Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Non-natives: 141 scientists object

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Simberloff.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simberloff, D. Non-natives: 141 scientists object. Nature 475, 36 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/475036a

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/475036a

This article is cited by

Comments

Commenting on this article is now closed.

  1. I very much agree with Simberloff's opinion. The pros and cons of introduced species must be evaluated separately on a case by case basis. For the benefit side, wheat is an excellent example as you have mentioned. While for the harms caused by invasive species, one example is the notorious Eucalyptus tree introduced to Southwest China from Australia in 1980s for timber purpose. Due to its fast-growing and high water consumption features, all native species would be eradicated in a few years. The tree has been nicknamed as 'despot tree', even recent extreme droughts in the region have been ascribed to the tree planting as it consumed large amount of water and thus decreased groundwater table.

  2. Despite the cautions about non-native species, the attitude in this letter is still too tolerant of biological imperialism practiced by the colonizing nations, and retained after independence. Simberloff says "nobody tries to eradicate wheat, for instance." Yes, wheat is useful in North America as well as its place of origin. But in converting native ecosystems to wheat monoculture, farmers have destroyed huge areas of native grasslands, and nearly all the large mammals formerly at home there; some native grouse species are highly endangered because of habitat destruction by humans, not wheat directly. Humans used to eat all the native wild large herbivores and the grouses there. The large mammals of the grasslands have lost most of their habitat, though not extinct. North American wheat monoculture is involved with tremendous soil loss, including the Dust Bowl.

  3. Jean,

    In my opinion, the term "biological imperialism" would apply to the action of 19th-century acclimatization societies. They indeed tried making newly colonized lands look more like "the Old Country." However, most non-native species were introduced either by accident, or because of their specific properties useful to humans (e.g., edible seeds). Colonizing nations also readily accepted economically beneficial native species, such as corn or potatoes, and moved them back to the home country.

    I agree that monoculture creates considerable problems. However, these problems are not related to their native vs. non-native status. Corn is native to North America, but its monoculture is no better than a wheat monoculture in terms of environmental impact.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing