This has been an extremely interesting thread. Now if we could just
This has been an extremely interesting thread. Now if we could just admit that humans are part of ecology/ecosystem and their deeds and actions are 'natural', much of the discord may evaporate. Let us leave Christian (Also Ancient Greek) that humans are special and are above nature. We are not and all of our actions need be analyzed in the context of 'Humans are part of the system'. Out actions alter topography, the distribution of species, the atmosphere, the climate. Thus it appears that any august group would be more interested in analyses that include humans in the process and looking at those actions as hors-naturae Esat Atikkan ________________________________ From: Erin Cleere <boogni...@yahoo.com> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem So you pick feral cats over, for example, cattle? Cattle that negatively impact soil and water quality and increase erosion, which in turn negatively affect insects and bird communities (to name just a few impacts). Cattle that introduced brucellosis, which spread amongst countless wildlife? We domesticated cats and dogs thousands of years ago--did they start the species extinctions then? Killing all feral and outdoor cats will not reverse air pollution and habitat destruction, or do away with pesticides and herbicides. And since many people aren't being responsible about domesticated pets (let's not forget feral dogs if you're going to bring up feral cats), killing all the ones you currently find outside won't solve the problem (i.e. people will still dump them: not spayed, not neutered and often with kittens or puppies that they don't want to take care of). You can trace the root of the problem for most extinctions that are blamed on cats back to humans. I mean hell, we introduced rats, snakes, feral hogs and cats to islands where we all know how well endemic species do with them. Not to mention the vast numbers of wildlife that were hunted for feathers, fur, hide and trophies on islands and elsewhere. And there are places where scores of ferals have been killed--but it hasn't solved the problems. We know that the livestock industry isn't suddenly going to disappear--nor is industrial agriculture--even though we know the extremely negative impact they have on wide swaths of habitat, wildlife species and community health. Why can't we focus on long-term solutions and work together instead of continuing to find scapegoats? It hasn't helped, it's not going to help and we still have a lot of work to do. --Erin Cleere M.Sc, Burlington, VT "The ultimate measure of a man or woman is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. The true neighbor will risk his position, his prestige, and even his life for the welfare of others. In dangerous valleys and hazardous pathways, he will lift some bruised and beaten brother or sister to a higher and more noble life." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ________________________________ From: David Duffy <ddu...@hawaii.edu> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem "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."--Wayne Tyson Essentially invasive species are invasive because we say they are. Miconia, smallpox, feral pigs and black rats are species we believe are damaging to humans, our economic or ecological enterprises, or the environment. Similarly ecosystems are human constructs, as Tansley pointed out, but that doesn't make ecosystem science any less valid. Two example of the "huge social component" are lawns and feral cats. No one much worries about crab grass and dandelions in natural ecosystems, but Americans spend millions (billions?) on eradicating these vicious alien invaders of our lawns. Consequently, we poison our streams and estuaries with herbicides and the edges of lawns are prime habitat for the vectors of Lyme disease. The science is clear that neither species is a menace, but society thinks or at least acts differently. Or consider the feral cat. It kills huge numbers of songbirds and anything else it can take. It is one of the three horsemen of the Ecological Apocalypse for small islands and we are just beginning to account for its impact on human health through toxoplasmosis. But researchers who venture from strict science into feral cat management soon learn the lesson of Mark Twain "A man who carries a *cat* by the *tail* learns something he can learn in no other way." Humans are part of almost every ecosystem. With so little of the world, if any, free from anthropogenic change, not taking the social component into account when doing research in ecology is an indulgence that is unlikely to be granted to our students, much less their students. --David Duffy On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > All: > > By "respectable," I meant "main-stream ecology." > > WT > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judith S. Weis" < > jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 7:26 AM > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem > > > Respectable journals won't publish applied material??? I can't let that >> pass unanswered. There are numerous respectable journals that focus on >> applied areas such as pollution, aquaculture, agriculture, silviculture, >> invasion biology, environmental management and so forth. Even ESA has a >> journal in Ecological Applications! >> >> >> 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/<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:boycer@**nku.edu <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 >>>> >>> >>> -- Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit Botany University of Hawaii 3190 Maile Way Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA 1-808-956-8218
