Honorable Forum, Warren, and Andy:
Please believe me, I do not want to start a head-butting session, only to
suggest how the terminology might be tightened--that is, how crucial
distinctions might be made where present terminology tends to depend upon
interpretation to the point of confusion.
"We" have, over the years, come to broaden the term "landscape" to include
both ecosystems and assemblages of plants arranged for aesthetic
satisfaction (not to mention farms, pastures, woodlots, "viewsheds,"
paintings of the preceeding, etc.). It is ironic, especially to ecologists,
that ecosystem should be subordinated into one of those "landscape"
categories. But subordinating "landscape" into ecosystem wouldn't be valid
either.
No doubt this problem (implication and interpretation via author intent, not
to mention presumption which may or may not align with the author's true
meaning) will persist in the broader lexicon, but there might be some chance
of avoiding confusion about the technical differences should the profession
at large reach some agreement about more precise definitions and encourage
authors (via peer review and editing) to be more precise in usage or to make
it a practice to define terms when the issue arises.
Many years ago (my publication list is lost, so I can't cite it or even
remember the title, only that it was some meeting in Berkeley) I suggested
that the term "landscape" should be reserved for artificial assemblages of
plants (dependent upon human intent, and replacing or displacing an
ecosystem) as is the practice in landscape architecture. This would be
"technically" valid, as the term is derived from "land" and the Old Dutch
"skep," meaning "to scrape," or "to hack," as I recall.
"Ecosystem" should be reserved for any group of organisms that interact with
each other and their environment in the absence of extra-system intentional
(human) control.
As to "created" wetlands, the intent, dependency, and control determinants
should serve to distinguish those which require artificial support and those
which are self-sustaining, just as any natural wetland would be. For
example, my backyard pond requires my intentional intervention for its
"MAINTENANCE;" a "pond" behind a dam may or may not be maintained. If the
ponds in question require intentional external inputs for their sustenance
they are artificial "landscapes;" if they are self-sustaining, they are
ecosystems. Of course, even created habitats are characterized by species
interactions with each other and their created and maintained environments,
and it that sense are CONDITIONAL ecosystems. Any system that lacks
internal integrity cannot be considered an ecosystem in the same sense as
one that is fully integrated and self-sufficient.
Whether a "quake lake" or a "lake" created by a human-constructed dam, both
are subject to the same rules of nature. The important distinction is
whether or not continued external inputs are required for their existence.
Nature changes, lakes and ponds and all habitats change, come and go. The
distinguishing characteristic of a landscape is that when the external
management that maintains it is withdrawn, it will not remain in the fixed
state its "creator" intended. So some "created" wetlands should be
considered ecosystems and others artifices, dependent upon the intent and
supervision of their creators, and others ecosystems, even though humans may
have altered the earth to enable one habitat to be replaced with another.
This goes for lawns and forests too. Some pastures and woodlots (or other
"managed" biological assemblages), once abandoned, will transform-that is
the central point of validation.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren W. Aney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation
I guess it depends on how you define "ecosystem" and what timeframe you're
talking about. Certainly over the centuries we've created many more
cropland or pastureland or residential landscape ecosystems than wetland
ecosystems. And some might argue that even though its human-made, a
created
(or restored) wetland is not really an artificial landscape if that's
your
reference point. Perhaps we need to tighter terminology.
Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, OR 97223
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Andrew Cole
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:42
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation
Hi,
I'm trying to back up an assertion of mine that we deliberately plan
for and create wetland ecosystems more than any other type of
ecosystem (save, perhaps, lawns). I'm not necessarily talking acreage
here - foresters might have the edge there (as I leave myself open to
criticism from foresters about artificial forests), but actual
projects. Mind you, this is a gut feeling on my part with no actual
data - which is the point of my query. Does anyone have any citations
on this topic specific to wetlands or just on how many artificial
landscapes we create in the US each year?
Thanks - just another odd question from moi.
Andy
Charles Andrew Cole, Ph.D.
Department of Landscape Architecture
Penn State University
301a Forest Resources Laboratory
University Park, PA 16802
814-865-5735
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.larch.psu.edu/watershed/home.html
