In a recent article, I explored some perspectives on the term “invasive species”, including those reported by Anishnaabe scholar Dr. Nicholas Reo. I ended that article with an open question about alternative terms for invasive species.
Well this week, I discovered the alternative term “new neighbors” in the 2025 Rayne et al. paper “Renegotiating Species Belonging in a Changing World“, on which Dr. Reo is a co-author. In this article, I share some of my thoughts about these two terms.
Comparing the two terms
For several years, the “invasive” part of “invasive species” has stood out to me as troublesome and worth scrutinizing. To me, it implies that the nonhuman entities (a term borrowed from the Rayne et al. paper) in question are threats, which elicits a defensive, unwelcoming posture on some level.
But I didn’t really think to question the “species” part until I encountered the Rayne et al. paper. I suppose that says something about my years of training in Western biology. But as Rayne and colleagues point out in their paper, “species” comes with a set of assumptions about how to view the world.
While I won’t dive too deep into criticisms of using the species concept in this context, a couple points from the paper seem relevant here. One is that this concept isn’t universal to all cultures (see for example Reo and Ogden 2018), and the authors point out connections to colonialist mentality embedded in this concept. The second is that the species concept is somewhat abstract and removed from the levels at which people typically interact with nonhuman entities. As the authors put it:
“In conservation governance, policymakers typically assign species belonging according to political (state or national) borders rather than what may be most ecologically or culturally relevant, such as Indigenous territories, river catchments, or even backyard gardens. These designations are also generally applied to species, although environmental managers often deal with populations, and it is individual bodies which are ultimately subject to killing or care (Atchison and Head 2013; Biermann and Mansfield 2014; Kull 2018).”
— Rayne et al., 2025
While the term “new neighbors” isn’t a perfect 1-to-1 replacement for “invasive species”, it can be used in many of the same contexts (though the authors emphasize that the newness is with respect to relationships rather than to place). To me, the “neighbors” part implies a more neutral or even welcoming posture, and it replaces the abstract species concept with the more tangible concept of neighbor. In short, “new neighbors” to me evokes a more open, curious, and relational posture.
Closing Thoughts
The term “invasive species” is one that I used for a long time without question. Through a combination of reflecting on my own challenging experiences and on the works of some indigenous scholars, I am seeing that examining the assumptions of just one term closely can reveal quite a lot.
It makes me wonder how other terms in science came into use and what they encode. For example, I’ve often found it curious and–if I’m being honest–a bit disturbing how casually scientists use the term “exploit” when talking about gaining a benefit from a particular resource.
On that note, I offer you some open questions to ponder:
- What words are you using without question?
- Where did they come from?
- And what do they assume?
These aren’t just academic questions. In restoration, decisions about what to remove, leave alone, and encourage depend on judgements about what belongs and what doesn’t. The assumptions baked into the words we use inform those judgements. I’ll be exploring the topic of belonging in more depth in my next article.
AI RESPONSIBILITY RUBRIC
This rubric shows human vs AI contribution across stages of developing the article. It was generated by AI and reviewed by human, making adjustments as needed.
--------------------
CONCEPT/PLANNING
Human 75% | AI 25%
[===============.....]
AI: Claude (Sonnet 4.6)
All core ideas originated with Taylan: the term comparison, the scale observation, the "exploit" example, and the restoration connection. Claude contributed the pre-draft checkpoint process, helped sharpen the one-sentence takeaway, and suggested the restoration sentence that Taylan adapted and placed.
--------------------
WRITING
Human 90% | AI 10%
[==================..]
AI: Claude (Sonnet 4.6)
Taylan wrote the full draft. Claude's only direct textual contribution was a suggested sentence for the restoration connection, which Taylan modified before incorporating.
--------------------
RESEARCH/EDITING
Human 45% | AI 55%
[=========...........]
AI: Claude (Sonnet 4.6)
Taylan read both source papers independently via text-to-speech and formed his own interpretations. Claude had access to both papers and performed fact-checking, verification, and multiple rounds of proofreading, including catching attribution errors and typos. Taylan reviewed all feedback and made all final decisions.
--------------------
AI Tools: Claude (Sonnet 4.6)