Greetings Prompted by the memory of a truck backing up to a natural lake in Colorado to dump a flood of fish into the lake in preparation for the weekend anglers - utilizing your definitions, would this natural lake be a conditional ecosystem? Colleen Grant
Wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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" To: 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
