4.3 Article

Conflicts between Perception and Reality in the Management of Alien Species in Forest Ecosystems: A Norwegian Case Study

Journal

LANDSCAPE RESEARCH
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 319-338

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01426391003746523

Keywords

Acer pseudoplatanus; alien species; biological invasions; nature management; views on nature

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The vegetation dynamics and landscape management during 20 years of a temperate deciduous forest protected as a nature reserve in western Norway are analysed. Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), an alien species in northern Europe, has become abundant in parts of the forest and the paper discusses how nature management has formulated and interpreted the introduction of sycamore. Scientists and nature managers regard the species as aggressive and a threat to the local natural biodiversity, but in this respect empirical evidence has been replaced by assumption and prejudice, and this is critically reviewed in the paper. The development of the forest has been monitored annually since 1988 and the long-term forest dynamics and behaviour of sycamore are discussed in relation to the attitudes of nature managers. The views held by nature managers are based on their own values and ideas regarding what is valuable nature, and alien species are often assumed to be invasive and aggressive, yet with no reference being made to site ecology and human local history. As an alternative to an a priori understanding of the role of alien species, the paper suggests that proper knowledge of ecosystem dynamics can only be achieved through analysis of ecological variation in space and time. The management of any species should not be according to its status as native or alien, but according to a judgment of its role and long-term behaviour. The values of nature conservationists should not be confused with the intrinsic values of nature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available