I'm not really commenting on the thesis of the book, but pointing out what seemed like a valid criticism of the book overall. After skimming a few articles on the subject [1] it seem like the reviewer is not out of line with scientific consensus on the example he points out.
I'm sorry but an anonymous comment on good reads, should not hold the same weight as a book that references academic papers.
In any case it isn't as black and white as "Invasive = Bad" one doesn't need to look far for that evidence.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-potential-conserva...
https://spartina.org/project_documents/revegetation_program/...