Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
it bluntly, applied herpetologists don't get tenure. As a consequence, research in
applied biology has instead developed when outside economic interests have pro-
vided an independent incentive for conducting such research. In large part, the rea-
son why invasive mammals, birds, insects, and plants are much better studied than
are invasive reptiles and amphibians is because each of those taxa has imposed
major economic costs to agriculture or forestry, and entire research industries have
formed around the need to mitigate those costs. No such economic incentive has
allowed for the development of a mature field of applied herpetology. (An excep-
tion is that a few species have occasionally been farmed or harvested for food or
skins, and some energy has gone into investigating best farming practices.) As a
consequence, herpetology has remained more strictly esoteric than some other dis-
ciplines, and the study of herpetological invasions has necessarily relied on the
interest of a sparse pool of ecological researchers. Because academic herpetology
has historically foresworn concern with invasive herpetofauna, interested amateurs
have by default provided much of the basic observational data in the field. However,
these individuals have not been well-positioned to provide rigorous scientific analy-
sis of their observations, so reporting standards and meaningful analysis of patterns
and process have largely been lacking, leaving the field with a rather mediocre
analytical record.
This situation was long worsened by an attitude among many academic
researchers that frequently excused herpetological introductions as inconsequential
(e.g., L.D. Wilson and Porras, 1983), justifiable because interesting (e.g., Smith and
Kohler, 1978), acceptable once sufficiently ancient (e.g., Böhme, 2000), or worthy
of wanton promotion under the guise of research having no focused purpose (e.g.,
Thurow, 1994, 1997, 1999). One consequence of these laissez faire attitudes has
been to justify in the minds of many herpetological enthusiasts the acceptability of
deliberate introductions (e.g., McKeown, 1996), a practice that continues today.
Hence, historical academic attitudes melding scientific disinterest with unconcern
for consequences have had wider ramifications, infecting less-fastidious minds with
the idea that promoting introductions is acceptable. This combination has abetted
the quiet explosion of herpetofaunal naturalizations depicted in Chapter 2.
Those earlier attitudes seem to be shifting. With increased acceptance of conser-
vation biology as a valid academic discipline over the past two decades unconcern
among many academic herpetologists toward herpetofaunal invasions has thawed.
That perceptual shift has been reinforced by recognition of the ecological harm
done by brown treesnakes, cane toads, and bullfrogs. Interest has grown too as the
theoretical relevance of species invasions to clarifying ecological processes has
become more apparent. We are consequently, I think, poised for major advances in
the understanding of herpetological invasions. And, the number of studies directed
at naturalized populations of reptiles and amphibians has increased greatly in the
past decade or so. But virtually all of these studies have been descriptive, and
research focused specifically on hypothesis testing and problem solving has
remained sparse. Consequently, it seems fitting to inquire how an increased research
interest in herpetological invasions might most profitably be directed so as to
achieve significant advances in understanding that are relevant for both science and
