I guess since you've only read the one study, then that must be it, huh? A quick Google Scholar search shows several articles showing impacts to Anolis carolinensis when competing with A. sagrei. These things don't happen in a vacuum. Todd Campbell has been publishing a bit on this. Maybe look up more of his work?
Actually no need, I've read quite a bit and made many personal observations. The first study Todd Campbell did was in my view the best apples to apples comparison on the subject. I think its the only good piece of work Todd Campbell has ever done. His desperate attempts to terrify the people of Cape Coral into giving him money to save those poor helpless burrowing owls from being wiped put by the KOMODO DRAGON / Nile monitor lizard, were a complete farce.
FACT: Very few introduced species have any measurable effect or negative impact on the environment's they are introduced in to. Ernie
As for your "fact," why don't you demonstrate that this "fact" actually is a fact. There are numerous examples of invasives having a negative impact on local ecosystems.
An easy point to demonstrate. Itemize a complete list of all non native species and their introduced habitat's, before you get a tenth of the way thru that list you will see that your "numerous examples " comprises only a tiny fraction of the total number. The vast majority are not known to have any negative impact. You can argue from a point of speculation and hypothetical scenarios all day, but the facts as they stand are on my side of this point.
Please demonstrate that the Everglades' biodiversity is at an all-time high. And you do realize the irony of you saying "less [than] 3% of the natural Everglades still exist" and "the Everglades has proven to be an incredibly resilient, adaptable environment" in the same paragraph, right? I suppose all of those conservationists working to protect what remains of the Everglades are just trying to "create a disaster to keep their jobs." It's not like the hydrology of the entire southern portion of Florida has changed in the last decade or that the Everglades' ecosystem function depends on that hydrology. Don't worry, it's resilient. It'll find a way.
Again comprise list of all known established species currently found in the Everglades , compare that list to one from any other point in recorded history, more biodiversity exist in the Everglades today then at any other point in known history.
Adaptable means to change and the Glades has, but it has remained an environment full of life. Resilient , its native species have thrived and some have increased their numbers in spite of all the change. How many species found only in the Everglades have become extinct in recorded history ? Any? While only 3% of the natural Everglades according to the WWF remains, the region known as the Everglades is a place thriving with ecological diversity.
Yes absolutely the Everglades has proven to be a resilient, adaptable environment. It might not be the same but it has certainly found a way .
I don't think any serious scientists uses "misleading and skewed information" to "prove" anything. As long as there are species being introduced into new places, there will be plenty of work for "invasive" biologists and so they don't have to worry about job security to the point of making stuff up.
Really, serious scientists such as, Robert Reed , Mike Dorcus, Lori Oberhofer , Gordon Rodda. I could go on. Every one these people have used misleading and skewed information try to "prove" their point. I've covered this pretty well in previous post making direct comparisons of known fact to their intentional printed and published fiction.
Still some...oh well, I do understand.
The only way you can get someone to agree with you if they already agree they you. The down fall of truth has always been the gullible nature of the "believer's".
Gordon Rodda published paper on data bending in science mostly to cover his own ass , If someone chooses to believe in the sanctimonious halo of science, by all means but deceit in the scientific community is everywhere.
Highly regarded shark researcher Aidan Martin to his credit spoke candidly about what goes on in the field of biological research. I placed the word python in parentheses next the word shark. You can substitute the word python for shark or any one of a number of subjects as the issues he discuses are universal.
Shark (python)research is expensive and few things are harder to do than to get someone else to pay to satisfy your curiosity. In many cases, officials in charge or granting funding for scientific research do not understand the science a fraction as well as the applicant, so the onus is on him or her to explain convincingly why a proposed line of research is significant, what results can be expected, why this knowledge is important, how much it will cost, and — above all else — why it is worthy of their financial support. It is therefore not enough to know your field and be able to explain it clearly but also to be able to pitch a proposed line of research with all the skill of a top-ranking salesperson.
Aidan Martin shark researcher
Then there's the human side of things. As in every other job, there is dirty politics, cut-throat competition, roaring egos, rampant jealousy, nasty or unfounded rumors, petty grudges, character assassinations, betrayals of trust, theft of work or credit, and other perils of dealing with people. Don't get me wrong, there are also unexpected kindnesses, incredible generosities, mutually beneficial alliances and collaborations, and sometimes deep friendships to distil out of working with other people. But often you never know who's going to do what until after they've done it and it seems that unpleasant surprises are far more common than pleasant ones. Such are the problems inherent to working with others' ambitions and insecurities. The problems seem to intensify in high-profile matters, such as those concerning White Sharks (pythons)or shark attacks.
Aidan Martin shark researcher
There are plenty of ethical, meticulous, hard working, thoroughly wonderful people working in shark research who do what they because they love it. But, far too often, the work of these dedicated scientists seems to be overwhelmed in the public eye by relatively few self-styled shark (python)researchers who are unethical, methodologically sloppy, thoroughly untrustworthy ratbags and posers who care nothing for the ideals and practices of Science but do what they do because they want attention and adulation. Ratbags are often skilled politicians and can be tough to identify until after they've shown their true motives.
Aidan Martin shark researcher [/b]