Will Malson Species 1NC Page 1 of 13

the order is 2 t, 2 k, 2 cps (all 3 are conditional), & a little bit of case. 2956 word count.
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 2 of 13

T – policy

I. Interp:
a) policy: (a plan of action adopted by an individual or social group) e.g. "it was a policy of
retribution"; "a politician keeps changing his policies" [Princeton U WordNet lexical database
10 (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=policy)]
b) res: usfg should sig reform its environmental plan of action

II. Vio: aff is changing an Act of Congress. this is readily distinguishable from “policy” (see examples).
this may AFFECT enviro-policy, but that standard is bad…which aff agreed to in CX.

III. Standards:
1. Brightline. RTP:
a) Key to definition: definitions is an expression of precise measure,
the word is placed in the resolution for a specific and clearly limited purpose.
b) Best for education: makes T debates short and sweet ‘cause we can
agree on what the resolution means much faster.
c) Ultimate goal of all definitions: the objective of every definition is to
minimize confusion and make things clean and precise; a brightline is the
ultimate topicality standard
d) Preserves communication: the meaning of words must be kept
standard and precise to allow for clear and reliable communication.
e) Void for vagueness: courts toss out statutes that are too vague, so
should debate, since it’s only a model of courts.
f) Key to language
Edwin Newman 83 “The productivity of plan english” p.g
“If the level of English we speak and write declines, we decline with it”
g) Makes T a question of degree
If we don’t have a bright line that tells us when a case is topical or not, then
the topicality of a case is constantly in a grey area, completely up to
interpretation. But topicality isn’t a question of degree, it’s like being
pregnant: you either are or you aren’t. There’s no grey area.

2. fxt bad. See cx of 1ac

IV. Voters:
1. A priori issue.
Topicality is an issue that is evaluated before any other contention is addressed. If they aren’t topical,
you should vote negative without considering any other issue. It’s like the winner of the superbowl – it
was either the Saints or it wasn’t.
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 3 of 13

2. Prima facie burden.

The Affirmative team’s obligation is to present a case on its face that defends the truth of the resolution.
Regardless of whether their plan is a good or bad idea, they have failed to uphold their prima facie
burden if it does not mirror the terms of resolution.

3. Destroys debate.
If non-topical cases are allowed, the entire foundation for academic debate is destroyed. The most
important thing to consider in academic debate is the resolution. If the resolution does not matter, why
debate? If non-topical cases are the norm, people will stop debating, because what’s the point?

4. Sets a bad precedent.

Voting in favor of a blatantly non-topical case sets a precedent. It says to our league, “This practice is
okay.” As the judge, it is your job to vote against cases that set a bad precedent of non-topical cases
being okay. A negative ballot based on topicality sends a message discouraging teams from running
non-topical cases.
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 4 of 13

T – enviro-policy

I. Interp:
a) EP: refer to aff’s definition of EP – “policy concerned with governing the relationship
between people and their natural environment.”

II. Vio:
None of their mandates are concerned with governing the relationship (key word,
RELATIONSHIP) between people and THEIR (key word again, THEIR) natural environment
(or habitat).

III. Voters:
Cross-apply all previous voters.
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 5 of 13

“Invasive Species” K
I. F/w
Metaphors are more than just words and shape our understanding of and
experience with the concept behind the metaphor. Goldstein 09
Jared A. Goldstein [Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law; J.D., University of Michigan], “Aliens
in the Garden,” University of Colorado Law Review, Summer 2009, 80 U. Colo. L. Rev. 685 (ETHOS)
“Through metaphors, of course, we understand one kind of thing in terms of
another. Cognitive linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson revolutionized the study of
metaphors by demonstrating that metaphors are not merely rhetorical flourishes but
constitute a fundamental part of conceptual systems that shape our experiences. Cognitive
metaphor theory, as elaborated by Lakoff, Johnson, and others, reveals that metaphors unconsciously underlie much of our thinking.
For instance, we routinely understand knowledge in terms of vision: I see what you mean; she shed light on the problem; I was left in
the dark. In these examples, notions associated with physical vision (seeing, light, and dark) are used to explain the process of
knowing. In the terms used by cognitive linguistics, vision is the ‘source domain,’ comprised of words and ideas associated with
vision, and these metaphors work by ‘mapping’ elements from the source domain onto the ‘target domain,’ in this case, knowledge.”

II. Links
1. “Invasive species” rhetoric is an example of the nationalization of nature – this
lens of nationalism distorts environmental policies (ex: species compared to
immigrants). Goldstein 09
Jared A. Goldstein [Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law; J.D., University of Michigan], “Aliens
in the Garden,” University of Colorado Law Review, Summer 2009, 80 U. Colo. L. Rev. 685 (ETHOS)
“This Article examines environmental rhetoric and argues that a nationalist conception of nature has
long distorted environmental policies. Environmental discourse frequently seeks to explain the natural world by
reference to the world of nations, a phenomenon that can be characterized as the ‘nationalization of nature.’ A contemporary
example of the nationalization of nature is the rhetoric of "invasive species," which
depicts harmful foreign plants and animals in ways that bear an uncanny resemblance to
the demonization of foreigners by opponents of immigration. A typical newspaper article about
invasive species, bearing the headline ‘Eeeeek! The eels are coming!,’ warned about an influx of ‘Asian swamp eels’ and described
them as ‘slimy, beady-eyed immigrants.’ The nationalization of nature is a longstanding trope in American environmental discourse,
as policies toward native and foreign plants and animals have long expressed attitudes toward native and foreign peoples.
Although the metaphor of ‘invasive species’ can be helpful in understanding the
phenomenon of introduced species, conceiving of environmental problems through the
lens of nationalism distorts environmental policies by projecting onto nature unrelated
anxieties about national security and national identity.”

2. The ‘common traits’ of invasive species – highly reproductive, inassimilable, and

harmful – are also used to characterize unwanted immigrants. Goldstein 09
Jared A. Goldstein [Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law; J.D., University of Michigan], “Aliens
in the Garden,” University of Colorado Law Review, Summer 2009, 80 U. Colo. L. Rev. 685 (ETHOS)
“Where do these perceived traits of invasive species - aggressive, highly
reproductive, adaptable, inassimilable, and disease-bearing - come from? The traits of
bad foreign plants and animals are suspiciously akin to the perceived traits of unwanted
foreign peoples. The inability to assimilate into American culture has always been a
primary distinction drawn by nativists between wanted and unwanted immigrants. In 1889,
the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of Chinese immigrants on the ground that the Chinese "remained strangers in the land,
residing apart by themselves, and adhering to the customs and usages of their own country. It seemed impossible for them to
assimilate with our people, or to make any changes in their habits or modes of living." The charge that certain foreigners could not or
would not assimilate into mainstream American life was made against Irish immigrants in the 1850s, southern European, eastern
European, Italian, and Jewish immigrants beginning in the 1880s and 1890s, French-Canadian and Filipino immigrants in the 1930s,
and Latin American and other immigrants today. As immigration restrictionist Peter Brimelow recently asked, "Is it really wise to
allow the immigration of people who find it so difficult and painful to assimilate into the American majority?" Invasive
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 6 of 13

species activists make precisely the same argument: we should not allow foreign plants
and animals into the country because they cannot adapt to the American way of life and
can only harm it.”

III. Impact
Justification for genocide. Example: Nazi Germany’s environmental policies were
closely linked to the racial purity mindset in their effort to cleanse Germany of
foreign contamination. Goldstein 09
Jared A. Goldstein [Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law; J.D., University of Michigan], “Aliens
in the Garden,” University of Colorado Law Review, Summer 2009, 80 U. Colo. L. Rev. 685 (ETHOS)
“Environmental protections in Nazi Germany were understood through the same
lens of racial purity as other aspects of Nazi policies. German polices sought to protect
German flora and fauna and to exclude foreign plants and animals, which were depicted
as threats to the purity of German landscapes. For instance, Reinhold Tuxen, head of the
Reich Central Office for Vegetation Mapping, demanded a ‘war of extermination’ against
the Asian Impatiens parviflora, a forest plant seen as an invasive intruder: ‘As with the
fight against Bolshevism, in which our entire occidental culture is at stake, so with the
fight against this Mongolian invader, an essential element of this culture, namely, the
beauty of our home forest, is at stake.’ In the words of a German landscape architect from
the Nazi era, protecting German plants required ‘cleansing the German landscape of
unharmonious foreign substances.’”

IV. Alt
Some foreign species are harmful to native species, others are not. Instead of using language that
serves political ends and promotes harmful mindsets, we should use a more balanced approach
when evaluating foreign species that is more in line with the history of America.
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 7 of 13

Representations K

I. Link
BioD is presented as an ecological horror story designed to spur quick political action.
Doremus 2k
DOREMUS ‘00(Holly, Professor of Law at UC Davis, Washington & Lee Law Review, "The Rhetoric and Reality of Nature Protection: Toward
a New Discourse," 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11, Winter 2000)

In recent years, this discourse frequently has taken the form of the ecological horror story . The
image of the airplane earth, its wings wobbling as rivet after rivet is carelessly popped out, is
difficult to ignore. The apocalyptic depiction of an impending crisis of potentially dire
proportions is designed to spur the political community to quick action . Furthermore, this story
suggests a goal that appeals to many nature lovers: that virtually everything must be protected.
To reinforce this suggestion, tellers of the ecological horror story often imply that the relative
importance of various rivets to the ecological plane cannot be determined. They offer reams of data and
dozens of anecdotes demonstrating the unexpected value of apparently useless parts of nature. The moth that saved Australia from prickly pear
invasion, the scrubby Pacific yew, and the downright unattractive leech are among the uncharismatic flora and fauna who star in these anecdotes.
n211 The moral is obvious: because we cannot be sure which rivets are holding the plane together, saving them all is the only sensible course.
Notwithstanding its attractions, the material discourse in general, and the ecological horror story in particular, are not likely to generate policies
that will satisfy nature lovers. The ecological horror story implies that there is no reason to protect nature until catastrophe looms. The Ehrlichs'
rivet-popper account, for example, presents species simply as the (fungible) hardware holding together the ecosystem. If we could be reasonably
certain that a particular rivet was not needed to prevent a crash, the rivet-popper story suggests that we would lose very little by pulling it out.
Many environmentalists, though, would disagree. n212 Reluctant to concede such losses, tellers of the ecological horror story highlight how close
a catastrophe might be, and how little we know about what actions might trigger one. But the apocalyptic vision is less credible today than it
seemed in the 1970s. Although it is clear that the earth is experiencing a mass wave of extinctions, n213 the complete elimination of life on earth
seems unlikely. n214 Life is remarkably robust. Nor is human extinction probable any time soon. Homo sapiens is adaptable to nearly any
environment. Even if the world of the future includes far fewer species, it likely will hold people. n215One response to this credibility problem
tones the story down a bit, arguing not that humans will go extinct but that ecological disruption will bring economies, and consequently
civilizations, to their knees. n216 But this too may be overstating the case. Most ecosystem functions are performed by multiple species. This
functional redundancy means that a high proportion of species can be lost without precipitating a collapse. n217

II. Impact: turns case

Current political discourses fail to preserve nature. We must reject the ecological horror
story, and use the space opened up to develop a meaningful relationship with nature, which
is not driven by threats of human extinction. Doremus 2k
Holly Doremus [Professor of Law, University of California at Davis. J.D., University of California at Berkely, Ph.D., Cornell University], "The
rhetoric and reality of nature protection: toward a new discourse", Washington & Lee Law Review, 2000, accessed via LexisNexis

The crux of the modern nature problem is the need to find an appropriate human role in nature.
Human beings are both of nature, having evolved through the same processes that govern other creatures, and outside nature, having developed
the ability to modify and control the environment on a scale far beyond any other creature. The
nature problem, therefore, is as
much about people as it is about nature. Instead of focusing on how to divide the world between
humanity and nature, as we have done so far, we must consider how best to combine the two. The
dominant stories in our current political discourse to not help us do that. The ecological horror story gives us no reason to
see ourselves as a part of nature or to value contact with nature. The wilderness story tells us that
we are not part of nature and should stay away from it. The Noah story tells us that we may have
to share space with nature to weather a crisis but does not encourage an ongoing relationship
with nature. If we are to maintain species, ecosystems, or wild nature in the long term we must
develop such a relationship. Because we cannot avoid contact with nature, we must learn how to
live with it. We also must learn to resolve the inevitable conflicts among persons over the extent to which nature should remain outside
human control and over conflicting uses, both consumptive and non-consumptive, to which we might put nature. Because the current stores do
not address these issues, they offer at best only incomplete solutions to the nature problem.
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 8 of 13

III. Alt: solves case.

Viewing nature as an integrated part of life rather than a security threat can effectively
reshape how we evaluate environmental issues and how we respond to them—only we solve
the case. Doremus 2k
Holly Doremus in 2000 ( Professor of Law, University of California at Davis. J.D., University of California at Berkeley, Winter, 2000, 57 Wash
& Lee L. Rev. 11, The Rhetoric and Reality of Nature Protection: Toward a New Discourse) - chris

If it is to address the problem of defining and developing a viable and fulfilling human
relationship with nature, the rhetoric of nature protection must include people in the picture. It
cannot simply rely on the wilderness vision of nature necessarily isolated from humanity, unable to
bear even the lightest human touch. Putting people in the picture means acknowledging people as a part of
nature and emphasizing human connections to nature. The rhetoric of sustainable development tries to put people in
the picture. But the people it depicts use nature only as a material resource; they do not have emotional connections to it. The picture is one-
dimensional; as a result, it would likely sanction the loss of much more nature than environmentalists would be willing to give up. n303 In order
to build support for preserving more, environmentalists must concentrate their rhetoric on emotional or spiritual, rather than material, connections
One lesson we can draw from the success of the esthetic arguments for wilderness
with nature.
protection is that people do care about the ways in which nature can affect human character.
Wilderness has been presented partly as a way to maintain the desirable aspects of the frontier character in an era which would not otherwise
produce them. n304 The second-generation discourse should take the idea that nature shapes human character beyond the wilderness context.
Creating rugged, self-reliant individualists capable of surviving on the frontier cannot be the focus of nature protection efforts in the tamer places
Contact with nature in our daily lives can help imbue
closer to home, but some other parts of the wilderness idea can.
the sense of humility and of being part of a larger world to which wilderness advocates referred.
n305 Furthermore, contact with a local natural community can help build a larger sense of
community with the people with whom we share nature. Large numbers of Americans say they
are anxious to develop those sorts of connections to community and place.
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 9 of 13

CP #1

I. Text
Congress shall amend the Lacey Act and replace the existing “dirty list” approach with the
“clean list” approach, allowing only those non-native species which have been proven harmless
into the United States. Aka, NO dirty-list, JUST a clean-list. The harm of a non-native species
shall be determined through risk assessment as defined by aff.

II. Non-T
1AC plan text collapses the resolution. Everything else is negative ground.

III. NB
There are two net benefits; one is purely operational in nature –
1. clarity/efficiency: having a clean-list only allows the
government to examine each species, and, upon conclusive evidence
that it is safe for the country or for that particular area, move it to the
clean-list. A gray-list creates a tier-like system, which means multiple
studies (one to move it to the gray-list, one to move it to the clean-list)
and some wasted time/energy/money/man-power.
2. corruption/lobbying: example, coal-ash: the coal-ash industry
(coal industry) had inside dealings with the EPA to modify reports
about the toxicity of the substance. Having a gray-list for species
means that there’s a lot of extra wiggle-room for private corporations
to push for their species to be moved from the “eh, it’s not quite
ready” to the “oh, okay, come in” list. Leaving it at a clean-list
completely prevents that.

IV. Solvency
Aff supports a clean-list too, they just support more than a clean-list.
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 10 of 13

CP #2
I. Text
a) Congress shall amend the Lacey Act and replace the existing “dirty
list” approach with the “gray list” approach as defined by the
affirmative.
b) the power to let a species in will be devolved to the states.
c) the 50 states and DC will create a clean-list for their individual
state/district.
Summation: the fed has a gray-list; they have a list of all the species
that have not been proven to be detrimental. Then, each individual
state gets to decide what species they let in. they have the clean-list.

II. Non-T
1AC plan text collapses the resolution. Everything else is negative
ground.

III. NB
Applying Federalism To Homeland Security Is In Line With The Constitution And
Produces Efficacy & Liberty Benefits. Giuliano 07
Adam M. Giuliano [Associate, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, New York; J.D., New York University School of Law;
B.A., Yale University.], “EMERGENCY FEDERALISM: CALLING ON THE STATES IN PERILOUS TIMES,” University of Michigan
Journal of Law Reform, Winter 2007, University of Michigan Law School, 40 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 341, [Accessed Via Lexis Nexis]
[Ethos]
“The Framers' rationales for extending federalism in troubled times deserve special consideration as current exigencies
applying federalism to homeland security can
appear analogous to those considered in the drafting. In this way,
be justified as an expression of what the Constitution says and implies on the subject,
rather than as an extension of more general principles developed in a different context. In
particular, proceeding in this manner should produce tangible benefits in terms of both
efficacy and liberty. Emergency federalism thus encourages a debate about competing security claims at the state and
federal levels, rather than a more [*345] simplistic tradeoff between security and liberty within a single level of government.”

IV. Solvency
Four Reasons States Are Better: 1) Knowledge of Local Conditions Allows For
Increased Protectiveness Without Increased Cost, 2) States More Responsive To
Local Needs, 3) One-Size-Fits-All Doesn’t Fit So Well, & 4) States Innovate. Feds
Don’t. Adler 07
Professor Jonathan H. Adler [Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western
Reserve University School of Law.], “WHEN IS TWO A CROWD? THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL ACTION ON STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION,” The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 2007, President and Fellows of Harvard College, 31
Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 67 [Accessed Via Lexis Nexis] [Ethos]
“There are several factors that may cause state-level environmental regulations to be
more cost-effective, or otherwise qualitatively superior, than federal regulations of
equivalent cost or scope. n144 First, and perhaps most important, state policy-makers and
regulators may have access to [*107] knowledge of local problems and conditions. n145
Consideration of such knowledge in the development and implementation of state
regulatory programs may increase the protectiveness of existing programs without
increasing their cost or scope. Second, state policy-makers, because they are closer both
to the environmental problems they seek to address and the regulated community, may be
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 11 of 13

more responsive to local needs and concerns. Third, insofar as environmental problems
vary from place to place, state policy-makers may be able to focus state resources on
environmental problems that exist in a given state. Federal standards, on the other hand,
tend to impose broad one-size-fits-all requirements that, in actuality, often fit no state
particularly well. n146 A regulatory requirement that makes perfect sense in one state
may not provide much environmental protection in another. Fourth, the existence of a
federal standard may inhibit the ability of (or incentive for) state policy-makers to
innovate or experiment with different approaches to meeting a given environmental goal.
n147”
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 12 of 13

Case – Justification 1

1. Attacking point 1:
a) Redundancy prevents ecosystem collapse-keystone theory is wrong. Maser 92
MASER ’92 (Chris Maser, internationally recognized expert in forest ecology and governmental consultant, 1992, Global Imperative:
Harmonizing Culture and Nature, p. 40)

Redundancy means that more than one species can perform similar functions. It’s a type of
ecological insurance policy, which strengthens the ability of the system to retain the integrity of
its basic relationships. The insurance of redundancy means that the loss of a species or two is not
likely to result in such severe functional disruptions of the ecosystem so as to cause its collapse
because other species can make up for the functional loss.

b) Extinct species are replaced. Palmer 92

PALMER ’92 (Thomas Palmer, The Atlantic, January, 1992, p. 83)

Students of evolution have shown that species death, or extinction, is going on all the time, and
that it is an essential feature of life history. Species are adapted to their environments; as
environments change, some species find themselves in the position of islanders whose islands are
washing away, and they go under. Similarly, new islands (or environments) are appearing all the
time, and they almost invariably produce new species.

2. AT: BioD k2 survival (Diner and the like)

a) Species extinction won't cause human extinction – humans and the environment are
adaptable (this can answer any invisible threshold argument that they try to make later
on). Doremus 2k
DOREMUS ‘00(Holly, Professor of Law at UC Davis, Washington & Lee Law Review, "The Rhetoric and Reality of Nature Protection: Toward
a New Discourse," 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11, Winter 2000)

In recent years, this discourse frequently has taken the form of the ecological horror story . That too
is no mystery. The ecological horror story is unquestionably an attention-getter, especially in the hands of skilled writers [*46] like Carson and
the Ehrlichs. The image of the airplane earth, its wings wobbling as rivet after rivet is carelessly popped out, is difficult to ignore. The
apocalyptic depiction of an impending crisis of potentially dire proportions is designed to spur
the political community to quick action . Furthermore, this story suggests a goal that appeals to many nature lovers: that
virtually everything must be protected. To reinforce this suggestion, tellers of the ecological horror story often imply that the relative importance
of various rivets to the ecological plane cannot be determined. They offer reams of data and dozens of anecdotes demonstrating the unexpected
value of apparently useless parts of nature. The moth that saved Australia from prickly pear invasion, the scrubby Pacific yew, and the downright
unattractive leech are among the uncharismatic flora and fauna who star in these anecdotes. n211 The
moral is obvious: because
we cannot be sure which rivets are holding the plane together, saving them all is the only
sensible course. Notwithstanding its attractions, the material discourse in general, and the ecological horror story in particular, are not
likely to generate policies that will satisfy nature lovers. The ecological horror story implies that there is no reason to protect nature until
catastrophe looms. The Ehrlichs' rivet-popper account, for example, presents species simply as the (fungible) hardware holding together the
ecosystem. If we could be reasonably certain that a particular rivet was not needed to prevent a crash, the rivet-popper story suggests that we
would lose very little by pulling it out. Many environmentalists, though, would disagree. n212 Reluctant to concede such losses, tellers of the
ecological horror story highlight how close a catastrophe might be, and how little we know about what actions might trigger one. But the
apocalyptic vision is less credible today than it seemed in the 1970s. Although it is clear that the
earth is experiencing a mass wave of extinctions, n213 the complete elimination of life on earth
seems unlikely. n214 Life is remarkably robust. Nor is human extinction probable any time
soon. Homo sapiens is adaptable to nearly any environment. Even if the world of the future
includes far fewer species, it likely will hold people. n215One response to this credibility
Will Malson Species 1NC Page 13 of 13

problem tones the story down a bit, arguing not that humans will go extinct but that ecological
disruption will bring economies, and consequently civilizations, to their knees. n216 But this too
may be overstating the case. Most ecosystem functions are performed by multiple species. This
functional redundancy means that a high proportion of species can be lost without precipitating a
collapse. n217

b) Species loss won’t risk extinction – no credible reason it will snowball. Sagoff 97
SAGOFF ’97 (Mark, Pew Scholar in Conservation and the Environment and past President of the International Society of Environmental Ethics
“Do we consume too much?” The Atlantic Monthly, June)

There is no credible argument, moreover, that all or even most of the species we are concerned to
protect are essential to the functioning of the ecological systems on which we depend. (If whales
went extinct, for example, the seas would not fill up with krill.) David Ehrenfeld, a biologist at
Rutgers University, makes this point in relation to the vast ecological changes we have already
survived. "Even a mighty dominant like the American chestnut," Ehrenfeld has written,
"extending over half a continent, all but disappeared without bringing the eastern deciduous
forest down with it." Ehrenfeld points out that the species most likely to be endangered are those
the biosphere is least likely to miss. "Many of these species were never common or ecologically
influential; by no stretch of the imagination can we make them out to be vital cogs in the
ecological machine."

c) Biodiversity isn’t key to survival. C. Herald 97

CALGARY HERALD ’97 (Calgary Herald, lexis-nexus, August 30, 1997)
Ecologists have long maintained that diversity is one of nature's greatest strengths, but new research suggests that diversity alone does not
new
guarantee strong ecosystems. In findings that could intensify the debate over endangered species and habitat conservation, three
studies suggest a greater abundance of plant and animal varieties doesn't always translate to
better ecological health. At least equally important, the research found, are the types of species and how they function together.
"Having a long list of Latin names isn't always better than a shorter list of Latin names," said Stanford University biologist Peter Vitousek, co-
Separate experiments in California, Minnesota and
author of one of the studies published in the journal Science.
Sweden, found that diversity often had little bearing on the performance of ecosystems -- at least as
measured by the growth and health of native plants. In fact, the communities with the greatest
biological richness were often the poorest when it came to productivity and the cycling of
nutrients. One study compared plant life on 50 remote islands in northern Sweden that are prone to frequent wildfires from lightning strikes.
Scientist David Wardle of Landcare Research in Lincoln, New Zealand, and colleagues at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, found
that islands dominated by a few species of plants recovered more quickly than nearby islands with greater biological diversity. Similar findings
were reported by University of Minnesota researchers who studied savannah grasses, and by Stanford's Vitousek and colleague David Hooper,
who concluded that functional characteristics of plant species were more important than the number of varieties in determining how ecosystems
British plant ecologist J.P. Grime, in a commentary summarizing the research, said there is as yet no
performed.
"convincing evidence that species diversity and ecosystem function are consistently and causally
related." "It could be argued," he added, "that the tide is turning against the notion of high
biodiversity as a controller of ecosystem function and insurance against ecological collapse."