6 Invasive Species That Are Actually Saving the Planet
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 06. 2024
- Even though the word "invasive" sounds sketchy, not all non-native species are totally terrible! Here are six invasive species that can actually do more good than harm! Hosted by Stefan Chin.
Head to scishowfinds.com/ for hand selected artifacts of the universe!
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters: Lazarus G, Sam Lutfi, D.A. Noe, الخليفي سلطان, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Patrick D. Ashmore, charles george, Kevin Bealer, Chris Peters
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
----------
Sources:
www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/a...
www.slate.com/articles/health_...
www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/sc...
news.nationalgeographic.com/n...
www.nps.gov/articles/southwes...
www.mauritian-wildlife.org/app...
www.popsci.com/invasive-speci...
www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/0...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/a...
www.macalester.edu/~davis/Nat...
academic.oup.com/jhered/artic...
rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.or...
www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species....
wildlife.org/wp-content/upload...
Images:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.thinkstockphotos.com/image...
www.thinkstockphotos.com/image...
www.thinkstockphotos.com/image...
www.thinkstockphotos.com/image...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ca...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ca...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sp...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.nobanis.org/ias-photo-ban...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:To...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Se...
www.thinkstockphotos.com/image...
www.thinkstockphotos.com/image...
In botany, there is a difference drawn between "invasive" vs. "naturalized" species: both are introduced by human activity, but a "naturalized" species is one that settles into the established native ecosystem without out-competing native species, whereas the "invasive" species frequently causes major problems and disruptions to the native ecosystem.
Example: Spanish moss and the southern US
@@unknowndragon3736 didn't know it wasn't native.
Muntingia calabura is a fruiting tree from Central America that can now be found in most tropical locations, they grow sweet and fragrant fruits that all fruitigorous birds enjoy and they don’t outcompete native plants because they can’t grow faster then most tropical trees but they’re tough enough to live in rocky soil where most tropical trees can’t. Truly naturalised in Malaysia where I’m from
Daffodils are naturalized, for example, but not invasive.
What about species like honey bees that invade and then become integral to the ecosystem? This speaks to a comment I made, is why I seek clarity.
Mandatory: "...life, uh... finds a way."
This is perfection
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Ok thanks Jeff
No! Bad bad science enthusiast! We don't say that!
Reminder that the title is pretty inaccurate.
''Proof that green crab aren't dangerous for the ecosystem.''
''i have 10000000 results that show they are, and one they aren't.''
*''I knew it!"*
If google were a guy
jérôme lebourg how’d you know
But just think of it, your so gangsta that even behind bars people still can't keep their shits
They're just being shellfish. Anyone would be if they were a crab.
There's always an exception to the rules
"Burning your house down is generally considered a bad descision - but you will have it warm for a moment!" - the video
Nah, bush honeysuckle has turned into a nightmare here in Missouri. You can hardly go anywhere without seeing it covering native plants.
In Harmony With Earth there are plenty of deer in the area that it is prevalent. The issue is that it grows much faster than any animal could consume it. It is in almost all of the southern Missouri woodlands where there is also extremely high concentration of deer.
@@inharmonywithearth9982 Deer were here before Honeysuckle. They don't need it. It's screwing over the native plants.
Cudzoo. Brionnia. Creeper plants that end up choking others. Very hard to kill, and birds can't help but spread their seeds. My step-Mom used to say just throw Brionnia roots away (best to dig 'em up) but we found out that they can re-root themselves if they are buried again.I am not ten feet from two pieces of a root I dug up about two, maybe three years ago, which I left out dessicate (dry up). It is probably dead, but I haven't burned it yet. I don't have a way to scientifically test if it will root again if I put it in soil.
You may want to clarify that Honeysuckle is also a horrific invasive plants in many areas like Cincinnati where I am at. It takes over everything and is ruining the understory of forests, outcompeting herbaceous plants and shading out important native tree seedlings.
likely it’s doing that in this locality of pa too, since it’s strangling the eastern seaboard
Yeah that part was ridiculous. The evidence put forth was minimal at best. In my area there are massive removal efforts to eradicate honeysuckle because it is extinguishing native plants and completely dominating the understory, like you said. There are some parks where practically the only understory plant is honeysuckle. No diversity of plant life. I also see and hear more birds and other wildlife in area with little to no honeysuckle. Recently I've noticed a trend on this channel with the evidence being minimal, oversimplifying the effects of something, or oversimplifying the terms used with little to no clarification. It's upsetting.
@Trillium: Wild Edibles Yeah, that or audiences are getting dumber. Of course they know honeysuckle is causing ecological harm in other areas: that's what makes it an invasive species (as opposed to simply an introduced one), which is why it can be included on this list. Horses and green crabs have also caused massive devastation to particular ecosystems. And yet they have these unexpected positive impacts for other native species. Maybe they should have titled it "6 Surprisingly Helpful Invasive Species" to make it clearer that they were talking about those unexpected positive outcomes from otherwise invasive species. Oh, wait...
Its doing more than destroying under story , its completely wiping out stands of mature trees as well.
In another 50 years or so there maybe nothing left growing but honeysuckle... Its absolutely insidious
Bush honeysuckle is invasive.
“Here’s all of the horrible things they’ve caused. And now here’s the single niche thing they slightly help.”
It's like saying that even though someone's been a serial killer, they had some good traits as well.
And it's telling that the one niche they are filling are another species that has been wiped out!
Have you seen red Sushi
AGARAG ARAGAR
Ya horses are aweful /sarcasm
In Virginia, not more than a few years ago, invasive stinkbugs were an epidemic every spring/summer. They spoiled fruit crops, lots of things wouldn't eat them, and they would pile up like flies.
Then, a species of very tiny wasp that was native to its homeland in asia was introduced which lays its eggs inside of stinkbug eggs. I haven't seen a living stinkbug in a loooong time, and I like it
Virginian, they are still everywhere
'...and then humans showed up.'
~Story of our entire species
humans are the best best animals well lots of us. Most of our species is domesticated aswell...
Root Beer *cough cough* pollution, corrupt government, global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, greenhouse gases, etc etc
Its almost like we're the invasive species
well, speaking in the metaphor of the earth's historybook, we really just showed up, like other stuff did do earlier... like... liquid water did. we're an extreme change, the reason to set a new chapter. just _so much more_ is it important that we decide WISELY and RIGHT NOW how mankind shall be, shall go on!
And then the fire nation attacked.
Also, feral horse trails in the snow help out the antelope population significantly. They tried to get rid of the feral horse population once, but soon realized the tracks left behind by horses in the snow help expose green vegetation for antelopes to eat.
Not surprising, they probably lived in the same places at the same time when they first evolved. Course, antelope have been doing fine since horses left since they no longer have predators besides us, but still
I feel like you made this video as a test to see if we were all paying attention.
"Helpful Invasive Species" counters itself. If they're helpful they're not invasive, they're just "Introduced"
The only good invasive species is a dead one.
@@harrisonschneider8333 That's why they're called invasive, I'm more referring to "acclimated" I believe is the term
@@harrisonschneider8333 Humans are an invasive species.
@Stock Name How's everything invasive? Doesn't really make sense to me
@@TheKirbylore I agree. If an introduced species decimates the place it is introduced in, it is invasive.
You got it wrong. Invasive and non-native is not the same thing! Invasive implies harmful to the local eco system.
If anything, WE are the invasive species.
Invasions can be beneficial. Just ask Afghanistan! They love their Invaders so much 🍄
This was about "invasive species" that are helpful.
and in most cases it is just because after the devastation of the local eco system these species survive
Thank you.
I mean, if you look at it purely from the meaning of the words, you're kind of wrong. Invasive means that a foreign creature has encroached upon territory not it's own, and non-native means a creature that has moved into territory that's not its own. Same thing.
The only difference between the words is the difference we as humans put on them. You don't need to specify whether or not a creature is invasive or non-native because they mean the same thing.
I don’t think Feral horses being helpful to humans counts as a “helpful invasive species” :/
Central America agrees lol
Well pretty much everything on this list is based on being helpful to humans. I don't know why that one would be inaccurate.
iakushi12 usually the key factor that determines a species being non-native or invasive depends on whether or not it causes damage to native life or the ecosystem in that new area. If they successfully fill some ecological niche that may have been missing, or maybe they just have little to to effect at all, they are simply just non-native. If they are damaging to native populations, they are invasive. How they effect humans isn’t usually considered since it’s mostly used to describe their impact on the natural environment in a given area.
invasive, meaning it typically does more harm then good. helpful meaning that despite that it can help to some regard. horses are what defined human settlement for a good long while, so they classify for the latter. horses escaping and becoming feral, causing plants to be eaten and native creatures to be competed with is why they classify for the former
@@pieoflords5082 Except horses only became extinct 10,000 years ago in the North America, which is really not that long time speaking in the evolutionary terms. Horses just filled the role they previously had before their extinction (which, funnily enough, coincides with the human settling of the Americas). Wonder why they were so comfortable in the America? Because it was always their home.
I love how one of the points in favor of horses is that they've helped with industry and with settling more land, as though those aren't the two biggest contributors to environmental decline in the world...
"Horses did a good job by helping in settling North American land!"
displaced Native American tribes: "well, actually..."
Horse: we'll we use to originated
Is there a way I can email the producers or something so I can go through how basically every part of this is incorrect? I don’t want to leave a multi page response as a CZcams comment.
I am in the field of ecological restoration, so I’m not just a rando commenter here.
Thank you for speaking up!
I get how the first five species brought up we're completely stupid, but how the hell was the tortoise one bad?
@@baalfgames5318 You are going to want to Google what a qualifier is in a statement, then re-read my first sentence, and you will have your answer.
@@MrBlandUsername ...As opposed to actually explaining yourself?
@@baalfgames5318 A qualifier in a statement is pretty basic sentence construction method that I didn't really feel like spelling out, but I'll play ball with you. A qualifier, in the sentence I used 'basically' negates an absolute. In other words my sentence is saying 'most if this is wrong' i.e. leaving open the possibility that some of it is correct. I qualified my statement so that it wasn't an absolute, ergo it's possible that the tortoise segment is fine.
BUT to further answer you question, they have no way of knowing that over the long term the tortoises won't become problematic in their new environment. Many species do not become invasive at the outset, for instance phragmites australis was introduced to North America in the 1800s but didn't become truly 'invasive' untill maybe the early 2000s. Often time novel species have this sort of slow burn in the background leading people to think they have been 'naturalized' untill some time later they hit a tipping point and explode in population and begin to negatively impact native flora and fauna.
Satisfied?
There is a big difference between invasive and naturalized species.
Willows are naturalized to Canada. Buckthorn is invasive.
Same thing with caraganna
"Invasive species aren't the worst thing in existence."
-Humans, the biggest invasive species :P
White ones
@@dragonknightofamiraka3636 Nah. Humans reached every part of the globe long before the white man was "invented".
as someone that sometimes introduce plants into my own garden it is surprising how fast a plant goes from "cute and innocent" to spreading all around to the point you have to remove it before it destroy everything, also sometimes you remove a weed only for another to florish in the absence, it is a never ending cycle in rural areas full of birds i have three species of clover and so many different vine plants (which are harmless until they suffocate other plants)
Purple crab: *exists*
Green crab: im about to end this man's whole carrer
*this crab's
Career*
@@Aquascape_Dreaming man my abillity to spel is bad (yes, the last one was intentional)
@@defensivekobra3873 ability*
It was low hanging fruit so I took it. I usually don't correct unless they are spouting hate speech or trolling. I understand that many are not native English speakers.
@@esqueue i cannot blame you
As someone who has helped participate in the eradication of Saltcedar, no it is not a good plant. Tamarisk is a nightmare that creates monocultures and pushes out native species. The willow flycatchers will nest in Tamarisk, but the reason they can't find native trees is that Tamarisk has contributed to pushing them out of their native home. Tamarisk also concentrates salt in its leaves (why it is also known as "salt cedar") that kill native plants and increase the salinity of irrigation water. One pond I helped treat was home to an endemic fish species that the tamarisk was threatening by lowering the water level and increasing its salinity. I'm usually on board with you guys, but Tamarisk is undoubtedly a villain that is contributing to the demise of already stressed ecosystems. I'd say kill it with fire, but the plant likes fire and in many places increases the fire risk. Hopefully, the introduction of the tamarisk beetle helps to control it.
I've worked to get rid of them on my own property and absolutely detest the things. I've dug down almost five feet through the fire-prone fallen 'leaves' and it's dirty, itchy torture. Cutting down the huge bushes and digging up the roots, then carting it off to be burned very thoroughly, is miserable work even when it's not 100 degrees Fahrenheit. They poison the soil which inhibits the growth of native plants and the %$@& things keep coming back for years. Yeah, I don't like them at all.
I have never dealt with tamarisk but I have worked to remove many other invasives where I live. When I worked in forestry we would cut invasives as close to the ground as practicable then paint glyphosate on the stump to kill the roots. It worked well on the vast majority of plants we encountered. Be aware, if you do choose to use this method, recent research is showing glyphosate to be more dangerous than Monsanto (now Bayer) reported it to be.
@@johnleer5263 Aaww, you got my hopes up. I've moved north and my current struggle is with blackberry, and bamboo, to a lesser degree. At least it's not hot while I hack away. 😊
@@johnleer5263 we used Garlon 4 and Habitat for cut stump application, same process.
@Aaron Adams: "Hopefully, the introduction of the tamarisk beetle helps to control it."
Hey, great idea, introducing a species to combat another one! What could possibly go wrong?
An important aspect of the Anthropocene is that humans are becoming the managers of the natural world. This responsibility will require tremendous ingenuity and thoughtfulness. If we are going to move species around the planet on purpose or inadvertently, we will have to live with the results of our actions, good or bad.
Yeah, just think about that toad they deliberately imported to Australia. Horribly backfired, of course. And now they're plague that is spreading across the entire continent.
They're quite toxic, so they actually kill anything that attempts to predator them. They're also a danger to humans because of this.
@@HaploidCell Wasn't that the Simpsons?
lol we're the destroyers and we'll eventually just destroy ourselves
Pet owners that didn't want their lionfish are now responsible for the extinction on _literally thousands_ of native species. Are supposed to 'live with the results' and sit by as more species of fish go extinct every day? Were we correct to remain idle as the giant tortoises went extinct?
We got 10 years to unfuck the planet. We're doomed.
The Russian olive is another example. They've become so naturalized that almost all bird species in Washington state eat their fruit over the winter. In fact, their fruit is the only reason that yellow rumped warblers are seen in parts of the state during the winter. Its been documented that if you remove the berries from the russian olives in the winter the wintering warblers will move south or just die from lack of food
You forgot two that I think most will appreciate to at least some degree: Honey bees and ...HUMANS.
Both are some of the worst invasive species
@@edgyanole9705 Yeah, Thanos was right to get rid of half of both.
When the title says "surprisingly helpful" I was amusing it would be helpful to the environment. But no....
1) Horses
Bad for the environment, good for humans.
2) Tamarisk Shrub.
Good for .... 1 bird species.
3) Honeysuckle
does compete with the native plants. However, good for bird life and good for reducing numbers of another invasive species: nightshade
4) European green crab
KILLS 85% OF NATIVE CRABS... which is a good thing ?
5) Gracilaria vermiculophylla
Bad for anywhere with sea life. Good for anywhere that is barren of all life.
6) Aldabra giant tortoise
Good for islands that used to have giant tortoises as a replacement for their extinct cousins.
+
I don't understand your point. Pretty much everything they said can be seen as being "surprisingly helpful." You're the one that tried to narrow or interpret what "surprisingly helpful" meant. That's on you, dawg.
And I assume that you didn't mean "amusing" in your comment? It doesn't make much sense. lol Maybe you meant "surmise" or "guess?"
+
No mention of the earth worm
@ Kyle McGuiggan
"Surmise" would indicate that I thought the statement was truthful. Grammatically it does fit in the OP sentence, but changes the meaning slightly.
"Guess" ("guessing") does fit for the intended meaning, however "assuming" is a better fit. The statement "I assume..." is commonly used to indicate that the speaker infers a specific conclusion, which is what was done in the OP.
As for narrowing the field for what "surprisingly helpful" meant...
Invasive species are almost universally seen as being detrimental to the environment. So for SciShow to tell us that they are _still_ detrimental to the environment isn't surprising, it is expected.
"A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one."
~ Scientists
Retirement is for the weak
yay you back
You're slacking lately
Justin Y.
Hello there...
You still alive?🤨
I've introduced a non-native species to my off-grid 20 acre property where a major wildfire rages through about every 8 years. In 2006 as we were in the process of clearing land for our house (back-breaking work), an arson fire swept through here and burned all my neighbors homes. Most tragic of all, it took the lives of five wildland firefighters. We had too much invested to give up, so once the house was built and we were living here, I decided to get goats! As many as I could support. I found many free ones that were former pets. Six years ago, another fire raged through. My son and I weren't able to evacuate, but two fire engine companies came and stayed in our driveway during the ordeal while we were all completely surrounded by flames. Thanks to our goats, there wasn't so much as a blade of grass near the house so we all survived and had no structure damage. Before the crews left, the Captain said, "Your goats SAVED your ass!" I smiled pointed at the hill where they had been parked hours before which was STILL burning and said, "Might have saved yours, too!" One firefighter told me he and his wife had just moved up here on the mountain, he told me he'd already called his wife and discussed getting goats asap! Cutest brush removal machines ever, and they never throw sparks.
I was hoping to hear the Mediterranean Gecko mentioned. My house in the USA has them all over the porch every night catching bugs under the porch light but I haven't heard anything about them being harmful.
I think they are adorable.
I am very protective of my room when my cousins come to my house
Do they borrow in your marsh grass and cause erosion?
Next time they stop by just start playing some sexy music and tell them you've been listening to alot of country music and reading about Kentucky that you're interested in some "experimentation". I guarantee that they'll never go near your room again. Either that or you'll develop a new, mutually beneficial relationship like that fly catcher bird and the desert shrub.
@@arthas640 wtf
@@Waddlejpg if it keeps family members from coming into your bedroom implying incest is worth it. As a bonus you Aldo wont have to put up with family reunions
@@arthas640 LMAO!!
Non-native does not mean invasive. Invasive refers to a non-native organism that does damage to the habitat. You are using them interchangeably and in a confusing way here. Very bad science communication. I expect more from SciShow.
>destruction of natural vegetation and wildlife
>implies that this isn't invasive
All of these species ARE invasive. Also having some benefit does not negate the harm these species do.
@@cypheri1339 nope, the aldabra giant tortoise is not an invasive species. It was introduced to the Mascarene Islands in order to replace the Cylindraspis tortoises that were native to that specific are (they went extinct during the XVII and XVIII centuries due to excessive poaching and the introduction of invasive species such as rats, goats and pigs).
6 surprising helpful *anime villans*
1. Sesshomaru
2. Vegeta
3. nobody cares about the other 4
@@nightsong81 I would actually care about the other four but yeah those two were surprisingly helpful on occasion.
Having worked over a decade on Tamarisk removal, I can tell you it is absolutely detrimental to native populations. In places where tamarisk take over, available surface water in areas of springs and natural seeps dries up, making it unavailable to animals. It also out-competes native plants for water, creating a complete degradation of floral variety. Within hours of removing tamarisks, surface water flow is often restored, and within months to years, a very diverse group of native plants can return and provide food and habitat for the animals.
Zebra mussels that caught rides in freight ship ballast tanks. Some locations are seeing less water pollution due to the mussels' filter-feeding ways. But they clog up pipes.
Upvoted for the shellfish pun
You sound a bit shellf-righteous...😊
This isnt reddit
@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman as do you u nut
Downvoted
It delighted me so much
"There's no crab generals ordering their troops around"
CRAB KING
CRAB KING
CRAB KING
*Giant Alaskan King Crab walks in*
Absolutely amazing episode!
There are still animals like goats, cats and rodents which are harmful invasive species in many places. In fact he mentioned the introduced cats and rats that ate young turtles in the island in the video. So why does he question the use of that term?
an atoll doesn't have enough space for human settlement? tell that to 3/4 of the polynesian population lol. Atolls for some islanders are the only dry land for miiiiiles. Feral horses and cattle have also helped "crush" (literally) many native bird species here in NZ as many of our species are ground dwelling and/or flightless
That's true, but horses were never a native discuss to NZ. Horses were native to the US before their possibly human-caused extinction. On the other hand, NZ doesn't have any native mammal predators at all, which is why opossums, stoats, and rats are a huge issue. Poor Keas.
@@bearswithglasses
If domestic horses are "native" to north America then so is every equus species including Zebras and wild donkeys because they diverged from North American equines at the same time ~5Mya
The horse is a bad example as apparently they are invasive....till the moment they get cought.
Even if the tamarisk shrub uses same amount of water as native trees, it still means that that water can't be used by native species
How can a few thousand wild horses in a huge area that is the western US be harmful to the land and plant life there. They have four hoofs and eat grass like antelope or buffalo. Or is there some other reason some people want to get rid of the American wild horse
The amount of damage that Man has done through sheer thoughtlessness and ignorance is staggering.
“Snip snip I came here on your ship” -Green Crabs
Introduced/exotic/non-native are not necessarily invasive. Invasive are those that cause dramatic and harmful changes to their new environment. The argument made at the end has completely disregarded that invasive doesn't describe all introduced species
Read my post above.
Invasion ecology has existed for around 50 years and in that time there has not been a widely accepted definition of what makes a species "invasive". I disagree with the definitions that claims an invading species must have harmful impacts. The adjective "invasive" refers to a species dispersing across a landscape, but not it's impacts. And whether or not a species is harmful is relative, right?
Instead, I like to refer to undesirable plants as a "weed", and a weed can be either native, introduced, or invasive. I personally reserve describing species as "invasive" to those that are dispersing through a new region and has a metapopulation linked by dispersal pathways. Invasive species can have good effects, e.g. erosion control, food sources, providing habitat (if they are plants), and also bad effects, e.g. trophic cascade, competitive exclusion.
Lets just refer to them as "harmful invasive" instead, that should keep everyone happy.
@@kurtisnisbet467
This is science, you still have to have a single name to describe all species, plant or animal, that are accidentally or intentionally taken from one place to another.
And the term invasive species works just fine for that.
@@lordgarion514 Absolutely, I agree with the definition that invasive species includes any organism that has dispersed across a landscape where it was not previously present. Species invasion absolutely occurs naturally, but since humans have established global trade routes, the rate of invasion event occurrences have increased. To describe this phenomenon, labelling a species as invasive is definitely useful.
Anyway, the reason I initially commented was because I disagree with the commonly held notion that invasive species have harmful effects. Deciding what is "harmful" is a value judgement and is difficult to quantify, especially if different people (e.g. ecologists and land managers) disagree about what a harmful effect is.
Gotta say when you put horses on there I was like well this is gonna be a real phoned in effort.
You guys put a couple funnies in this, I really liked how he script was written in this episode, also nice to hear something nice
Claiming that honeysuckle is a helpful invasive is wrong on a couple levels because there are many different kinds of honeysuckle. The invasive Asian species - Lonicera japonica -- is the one you DON'T want, no matter how much good it happens to be doing in one spot in Pennsylvania. But there is a species native to the U.S. -- L. sempervirens, aka coral honeysuckle aka trumpet honeysuckle aka woodbine honeysuckle. If you live in the U.S., plant that kind. Catalogs and nurseries usually sell the red version under the name "Major Wheeler" honeysuckle and the yellow kind under the name "John Clayton".
Also Amur honeysuckle is very destructive to native habitat. It outcompetes the native trees by not letting them grow.
+
I pretty sure we have the japanese honeysuckle in our yard and it is nearly as bad as kudzu. It takes over everything and you can't get rid of it.
@@Cerinaya
>as bad as kudzu. It takes over everything and you can't get rid of it.
Let sheep on it.
Horses died off around 10,000 years ago in North America, Shortly After the arrival of humans.
Gee wiz, I wonder what could have happened?
Surely it didn't have anything to do with the "native americans" who were so in tune with nature?
Combination of post ice age thermal changes, responding to other megafauna and humans.
They were on the menu.
Just imagine if they trained them then. Spain would have had harder to taking over the Americans.
camels too
This was very cool thanks
I totally thought honeybees and earthworms were going to be on this list
It's nice to look at something that's good about Invasive species instead of looking at the bad stuff. Though we still have to work out ways to get bad invasive species, It feels refreshing to see good things! Thanks for this video! DFTBA!
By definition invasive means an organism that is not native to the place where found and tends to grow and spread easily usually to the detriment of native species and ecosystems there is no good to come from an invasive plant or animal..
It would be called a beneficial animal if it wasn't invasive,. The European honey bee would be a good example of a beneficial animal, where as the Argentine mini ant for another example that is now on six continents would be considered an invasive animal. The "silver linings" this channel mentions is a small list of good that doesn't out way the bad of any of these plants or animals.
As much as I love to see some things such as horses running around the American, plains and South West, the reality is deer, elk and buffalo and other native grazers are the animals that belong there, not horses and because of horses and mules the numbers of these native animals are smaller.... Not to mention the extra pressure they put on plants in the area from over glazing and the erosion they create from eating plants all the way down to the roots.
Actually, the ecological niche that horses occupy have remained mostly unfilled since they're disappearance ~9,000 years ago. Buffalo, deer, elk, etc occupy similar but typically distinctly different niches. Its almost as if horses never left North America.
@@RaeMachiavelli put your personal feelings aside for a moment and let's look at the facts Richard Nixon signed in the Bill that protects "wild" horses as a living link to our US wild west days,. These animals breed so heavily that the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) has to catch 1000s every year and put them into pens and pastures hoping that someone will adopt them, every year .the number grows for caged wild horses as does the and the number of wild horses The BLM has to capture wild horses because they over graze especially here in the American south west (Joshua Tree National Park is a great example as is pretty much anywhere in Arizona including the Grand canyon if you would like to look them up to see the issues they create). Besides the fact US tax money (my money!) feeds these caged animals, houses these animals and provides medical care to them the point remains it is up to humans to keep thier numbers in check if left unchecked they will breed so heavily that they over graze, that is literally a definition of invasive. Native horses died at the end of the last ice age when, woolly mammoths, direwolves, saber tooth tigers also died off. There is no such thing as a native horse. By your rational we should reintroduce a elephant too because it would be a great replacement for mammoths.
These current animals are not wild animals they are feral animals. You can tell by the fact that some look strangely like the breeds of painted horses and some herds look an awful lot like draft animals and yet other herds strangely look like other breeds that were selectively breed by humans for certain traits and to become the beast of burden that we all know and love today..
Adult horses in America have no natural Predators other than humans and they do compete with native animals, from the big Horn sheep in southern California that is endangered that has to compete for desert resources with "wild" asses and horses, to the elk and deer in the Sierra Nevadas across Nevada into Utah.that are considered excellent natuve game animals. It does not matter where you look feral horses put increased demand on the land and native populations of plants and animals, this no different then the feral hog problem in the American South the only difference is horses are beautiful animals where is a pig makes good bacon.
I personally think horses are some of the most majestic animals ever to grace this planet but the reality remains, they do not belong here and they cost the American tax payer literally millions every year and they really do put strain on the environment and when we get our personal feelings away from this issue it becomes pretty clear that horses and Burros, feral animals that compete with native game..
You keep referring to animals not "belonging" somewhere. What do you mean by that? Species migrate all the time and every ecosystem on the planet is in a constant state of flux.
By not belonging I mean things that humans have brought to places they should not be, and those animals having a bad impact on the ecosystem. animals move naturally all the time but what I am talking about is that humans have made a natural process un-natural.
This is a REALLY bad episode.
Not differentiating between invasive and introduced.
Grossly oversimplifieng matters.
Saying 'horses can be red-domesticated', and implying that this in any way offers a beneficial side to their environmental devastation.
Honeysuckle outcompetes and suppresses native species, depletes soil moisture and nutrients.
The berries are less nutritional for wildlife.
So.... the only case where there was a clear benefit, was were they transplanted a niche species to another region, where the closly related cousin - filling the exact same niche - went extinct.
Yup, defenitivly an argument for passive observation till the ecosystem is broken beyond repair.
Woh! Save some of that vitriol for creationists.
@@stevenkelty8025 This is not vitriol.
This is criticism, not vitriol.
Don't conflate criticism with hating.
I like sci-show, but this Episode is simply bad.
Bad research, bad presentation, factual wrong.
And I've even pointed out WHY this Episode is bad.
Misinformation is bad, wether it is religiosly inspired or not.
It so happens that I agree with you.
Tamarix ramosissima for example has been a blight in the west. While the episode was correct in its assertions -- that tamarisk is not bad for the reasons believed in the 1940's and that it is analogous nesting habitat for one avian species -- It was incorrect in labeling tamarisk a "helpful invasive species". T. ramosissima, T. chinensis and their hybrids crowd out native Salix exigua and Populous angustifolia, *they never care about the plants* which provide food as well as nesting *for the birds which is all people ever care about* ლ(ಠ_ಠლ)
Also they got the terminology wrong.
However, if the goal is to improve Scishow using a combative tone lessens the impact of your critical assessment. If we can't explain why something is bad to non-biological scientists (as I presume they are) then how are we going to change the minds of regular people?
Also, conflate is probably the term you are looking for. ;)
Calling something bad simply because it doesn't fit with your worldviews is the definition of vitriol.
@@ObjectsInMotion
Giving false information is bad.
This is almost entirely false information.
False terminology, nonsensical arguments (horses can be domesticated, so it is good that they are out in the wild, destroying ecosystems), ignoring that these species outcompete natve species and drive them in extinction...
This is what makes it bad.
Not my worldview.
But if criticism doesn't fit YOUR oversimplified worldview, than thats your bad.
I'm in southern Virginia, right on the western end of the boarder of NC and I love honeysuckles! Not only their nectar taste so great, but their smell in the summer is hypnotic and downright romantic.
just found your page. Great videos!
There should be a disclaimer that this video is about the US.
#6 isn't.
@@zackgeorgly5099 ORLY.
More studies in US
#2 Should have done more research sci show.
"Once established, dense tamarisk stands increase fire frequency, lower plant and animal diversity, and significantly alter stream hydrology. Tamarisk consumes a great deal of water, and rarely provides food and shelter necessary for the survival of wildlife. Mature cottonwood communities are declining because shading inhibits the growth of their seedlings."
They also "salt the earth" killing all nearby flora and are inedible to local fauna unlike the flora they displace and kill.
It's nice that a single type of bird does as well with the tamerisks as they did with the Cottonwoods (but remember the decline of cottonwoods is because of the tamerisks so saying they also help is Trumpian logic), but they're literally killing off everything else.
www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/invasive_species_MM.html
www.nps.gov/arch/learn/nature/tamarisk.htm
I also found it to be extremely flawed logic, without knowing anything on this topic... I figured that the plant itself can not be the real reason for thriving of one species and that its more than likely taking the place of something else that used to help the species thrive...
Excellent presentation !
So, horses have no actual *ecological* benefits other than becoming domesticated beasts of burden for humans.
@BigMad max The video is supposed to talk about invasive/introduced species that did not become a problem and actually did something good *FOR NATURE* but all what they could say was that if you capture a wild horse you can have a nice farm pet. That was my point. A wild horse does nothing for the American ecosystem other than look pretty for humans who like horses.
The term "invasive species" is still useful for determining whether an exotic species has a net negative effect or not. Invasive has always been a term used primarily for its negative connotations to refer to species that damage their environments without offering anything back. It still works to that effect. In fact, in that first example with the horse, you guys didn't really make any points suggesting that the wild horse populations weren't actively harming the native environment - only that they had beneficial uses for humans that could still be obtained from stricter control and coralling of the horses in domestic stables. In this case "invasive" is still apropos, as they are still, by virtue of the imperative for life to propagate itself, invading the niches in their non-native habitats in order to accomplish this. For species like the Honeysuckle, calling them invasive is not necessarily appropriate, they are filling niches that were previously not filled and providing more benefit to their environs than harm via the development of mutualistic relationships with other species. In these cases, calling them simply "exotic,", "introduced," or "non-native" species is in fact better.
There are areas where honeysuckle is out competing native plants and shading seedlings of herbaceous plants in forests causing the numbers to dwindle to calling it invasive is definitely appropriate
@Doomrider I'm kind of amazed at the number of commenters here who seemed to entirely miss the point. All of the species discussed are invasive: they were introduced and cause harm to native species. The video discussed many of those negative impacts. However, the species in question also have at least some positive effects on some native species. E.g. green crabs have been wildly destructive in many of the places they were introduced, *and* they have helped keep a balance in Cape Cod after the predators to the march crab went extinct.
It's almost like they were trying to point out that invasive species, though generally harmful, can have surprisingly helpful effects. Maybe they should have titled it "6 Surprisingly Helpful Invasive Species" to make that clearer. Oh, wait...
The problem is people only look at things in the last 500-1000 years not fully understanding any form of paleontology. Horse and camels use to live here prior to their extinction they are browsers which help eat shrubs that would make way for grasses to grow which help binds the soil preventing erosion. Sometimes its not how well species fit into an environment but rather how well it fits into it's ancestor environment.What environmentalist and conservationist are pushing against the tide of evolutionary and ecological change which in the long run will form larger issues than allowing nature flow freely even by hybridization or careful analysis and a pro-ideology towards artificial introduction (since humans have form barriers all around), to much Dogma lies within that field and people only want to see one side of the argument without realizing all species ancestors were invasive species at one point in time
How do I feel about being this early to a SciShow video?
Fantastic.
Oh damn I need some counterpoints on my invasive species essay...
Sci-Show it is!
Missed another. Monk, or Quaker Parakeets have either escaped or released into the states, were once considered invasive, but its now discovered that colonies of the bird drive off the more profilic rock piegon, who's offal is harmful to all kinds of rock or metal construction. The parakeets are quite the opposite, having a preserving action to the materials. They are known to establish nesting sites on power transformers causing issues, but are manageable. Plus they are very active and colorful.
You should do one about the Parrots in Southern California :) I've often been a proponent of the resettlement of megafauna in the Americas. We have room for a rhino species and an elephant species. In fact a lot of plants around had evolved to have such animals (avacados are a dead end without large animals). I also think the native cats/canids would benefit from some larger animals.
In other words, 1 INTRODUCED species replacing species we made extinct, and 5 examples of massive cherry picking.
... cherry picking is not science. Yes, some invasive species will have predators and users, and for them, their presence CAN be helpful. However, to simply point at those few examples as proof they are good for their local ecosystem is asinine. In several of these examples on this list, the species also causes just as many, if not more, problems. Almost no invasive species can exist without downsides, so to actually determine its worth, you should be comparing and weighing the positive and negative impacts... To simply present the positives without the negatives is dishonesty through omission.
I knew 3 channels that did videos like this but now this is the only one left
Dad jokes were on point this episode thank u
Really awesome video, with super fascinating info, but as to "retiring invasive species" (8:40) I'm aghast. Invasive species is a readily definable term, with much meaningful usage. A species that is not native to a region is introduced, one which establishes itself without changing the overall structure of the existing ecosystem is an exotic, and those which cause demonstrable changes to the ecosystem via trophic cascades, the removal of ecological niches, or a wide-variety of knock-on effects are dubbed invasive. This gives us a meaningful set of definitions to categorize the broad-spectrum effects of species' introductions to various ecosystems. These are truly remarkable exceptions, and I'm delighted to know about them, but they are far from the norm.
I was born on Guam. My mother found brown snakes in my crib a few times.
Holy moly! I’m glad that you didn’t get bit! Are they venomous??
A point of information, the honeysuckle shown at 3.21 or thereabouts is one of our native honeysuckles, Lonicera sempervirens or Coral honeysuckle. The honeysuckle species considered to be invasive here in central Virginia is Lonicera japonica, Japanese honeysuckle. In my gardening business, I pull it out regularly - it has a tendency to get into everything - but when it is in full bloom it perfumes amazing volumes of air, and for a while I am inclined to forgive it everything. And, yes, the birds do love it - including hummingbirds.
That crab image shown looks like it has a grumpy face on its back. Also ty for that pun and for not stopping for a moment to do the hinty hint eyebrows
Yeah, try your theory with the Asian carp!😉
I am often shellfish too...
My favourite invasive species is the White Mulberry. It makes edible fruits, and it feeds silkworms.
I know this is dumb bus as much as sci show is awesome and educational, I’m kinda got no through a rough patch and these videos are helping at least think about things and stay active instead of just sleeping all the time.
Thanks sci show!
I think most invasive specie is human beings
Especially the white specie's, they damn near wiped out the native species and the ones that survived are treated like second class citizens.
You missed one: your mom
she feels invasive when you're in your teenage years, always monitoring you, but when you grow up you learn to really like how she was and that she gave you food and shelter.
Yes! 😍😊
AHH! The "shellfish" thing got me. Probably not as intended, but it got me.
This article would be more accurately titled as 6 horrible invasive species that are surprisingly helpful in one small place or way.
"many people dont know that horses arent native to America"
yeah, we call them public school students
I take your argument and raise you kudzu.
i like kudzu, the south is hot and smell and the kudzu is covering it up. It's a bit like covering a scratched up part of your hardwood floor by throwing a rug over it. Just bury Georgia, Alabama, and Florida with the stuff and call it a day.
I think a piece of me died over that shelfish pun... holy moly. I have to remember that one
"No Green Crab or Seaweed generals"... that's exactly what they want you to think!
This video infuriates me. While for the most part, I think SciShow does a pretty good job with their videos, making complex scientific ideas more accessible to a wider range of people, the framing of this video is inexcusably bad. It is framed as "the benefits outweigh the harms" (literally in the video description "here are six of them that can actually do more good than harm") which for many of these invasive species is completely incorrect. As someone who lives in the Western United States, I especially find fault with their defense of feral horses. The argument presented is that wild horses are good because, even though they destroy native habitat, outcompete native elk, deer, and antelope, spread diseases which can be devastating to native populations, and generally wreak havoc on the environment, domestic horses are good so therefore so are these feral horses? This ignores the fundamental difference between domestic and feral horses: that domestic horses are carefully controlled by humans, well trained and living on land that has already been appropriated and altered by humans, while feral horses live in environments that we are trying to protect, and actively destroy and alter them. This video also seems to imply that feral populations of horses are the only way to get domesticated horses? Furthermore, arguments like this are exactly what lead to the federal government making it a FELONY in the United States to control the populations of feral horses through hunting, which effectively means that this invasive and destructive species is infinitely more protected by law than beneficial and native elk, deer, and antelope, which can be killed with the correct permit. Not only does this video present a totally unrelated argument as to why feral horses are good, it also perpetuates harmful ideologies, and prevents people from examining their beliefs, in order to address this huge problem. Believe me, feral horses do not need any more good press, that's all they have, and its leading to the destruction of our environment. This video seems to advocate complacency and inaction in the face of invasive species, because in some very specific and small instances they can help the environment, even though these same species still cause immense harm which far outweighs the tiny benefits they produce, which often could also be filled by the native species they are outcompeting as well. In short, this video allows people to continue to do nothing in face of these environmental threats, by saying "oh, these species do more harm than good" and then proceeding to only talk about the very tiny amount of good they do and leave out most of their destructiveness on the environments they invade. It also completely ignores the difference between an invasive species, and a purposely introduced species to fill a specific niche, vacated by a similar species or population.
Humans deciding what's invasive or not.... brilliant.
Next step? Mars.
My whole yard is covered with white honeysuckle, it's created a fence around the perimeter of my yard and it's absolutely gorgeous in the summer
I live in cape ann, a smaller peninsula that became an island from a canal, which as a big fishing and shell fishing market, and it is wiping out our clams
So the horse is considered a helpful invasive species by you because it's helping another invasive species? Only makes it worse lol
@James Merryman Grug no like big words!
They actually do more then that.in some aeras they are very useful to native wild life cause they can break ice of frozen ponds allowing smaller native species a chance to drink and dig up snow during the winter to eat.they also act has a good large pray source for coguars,bears and wolves.
Also the plant desturcation isn't actually caused by them.it's caused by cattle.
Also some groups of horses have been isolated for so long in cretain aeras they have evolved.like the spainsh Mustangs which is a isolated population of Mustangs that are descendents of the original spainsh horses.you can tell them apart from normal Mustangs cause they have stripes on some parts of their bodies.
Helping to make something worse is still helping..lol
"Let's wait and see if this non-native species does more harm than good" is a risky position to take.
By the time it becomes obvious it can be too late. Too often have "helpful" species been transplanted, only to wind up as a nuisance and replacing their native counterpart.
In this case I'd go with "considered harmful until proven otherwise".
all species ancestor at one point in time was an invasive species
That would be a good line: ‘And then humans showed up’ lol
That shellfish pun was literally out of nowhere.
How long does an organism have to be removed from, then reintroduced to an ecosystem to be considered invasive?
Well, it's hard to say with the horses, considering they're not the same species exactly. Ecologically different members of the same genus could be quite different (preferring different foods, having different needs, etc.). This is mainly the case with plants, but also in some animals, like a certain type of shrimp that actually predates on it's native sister species. There's also the fact of environmental change, even over a small amount of time, making it potentially worse or better for the species in question.
long enough! :p
exactly 2 years 5 months 7 hours and 35 minutes. +/- 5yrs.
Did he list the horses being used to colonize as a GOOD thing? "Settled" as if people weren't already living there?
the settle as a new species use your hecking brain
Please make a video on Eichhornea, Strobilanthus kunthiana. Thanks
"you might even say they [green 🦀] are acting a little 🐚 fish"😂
The most invasive species. Humans
Second is cats. Unfortunately
(a species that isn't controlled and is causing real problems everywhere)
Peter Connell You mean Americans.
@Peter Connell European isn't a species
@@GRBtutorials American isn't a species
@Peter Connell you mean humans.
In Oregon, some Horses ARE considered a native species. They display a special set of markings that aren't found outside of North America. When wild horses are rounded up, these are always released, after a checkup shows them healthy, of course.
In Florida we officially have three terms.
Exotic species: anything non-native.
Beneficial exotic: any exotic that contributes more benefits than harm.
Invasive exotic: any exotic that is damaging the ecosystem, like Brazilian pepper.
Horses aren't invasive species, they're returning species.
@@inharmonywithearth9982 Agreed, there are species that were once driven off countries before there were records, and while there are evidence of such species once populating those areas goverments don't help at all with repopulation programs.
On top of my head I remember a type of owl (or maybe a hawk?) was trying to to go back to england, but there were no records of it ever seen in there, later on evidence was found of it living in there and being part of the ecosystem, but the ecology institutions couldn't be funded because it was seen as an "invasive species".
Apparently once a certain species get extinct in an area it automatically loses the right of ever going back.
Idiots.
Ehh great vid, but you're confusing invasive for introduced/non-native/exotic. Invasive are only species that have been introduced and are having negative impacts, which appears to be exactly what is being argued for at the end? That's already the case
'Introduced' has the connotation of being done on purpose. The wild American horses came from horses that accidentally escaped from Spanish explorers and became an invasive species, whereas wolves were introduced back into Yellowstone National Park to cull the herds and ended up helping the landscape.
Just my thoughts.
Jack Longhearse may have the connotation, but it’s the generally used term to describe a species that, one way or another, is now outside its native range. Some places use non-native or exotic, but they’re synonyms and it’s up to preference. Invasive is different
This video is far from great.
I like this channel, but this video is really bad.
Not only didn't they get the terms right, also the facts.
Horses being able to be re-domesticated is in no way a positve side for them being out in the wild, especially scince they devaste entire ecosystems.
Honeysuckle suppresses and outcompetes native species, depletes soil nutrients and moisture, and are less nutritious for wildlife than native berries.
The only good "invasive" species is the tortoise, which was only introduced to fill a gap when their closely related, niche identical cousins, were driven to extinction.
Tortises bringing back an eco system?! Hard work done so easy!
Narrator: "you might say they're being 'shellfish'"
The Crab: "I sea what you did there..."
Oh you should do a video about that vine plant in the southeastern united states that was covering whole forests! I thought everything was supposed to be covered in it by now the way it was talked about many years ago.