The real "answer" is infinitely complex, but the principles are reasonably
simple. Fire is a change of environmental conditions to which organisms
will respond according to the details of each case and context, including
time, forwards and backwards. Human influence produces change, just as the
proverbial butterfly flapping a wing on the other side of the globe (to
stretch possibility, or even truth, to the extremes bordering on fantasy)
produces change, but that is a far, far different thing than a fantasy
landscape dependent upon continued maintenance to keep the illusion from
suffering the slings and arrows of reality.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L]
Wetland creation
A question comes to mind. If an area is burned to the ground as a result of
human carelessness, would we consider it degraded or destroyed? But if we
then find that the fire was actually started by lightning, and the natural
cycle that involves the return of nutrients to the soil and even the
release of seeds that only sprout when burnt, would we change our view?
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "JEREMIAH M YAHN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L]
Wetland creation
Although I do enjoy and agree w/ Wayne's definitions, I think perhaps we
have lost the way of the original post. I certainly do not have the
answer nor the free time to pursue the answer, but I would imagine that
there would be some value in looking into what we have lost over the
years. Find out which ecosystem we have degraded/destroyed most over the
years and you will probably find the ecosystem most often "restored".
