A study by the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC) suggests managing prickly pears differently based on their ecological and cultural impact, in light of advancing aridification.
Researchers from the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC) have initiated a debate questioning the traditional management of plant species classified as invasive, such as prickly pears. In an article published in the journal 'Discover Ecology', scientists Juan Olvido Perea and Emilio Medina propose a more nuanced approach that considers the ecological, historical, and cultural context of each population.
The work, released this Saturday by the academic institution, focuses on cacti of the genus Opuntia, known in the Canary Islands as prickly pears, in the Peninsula as chumberas, and in America as nopales. The authors question whether a plant considered invasive can simultaneously be part of cultural heritage, integrate into local ecosystems, and provide resources in increasingly arid territories.
As the researchers have explained, the general label of invasive species is insufficient to decide how to manage each population. Instead, they propose evaluating five key factors: which taxon is present, what its real ecological impact is, how long it has been established, what cultural or productive value it possesses, and what characteristics the territory presents.
The perspective of the study is novel because it integrates disciplines that rarely combine in a single evaluation: taxonomy, invasion ecology, agricultural history, culture, economics, conservation, and adaptation to climate change. For the authors, these multiple viewpoints are essential for conservation to remain effective in a rapidly changing world.
Climate change, with rising temperatures and decreasing available water, is causing increasing aridification in the Canary Islands and other regions. This challenges the traditional conservation approach, which tends to reference a previous state of the ecosystem and attempt to restore it. "Conservation cannot solely consist of trying to reconstruct the past, but also in deciding which ecosystems will remain viable under future climatic conditions," the authors state.
Juan Olvido Perea, one of the signatories, emphasizes that "we need to move beyond simple labels like invasive. We propose evaluating which population, of which taxon, is producing what effects and in what context." In this regard, he points out that "eradication may be fully justified in sensitive habitats, but in others, conserving these invasive species may help maintain ecological functions that also depend on native species."
The researchers advocate for management tailored to each situation: control or eradication when there is proven ecological damage, accompanied by habitat restoration, and evaluation of its possible ecological, cultural, or productive value when the risk is low and manageable.
This approach is particularly relevant in the Canary Islands, where prickly pears are prevalent in the landscape and local culture. For centuries, these plants have been used as food for livestock, for the production of cochineal (a natural dye), and as part of the traditional architecture of the fields. Total eradication could result in a loss of cultural heritage and resources in a context of increasing drought.
The study opens the door to a debate that transcends academia and could have implications for invasive species management policies in the islands. ULPGC will continue researching in this line to provide tools that allow for more informed decisions tailored to the reality of each territory.
You may also like
