Sure, humans are part of the earth's ecosystem, and at some point Homo
sapiens will reach a level of consumption that backlashes profoundly enough
that the level of degradation will be severe enough, or the crash in
population significant enough, that "we" will be reduced to, say, eating
nothing but "protein bars" or some other boring kind of sustenance.
It has happened already. My favorite fish used to be totuava. It is either
extinct or nearly so, but I can't buy it at any price now. The examples are
legion.
No species WASTES resources at anwhere near the scale of Homo sap.
WT
"Nature has shrugged off countless species in the history of the earth, and
she will shrug off Homo sapiens with no more concern than she did for any of
the rest. Then things can get back to normal." --Louis B. Ziegler
----- Original Message -----
From: "Esat Atikkan" <atik...@yahoo.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
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