ingrained normative assumptions rather than purely scientific disagreements. The article argues that explicitly addressing these assumptions is crucial for managing the ethical and practical challenges of IAS effectively. It identifies potential convergence among different conservation approaches while acknowledging unavoidable incompatibilities. Accommodating various viewpoints involves recognising a plurality of legitimate concerns and values, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and inclusive deliberation, balancing short-term actions with long-term objectives, and considering both human and non-human rights. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

Biologists energetically debate terminology in ecology and evolution, but rarely discuss general strategies for resolving these debates. We suggest focusing on metaphors, arguing that, rather than looking down on metaphors, biologists should embrace these terms as the powerful tools they are. Like any powerful tool, metaphors need to be used mindful of their limitations. We give guidance for recognizing metaphors and summarize their major limitations, which are hiding of important biological detail, ongoing vagueness rather than increasing precision, and seeming real (...) rather than!gurative. By keeping these limitations in mind, metaphors like adaptive radiation, adaptive landscape, biological invasion, and the ecological niche can be used to their full potential, powering scienti!c insight without driving research off the rails. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation