I would add that gardening is directed toward different goals than conservation or restoration. The gardener wants to produce beauty, food, or some other harvestable product. Also, gardening is almost invariably based on plant varieties that have been in domestication for a long time, sometimes millennia, and that represent genotypes and phenotypes not seen in nature. While a conservation or restoration project may share some of these goals (e.g., creating beauty) in general the goal is to maintain an environment in the state it was in before human intervention. It may be that similar techniques can be employed to reach these different goals, but the goals themselves let us distinguish between gardening, conservation, and restoration.
Martin M. Meiss 2011/1/28 Mike Schening <scheni...@yahoo.com> > Austin, > > There are most definitely legal definitions of conservation that preclude > extensive manipulations which I assume to be a central tenet of gardening. > > IMHO the goal of conservation and restoration is to preserve a habitat in > the sense that the habitat is the manifestation of a suite of natural > processes. Habitat conservation requires the continuation of those > processes while restoration requires the restoration of those processes. > > The habitat and suite of natural processes can result in a continuum of > "natural" species assemblages, so I see conservation and restoration > resulting in a dynamic "system". > > Gardening, on the other hand, results from control and manipulation of the > natural processes and is directed to one "outcome" or species assemblage, > regardless of if I'm trying to make my cursed heirloom tomatoes grow, of > eastern woodland indians are burning areas to create pasture. > > (At least that's my understanding as both a gardening and a wetland > scientist working in wetland creation and restoration. > > As for the premise of the article is *Unnatural Preservations*, I just > don't > see it happening. We have enough difficulty "manipulating" a 5 acre > mitigation wetland to promote natives and keep out invasive species, so I > can't see Yellowstone being managed to preserve the existing communities. > > I think it is probably impossible to preserve existing habitats if the > natural processes that created and support that habitat have changed. > Alterations to the hydrology of the Everglades due to ditching and > irrigation can conceivably be restored. > Preservation of the moisture and temperature regimes of Yellowstone, in the > fact of global warming, cannot be preserved or restored. > > Mike Schening > > > > > > > > From: "austin ritter" <austin.rit...@gmail.com> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:19 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOG-L Digest - 22 Jan 2011 to 23 Jan 2011 > (#2011-23) > > > >A week or so ago Jason asked: "Are there any recognized criteria for > > determining the boundary between > > conservation and gardening?" > > > > This article from High Country News seem extremely relevant: > > http://www.hcn.org/issues/363/17481. The artical is call *Unnatural > > preservations* and the thesis is: "In the age of global warming, > > public-land > > managers face a stark choice: They can let national parks and other > > wildlands lose their most cherished wildlife. Or they can become > gardeners > > and zookeepers." Its a provocative read no matter what you conservation > > goal > > is. > > > > -Austin Ritter > > Middlebury College >
