Ecolog:
When a good question is posed, it should not be evaded, it should be
wrestled with until clarity emerges, even if it consists of those of
different "camps." To do otherwise must be considered a failure of the
intellect and an insult to scholarship. However, the process may have to go
on for some time before even a well-disciplined examination of the question
and its ramifications can resolve the question and its implications. That,
not mere opinion and stubbornness, is what thinking is all about. It reminds
me of a great cartoon of an open ditch in a street, a few men in hard-hats
gesturing to each other in groups, a sign in the foreground, "Men Working
Things Out." In this case, of course, it may need to be women that get it
done? A unisex group? A single genius? A little child?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Hernandez" <jason.hernande...@yahoo.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening?
Per Wayne's request, here are my own thoughts, and some clarifications.
First, the clarifications:
Wayne asked me to define my terms, so here goes:
Conservation -- assisting a species or ecosystem to carry on most of its
original life activities and interactions, including reproduction and
dispersal.
Gardening -- keeping a species or suite of species alive, but dependent on
continued human attendance for all reproduction and dispersal (e.g., captive
breeding without successful reintroduction; hand-pollination; only those
propagules grown or reared by humans successfully establish).
Purist -- one whose ideal is the pre-human ecosystem, insofar as we can
determine what that was.
Fence -- Either a literal fence intended to prevent entry by humans, or a
delineated boundary serving the same purpose.
"Letting nature manage it" -- Ceasing human intervention, so that only
non-anthropogenic processes occur.
Obviously, given these definitions, "Building a fence around it and letting
nature manage it" is not going to happen. Even if this policy was applied to
a given area, air and water quality entering the area would still be
affected by anthropogenic activity, and if there are populations dependent
on migration into and out of the area, or colonization from an outside
source population, the cutting off of this migration and/or colonization
would itself be anthropogenic activity.
Most of the thoughts given in the various replies went with the theme that
the current ecological reality is that the human species is an ecological
and evolutionary force, that is not going to change so long as we remain at
our current numbers/rate of growth and level of technology, so we might as
well work with that reality. "Ye shall be as gods," the serpent said to Eve,
and in a sense, we are -- and therefore Eden is forever lost to us. Not that
most of us would want to live in an "Eden" defined as the pre-civilization
ecosystem -- our cultivated plants, domesticated animals, managed forests,
and various mining sites provide commodities few if any of us would consider
optional. I have never met any human who would desire to return to the life
of a wild animal, even though, in the evolutionary past, that is what we
were.
Thus, it would seem that, rather than strive for a "pristine" ecosystem,
conservation should focus more on a functioning ecosystem, i.e. one that
optimizes energy flow in a more or less self-sustaining way. Of course, that
definition must be modified somewhat, because optimizing biodiversity may
not always coincide with optimizing energy flow, and biodiversity is also an
important consideration, not least because it allows for adaptation to
unforseen change.
It is intersting that bioxenophobia was mentioned. Bioxenophobia naturally
follows from the purist position as I defined it above -- a given pre-human
ecosystem contained only those species which got there without human
intervention. But, from an ecosystem process point of view, are the
indiginous species inherently "better" or more optimal than exotics? For
example: a Puget Prairie site, with its suite of indiginous grasses and
forbs, is converted into what may be termed a "Eurasian Meadow" ecosystem,
dominated by imported turf grasses and their associated "weeds." Is the
"Eurasian Meadow" more or less biodiverse? Does it optimize energy flow to a
greater or lesser degree than the original Puget Prairie? If so, how
important is that in the larger landscape? Should we expend lots of
resources to replace the Eurasian Meadow with a "restored" Puget Prairie? If
we get rid of bioxenophobia, these questions can only be answered after a
lot
more study.
In the end, I am no closer to a definite answer than any of the other
respondents. I posed the question mostly as food for thought, which it
certainly seems to have been.
Jason Hernandez
Biological Science Technician, USDA Forest Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:52:57 -0800
From: Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Conservation or just gardening?
Jason,
You have asked such good questions that, even though you have received a
plethora of very thoughtful responses, I'm going to take another crack at
being more directly responsive and insert some additional thoughts into your
text in an attempt to keep myself from wandering off the subject. I'll put
my responses into double-brackets with my initials [[like this WT]] to
minimize confusion in case others may wish to add their own comments or
correct mine. At some point, I hope you will write a summary statement to
give us your own answers once you have thought about the questions again.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Hernandez" <jason.hernande...@yahoo.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 5:08 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening?
This question is inspired by a conversation with a former employer. When do
our interventions cease to be conservation and become gardening?
[[I, and perhaps others, may have jumped to conclusions about what you mean
by "conservation" and "gardening." I'd be interested in your own definitions
of the terms in the sense of your original intent. WT]]
For the sake of argument, I was taking the purist position: that ideally, we
want to be able to put a fence around a natural area and walk away, letting
nature manage it.
[[Again, I think we should consider just what you mean by "purist" and
"fence" and "letting nature manage it." WT]]
But as my employer rightly pointed out, that is just not a realistic
expectation in the 21st century, what with invasive species, systemic
pollution, human pressures on surrounding areas, and countless other factors
which will not go away. But of course, she also knew that there is a degree
of intervention which crosses the line from conservation to gardening, that
is, caring for a population that no longer participates in its ecosystem
processes.
[[And, of course, I/we might have had some difficulty interpreting the
context of "intervention" and where "the line" is. WT]]
There is, of course, a continuum of interventions.
[[This may be a crucial point that requires more attention. WT]]
Removal of invasive competitors is a relatively light intervention; growing
seedlings in a greenhouse and then planting them out is more intensive;
maintaining an in vitro germplasm collection still more intensive.
[[This is a key statement, not so much a question, but its implications may
be worth far deeper attention than what first meets the mind. For example,
your statement brings to mind the intervention that produced the "invasive
competitors" in the first place. Some (e.g., Ewell, 1987) have suggested
that resistance to invasion is one of the tests of ecosystem restoration and
ecological theory, so the first "intervention" to consider might be the
event or series of events that caused the "invasive competitors" in the
first place (or the uncounted or uncountable "places").
[[To keep from spinning on the tip of this point where angels fear to dance,
let's say, for example that the "pristine" conditions was first "invaded" by
a cow brought into, say, California by an invading Spaniard and turned loose
in an ecosystem that had not evolved under such a critter. The ecosystem did
not evolve under the influence of her shuffling gait, her style of grazing,
her fecal matter, the Mediterranean diet of oats and associated weed
contaminants therein, and perhaps the strains of bacteria, ad infinitum,
that were included as unprecedented change-agents in this particular
ecosystem. Oats and their fellow-travelers almost immediately reared their
ugly heads and began populating the hoof-ploughed ground, opportunistically
spreading and multiplying where conditions where right for their
germination, growth, survival, reproduction, and distribution.
[[Fast-forward a couple of centuries or so, and the ripple effects of that
initial invasion have grown in number, diversity, and extent such that
colorful names like "rip-gut brome" and "cheat-grass" have come to be
accepted as "part" of "the" ecosystem, so numerous and widespread they have
become. The "removal" of these "invasive competitors" has come to be
considered impossible, yet a select few of their fellow-travelers have been
targeted for "removal." "Bioxenophobia" has become big business, helping to
inflate the profits of Big Chem and countless lesser players, and promises
of cures to these "competitors'" influences continue to ring grant cash
registers across the land, under the assumption that an infinity of studies
and "removals" will someday remove the menace. Studies of ecosystem
recoveries, some spontaneous, some stimulated by well-calculated further
interventions, do not get much, if any, funding. Advances and declines over
time of "weed" populations do not get much attention, and the cows are still
a-lowin' on the mountain-side. WT]]
Are there any recognized criteria for determining the boundary between
conservation and gardening?
[[Excuse me if I've missed it--and please point it out--but I don't think
anyone really answered this one very directly; I certainly didn't do an
adequate job. But certainly it is the responsibility of ecologists to
confront that issue directly and unequivocally define that boundary. To me,
gardening is cultivating--replacing a self-sufficient ecosystem with a
dependent assemblage of organisms of our choice, not accepting the organisms
whose requirements match the uncultivated habitat. I hope others can replace
or revise it with something better. WT]]
And if a species is beyond saving with conservation, how worthwhile is it to
save that species with gardening? Can we determine when a species' only hope
is gardening?
[[Instead of trying to answer this question directly, simply, theoretically,
I just went off on one of my favorite rant-- about the California condor--I
apologize. I think you have defined it pretty well, Jason; I would only add
that "we" need more science and less guesswork--and certainly less
politics--so that we can start "gardening" well ahead of the precipice, as
when the breeding population is so low and the wild population is in steep,
continuous decline. And as was so well pointed out by McCallum, since the
cost of preventing extinction pales against the cost of causing it, doing so
should be (totally, dude) a no-brainer. Ecologists just have to work harder
and harder and never, never give up in providing evidence and persuasion so
that more and more people embrace that no-brainer. WT]]
Jason Hernandez
Biological Science Technician, USDA Forest Service
Ewel, J. J. 1987. Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. pp.
31-33 in: W. R.Jordan, M. E. Gilpin, and J. D. Aber (eds.). Restoration
Ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Thanks again, Jason, for the excellent post!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3410 - Release Date: 01/29/11
07:37:00
