The term 'natural' is not considered by most to be a 'good' term to use in scientific articles. It is better to use terms/phrases such as undistrubed, minimally disturbed, etc. At first, this may seem like a nit-picky idea as, of course we all know what natural is! Well, maybe not. Many suggest that a 'natural area' is one free from human encroachment. Of course, this contradicts the whole notion that humans are in fact part of the natural system and therefore, lack of human encroachment may actually be unnatural! Because of the great confusion created by the use of this term, most encourage us to avoid using it. When we discuss urbanized versus non-urbanized habitat, agronomic vs. non-agronomic, grazed vs. ungrazed, old growth forest vs. tree farms, etc. there is a fairly clear understanding of what we are discussing. However, anytime someone states that something is in a natural or non-natural state, it opens the gate to an unending series of questions and clarifications that do little more than distract us from the focus of the original discussion.
On the other hand, ASTM Standard Methods does have lists of standardized terminology for use in environmental science and other fields. I do not recall 'natural' being on any of these lists, however, they do contain many other terms that are frequently misused in popular and scientific writing. I hope this is useful for your attempts! malcolm On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Czech, Brian <cz...@vt.edu> wrote: > It's true that "natural" is just semantics in some contexts, but defining the > term can affect the way our public lands are managed. See for example the > Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy of the U.S. > Fish and Wildlife Service. Here is one proposal for a frame of reference for > natural conditions: > > > > http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf > > <http://steadystate.org/Chronological_Frame_of_Reference_for_Ecological_Integrity.pdf> > > > > > Brian Czech, Visiting Professor > Natural Resources Program > Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University > National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center > 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 > Falls Church, Virginia 22043 > > ________________________________ > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Steve > Kunz > Sent: Fri 2009-03-06 10:24 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change and Agroecosystems > > > > In the case of human mammals, there is something unique about our place in > the world. We have the "intelligence" to control our environment on a large > scale. Our control of otherwise "natural" systems can throw them out of > balance, or at least, into a new balance. In an extreme case, this > intelligent > control can completely wipe out most if not all of our own species and most > others (think: nuclear war). The planet doesn't care if this happens, and > some > species will survive and help start things over. Is the result "natural" or > "unnatural"? At that point, it's just semantics anyway. > > Peace! > > Steve Kunz > > > > > In a message dated 3/5/2009 6:08:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > atom.fuller...@gmail.com writes: > > I'm a grad student who reads the list-serve to look for job opportunities, > but these threads on agroecosystems and climate change bring up a question I > have never really gotten a satisfactory answer to, namely: Are humans to be > considered a part of the natural world? On the one hand, humans are clearly > a species of mammal living on the planet. Science in general follows the > Copernican Principle: don't assume there is anything particularly unique > about your place in the world. I doubt many of you would consider us to > have been specifically placed on the planet and set apart from other forms > of life. And yet, when it comes to the things humans do, a clear > distinction is made between human causes and natural ones, human modified > ecosystems and wild ones. And it is definitely useful to make distictions > between human effects and natural ones when studying many ecosystems-I've > certainly done it in my own research. > > So why is this true? How can natural humans cause unnatural effects (or is > one assumption false, despite both seeming reasonable)? Can only humans harm > the environment? What's the difference between an invasive species being > introduced to an island by humans, or the same one arriving on the foot of a > bird? What does harming the environment mean, anyway? Somewhat like the > two perspectives above, I have seen it defined as: (A) changing the > environment from it's original natural or pre-human state (which natural > state? how do you define your baseline?), and (B) Making the environment > less capable of supporting human life (supporting human life now or > indefinietely? at what standard of living?). Those two goals aren't always > compatable. So, comments? Thoughts? How do you resolve this? > > Adam > > > **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy > steps! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID > %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62) > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Texas A&M University-Texarkana Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org Fall Teaching Schedule & Office Hours: Ecology: M,W 1-2:40 pm Cell Biology: M 6-9:40 pm (don't ask!) Forensic Science: T,R 10-11:40am Office Hours: MW 12-1, 5-6, TR 11:40-12:30, 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
