Thanks, Dr. Boyce, Indeed, it is an interesting rebuttal. I find myself agreeing with some of their clarifications. Nevertheless, the same way they state that Pierce is enamored with the concept of novel ecosystems, I believe that the definition of what restoration ecology does is a bit of a stretch.
> Restoration ecologists do not aim to recreate the past, but rather to > reestablish > the historical > trajectory<http://islandpress.org/ip/books/book/islandpress/E/bo7019370.html> > of > an ecosystem before it was deflected by human activity, to allow the > restored system to continue to respond to various environmental changes. > They in fact do aim to achieve a situation that will let “nature take its > course.” This is just as ideal as the concept of novel ecosystems. In a lot of situations, the "historical" trajectory was caused/directed by human interventions (Native Americans managed the land and biota before settlers in North America, and other cultures in Central, South America), and where it was not, ecologists lacked the biogeochemical, biota, population dynamics, and other data to claim that we know what the historical trajectory is or was. Nevertheless, even if we claim that we know what these trajectories were, they will not be the same anymore. An indisputable fact about our ecosystems today is that very few of them are not impacted in one way or another by human activity. So I find it kind of funny that they are so insulted by a new concept like novel ecosystems, given that the one they are trying to defend is also very new and imperfect. Finally, I really like their rebuttal, because they are pushing the discussion more into a scientific discussion rather than a "I find this term disgusting" kind of discussion. Nevertheless, what I really like about this rebuttal is that it points out the need for further research into these novel ecosystems. I will leave the discussion by a recent paper that was sent to me by my academic advisor last night. Hopefully it will pique your interest and the discussion. http://tropicalconservationscience.mongabay.com/content/v6/TCS-2013_Vol_6(3)_325-337-Lugo.pdf Good day ECOLOG On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > Ecolog: > > I share Simberloff's and Strong's feelings of depression and their > skepticism about "novel" "ecosystems." Most of their criticisms seem > well-founded. However, I do believe that there are "things" that can be > learned from studying such phenomena. > > First, that organisms are "opportunists." Organisms do what they can, > where they can, when they can. Humans, for better or for worse, are > dispersal agents. Colonization occurs by both "indigenous" and "alien" > species. The world ecosystem and its subsets are so dynamic, vast, and > complex as to defy neat categorization. Very sloppy, very squishy. > > But such challenges and counter-challenges are healthy, in that their > resolution has the potential to illuminate some crucial distinctions that > can bring our understanding of ecosystem "function" into clearer focus, > even as they muddy the waters and upset the natural order (whatever that > is). > > The devil is in the details. > > WT > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Boyce" <boy...@nku.edu> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:00 AM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ascension Island: rebuttal of Yale360 article by > Simberloff and Strong > > > > I earlier posted an article about the building of a novel ecosystem on > Ascension Island, and isolated island in the South Atlantic that had few > native species before the British colonized it. Dan Simberloff and Don > Strong have some strong criticisms; you can read them here: > http://e360.yale.edu/**Counterpoint_Scientists_Offer_** > Dissenting_View_on_Ascension_**Island.msp<http://e360.yale.edu/Counterpoint_Scientists_Offer_Dissenting_View_on_Ascension_Island.msp> > ==============================**== > 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 > -- Ricardo J. Rivera
