Re: [ECOLOG-L] -- SPAM --Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

Yes, but confining "applied" to a separate journal, complete with the 
damning appellation, does not foster cross-fertilization.


WT

- Original Message - 
From: 

To: ; "Wayne Tyson" 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: -- SPAM --Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem



Wayne, I believe that ESA is "main stream ecology."

 Wayne Tyson  wrote:

All:

By "respectable," I meant "main-stream ecology."

WT

- Original Message - 
From: "Judith S. Weis" 

To: 
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" 
>> To: 
>> 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 familia

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

Yes, and it doesn't end there. The fertilizer used to increase and narrow 
the nutrient aspect of the site carrying capacity (to increase productive 
potential) as well as any irrigation is a direct subsidy, but much of that 
input is wasted through leaching (including, but not limited to groundwater 
contamination) and runoff, and indirect losses to other systems include the 
resources taken to mine or pump, ship, process, and distribute the entire 
string of connected components and energy that makes all those processes 
run, including ships, trains, trucks, tractors, harvesting machines, product 
manufacturing, its delivery, storage, consumption, waste, waste, and waste. 
Kind inefficient, ay?


WT

- Original Message - 
From: 

To: ; "Wayne Tyson" 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem


The cultivation that sustains a corn field is an energy subsidy into that 
particular ecosystem.  David McNeely


 Wayne Tyson  wrote:

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  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" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem



  Hi Ian,


  "While plant ecology abandoned Clements a generation

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Juan Alvez]

Related to this, an esteemed colleague sent an email (below) to another 
Listserve that literally blew my mind.

It reads:

"friends
Bill Gates has a blog, which I occasionally read.
he reviews Vaclav Smils book here:
http://mobile.thegatesnotes.com/Books/Energy/Harvesting-the-Biosphere
And in middle he writes:
"Here's another way to see our impact on the biosphere. Which do you 
think weighs more — human beings and domesticated animals, or all the 
wild vertebrates in the world? I would have guessed all the vertebrates. 
Here are the facts: In 2000, the dry mass of humans was about 125 
million metric tons. For all domesticated animals, it was 300 million 
tons. That's a total of 425 million tons, compared to just 10 million 
tons for all wild vertebrates. It's pretty mind-blowing."


With a little googling you can see that human population increased 16% 
from 2000 and livestock is up 25%. Assuming wild vertebrates are flat 
(unlikely), wild animals (in ocean and on land) - all of them - are less 
than 2% of the total living weight on Earth- humans and our farmed 
animals are 98.5%.


I knew it was alot. But when I heard this, and internalized it, it was 
like I had been punched. It put a mental image on many of the other 
graphs/stats we discuss. What is the ecosystem service value of this? 
What is the ecosystem service to the 1%?"




On 9/2/2013 1:23 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
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" 
To: 
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 
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

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

It's not that it's not regulated, it's just that in our measure of time the 
regulation is taking place slowly (it's a mere blink, however, in geologic 
time). We will go the way of all species that have been profoundly 
"successful" and literally (and "virtually") screwing ourselves into 
oblivion. Culture, however, is the invention that got us into this trouble 
"in the beginning" a mere ten or fifteen thousand years ago.


WT

- Original Message - 
From: "Aaron T. Dossey" 

To: 
Cc: "Wayne Tyson" ; "Aaron T. Dossey" 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem




Thank you for finally nudging toward the real root of most of our 
problems - unregulated human population explosion.


Is it ethical that the goal of humanity seems to be to ensure that at some 
point, all carbon atoms on earth are either in the form of human bodies or 
plastics at the same time?




On 9/2/2013 1:23 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
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" 
To: 
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 
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

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Aaron T. Dossey]

Thank you for finally nudging toward the real root of most of our 
problems - unregulated human population explosion.


Is it ethical that the goal of humanity seems to be to ensure that at 
some point, all carbon atoms on earth are either in the form of human 
bodies or plastics at the same time?




On 9/2/2013 1:23 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
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" 
To: 
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 
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 
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 invas

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

Vina and All:

Yes, the right kind of integration of crop plants into an existing 
ecosystem, particularly those that are either indigenous or unlikely to 
reproduce, yet have their requirements met by the ecosystem with limited 
displacement of indigenous species' populations (maintaining viable, but 
reduced populations of those species for which coffee or (other plants are, 
in effect, a surrogate) can be a way of having one's coffee and drinking it 
too.


WT

- Original Message - 
From: "Andres Vina" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem



Dear WT,

There are many types of human cultivation around the world.  You are 
probably  thinking only about monospecific row crops.  How about (just but 
an example) shade coffee farming?


Andres Vina

On 9/1/2013 3:17 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
Human cultivation not only lacks the internal cycling of energy that 
ecosystem functions like the activities of termites and ants do, but 
distributes energy into other ecosystems, or wastes it, creating a 
deficit, sometimes in both.


WT

- Original Message - From: "Andres Vina" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem



Dear WT,

How about cultivation of fungi by termites and ants?

Andres Vina

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

Quite so!

Careful integration of suitable plants into ecosystems rather than replacing 
them with "human-assembled" pseudo-systems that require "management" is one 
way of retaining ecosystem integrity and increasing the usefulness of PART 
of the ecosystem for one species, the most invasive of all--US!


Then, there is hunting and gathering, rotational slash-and-burn, and many 
other techniques more amenable to our relationship to the earth and its life 
than continuing to shoot ourselves in the foot.


WT

- Original Message - 
From: "Thomas J. Givnish" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem


Even highly diverse, apparently sustainable agricultural systems – like the 
forest gardens of lowland Samoa – wind up displacing/destroying much 
biodiversity when human population densities are even moderately dense.


Harking to an earlier thread: while invasive species can, in the short term, 
increase local species richness, in the long term the broad spread of a few 
weedy or commensal species can erode global biodiversity substantially, by 
driving many local species to extinction or nearly so. That's already 
happened on many tropical islands, and is in the process of happening many 
other places.



Don Strong's pithy questions are the best response to the shallow account re 
Ascension Island that triggered this string. His questions are posted (ca. 
Aug 26) with the article.


Thomas J. Givnish
Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany
University of Wisconsin

givn...@wisc.edu
http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html

On 09/01/13, "frah...@yahoo.com"  wrote:

Dear Wayne,

Indeed, but there is a huge difference between a corn field and that 
forest in Ascension Island, or a corn field and what the forest gardening 
movement is trying to achieve. The further we move away from the high 
energy input, low biodiversity, soil fertility destroying, water 
demanding, toxic waste producing side to sustain us the better off we and 
the planet will be.


And until we are not ready to go back to hunter and gatherer life style 
and low population densities we are forced to occupy some land aimed to 
the production of food and other commodities. In this context edible 
forests assembled by humans seem something worth a trial as a step towards 
something more sustainable.


It doesn't matter if someone wants to call the high energy input, low
biodiversity, soil fertility destroying, water demanding, toxic waste
producing assemblage "an ecosystem". Call it what you wish but do 
something to move away from it cause it won't sustain you for too long. 
There is really no time to argue on definitions.


Francesca





From: Wayne Tyson 
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem


Cultivation of plants and animals, by definition, replaces complex,
self-sustaining ecosystems with monocultures or "polycultures."

WT

- Original Message - 
From: "frah...@yahoo.com" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem


Very interesting article and subject considering we are in a terrible
urgency to restore so much degraded land and to start producing food in a
more sustainable way.
It is not about advocating for replacing a native forest with a
human-assembled ecosystem of course, but starting replacing monoculture
agricultural fields, pastures, degraded abandoned lands with a forested
ecosystem assembled by humans with the purpose to provide food is probably
the future of our species and a step towards real sustainability.
Yes, unfortunately "applied projects" hardly are ever published but in the
world of permaculture, edible forest gardening and the alike people are
trying to create diverse self-maintaining forested ecosystems that provide
for human needs (food, fuel, fodder, fiber, timber) in a sustainable 
manner.

This approach might allow humans to contribute positively to life on this
planet rather than negatively as we have been historically accustomed to 
do.

Here a list of institutes I am aware of that research on and promote this
type of approach to agriculture and human sustenance:

Temperate:
http://www.edibleforestgardens.com/about_gardening
http://www.apiosinstitute.org/
http://www.agroforestry.co.uk/forgndg.html
Subtropical:
http://www.permaculturenews.org/about-permaculture-and-the-pri/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca3SRjHfMX8

I hope to see the scientific community putting more effort in this type of
urgently needed research and projects.

Francesca







From: Richard Boyce 
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:01 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem


Here's a *very* interesting story on the hu

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

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" 

To: 
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 
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 
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 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Lawrence Baker]

There is nothing new about ecologists thinking about integration of humans
into ecosystems.  In the paper that defined "ecosystems", Arthur Tansley
(1935) wrote:


“Ecology must be applied to to conditions brought about by human
activities. The ‘natural’ entities and their anthropogenic derivatives
alike must be analyzed in terms of the most appropriate concepts we can
find”





On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Esat Atikkan  wrote:

> 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 
> 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 
> 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

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

I have been doing self-sufficient (no irrigation, no fertilizer, no "weed 
control," or other external inputs) since 1972 (retired from business in 2000), 
and I do not consider my work to be "human-assembled." In fact, I don't think 
anybody actually DOES ecosystem restoration, but we can set up conditions under 
which ecosystems can develop, including acting as dispersal agents (of seeds, 
spores, meristematic tissue, and other propagues as well as live plants) and 
perhaps even introduce animals, although I have never introduced specific 
animals (analogous to plants). We can also set up soil and geophysical 
conditions conducive to accelerating rather than retarding ecosystem 
development. 

Ecosystems may be "human constructs" in our minds, but what is "THERE," whether 
we are aware of it or not, the phenomenon, the phenomena of Nature exists 
independent of our "constructs" and interpretations. If we had a lock on all 
natural phenomena, there would be no studying left to do. 

Lawns and cats ARE human constructs. 

WT
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Duffy 
  To: Wayne Tyson 
  Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu 
  Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 4:49 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  wrote:

All:

By "respectable," I meant "main-stream ecology."

WT

    ----- Original Message - From: "Judith S. Weis" 

To: 
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 d

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Neahga Leonard]

At some point we run up against another interesting question and divide
when discussing the issue of human assembled ecosystems and invasive vs
native species.

Until relatively recently much of the agriculture around the world was more
similar to the edible landscape/forest gardening model than our current
mono or limited species model and those species were, by and large, local
species.  In areas where humans had lived for a long time the matrix of
species across the landscape was heavily influenced by humans... did that
make it a "novel" landscape and/or a variation of the human assembled
ecosystem, though one made up of native species?  I'm thinking specifically
of places like California, Borneo, parts of the Amazon, and the previously
Mayan regions of Guatemala, Belize, and the Yucatan where there is
increasing evidence that the forest had been drastically changed and
managed for human use (whether intentionally or inadvertently).

I have a bias towards native species and tend to dislike the invasive ones
due to the damage they do to a landscape (thinking of Arundo donax,
Japanese knotweed, feral pigs, rabbits, etc that have or are eating and
crowding out a wide range of native species).

The issue on the native vs invasive species is, I think, more one of
numbers and speed than the particular species.  Prior to the Columbian
Exchange foreign species entered new landscapes infrequently and in small
numbers, allowing the resiliency of the ecosystem they entered to buffer
any potential impacts they might have.  Since the Columbian Exchange the
picture has changed and massive numbers, both in species and quantity per
species, have been entering new areas overrunning the buffering capacity of
the ecosystem to respond to compositional change.

The human assembled ecosystem in Ascension Island may be functional because
the species making up the current mix are preadpted (if you buy that
concept) for specific niches and the emerging niches have loose boundaries,
thus both the species and the niche mush together .. less of a square peg
in a round hole than an oval peg in a round hole cut in a block of foam.

This is an interesting thread and it touches on some issues that seem to be
increasingly important in how we interact with our environment,

Neahga Leonard

*There is not just a whole world to explore, there is a whole universe to
explore, perhaps more than one.*
http://writingfornature.wordpress.com/



On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Esat Atikkan  wrote:

> 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 
> 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
> k

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Esat Atikkan]

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 
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 
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 o

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Erin Cleere]

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 
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  wrote:

> All:
>
> By "respectable," I meant "main-stream ecology."
>
> WT
>
> ----- Original Message - From: "Judith S. Weis" <
> jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
> To: 
> 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, environ

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[frah...@yahoo.com]

I believe that almost everybody on this list is aware 
Dear Thomas,


I believe that almost everybody on this list is aware that "Even highly 
diverse, apparently sustainable agricultural systems – like 
the forest gardens of lowland Samoa – wind up displacing/destroying much 
biodiversity when human population densities are even moderately dense."

But the point is, what is your suggestion to start quickly mitigating/solving 
the environmental destruction brought up by humans while aiming/wishing for 
lower population densities? What is your plan? 

Forest gardens can be established and become functional in 10-15 years removing 
much of the energy input, soil destruction, water demand and toxic waste 
production of current agricultural land, pastures, lawns and urban green areas.

Seeing the urgency it would be more useful to invest time to agree on a plan 
than on not so essential definitions.


Francesca



 From: Thomas J. Givnish 
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
 

Even
 highly diverse, apparently sustainable agricultural systems – like the forest 
gardens of lowland Samoa – wind up displacing/destroying much biodiversity when 
human population densities are even moderately dense. 

Harking to an earlier thread: while invasive species can, in the short term, 
increase local species richness, in the long term the broad spread of a few 
weedy or commensal species can erode global biodiversity substantially, by 
driving many local species to extinction or nearly so. That's already happened 
on many tropical islands, and is in the process of happening many other places.

Don Strong's pithy
 questions are the best
 response to the shallow account re Ascension Island that triggered this 
string. His questions are posted (ca. Aug 26) with the article.

Thomas J. Givnish
Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany
University of Wisconsin

givn...@wisc.edu
http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html

On 09/01/13, "frah...@yahoo.com"  wrote:
> Dear Wayne,
> 
> Indeed, but there is a huge difference between a corn field and that forest 
> in Ascension Island, or a corn field and what the forest gardening movement 
> is trying to achieve. The further we move away from the high energy input, 
> low biodiversity, soil fertility
 destroying, water demanding, toxic waste producing side to sustain us the
 better off we and the planet will be. 
> 
> And until we are not ready to go back to hunter and gatherer life style and 
> low population densities we are forced to occupy some land aimed to the 
> production of food and other commodities. In this context edible forests 
> assembled by humans seem something worth a trial as a step towards something 
> more sustainable.
> 
> It doesn't matter if someone wants to call the high energy input, low 
> biodiversity, soil fertility destroying, water demanding, toxic waste 
> producing assemblage "an ecosystem". Call it what you wish but do something 
> to move away from it cause it won't sustain you for too long. There is really 
> no time to argue on definitions.
> 
> Francesca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________
> From: Wayne Tyson 
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 
> Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 4:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
> 
> 
> Cultivation of plants and animals, by definition, replaces complex, 
> self-sustaining ecosystems with monocultures or "polycultures."
> 
> WT
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "frah...@yahoo.com" 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 3:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled
 ecosystem
> 
> 
> Very interesting article and subject considering we are in a terrible 
> urgency to restore so much degraded land and to start producing food in a 
> more sustainable way.
> It is not about advocating for replacing a native forest with a 
> human-assembled ecosystem of course, but starting replacing monoculture 
> agricultural fields, pastures, degraded abandoned lands with a forested 
> ecosystem assembled by humans with the purpose to provide food is probably 
> the future of our species and a step towards real sustainability.
> Yes, unfortunately "applied projects" hardly are ever published but in the 
> world of permaculture, edible forest gardening and the alike people are 
> trying to create diverse self-maintaining forested ecosystems that provide 
> for human needs (food, fuel, fodder, fiber, timber) in a sustainable manner.
> This
 approach might allow humans to contribute positively to life on this 
> planet rather than negatively as we have been historically accustomed to do.
> Here a list of institut

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[David Duffy]

"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  wrote:

> All:
>
> By "respectable," I meant "main-stream ecology."
>
> WT
>
> - Original Message - From: "Judith S. Weis" <
> jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
> To: 
> 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.
>>>
>>> Ecolo

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Thomas J. Givnish]

Even highly diverse, apparently sustainable agricultural systems – like the 
forest gardens of lowland Samoa – wind up displacing/destroying much 
biodiversity when human population densities are even moderately dense. 

Harking to an earlier thread: while invasive species can, in the short term, 
increase local species richness, in the long term the broad spread of a few 
weedy or commensal species can erode global biodiversity substantially, by 
driving many local species to extinction or nearly so. That's already happened 
on many tropical islands, and is in the process of happening many other places.


Don Strong's pithy questions are the best response to the shallow account re 
Ascension Island that triggered this string. His questions are posted (ca. Aug 
26) with the article.

Thomas J. Givnish
Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany
University of Wisconsin

givn...@wisc.edu
http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html

On 09/01/13, "frah...@yahoo.com"  wrote:
> Dear Wayne,
> 
> Indeed, but there is a huge difference between a corn field and that forest 
> in Ascension Island, or a corn field and what the forest gardening movement 
> is trying to achieve. The further we move away from the high energy input, 
> low biodiversity, soil fertility destroying, water demanding, toxic waste 
> producing side to sustain us the better off we and the planet will be. 
> 
> And until we are not ready to go back to hunter and gatherer life style and 
> low population densities we are forced to occupy some land aimed to the 
> production of food and other commodities. In this context edible forests 
> assembled by humans seem something worth a trial as a step towards something 
> more sustainable.
> 
> It doesn't matter if someone wants to call the high energy input, low 
> biodiversity, soil fertility destroying, water demanding, toxic waste 
> producing assemblage "an ecosystem". Call it what you wish but do something 
> to move away from it cause it won't sustain you for too long. There is really 
> no time to argue on definitions.
> 
> Francesca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________
> From: Wayne Tyson 
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 
> Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 4:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
> 
> 
> Cultivation of plants and animals, by definition, replaces complex, 
> self-sustaining ecosystems with monocultures or "polycultures."
> 
> WT
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "frah...@yahoo.com" 
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 3:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
> 
> 
> Very interesting article and subject considering we are in a terrible 
> urgency to restore so much degraded land and to start producing food in a 
> more sustainable way.
> It is not about advocating for replacing a native forest with a 
> human-assembled ecosystem of course, but starting replacing monoculture 
> agricultural fields, pastures, degraded abandoned lands with a forested 
> ecosystem assembled by humans with the purpose to provide food is probably 
> the future of our species and a step towards real sustainability.
> Yes, unfortunately "applied projects" hardly are ever published but in the 
> world of permaculture, edible forest gardening and the alike people are 
> trying to create diverse self-maintaining forested ecosystems that provide 
> for human needs (food, fuel, fodder, fiber, timber) in a sustainable manner.
> This approach might allow humans to contribute positively to life on this 
> planet rather than negatively as we have been historically accustomed to do.
> Here a list of institutes I am aware of that research on and promote this 
> type of approach to agriculture and human sustenance:
> 
> Temperate:
> http://www.edibleforestgardens.com/about_gardening
> http://www.apiosinstitute.org/
> http://www.agroforestry.co.uk/forgndg.html
> Subtropical:
> http://www.permaculturenews.org/about-permaculture-and-the-pri/
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca3SRjHfMX8
> 
> I hope to see the scientific community putting more effort in this type of 
> urgently needed research and projects.
> 
> Francesca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Richard Boyce 
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:01 PM
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
> 
> 
> 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 regardin

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[frah...@yahoo.com]

Dear Wayne,

Indeed, but there is a huge difference between a corn field  and that forest in 
Ascension Island, or a corn field and what the forest gardening movement is 
trying to achieve. The further we move away from the high energy input, low 
biodiversity, soil fertility destroying, water demanding, toxic waste producing 
side to sustain us the better off we and the planet will be. 

And until we are not ready to go back to hunter and gatherer life style and low 
population densities we are forced to occupy some land aimed to the production 
of food and other commodities. In this context edible forests assembled by 
humans seem something worth a trial as a step towards something more 
sustainable.

It doesn't matter if someone wants to call the  high energy input, low 
biodiversity, soil fertility destroying, water demanding, toxic waste 
producing assemblage "an ecosystem". Call it what you wish but do something to 
move away from it cause it won't sustain you for too long. There is really no 
time to argue on definitions.

Francesca





 From: Wayne Tyson 
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
 

Cultivation of plants and animals, by definition, replaces complex, 
self-sustaining ecosystems with monocultures or "polycultures."

WT

- Original Message - 
From: "frah...@yahoo.com" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem


Very interesting article and subject considering we are in a terrible 
urgency to restore so much degraded land and to start producing food in a 
more sustainable way.
It is not about advocating for replacing a native forest with a 
human-assembled ecosystem of course, but starting replacing monoculture 
agricultural fields, pastures, degraded abandoned lands with a forested 
ecosystem assembled by humans with the purpose to provide food is probably 
the future of our species and a step towards real sustainability.
Yes, unfortunately "applied projects" hardly are ever published but in the 
world of permaculture, edible forest gardening and the alike people are 
trying to create diverse self-maintaining forested ecosystems that provide 
for human needs (food, fuel, fodder, fiber, timber) in a sustainable manner.
This approach might allow humans to contribute positively to life on this 
planet rather than negatively as we have been historically accustomed to do.
Here a list of institutes I am aware of that research on and promote this 
type of approach to agriculture and human sustenance:

Temperate:
http://www.edibleforestgardens.com/about_gardening
http://www.apiosinstitute.org/
http://www.agroforestry.co.uk/forgndg.html
Subtropical:
http://www.permaculturenews.org/about-permaculture-and-the-pri/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca3SRjHfMX8

I hope to see the scientific community putting more effort in this type of 
urgently needed research and projects.

Francesca







From: Richard Boyce 
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:01 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem


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 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Andres Vina]

Dear WT,

There are many types of human cultivation around the world.  You are 
probably  thinking only about monospecific row crops.  How about (just 
but an example) shade coffee farming?


Andres Vina

On 9/1/2013 3:17 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
Human cultivation not only lacks the internal cycling of energy that 
ecosystem functions like the activities of termites and ants do, but 
distributes energy into other ecosystems, or wastes it, creating a 
deficit, sometimes in both.


WT

- Original Message - From: "Andres Vina" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem



Dear WT,

How about cultivation of fungi by termites and ants?

Andres Vina

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

Human cultivation not only lacks the internal cycling of energy that 
ecosystem functions like the activities of termites and ants do, but 
distributes energy into other ecosystems, or wastes it, creating a deficit, 
sometimes in both.


WT

- Original Message - 
From: "Andres Vina" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem



Dear WT,

How about cultivation of fungi by termites and ants?

Andres Vina



Wayne Tyson  wrote:


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  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" 
   To: 
   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, manag

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

All:

By "respectable," I meant "main-stream ecology."

WT

- Original Message - 
From: "Judith S. Weis" 

To: 
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" 
To: 
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 "n

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Safeeq, Mohammad]

Even an ecosystem requires cultivation.   May be different form of cultivation 
than what we as humans do in a corn field? 

Safeeq

On Sep 1, 2013, at 9:33 AM, "Andres Vina"  wrote:

> Dear WT,
> 
> How about cultivation of fungi by termites and ants?
> 
> Andres Vina
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne Tyson  wrote:
> 
>> 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  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" 
>>   To: 
>>   Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:18 PM
>>   Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Ian,
>> 
>> 
>> "While

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Andres Vina]

Dear WT,

How about cultivation of fungi by termites and ants?

Andres Vina



Wayne Tyson  wrote:

>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  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" 
>To: 
>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 h

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

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  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" 
To: 
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

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

Cultivation of plants and animals, by definition, replaces complex, 
self-sustaining ecosystems with monocultures or "polycultures."


WT

- Original Message - 
From: "frah...@yahoo.com" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem


Very interesting article and subject considering we are in a terrible 
urgency to restore so much degraded land and to start producing food in a 
more sustainable way.
It is not about advocating for replacing a native forest with a 
human-assembled ecosystem of course, but starting replacing monoculture 
agricultural fields, pastures, degraded abandoned lands with a forested 
ecosystem assembled by humans with the purpose to provide food is probably 
the future of our species and a step towards real sustainability.
Yes, unfortunately "applied projects" hardly are ever published but in the 
world of permaculture, edible forest gardening and the alike people are 
trying to create diverse self-maintaining forested ecosystems that provide 
for human needs (food, fuel, fodder, fiber, timber) in a sustainable manner.
This approach might allow humans to contribute positively to life on this 
planet rather than negatively as we have been historically accustomed to do.
Here a list of institutes I am aware of that research on and promote this 
type of approach to agriculture and human sustenance:


Temperate:
http://www.edibleforestgardens.com/about_gardening
http://www.apiosinstitute.org/
http://www.agroforestry.co.uk/forgndg.html
Subtropical:
http://www.permaculturenews.org/about-permaculture-and-the-pri/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca3SRjHfMX8

I hope to see the scientific community putting more effort in this type of 
urgently needed research and projects.


Francesca







From: Richard Boyce 
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:01 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem


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 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Judith S. Weis]

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" 
> To: 
> 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.
>>
>> F

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[frah...@yahoo.com]

Very interesting article and subject considering we are in a terrible urgency 
to restore so much degraded land and to start producing food in a more 
sustainable way.
It is not about advocating for replacing a native forest with a human-assembled 
ecosystem of course, but starting replacing monoculture agricultural fields, 
pastures, degraded abandoned lands with a forested ecosystem assembled by 
humans with the purpose to provide food is probably the future of our species 
and a step towards real sustainability.
Yes, unfortunately "applied projects" hardly are ever published but in the 
world of permaculture, edible forest gardening and the alike people are trying 
to create diverse self-maintaining forested ecosystems that provide for human 
needs (food, fuel, fodder, fiber, timber) in a sustainable manner.
This approach might allow humans to contribute positively to life on this 
planet rather than negatively as we have been historically accustomed to do.
Here a list of institutes I am aware of that research on and promote this type 
of approach to agriculture and human sustenance:

Temperate:
http://www.edibleforestgardens.com/about_gardening
http://www.apiosinstitute.org/
http://www.agroforestry.co.uk/forgndg.html
Subtropical:
http://www.permaculturenews.org/about-permaculture-and-the-pri/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca3SRjHfMX8

I hope to see the scientific community putting more effort in this type of 
urgently needed research and projects.

Francesca







 From: Richard Boyce 
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:01 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
 

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
http://www.nku.edu/~boycer/
=

"One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making 
exciting discoveries." - A.A. Milne

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Ricardo Rivera]

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  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" 
> To: 
> 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

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

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" 

To: 
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, Europ

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[David Duffy]

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  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"  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  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
> >> 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

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Ian Ramjohn]

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"  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  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
>> 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

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

The most relevant and interesting questions here are related more to what 
this phenomenon can tell us rather than what it cannot tell us--entirely 
apart from the quality, for the worse or for the better, of the writing of 
this particular article. I only know that it was news to me--no doubt many 
others already knew all about Ascension Island's flora and fauna.


WT

PS: So what happens when an assemblage of organisms is tossed together? How 
long and it what ways did it take for relationships to form, given that 
survival and reproduction make the important calls? Where is a list of the 
species and their origins, and what kind of evolution has taken place, if 
any? Genetics?


- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Boyce" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:01 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem


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
http://www.nku.edu/~boycer/
=

"One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making 
exciting discoveries." - A.A. Milne

[ECOLOG-L] ECOSYSTEM Function References Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Wayne Tyson]

Forum:

One of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time. I'd like to 
look at as much written material on this as I can.


My explanation is simple: Species do what they can, when they can, where 
they can.


WT

PS: However, we still need a database that models the minimum requirements 
and maximum tolerances of all species if we are ever to actually "assemble" 
and ecosystem that works--and, of course, know why it works.


- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Boyce" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:01 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem


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
http://www.nku.edu/~boycer/
=

"One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making 
exciting discoveries." - A.A. Milne

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[David Duffy]

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  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
> 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

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

[Palmer, Mike]

This report is indeed interesting, and potentially challenging for 
conservationists.
But has any ecologist in recent years really believed the ideas (poorly 
articulated in this article) that are attributed to 'mainstream ecological 
theory'?
I suspect you would have to dig up decades-old textbooks to find the 'basic 
assumptions about ecology and evolution' alluded to here.
---Mike

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Boyce
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:02 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem

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
http://www.nku.edu/~boycer/
=

"One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making 
exciting discoveries." - A.A. Milne