Carolyn and Ecolog:
I agree with your first statement except that I guess I don't know how you
define sustainable, nor do I understand why your "rather" is unsustainable. Can
you clarify?
I am happy with the idea of "the horticulture industry" "blending of the
methodology and practices of natural area landscape ecology and restoration
with the practice of cultivated landscapes." I am not happy with anybody or
entity "adapting the buzz words . . . of sustainability," but I would accept
the industry's following, or even heading in the direction of embracing
"concepts of sustainability," whatever that means. But those are just my
opinions, and as such have nothing whatever to do with the scientific or
intellectually disciplined examination of the principles upon which reasoned
conclusions can be based. I don't believe opinion have a valid place in science
unless there is a simultaneous and clear citation of their foundations. Science
and opinion about scientific issues, particularly when claims are made, should
not be vague. "If you (one) can't explain it to your neighbor, you don't (one
doesn't) know enough about it." --Originator forgotten (sorry)
I have long promoted the idea of integrating landscape architecture (as
conceived by Olmsted) with ecosystem preservation and restoration. I have never
advocated "a rigid native only mantra." I have been misread in that regard,
however, by those who, for whatever reason, would like to discredit my actual
statements. I am always delighted to have my actual statements challenged, but
always call a straw man the author's scarecrow, not mine. I do recognize that
some fallacious arguments, such as red herrings, are entirely
unintentional--especially in the sense that no malice is intended. At least I
hope that is correct.
I got into ecology because a high school advisor didn't understand what the
hell I was talking about (I was not aware of this at the time), and suggested
that I major in landscape architecture. I could not believe that the curriculum
did not require either botany or ecology, so I took those subjects as electives
and had the luck to have had the best professor I've ever had; this caused me
to try to integrate the disciplines. After fifteen years of attempts that were
significantly unsuccessful or at least unexciting, I finally shifted into
ecosystem restoration once I was able to rid myself of the presumptions and
practices of "the horticultural industry." Those presumptions and practices
remain common today, but I am encouraged by your take that it is headed in a
better direction. I certainly hope you are right, and that the industry is
sincere, rather than seeing "sustainable" as just another buzz-word around
which a fashionable ad program can be fashioned.
I can't be so presumptuous as to attempt the interpretation of Carolyn's last
paragraph, so I will attempt some sort of response by saying that I believe
that there is a clear distinction between ecosystems and artificially
maintained "landscapes." I have long been suspicious of "right plant in right
place" statements by the horticultural industry, but believe that it could be
explained or defined in more precise terms. Plant nurseries continue to sell
their wares, and practice landscape architecture according to nursery catalogs
and whether or not a plant "likes" shade or sun, acid or neutral or alkaline
soil, dry or wet, etc., but they remain largely unconcerned with reproduction
potential, for example. In fact, standard landscape architectural practice
persists in insisting on conformance of the introduced organisms to "a plan."
It does not seem to favor ecological dynamics or even the sorting out of
organisms according to site conditions, and is even hostile to such processes.
I have long suggested in vain that it is the responsibility of any profession
to maximize benefits of all kinds to its clients, including the property owner
and the earth. For example, I have suggested that landscape architectural
practice could be improved by first considering the existing ecosystem and how
it could be modified to meet client needs, rather than destroying all life on a
site and replacing it with living organisms that merely meet with client whims
rather than needs, much as a responsible physician would not prescribe drugs
that are inconsistent with the patient's welfare.
The previous four paragraphs are, to be clear, irrelevant to the central issue;
they are intended to be responsive to Carolyn's comments. I respect Carolyn's
opinions and agree with the spirit of what she says; I have attempted to
clarify my understanding of the relevant distinctions, but am under no illusion
that my response settles the matter. I agree that it is a good conversation and
look forward to further clarifications and contributions. This subject is much
larger than this; that is why I requested input from Ecolog rather than trying
to write my own essay on the matter. It seems central to the discipline of
ecology to me.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: Carolyn Rhodes
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology and Sustainability Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sustainable
Landscapes Seminar 10/27 at Morton Arboretum (Lisle, IL)
Hey Wayne
I would disagree that "ecosystems" are inherently sustainable...rather they
are highly variable, mutating, and moving in and out of existence...and even
the definition of our "natural" ecosystems and plant communities are changing
as we come accept the persistence of new species or alterations of the
landscape.
I think we should be happy that the ornamental horticulture industry is
adapting the buzz words and concepts of sustainability. If I am understanding
you right, it seems you disagree with the existence of cultivated non native
landscapes, right? I don't think we are ever going to persuade our communities
to entirely give up the idea of a cultivated landscape around their homes and
other urban areas as well they are the foundation of urban forest ecosystems.
I actually think we should encourage the blending of the methodology and
practices of natural area landscape ecology and restoration with the practice
of cultivated landscapes. The input of the research community may affect
preferred species choices...which in turn has subsequent effects on future
resource use and wildland urban interface issues. Our local water mangement
district promotes the concept of "right plant, right place" rather than a rigid
native only mantra. The idea being to plant less resource intensive plant
species that also require less maintenance.
I don't think there is such a fine line between resource intensive cultivated
landscapes when it comes their ecosystem services...maybe it has more to do
where you define them...e.g. canopy cover, rainfall interception/stormwater
runoff minimization, wildlife resource/refuge, and or human/sociological
impacts like aesthetics, monetary value, pollution mitigation...as applies to
an urban ecosystem.
Good conversation :D!
Cheers
Carolyn
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
MM and Ecolog:
Yeah, I think I failed to make the distinction between external inputs by
humans in order to keep their preferred assemblages going and the inputs from
the sun, the site, and physical and biological changes--which I do not consider
external to the system.
I share your assumption that ". . . they were interested in creating
assemblages of plants that landowners would find attractive but that don't
require much human intervention," but the key concept is in the word "much."
How much is much, and where does a self-sufficient system end and a subsidized
system begin? Also, the idea that it is a requirement that the plant
assemblages be ones that "landowners would find attractive" also is key--the
key to understanding the distinction between a system that cycles nutrients and
one that is dependent upon action upon cultural preferences to maintain the
assemblage under luxury consumption conditions.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Meiss
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology and Sustainability Re: [ECOLOG-L]
Sustainable Landscapes Seminar 10/27 at Morton Arboretum (Lisle, IL)
Wayne,
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are we to assume that you mean
ecosystems don't require inputs from humans? All ecosystems require inputs
(sun, air, water, etc.), but the original post did not use the term
"ecosystem." It spoke in terms of landscaping, and I expect from the topics of
the discussions that they were interested in creating assemblages of plants
that landowners would find attractive but that don't require much human
intervention.
Martin M. Meiss
2011/10/20 Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net>
Ecolog:
While I make no judgment concerning the original message which
stimulated my question, I will appreciate any comments regarding the meaning of
sustainability with respect to ecosystems and "ornamentals" and "landscaping"
(which often translates into replacing ecosystems with assemblages of
non-indigenous species).
It seems to me that ecosystems are inherently sustainable--that is, they
require zero external inputs (e.g. irrigation, nutrients, "maintenance"). In
fact, I consider assemblages (or individuals) of organisms which do require
external inputs unsustainable by definition--it is self-evident or goes (or
should go) without saying.
WT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Megan Dunning"
<mdunn...@mortonarb.org>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 2:09 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Sustainable Landscapes Seminar 10/27 at Morton
Arboretum (Lisle, IL)
The Ornamental Growers Association and The Morton Arboretum are
convening a
seminar on sustainable landscape practices for the green industry
professional. Please join us on Oct 27 to discuss recommendations on
what to
plant to turn sustainability into landscape reality with local peers and
experts.
Sustainable Landscapes for a Greener Future
Thursday, Oct 27, 1 - 5:30 pm.
The Morton Arboretum
Thornhill Education Center
4100 Illinois Route 53
Lisle, IL 60532
Registration: $49 (discounts available for students and members)
For more information or to register, visit
www.mortonarb.org/education/adults or call 630-719-2468 between 8 am - 4
pm,
Mon - Fri.
Program
Plant Selection and Design to Achieve a Desired SITES Rating, Jacob Blue,
Applied Ecological Services
A Native Plant for Every Situation, Grace Koehler, Pizzo Native Plant
Nursery
Woody Plants for Sustainable Landscapes, Jeff Swano, Dig Right In
Landscaping
Panel discussion - Sustainable Landscapes in Practice
Kathleen Bruch, Atrium Landscaping; Jim Semelka, Village of Oak Park; Ken
Doty, Hinsdale Nurseries; Jill Enz, Applied Ecological Services; and Kris
Bachtell, The Morton Arboretum
A networking reception will follow the panel. Please feel free to
circulate
this message to others who might be interested.
Sincerely,
Megan Dunning
Manager of Community Education & Outreach
The Morton Arboretum
mdunn...@mortonarb.org
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3963 - Release Date: 10/20/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3963 - Release Date: 10/20/11
--
The clearest way into the universe is through a forest wilderness.
-- John Muir
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3965 - Release Date: 10/21/11
