Table Of Content2007] BOOK REVIEWS 363
DiTOMASOJ. M. AND E. A. Healy. 2003. Aquatic and 2004. Alien plants in checklists and floras: toward
riparian weeds of the West. Agriculture and better communication between taxonomists and
Natural Resources Publication 3421, Division of ecologists. Taxon 53:131 143.
Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Randall J. M., M. RejmAnek, and J. C. Hunter.
California, Oakland, CA. 1998. Characteristics ofthe exotic flora ofCalifor-
Gartner B. L. 1991a. Is the climbing habit ofpoison nia. Fremontia 26:3-12.
oak ecotypic? Functional Ecology 5:696-704. RejmAnek M. and M. J. Pitcairn. 2002. When is
. 1991b. Relative growth rates of vines and eradication of exotic pest plant a realistic goal?
shrubs of western poison oak, Toxicodendron Pp. 249-253 inC. R. Veitchand M. N. Clout(eds.),
diversilobwn (Anacardiaceae). American Journal Turningthetide: theeradicationofinvasivespecies.
ofBotany 78:1345-1353. lUCN, Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, United
Gaskina J. p., F. J. Rayan, G. F. Hrusa, and J. P. Kingdom.
LONDOD. 2006. Genotype diversity of Salsola RoBBiNS W. W., M. K. Blue, and W. S. Ball. 1951.
tragus and potential origins of a previously un- Weeds of California, 2nd ed. CaHfornia Depart-
identified invasive Salsola from California and ment ofAgriculture, Sacramento, CA.
Arizona. Madroiio 53:244-251. Ryan F. J. and D. R. Ayers. 2000. Molecular
Gerlach J. D. 2004. The impacts of serial land-use markers indicate two cryptic, genetically divergent
changes and biological invasions on soil water populations of Russian thistle {Salsola tragus) in
resources in California, USA. Journal of Arid California. Canadian Journal ofBotany 78:59-67.
Environments 57:365-379. SUPKOFF D. M., D. B. JOLEY, AND J. J. MAROIS. 1988.
AND K. J. Rice. 2003. Testing life history Effect of introduced biological- control organisms
correlates of invasiveness using congeneric plant on the density of Chondrillajuncea in California.
species. Ecological Applications 13:167-179. Journal ofApplied Ecology 25:1089-1095.
Henderson L. 2001. Alien weeds and invasive plants. ViVRETTE N. J. AND C. H. MuLLER. 1977. Mechanism
Plant Protection Research Institute Handbook ofinvasion and dominanceofCoastal grassland by
No. 12. Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria. Mesembryanthemum crystalinum. Ecological
Hickman J. C. (ed.). 1993. TheJepson manual: higher Monographs 47:301-318.
plants ofCaHfornia. UniversityofCaliforniaPress, Walstad J. D. and P. J. Kuch (eds.). 1987. Forest
Berkeley, CA. vegetation management for conifer production.
Holland D. C. 1987. Prosopis (Mimosaceae) in the Wiley, New York, NY.
San Joaquin Valley, California: vanishing relict or Weber E. 2003. Invasive plant species of the world.
recent invader? Madrono 34:324-333. CABI PubHshing, Cambridge, MA.
HrusaF., B. Ertter,A. Sanders, G. Leppig, and E.
Dean. 2002. Catalogue of non-native vascular
plants occurring spontaneously in California be-
yond those addressed in TheJepson Manual- Part
INDEIR.JMITad(rEoD.n)o. 4290:0651.-9I8n.vasivc plants: ecological and ASpmeecriiecs:an SPterracnegpetrisonsonofIthmemigLraannd.t anBdy InPveastievre
agricultural aspects. Birkhauser, Basel. COATES. 2007. University of California Press,
JaconoC. C. 2002. Landoltiapunctata(G. Mey.) Les& Berkeley, CA. 266 pp. Hardcover. $39.95. ISBN
D.J. Crawford. U.S. Geological Survey Nonindig- 13: 978-0-520-24930-1.
enous Aquatic Species Database, Gainseville, FL,
Availableat: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet. One of the defining characteristics of humans
asp?speciesID=1116.
Jepson Flora Project. 2007. Index to taxa recorded is their tendency to want to manage nature so
from CaHfornia since the Jepson manual (range that it meets their perceptions of "how things
extensions from outside California and new natur- should be." Ecologically, this has been translated
alizations). Available at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/ in numerous ways, from wildHfe management
interchange/I_index_newrange.html. practices that once promoted intense predator
Lavergne S. and J. MOLOFSKY. 2007. Increased control to notions of restoring landscapes to
genetic variation and evolutionary potential drive "pre-European conditions." Of course, these
the success ofan invasive grass. Proceedings ofthe perceptions are not universally accepted at any
NoaftAimoenralicAaca10d4e:m3y88o3f-3S8c8i8e.nces ofthe United States given point in time, and perhaps more important
Mathei O. 1995. Manual de las malezas que crecen en the prevailingopinion (i.e., conventional wisdom)
Chile. Alfabeta Impresores, Santiago, Chile. often shifts over time. Hence, we now see the
Myers J. H. and D. R. Bazely. 2003. Ecology and reintroduction of predators into areas they were
controlofintroduced plants. Cambridge University once extirpated from, and the gradual realization
Press. by restoration practitioners that trying to convert
PanetsosC. a. and H. G. Baker. 1967. Theorigin of an ecosystem to an arbitrary point in time (and
variation in "wild" Raphanussativus(Cruciferae)in then keeping it there) is fraught with both
CaHfornia. Genetica 38:243 274. conceptual and practical problems. In American
PoscMhelnogdelp.., 19D9.6.MaTthtehibeisol,ogiSc.alJofrlodraan,ofaCnedntrCa.l Perceptions of Immigrant and Invasive Species,
Europe-anecologicalbibliography. BuHetinofthe Peter Coates, an environmental historian at the
Geobotanical Institute ETH 62:89-108. University ofBristol, uses historical and contem-
Pysek p., D. M. Richardson, M. RejmAnek, G. porary case studies to analyze views on non-
Webster, M. Williamson, and J. Kirschner. native species in the United States over the last
MADRONO
364 [Vol. 54
two centuries. But rather than hmiting his born species, or individual humans, are best
analysis to an ecological viewpoint, Coates poses suited for an area (the "nativist" philosophy) and
the question of whether our attitudes towards those who feel that local qualities are vastly
non-native plants and animals have simply been improved with infusions from other areas (the
a reflection of the prevailing way American "cosmopolitanist" philosophy). In one way or
society thinks about immigrants in general, or another, it is the conflict between the nativists
whetherthe two issues areessentially independent and thecosmopolitaniststhat plays outacross the
ofone another. By doing this, he places the issue next four chapters. Chapters 2^ are largely on
of biological invasions in a broader context of historical events. They describe the contributing |
i
social and cultural perceptions than they are factors and often heated debates surrounding the
typically found. One ofthe tangible achievements introduction and spread of the house sparrow, j
I
of Coates book is that it clearly shows that (and to a lesser degree the starling; Chapter 2), '
perceptions of "how things should be" depends agricultural crops and their pests and pathogens
on where and when you are standing in a certain (Chapter 3), and tree-of-heaven and eucalyptus
place, a lesson that scientists and conservation (Chapter 4). In Chapter 5, Coates returns to his
practitioners too frequently forget. broader themes by focusing on the controversies
In many ways, American Perceptions of surrounding human immigrants and biological
Immigrant and Invasive Species is an extension invasions in our era. My guess is most readers of i
ofCoates' earlierbook Nature: Western Attitudes the book will find Chapter 5, as well as the latter
Since Ancient Times, (Blackwell Publishers 1998). part ofChapter4, the most accessible becausethe
Coates employs the same approach here as he did case studies are largely contemporary. However,
in Nature. Using history as his pathway, he it is in Chapter 3 where the debate between the |
describes the development ofperceptions towards nativist and the cosmopolitanist schools best |
natural phenomena both within and across given informs us ofwhere our deeper perceptions, and 'i
periods oftimes, with the path ultimately ending inherently contradictory attitudes, towards non-
in our own contemporary era. Though he does native species can lead us.
not ignore their philosophical underpinnings, Coates is a good enough writer and thorough
Coates is an empiricist at heart and is more enough thinker that, overall, the book is a lively
interested in the cultural manifestations and and absorbing read. Having said that, it is ;
social outcomes of our perceptions than their important to point out that while it is not 1
I
logic or intellectual merit. Indeed, Coates uses technical by any stretch of the imagination, the
their contradictions to illuminate from where book is nevertheless an academic publication that |
these perceptions arise and how they become part is dense in detail. Most ofthe time the detail adds ,
i
ofour collective psyche. In the case ofAmerican color and depth to the narrative, but in some
Perceptions ofImmigrant andInvasive Species, he places it can make it difficult to follow, especially i
has simply narrowed his scope from broad views when trying to link some of the more obscure
\
ofnature to specific views on a particular, albeit players to specific events or ideas attributed to
highly charged, part ofnature. them several pages (or even chapters) back. !
Coates structures the five-chaptered book in Though this makes the book less accessible as |
I
two ways. One is used to develop the general popular reading, the tradeoff is that it is an '
themes that cut across the individual chapters intelligent and scholarly work that never wanders
and unite the case studies. The other is the into the often sensationaHst and shallow writing
approach he uses within the individual chapters. not uncommonly found in non-technical pieces
Coates presents an initial overview ofthe specific on both non-native species and immigration.
;
topic in the opening section of each chapter, Although Coates has his opinions, they tend to
!
including its issues, time period, and major illuminate rather than consciously skew the
players. He then uses the remainder of the issues. His insights and subject matter remain
chapter to dive into the details. This allows vibrant, and he is adept at drawing the details
Coates to deepen each case study with scholarly together into a coherent whole at the end ofeach
particulars, but by maintaining a coherent thread chapter. |
that runs throughout the book the general themes The book does have one flaw. Coates seems to I
are never lost in minutiae. have tried to make a compromise between the ,
In the introductory chapter, Coates explains depth and breadth of the book (something that
the importance ofwhat is in a name, depicts the also characterized Nature). He did a very admi-
tendency of humans to transfer human qualities rable job mining the depths of his three case |
\
to species and species qualities to humans, and studies; ofthe books 256 pages, 189 are devoted
makes initial comparisons between opinions to narrative and the rest to footnotes. But what
towards biological invasions and human immi- was gained in detail resulted in a sacrifice in
gration. Perhaps most important, he sets the breadth. Drawing general conclusions from the |
stage for the stark contrast between the opinions three main case studies is difficult because they j
ofthosewho adhere to the philosophy that native are not entirely representative of the way other ;
2007] BOOK REVIEWS 365
species introductions in North America have the capricious way humans continue to decide
played out. The book would have had greater what belongs in an ecosystem and what does not,
breadth had Coates included one or two addi- and could have provided broader insights into
tional case studies that broadened the debate. He our perceptions of non-native species introduc-
undoubtedly picked his case studies strategically tions. As compelling a book as American Percep-
because they provided the links he was seeking tions of Immigrant and Invasive Species is, it
between invasive species and immigration, espe- probably would have been even more so ifCoates
cially for examining these links across time had picked some of these lesser known but
periods and shifting social and cultural values. equally telling examples as case studies.
In some ways though, the stories of house Nevertheless, while the stories of house
sparrows and starlings and eucalyptus and many sparrows and starlings and eucalyptus have been
agricultural crops are old news. They have been fodder for discussion for decades, many people
well-documented, and the stories all play out involved in research and management ofinvasive
more or less in the same way. Overlooked or only non-native species have forgotten that their
given scant mention are stories of other in- concerns are not new ones. It is even debatable
troduced non-native species that have been less whether the topic is any more heated or complex
contentious, or, up until modern times, consid- now than it was a century ago. The singular
ered to be of benefit to humans. This includes strength ofthis book is that it highlights that, in
game animals such as ring-necked pheasants, many ways, the issues and controversies that
chukar, brown trout, and wild boar, and trees surround species introductions have been ongo-
such as the European olive and fig. The question ing forcenturies, and in many ways they have not
of when a species ceases to become native and changed substantially. They have only been
becomes an invasive and harmful non-native is translated into the value sets, language, and
a critical one and is almost entirely ignored. perceptions unique to our time. For this reason
Mountain goats in Olympic National Park, alone, the book is a highly informative work that
horses in parts ofthe arid and semi-arid western provides useful insights notjust for people doing
United States, some fish species (e.g., rainbow work on non-native species, but ecologists and
and brook trout), and plants such as yellow bush conservationists in general.
lupine are either native to some regions of the
—
country, a state, or a bioregion, but not others, or Rob Klinger, Western Ecological Research Center,
they were native to the continent in relatively U.S. Geological Service-Biological Resources Division;
recent times. These are provocative examples of [email protected].
