A cornfield requires cultivation. An ecosystem requires no cultivation.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: Ricardo Rivera
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
Why is novel ecosystem nauseating? There seems to be a negative bias towards
this idea in this thread. As scientist that we are, this seems a bit out of
place. For most of the literature on novel ecosystems, there is evidence that
the new arrangement of species (including many "invasive") can achieve equal or
similar ecosystem function as those of primary forests. See Lugo, Hobbes,
Marin-Spiotta and others if interested. I think that the "human-assembled
ecosystem" term is misleading as even in restoration ecology, humans do a
pretty poor job in assembling an ecosystem. '
Is it a "human-assembled" ecosystem or is it "just" an assemblage of
species, each of which is doing what it can, when it can, where it can? Ah-HA!
This gets us close to the nitty-gritty of what an ecosystem is--AND WHY! And
perhaps more important, what an ecosystem IS NOT!
Exactly, who is to say what an ecosystem is not? Are corn fields an
ecosystem? Why not? Are the forests in Ascension Island not an ecosystem why
not?
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
Some pretty damn good commentary, if a bit challenging to intelligently
comment upon--mainly due to the scattered nature of the points alluded to.
While I, too, am looking forward to the citations, I would prefer a
separate healthy discussion on Clements and "invasion biology" from those
well-versed in both.
"Applied folks" tend to be held in disdain by academics, and "respectable"
journals usually do not deign to publish "applied" material. This, too, is
worthy of a separate discussion.
I'd like to hear more about the "huge social component" with respect to
"invasive" species, and would especially like to hear more about academics'
discomfort in this regard. (What makes me most "uncomfortable" with the whole
set of invasive species issues is that they seem to be a mile wide and an inch
deep--a fertile field, if you'll pardon the punny irony, for academicians to
dig deeper into. Perhaps then some of the folklore in this area of
action-with-little-study can be clarified or disposed of. This brings us back
to one of the several reasons Ascension Island might be instructive. Is it a
"human-assembled" ecosystem or is it "just" an assemblage of species, each of
which is doing what it can, when it can, where it can? Ah-HA! This gets us
close to the nitty-gritty of what an ecosystem is--AND WHY! And perhaps more
important, what an ecosystem IS NOT!
While the concept of "novel ecosystems" does nauseate me, I'm open to being
converted--and then falling from grace, as it were, perhaps yo-yo like, until
the end of my days. What I think of it now already seems like "blithering
stupidity" to me, but I'm interested in cogent arguments to the contrary.
Ecological history has always fascinated me, and I hope someone will bring
it all into focus soon! There was an interesting film treatment on (the History
Channel?) what would happen after humans died out fairly recently, and while it
was a good start, it seemed high on sensation and a bit lacking on references
(well, what can we expect from show-biz?). Let's take this a bit further into
the nuts and bolts of evolution.
WT
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Duffy" <ddu...@hawaii.edu>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
Hi Ian,
"While plant ecology abandoned Clements a generation or two ago, like a
lot
of things that hasn't always trickled down to more applied areas."
Just out of curiosity, can you cite a few references where Clements in
still used in invasion biology, specifically in "more applied areas"?
I admit it is annoying but applied folks tend not to publish and when they
do, it is often in gray literature. Many academic biologists thus may have
a relatively uninformed, Rumsfeldian knowledge of what happens on the
ground. In addition, management of invasive species has a huge social
component. Relatively few academics are familiar, much less comfortable,
with this aspect. Finally there is the problem when protecting rare
'primary' forest that ivory tower academics serve albeit unwittingly as
effective apologists for the destruction of the same. What does it matter
if the forest goes? Super tramp species can often "provide the same
services" and look forest. My best examples are all those novel forestry
projects China has tried, like the Green Wall in its grasslands or the
evergreen forests in heavy snow belts.
It is sort of like regional cooking versus Western fast food. Macdonalds
and Kentucky Fried Chicken can arguably provide nutrition and definitely
taste great, but these invasive aliens threaten regional foods and
indirectly local cultures. We can live in a world of Big Macs and fries,
or
we can sample baozi, feijoada, yak yogurt, gallo pinto, pachamanca/hangi,
or callalo, although, personally having tried them, I will not much mourn
the passing of muktuk, haggis, Vegemite, and guinea pig.
Finally there is the arrogance of the present. Much of conservation
biology
is ultimately about preserving options for our children and their
children's children. Our knowledge about "novel ecosystems" is basically
recent and primitive, as is our knowledge of invasion biology. What seems
like a good idea involving "novel ecosystems" may be seen as blithering
stupidity a century from now, as new crop pests continue to arrive (elm,
chestnut etc, etc), local diseases turn epidemic (SARS), fires rearrange
the suburbs, and watersheds dry up. Not that the US lacks for its share.
There is a marvelous field called ecological history. Cronon, Crosby,
Pyne,
McEvoy (to mention a few of my favorites) cover invasive species as part
of a bigger picture which appears to be too often lacking in contemporary
ecology. They are worth reading. Cows, grass, bees, Europeans were all
invasive taxa that have now become part of the American landscape,
dominants in "novel ecosystems". Had one asked the Sioux or Nez Perce in
1877 or 1890 whether cows or Europeans were invasive, well history speaks
for itself.
Cheers,
David Duffy
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Ian Ramjohn <iramj...@outlook.com> wrote:
While plant ecology abandoned Clements a generation or two ago, like a
lot
of things that hasn't always trickled down to more applied areas.
For this stuff specifically, there's a whole literature on 'novel
ecosystems' that has developed in the last several years...Richard
Hobbs,
Ariel Lugo, Timothy Seasted, etc. Plenty by Lugo et al. on tropical
forest
systems.
On Aug 29, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "David Duffy" <ddu...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
> I'd suggest that before folks get too excited about challenges to "our
> ideas regarding community assembly", they reread Gleason (1926),
Whittaker
> (1975) and Hubbell (2001), amongst others. Also isolated islands with
> depauperate faunas and floras may not be the best models for general
> ecological theory, although they have done pretty well for evolution.
>
> David Duffy
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Richard Boyce <boy...@nku.edu> wrote:
>
>> Here's a *very* interesting story on the human-assembled ecosystems
of
>> Ascension Island in the tropical South Atlantic:
>>
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_a_remote_island_lessons__in_how_ecosystems_function/2683/
>>
>> I suspect that further research here may challenge our ideas
regarding
>> community assembly.
>>
>> ================================
>> Richard L. Boyce, Ph.D.
>> Director, Environmental Science Program
>> Professor
>> Department of Biological Sciences, SC 150
>> Northern Kentucky University
>> Nunn Drive
>> Highland Heights, KY 41099 USA
>>
>> 859-572-1407 (tel.)
>> 859-572-5639 (fax)
>> boy...@nku.edu<mailto:boy...@nku.edu>
>> http://www.nku.edu/~boycer/
>> =================================
>>
>> "One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly
>> making exciting discoveries." - A.A. Milne
>
>
>
> --
>
> Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit
> Botany
> University of Hawaii
> 3190 Maile Way
> Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA
> 1-808-956-8218
--
Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit
Botany
University of Hawaii
3190 Maile Way
Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA
1-808-956-8218
--
Ricardo J. Rivera
