[isaacharper]

I have worked on a conservation project that was trialing out some pesticides for use on stinknet.

Some points people are missing is that

1. the Sonoran desert is not a barren ecosystem. It is the most biodiverse desert in the world it does not need to have its soil “fixed” it is doing fine.

2. the actual problem with this plant is how fast it grows. Almost all ecosystems are subject to wildfire at some point and it matters how frequently these wildfires hit. The Sonoran desert is not build for frequent and intense fires and with stinknet growing and dying and building up lots of flammable material the fires are happening much more frequently and are much hotter. This is killing native animals and cactuses that are not adapted to these frequent fires.

The desert is not dead.

[californiadreem]

Ugh, let's unpack this. Trying to maintain a stable ecology is nativist. Those seeds are just looking for a better home with more biological opportunity. All the lifeforms currently in the Sonoran desert blew in, too. And destroyed all the First Species, I might add.

The replacement of native species by globe chamomile (don't use st*nknet--it's a slur) is just a conspiracy theory by failing plant hegemons to maintain their own ecological privilege. Future globe chamomile sub-species might be the next Willow or Redwood. Plant diversity is our strength.

And let's be clear. There's no proven relationship between wildfires and globe chamomile. All evidence comes from systemically nativist orgs like the National Park Service and Ivy-League ecology departments. And even if globe chamomile did cause wildfires, that's just their biological role and it enriches the soil and we should applaud it. They capture sunlight where other plants don't. What else is going to build nutrient density? Creosote? It's so NIMBY that it creates dead zones around itself by stealing all the water for itself. It's not globe chamomile's fault that creosote and pinyon can't seed enough to compete. Learn to grow. It's 2023.

Next, you'll be claiming the arrival of eucalyptus in the 19th century in California was an ecological mistake. I've been all around the Bay Area and NorCal and never got hit by an exploding tree. It's a myth and a stereotype. And even if they did, it would purely be because of climactic factors.

Y'all need to adapt. We live in a Global Ecology. Ecologies are biological constructs that change over time. What used to be considered "invasive species" (although we strongly prefer the term "novel trophic worker" to avoid using speciestic and nativist terminology) are now the backbones of rich and diverse biomes in not only California but all over North America. In fact, novel trophic workers and their progeny are on track to be the majority of plant species in North America. What's wrong with novel trophic workers becoming the dominant natives? Are ecological niches treated poorly, or something?

[isaacharper]

First I did not say we should keep ecosystems stable, I don't believe that.

There is a difference between non-native and invasive species.

Non-native species: These are species that have been moved from their native habitats to a new environment, usually as a result of human activities. Non-native species can be any type of organism, including plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria.

Invasive species: These are non-native species that not only survive in their new environments but also reproduce rapidly and spread widely, causing harm to the local ecosystem, economy, or human health. They can out-compete native species for resources, alter habitats, and disrupt ecosystem functions.

Here is a study on Stinknet in the Sonoran Desert. If you read through it I think most would say is qualifies as invasive in this environment https://sdcwma.org/docs/stinknet_desert_plants.pdf

Conservation isn't about keeping the environment in a bubble but rather being stewards promoting the overall health of the ecosystem.

[tintedfireglass]

invasive species invade an ecosystem and mess up the ecological balance. Many species go extinct and a new ecological hierarchy is formed and the landscape changes. Isn't this what has been happening for eons? How did marsupials get to Australia from America, how did horses take over the Eurasian steppe, there are many example like that. Who are we to "manage and conserve" biodiversity? I don't think we have the power or the right to do that. just my 2¢.