Embedded Files
When a new AIS population is found in a lake: Non-native species are known to have varying degrees of impacts depending on the specific waterbody they are found in, and in some cases are able to integrate into a waterbody to the extent where actual documented impacts are minimal and active management may not be necessary.
Consider positioning this statement at the start of your information about AIS in your area, perhaps as a header. If your message is more focused on restoration and maintaining, just swap the two sentences around: Reporting invasive species is a first step in containing their spread. Maintaining and restoring our waters and landscapes can reduce the impacts even when we don’t have other management options to an invasive species.
Some words/phrases raise alarm bells that are often not necessary. Some are simply untrue. Words have a lot of power and we should be intentional with the words we use so that our messages help achieve program goals. Using clear communications with unambiguous terms is a great way to limit the unintended consequences of our words so that we spend more time working on the environmental problem as opposed to trying to correct people problems that are a result of our communications.
IN THE NEWS
“INVADERS KEEP COMING”
“CONTROL THE INVADER”
“X-FILES ON AN INVASIVE ALIEN”
“PLANT MENACE”
“NO ECOLOGICAL VALUE”
“KILLS THE NATIVE PLANTS IN ITS PATH” (said about purple loosestrife in an old newspaper article)
OFTEN USED WITH ALTERNATIVES
Infestation - Infestation implies that the population is immediately problematic and needs dealt with. Use "population" instead.
Dangerous - is it actually dangerous? Unless there is immediate danger to people or property, this is likely perceived as hyperbole and can undercut the message.
Exploding - exploding sounds dangerous! And messy. Again, unless it's actually exploding, talking about how quickly a population is increasing and the impacts it causes would be more useful and accurate. Additionally, people generally might not perceive a population explosion the way professionals might, so this language might decrease trust in the message.
Ballooning - a did a species eat the Wonka blueberry gum? No? See recommendations from exploding.
Nightmare - invasive species have likely only been in the nightmares that work with these species and think about them too much. What exactly about them is a nightmare?
Choking - outcompeting native species.
Marching - unless its an invasive ant it likely isn't marching with any intention. Population fronts move and expand.
Aggressive - outcompeting native species.
Eradication - eradication is really hard. Invasive species rarely eradicate native species and people rarely eradicate invasive species. Unless you truly are engaging in an eradication effort (red swamp crayfish in Germantown is a good example), then I'd avoid this word. Invasive species can decrease populations of native populations and people can efforts to limit/control populations of invasive species.
Threat or threatening - if using threat or threatening, clarify what is threatened. A species itself isn't threatening, but things we care about might be threatened.
DRAFT GUIDANCE ON INVASIVE SPECIES LANGAUGE TO REDUCE BACKFIRE EFFECTS
Things to avoid
Avoid militaristic and nativist language.
Research suggests that this language is not more effective than other frames (scientific, hitchhiker, protective) while it has the potential to elicit negative emotions that can have unintended management consequences.
Avoid personifying invasive species.
Plants and animals are not humans and do not have agency in how they interact with the world. Their actions help them survive and pass on their genes; their actions do not intend to complicate lives for humans. Giving invasive species human traits takes the focus off of people, who are responsible for moving them around and are key to limiting their impacts.
Unless place is a key feature of a species (i.e. Devils Hole Pupfish), avoid using place or names of people for new species.
Research from Oregon Sea Grant, Portland State University, and USGS suggests that place-based names are in the minority of common and scientific names for species. Many placed based names are misleading, if not inaccurate.
If working with a species that already has a place-based name or is named after a person, avoid militaristic and nativist language
Place-based names alone aren’t inherently problematic unless they are inaccurate. However, when placed based names are combined with problematic message frames, they can quickly generate unintended negative feelings towards communities. Messaging that actively turns people away from AIS management efforts is not helpful.
Things to take their place
Use neutral language where possible.
What is good and bad is subjective and can vary in time and space. As managers and scientists, we can provide the data people need to decide whether something is good or bad.
Use terms that are clear in their meaning and have a shared definition.
Consistent terminology with shared meanings helps us all know what we are talking about and prevents misunderstandings. This Journal of Extension paper is a good starting point.
Be intentional with metaphor and figurative language use.
Sometimes it might make sense to use metaphor or figurative language, and that’s ok. Be intentional with what metaphor is used and try to think through what the downstream impacts of that language might be before commiting to its use.
Lean into language about what a species does, what the impacts are, and what can be done.
Talking about impacts and being specific about them can help avoid general language that often includes inaccurate metaphors and problematic language. What can be done builds feelings of self efficacy. Both of these are important for invasive species management.
Use and promote names that help with a management goal. Names that help with identification and/or describe a key behavior of a species are good examples.
The recent change of Lymantria dispar to spongy moth is a good example of how a species with an offensive name that did not serve a management purpose was renamed to something that helps people unfamiliar with the moth identify it. Emerald ash borer is also an example of a good name that both explains what the insect looks like and what it does.
Utilize existing resources and processes for name changes, such as the ESA Better Common Names project and the University of Minnesota Extension Guiding Principles.
Here is a useful video on how diseases are named, which is a similar process (the first 2 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xsQwTgwcFM
RESOURCES FOR ADDTIONAL READING AND LISTENING
Oceanography article: Alien language - a reflection on the rhetoric of invasion biology
Page updated
Report abuse