Crowley, S. L., Hinchliffe, S., & McDonald, R. A. (2017). Conflict in invasive species management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(3), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1471

The introduction and establishment of invasive species are leading causes in global biodiversity loss. These species not only actively outcompete native and endemic species that inhabit similar environments, but can also disrupt and alter their new habitat, completely shifting the ecological dynamics that exist within all components, both biotic and abiotic, of the system. The establishment of an invasive species can cause significant damage to the population of many native species, and can even lead to local and species extinctions.

Invasive species exist within the context of their environments. This means that just because a species may be considered invasive in one area, it is not by default deemed invasive in all locations. Additionally, not all introduced or non-native species are considered invasive. In fact, a majority of non-native and introduced species are not considered invasive to their introduced range. For an introduced species to be considered invasive, it had to produce some sort of harm, generally economically, environmentally, or to human health. This harm can be realized through a multitude of ways, including damaging agricultural fields and crops. Many invasive species have been known to negatively impact agriculture and farmland, costing both farmers and governments hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Additionally, invasive species can negatively impact human health by spreading diseases. An introduced species, acting as a vector, can spread pathogens to numerous individuals, resulting in the spread of both existing diseases and potentially new illnesses. If the introduced vector species fits the criteria of an invasive species, its ability to spread disease would be greater, resulting in an increased infection rate in the human population. This would result in significant economic damage, as governments would be required to develop treatments, medications, and vaccines, and mitigate the impacts of the invasive species. 

These species also disrupt ecological systems and cause significant environmental damage. Invasive species are often extreme generalist species, meaning that they thrive in a large variety of conditions; because of this, these species frequently outcompete native species for resources such as food, nesting locations, growing spaces, etc. Invasive species are also quite efficient at reproducing and spreading, allowing them to further establish and extend their range. These species also cause economic damage this way, as governments will frequently make efforts to combat the impacts of an invasive species once it has been established. These efforts are quite economically intensive and can cost governments millions of dollars.

This study, published by Crowley et al. in 2017, evaluated the patterns in which conflicts arise within invasive species management, as well as identifying some of the more divisive management strategies, and why some of these conflicts arise initially. Sociopolitical issues are a common ignition of conflict, as management strategies have differing impacts on different individuals, communities, and cultures. Another common cause of conflict is the typically used top-down control approach, as this method often fails to recognize the more minute details of the issue; this approach also isolates the general public from the issue, as centralized authorities are making the decisions. Once a conflict has been inflicted, Crowley et al. (2017) suggest that there are two main drivers in accelerating conflict: polarization, often driving discussions to feel black and white, and escalation, which occurs as the conflict and number of involved parties grow. Escalated conflicts are self-perpetuating and can often reach a point where “winning” becomes more prominent than the initial invasive species issue. This study suggests making shifts in our existing invasive species management practices by promoting more openness in communication, placing emphasis on the context of the ecosystem, and fostering early public involvement to generate more productive management strategies. 

Figure 1. 

This study recognises its own complexities by acknowledging that each situation is entirely unique and each of the variables within these situations is unpredictable. It, however, does not offer any solutions for how to account for this variability. Instead, it offers that individuals, when engaged in conflict, tend to behave in predictable ways, allowing researchers to identify these behaviors. One potential avenue for improvement would be to explore the correlation that exists between the number of variables involved in a situation and the unpredictability of the conflict. This would allow researchers to understand more specifically how these conflicts arise and accelerate. Furthermore, this study only briefly considers actual case studies. As a result, we can only consider invasive species management strategies and their consequential conflicts, hypothetically. Due to the constraints of this study, the authors were not able to observe these species and these practices in the field. A future study may benefit by assessing these conflicts and behavior patterns firsthand, with an actively invasive population currently undergoing management practices. Overall conclusions of the study suggest that wildlife managers and officials should put more energy into proactive and anticipatory invasive species management approaches, such as monitoring programs and preventive outreach initiatives. While this would be ideal when it comes to avoiding conflict within invasive species management, as you would have to interact with fewer stakeholders, it does not account for situations in which the invasive species are already established in a new habitat. The article goes on to explain the steps that Crowley et al. (2017) identified one should take in order to minimize the risk of conflict when planning and applying invasive species management strategies; however, I propose a further study that focuses only on established invasive species populations within a given area that are managed in different ways. This study would assess how conflict arises in similar settings, and would offer a more controlled version of the study, allowing us to identify ways to minimize conflict when managing already established invasive species.