26 replies to this topic

[ArmyAntz]

The invicta problem where I am is almost nonexistent nowadays. The extermination process has been so efficient over the past 8 or so years that you can only really find their nests in protected wildlife zones. 

 

Several years ago they dominated urban areas, but that simply isn't the case anymore. So I always get confused why everyone dislikes them SO much, but I understand its probably a lot worse the further south you get, when the temperatures allow them to spread year-round. 

[Serafine]

Yes, They've been introduced to places where they don't belong like humans - just like most invasive animals.

Does that make them inherently bad? No.

Will they wipe out almost any native ant species anyway? Definitely yes.

Can this completely obliterate an existing ecosystem in a catastrophic chain reaction? Absolutely yes - it may take a while (at least some decades, often centuries) but it wouldn't be the first time that for example woodland ecosystems collapsed and turned broken wastelands with a fraction of the original biodiversity (and while this doesn't apply so much to invicta Argentines are the only ant species that managed to establish itself in the untouched hawaiian moist forest and nobody can really foresee the damage they will cause there in the near and not-so-near future).

Do those invasive "problem cases" need to be removed (probably impossible) or at least be controlled (possibly doable) anyway? Yes, if we want to conserve the existing ecosystems which often are beneficial, in the long run possibly even critical, to our own survival as a species.

 

 

 

p.s. There are rare cases in which an invasive animal can actually enrich a specific ecosystem.

This usually happens if some disaster or drastic climate change wiped out most of the native biosphere and the survivors simply hadn't time to fill certain niches or the ecosystem got wiped out entirely (happened in some places during the ice age, for example in the eastern mediterranean seas) and the new inhabitants that wandered in from other climate zones (like the colder western mediterranian sea) aren't well-equipped to handle the conditions of this particular area of land or sea.

 

Examples of this would be species from the indian ocean passing the Suez canal into the mediterranean sea because of of the six day war (which lead to a specific species of jellyfish at one point accounting for 99.9% (!) of the entire biomass of the southern mediterranian sea but their population balanced out in the following years) or Pablo Escobar's escaped Hippos improving Columbia's river ecosystems by taking the vacant role of large herbivores and cutting down thick plant carpets, improving water flow and fertilizing the soil with their poop.

 

Argentines and RIFA definitely aren't one of those cases though.

Edited by Serafine, June 15 2020 - 7:43 AM.

[TechAnt]

I don’t really see why anyone actually could like them. True, it’s humanity’s fault, but does that make it wrong to want them OUT?

Not at all, that is a completely reasonable argument. I agree with it too (die Argentine scum) but..
I need to say, the whole point of my original post was to say “Argentines and RIFA are terrible, but it’s not their fault they are here.”

[TechAnt]

Yes, They've been introduced to places where they don't belong like humans - just like most invasive animals.
Does that make them inherently bad? No.
Will they wipe out almost any native ant species anyway? Definitely yes.
Can this completely obliterate an existing ecosystem in a catastrophic chain reaction? Absolutely yes - it may take a while (at least some decades, often centuries) but it wouldn't be the first time that for example woodland ecosystems collapsed and turned broken wastelands with a fraction of the original biodiversity (and while this doesn't apply so much to invicta Argentines are the only ant species that managed to establish itself in the untouched hawaiian moist forest and nobody can really foresee the damage they will cause there in the near and not-so-near future).
Do those invasive "problem cases" need to be removed (probably impossible) or at least be controlled (possibly doable) anyway? Yes, if we want to conserve the existing ecosystems which often are beneficial, in the long run possibly even critical, to our own survival as a species.



p.s. There are rare cases in which an invasive animal can actually enrich a specific ecosystem.
This usually happens if some disaster or drastic climate change wiped out most of the native biosphere and the survivors simply hadn't time to fill certain niches or the ecosystem got wiped out entirely (happened in some places during the ice age, for example in the eastern mediterranean seas) and the new inhabitants that wandered in from other climate zones (like the colder western mediterranian sea) aren't well-equipped to handle the conditions of this particular area of land or sea.

Examples of this would be species from the indian ocean passing the Suez canal into the mediterranean sea because of of the six day war (which lead to a specific species of jellyfish at one point accounting for 99.9% (!) of the entire biomass of the southern mediterranian sea but their population balanced out in the following years) or Pablo Escobar's escaped Hippos improving Columbia's river ecosystems by taking the vacant role of large herbivores and cutting down thick plant carpets, improving water flow and fertilizing the soil with their poop.

Argentines and RIFA definitely aren't one of those cases though.

Yes, I agree with this, I never said they should not get out of America and the rest of the world. They have destroyed my own neighborhood, it would be ridiculous for me to argue they don’t do anything to the local environment. I’m glad you agree with the statement that they are NOT inherently bad, that is what my whole point of the thread. It’s meant to intend nothing else.

Edited by TechAnt, June 15 2020 - 8:44 AM.

[ANTdrew]

Introduced beavers in South America are also increasing diversity in Patagonia by creating ponds and wetlands. There are very few examples of this, unfortunately.

[ponerinecat]

This is just another thread for people to get mad at each other there's really no point to this question, it's a solid fact that both are extremely harmful in nonnative environments, its a solid fact that humans transported them, and its common sense that no animal in general is born evil. Rifa are harmful because they're an extremely aggressive and successful species that was plopped into a new, unprepared environment by humans. Same with argies. Why wouldn't they try to spread? there's nothing here to argue about except the definition of the word "bad" itself, and if you want to argue about definitions then that leads to an infinite spiral of unsolvable problems. This thread is already starting down that hole, lets not have it descend any further.

[ponerinecat]

 

Does anyone think we should cut off funding to save pandas (a fairly useless species, as their food source bamboo is declining anyways) and use it to combat these ants and save the wildlife?

No. #SaveThePandas

 

Just want to point out that "saving them" is completely unnecessary and pointless. Wild populations will certainly die no matter what humans do to make them linger a little while longer, simply because of their biology. Really the most sensible thing to do here is keep captive populations alive and let the wild ones do as they please. Keep in mind everything will die anyways, its just a matter of when. In the case of pandas, they're already at the end of their short lifespan. In my mind they were simply an evolutionary dead end experiment, like so many other past life forms. As for putting spendings on Rifa and argies, that's pretty pointless too. We've already tried waging war on Rifa, which ended in us spending tons of resources and the ants nearly unscathed. Their populations are so well established that there nothing we can really do except prevent the further spread.