[ECOLOG-L] Fwd: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Gianluca Polgar]

Yes, by "important" and "dominant" I meant "keystone" (even if this 
seems to me to be an "a posteriori" concept, with scarce predictive value).


However, I don't think that man causes habitat modifications, and other 
species' extinctions, for reasons different than survival (in an 
eco-evolutionary sense). Up to recent times, a "naive playing mind" has 
been a very adaptive trait of our apparently neotenic species, allowing 
it to thrive through the millennia. I don't think that cellphones and 
trinkets are exceptions in this sense.


Now we may be reaching the limits of this adaptation, and the 
evolutionary bet could be to develop a "holistic mind", evolve into a 
k-selective species, and coevolve with other "keystone" (at least) species.


Gianluca Polgar

 Messaggio originale 
Oggetto:Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
Data:   Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:08:19 -0700
Mittente:   Wayne Tyson 
A: 	Gianluca Polgar , 





Ecolog:

Certainly Polgar's remarks have a ring of truth, and they remind me that a
large part of the world's almost 7 billion humans are simply going about
their business of survival in an increasingly degraded environment--one for
which there are no reliable statistics but about which there can be little
question. Worse, there are no statistics on how the once biologically rich
areas in parts of the earth, Africa, for example, were fairly recently (the
last
century) self-sustaining but now largely dependent, ironically upon the very
imperial  nations which impoverished them in the latter nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, and continue to do so.

I have a little trouble following Polgar's meaning concerning "importance"
and "dominance." If by "important" Polgar means "keystone," I would
certainly agree that H. sapiens' departure or diminishment might have
salutary effects upon biological diversity, but I would suggest that
bacteria
are more likely to be important biologically. If by "importance" Polgar
means the destruction of other species for reasons unrelated to survival and
a seeming determination to foul its own nest (not to mention those of other
species and others of its own kind) on the basis of clearly insane whims
(e.g., production of artless and valueless trinkets and planned obsolesence;
cell phones, ad nauseam), it would seem that H.
sapiens wins that contest hands down.

But again I would emphasize that it is the development of culture that is at
the root of this phenomenon. Nature may drive us, but culture drives us
crazy.

WT


- Original Message -
From: "Gianluca Polgar"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems


I'm afraid I have far more radical ideas about humans and ecosystems.
In my opinion, humans are animals, not unlike any other animal on the
planet. Any possible dichotomy between humans and other animals would be
arbitrary from an ecological point of view, that is, anthropocentric. I
believe that the big "difference" perceived between Homo sapiens and
other organisms (not only animals) is merely the effect of the
extraordinarily disproportionate interest we express for H. sapiens.

For instance, let's think at the Gaia hypothesis: does anyone think that
the impact of H. sapiens on the biosphere is quantitatively and
qualitatively more important than any species of denitrifying bacteria,
or than cyanobacteria? How rapidly the biosphere biogeochemical cycles,
which are at the base of any biological process on Earth, would change
if a crucial procariote strain or lineage suddenly disappears? My
educated guess is that such changes would be much more drastic than any
"global change" induced by greenhouse gases released by H. sapiens in
the atmosphere. Fortunately (also for us, I would say), such pivotal
organisms cannot apparently be threatened by human activity on Earth.
Analogous examples can be made for several species of insects, with huge
biomasses and numbers of individuals.

I personally do not think that H. sapiens is the "dominant species" on
the planet. Its ecological impact on the biosphere is gradually
decreasing as we consider organisms that are less and less ecologically
(and up to a certain extent, phylogenetically) related to (e.g.
interacting with) H. sapiens.
This is probably the main reason why we are the only hominid species on
the planet, and why so few apes presently survive (most being at risk of
extinction). This is the reason why H. sapiens drove the majority of
mammal megafaunas to extinction much before industrialization, and one
of the reasons why there are so many environmentalist campaigns for
vertebrates than for arthropods, protists, or procariotes (apart from
anthropomorphic and demagogical issues).

It is clear th

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

Ecolog:

Certainly Polgar's remarks have a ring of truth, and they remind me that a
large part of the world's almost 7 billion humans are simply going about
their business of survival in an increasingly degraded environment--one for
which there are no reliable statistics but about which there can be little
question. Worse, there are no statistics on how the once biologically rich
areas in parts of the earth, Africa, for example, were fairly recently (the 
last

century) self-sustaining but now largely dependent, ironically upon the very
imperial  nations which impoverished them in the latter nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, and continue to do so.

I have a little trouble following Polgar's meaning concerning "importance"
and "dominance." If by "important" Polgar means "keystone," I would
certainly agree that H. sapiens' departure or diminishment might have
salutary effects upon biological diversity, but I would suggest that 
bacteria

are more likely to be important biologically. If by "importance" Polgar
means the destruction of other species for reasons unrelated to survival and
a seeming determination to foul its own nest (not to mention those of other
species and others of its own kind) on the basis of clearly insane whims
(e.g., production of artless and valueless trinkets and planned obsolesence; 
cell phones, ad nauseam), it would seem that H.

sapiens wins that contest hands down.

But again I would emphasize that it is the development of culture that is at
the root of this phenomenon. Nature may drive us, but culture drives us
crazy.

WT


- Original Message - 
From: "Gianluca Polgar" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems


I'm afraid I have far more radical ideas about humans and ecosystems.
In my opinion, humans are animals, not unlike any other animal on the
planet. Any possible dichotomy between humans and other animals would be
arbitrary from an ecological point of view, that is, anthropocentric. I
believe that the big "difference" perceived between Homo sapiens and
other organisms (not only animals) is merely the effect of the
extraordinarily disproportionate interest we express for H. sapiens.

For instance, let's think at the Gaia hypothesis: does anyone think that
the impact of H. sapiens on the biosphere is quantitatively and
qualitatively more important than any species of denitrifying bacteria,
or than cyanobacteria? How rapidly the biosphere biogeochemical cycles,
which are at the base of any biological process on Earth, would change
if a crucial procariote strain or lineage suddenly disappears? My
educated guess is that such changes would be much more drastic than any
"global change" induced by greenhouse gases released by H. sapiens in
the atmosphere. Fortunately (also for us, I would say), such pivotal
organisms cannot apparently be threatened by human activity on Earth.
Analogous examples can be made for several species of insects, with huge
biomasses and numbers of individuals.

I personally do not think that H. sapiens is the "dominant species" on
the planet. Its ecological impact on the biosphere is gradually
decreasing as we consider organisms that are less and less ecologically
(and up to a certain extent, phylogenetically) related to (e.g.
interacting with) H. sapiens.
This is probably the main reason why we are the only hominid species on
the planet, and why so few apes presently survive (most being at risk of
extinction). This is the reason why H. sapiens drove the majority of
mammal megafaunas to extinction much before industrialization, and one
of the reasons why there are so many environmentalist campaigns for
vertebrates than for arthropods, protists, or procariotes (apart from
anthropomorphic and demagogical issues).

It is clear that the ability of H. sapiens (or better of some its
populations) to modify its habitat for his own survival is driving the
colonised systems to their carrying capacity, rapidly inverting its
adaptive value. But "carrying capacity" is a concept based on "what must
be carried by the system"... making this essentially a problem for H.
sapiens and for "ecologically related" species.

Nonetheless, I think that the same permanence of this trait in our
r-selective culture is indeed based on this obsolete dichotomy: H.
sapiens and everything else.
I think that as ecologists, we should be very clear on this point, if we
propose to manage our habitats and co-evolve with other organisms by
means of one of our best adaptations: mind.

It is often advantageous to focus on a single organism (e.g. H. sapiens
or Aedes albopictus) or on a group of organisms, to address specific
ecological problems. Nonetheless, I think that ecologists should promote
and sustain a more holistic concept of ecology and ecosystems, wit

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[malcolm McCallum]

By its very nature, the only unquestionable authority of science is that all
results and methods must be questioned.

Malcolm

On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:

> JLH:
>
> Culture is, by definition, an institutionalizing (codifying) force. But in
> each culture, different shards of pre-cultural social organization are
> present or absent in varying degrees, which accounts for the differences
> between them--the size of a culture's law libraries might be one measure,
> but not necessarily an absolute one. But the extent to which a culture
> relies on (coercive) codes RATHER than (voluntary) social mores is a measure
> of how authoritarian it is. While "science" is always in danger of being
> authoritarian (and in net effect--and sometimes by intention-- it often is),
> the questioning nature of science tends to preserve its social (cooperative)
> warp and woof, no matter how colored it has been, is, or can be, with the
> taint of unquestionable authority. To the extent that science reflects the
> essential qualities of ecosystems, its underlying character remains
> resilient and adaptable.
>
> WT
>
> - Original Message - From: "Jamie Lewis Hedges" <
> hedge...@yahoo.com>
>
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 9:01 AM
>
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
>
>
> WT,
>
> In thinking of "culture as a psychological phenomenon that serve(s) a
> utilitarian purpose--that of permitting humans to manipulate their
> environment", it is important to state that this manipulation (culture) has
> beeen in many contexts, and can continue to be in given contexts, both
> utilitarian for humans and beneficial to their environment. While the
> "institutionalization of mistakes" does seem to be a characteristic behavior
> of modern Western Culture, it is certainly neither a characteristic
> definitive of culture nor a behavior characteristic of all cultures.
> Otherwise, we are without hope, and science is merely a utility for
> institutionalizing those mistakes.
>
> jlh
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone, powered by CREDO Mobile.
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2981 - Release Date: 07/04/10
> 06:35:00
>



-- 
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
   and pollution.
2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
 MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

JLH:

Culture is, by definition, an institutionalizing (codifying) force. But in 
each culture, different shards of pre-cultural social organization are 
present or absent in varying degrees, which accounts for the differences 
between them--the size of a culture's law libraries might be one measure, 
but not necessarily an absolute one. But the extent to which a culture 
relies on (coercive) codes RATHER than (voluntary) social mores is a measure 
of how authoritarian it is. While "science" is always in danger of being 
authoritarian (and in net effect--and sometimes by intention-- it often is), 
the questioning nature of science tends to preserve its social (cooperative) 
warp and woof, no matter how colored it has been, is, or can be, with the 
taint of unquestionable authority. To the extent that science reflects the 
essential qualities of ecosystems, its underlying character remains 
resilient and adaptable.


WT

- Original Message - 
From: "Jamie Lewis Hedges" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 9:01 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems


WT,

In thinking of "culture as a psychological phenomenon that serve(s) a 
utilitarian purpose--that of permitting humans to manipulate their 
environment", it is important to state that this manipulation (culture) has 
beeen in many contexts, and can continue to be in given contexts, both 
utilitarian for humans and beneficial to their environment. While the 
"institutionalization of mistakes" does seem to be a characteristic behavior 
of modern Western Culture, it is certainly neither a characteristic 
definitive of culture nor a behavior characteristic of all cultures. 
Otherwise, we are without hope, and science is merely a utility for 
institutionalizing those mistakes.


jlh
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone, powered by CREDO Mobile.






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2981 - Release Date: 07/04/10 
06:35:00

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

nd report on restoration projects. Restoration
projects are often implemented in conjunction with Nevada Conservation
Corps
crews and other GBI Research Associates. Specific restoration activities
include illegal road decommissioning, post-fire rehab seeding and 
planting,

and desert clean-ups. Particular attention will be placed on native plant
management activities including assistance with native plant species
production and determination of species for cultivation, and development
and
implementation of a native plant seed collection plan, including source
material documentation, locations, map(s), and amount required from
collection sites. The Research Associate will gain experience, knowledge
and
skills involving land use issues related to restoration and renewable
resources, as well collecting, analyzing and reporting data on the success
of restoration projects. The associate will also gain expertise in the
Mojave Desert ecosystem and knowledge of automated systems for project
tracking and review.


Compensation:
o Rate of Pay: $18.59/hour
o Health/Dental benefits
o Paid Personal Leave


Timeline:
o 6-month contract with potential for extension pending funding and
performance review
o Start Date: August 23,2010
o Full time, 40 hours per week
o Overtime and weekend work may be required occasionally


Location:
o Las Vegas, NV



Qualifications:
o Bachelor’s degree with coursework and field experience related to
biology,
restoration ecology, botany, environmental studies/science, wilderness
management or related field;
o Experience with project management or leading/managing field crews,
desired;
o Ability to communicate effectively, both written and orally, with a
diverse audience;
o Experience using hand-held GPS equipment for data collection and
navigation;
o Ability to read and navigate using topographic maps and a compass;
o Experience using ArcGIS software;
o Knowledge of and/or experience working with Mojave desert flora and
fauna,
desirable;
o Willingness and ability to work in harsh, ever-changing desert 
conditions

and camp in remote, undeveloped locations, occasionally;
o Willingness to work different schedules, including weekends on occasion;
and
o Valid, state-issued driver’s license and familiarity driving 4WD 
vehicles

on- and off-road.


How to Apply:
Applicants should forward a cover letter, their résumé, and a list of 
three

professional references to Bridget Walden, Great Basin Institute
Recruitment
Specialist at bwal...@thegreatbasininstitute.org.

--

Date:Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:43:26 -0700
From:Wayne Tyson 
Subject: Re: Humans in the definition of ecosystems

JC and Ecolog:

It appears that Crants has caught me napping. And, apparently, in a sense,
CBD.

I am still uncomfortable with using the same term for the earth (or, I
suppose, the universe) and the kind of subsets Crants calls "functional
units." Still, the acid test of a term is its clarity and utility for
communication, and when we speak of a vernal pool ecosystem, and "the"
ecosystem, we are usually understood--or at least consistently
misunderstood. If I have any concern, it would probably be that if people
come to think of the earth as being made up of discrete ecosystems and not
seen as an integrated whole . . .

WT

PS: Many years ago someone had created an ecosystem in a glass globe on 
his

desk. Does anyone know if it still exists and is still functional?

- Original Message -
From: "James Crants" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems


> WT and Ecolog,
>
> Since the CBD definition of ecosystem calls it "a dynamic complex," not
> "the
> dynamic complex," it implies that there is more than one ecosystem on
> earth
> (assuming the authors of this definition didn't define it this way to
make
> room for any extraterrestrial life we might one day discover).
>
> The definition also says that the components of the ecosystem interact
"as
> a
> functional unit."  I think that part of the definition of a functional
> unit
> must be that the biotic and abiotic environment inside the unit differs
> from
> that outside it, and that the shift in environment from inside to 
> outside

> corresponds with the borders of the unit.  (Minnesota would have a
> different
> species list from Iowa, but there's no perceptible shift in biology at
the
> border between the two states, so they are not discrete functional
units.)
>
> A deer's rumen is a functional unit.  If you tried to define the borders
> of
> the rumen based purely on community composition and abiotic factors, I
> think
> you'd end up with very similar borders to what you'd see if you defined
> them
> based on the shape of the rumen.  Similarly, a kettlehole bog would be a
> functional unit, and an 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

Malcolm and Ecolog:

This is getting complicated, so I'm going to respond within your text, 
[[thus]]. 

WT
  - Original Message - 
  From: malcolm McCallum 
  To: Wayne Tyson 
  Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:35 AM
  Subject: Re: Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re: 
[ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems


  Not all organisms do adapt. 

  [[Certainly. I don't want to jump to a conclusion you didn't intend, but I 
would say that, while we use "adapt" in a sense that could be interpreted as 
having intention or purpose behind it, I don't think we really mean that; hence 
we probably should not use it that way, even as convenient shorthand--it's too 
open to misinterpretation. The concept of intent in terms of adaptation is 
probably one of the biggest bugaboos in biology. I'm gonna try to reform 
starting now. The way I think I understand it right now is that organisms are 
possessed of a certain amount of genetic diversity, part of which allows them 
to occupy a certain range of environmental conditions. Mutations occur and are 
selected for or not selected for; maladapted populations struggle in marginal 
environments, but if the environment changes to suit those same traits, they 
will struggle less or even increase their survival quotient. Each population, 
even each individual, is in an evolutionary dance with its environment, and 
both are most likely never "ideal" matches;  Even though we're a mammal, if the 
Great Flood were to occur, it is unlikely that we would survive but marine 
mammals most likely would, and their populations might even increase, along 
with, say, krill populations. Rather than blather on like this, I will respond 
to your comments and those of others who care to join the discussion. WT 6/30]]

  In fact, one could argue that most organisms eventually reach a scenario for 
which the do not possess the potential for adaptation to new conditions.

  [[Well, that potential is limited, but I'm not sure I know what you mean by 
"scenario." WT 6/30]]

As a consequence, most organisms that have ever existed have gone extinct. 

  [[I think of evolution as a continuum, not in terms of strict taxonomy, so 
"going extinct" is relative (to how one classifies organisms--an artifact of 
human culture, and thus somewhat, perhaps crucially, arbitrary). Certainly, 
many "extremeophiles" are still around in little niches that resemble their 
halcyon days of three billion years or so ago, when humans couldn't live, even 
if they had evolved. More complex organisms, such as sharks, for example, are 
still around even though the earliest forms are long "extinct." I'm tempted to 
refer to such organisms as "highly adaptive," but I suspect that the primary 
cause for their continued presence in some form is that their environment has 
changed little. WT 6/30]]

Further, I'ld argue that although humans might 
  recognize the problems that could lead to their demise, they do nothing 
because of the the evolutionary drive for self preservation and the
  success of one's own genes.  hence, they act in an entirely selfish manner 
knowing well that this behavior may ultimately lead to their demise. 

  [[I'm not sure I understand this, but I think I would have to agree if you 
mean that all organisms, including humans, tend to respond to change in a way 
they "think" will give them comfort (we put on a coat when "it" gets "cold;" 
the planarian worm wiggles away from a drop of saline solution. Humans might 
not pick a warm enough coat, and the planarian might wiggle its way into a more 
hazardous environment of a different sort. WT 6/30]]

  Whether any organism recognizes the repercussions of its actions or not is 
irrelevant if the species as a whole does not possess the adaptive plasticity 
to evolve a "good of the species" response.  In fact, we have failed to find 
any truly altruistic organisms.  Therefore, if species act for the immediate 
good of an individual, and we do not observe organisms acting for the good of 
the species, then we certainly should expect it to be even more rare to find a 
species that does things for the good of other species because it is even less 
adaptive for individual reproductive success.  This is most likely the problem 
with humans in my opinion.  We can identify and even tell others that our 
species is doing things that are bad for other species, but as a group we are 
evolutionary lacking the traits capable of dealing with it.  So, unless a few 
maladaptive individuals who feel other species are important get control of the 
masses and force the issue, no real action ever goes forward.  Understand, I'm 
not advocating this, but just pointing out that acting for the good of other 
species is

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

JC and Ecolog:

(Note to Jim: I finally found it.)

"'Ecosystem' means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism 
communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit." 
 https://www.cbd.int/recommendation/sbstta/?id=7027 

I don't see that this definition excludes humans either; perhaps DeClerck will 
ask her mystery colleague how he/she came to that conclusion? 

I don't interpret the definition as necessarily relating to a plurality of 
units, but rather to the entire ecosystem. I've always had a bit of trouble 
referring to subsets of the earth's ecosystem as discrete units, even though I 
recognize the utility of doing so. I would like to understand what Crants means 
by "functional units" as well as "artifacts of ecological discontinuities." 

As I have said elsewhere, I see culture as a psychological phenomenon that 
served a utilitarian purpose--that of permitting humans to manipulate their 
environment far more than any other any other species--almost without limit. 
All animal make mistakes--mountain sheep fall off cliffs, but humans seem to 
grow better and better at making mistakes and institutionalizing them than 
other species.  Insanity is not limited to Homo sapiens--sick and injured bears 
fly into rages and sometimes attack even humans and kill "without reason." But 
humans, even apparently healthy ones, have instutionalized not only killing but 
have found ways to rationalize almost any murder--particularly mass murder 
committed in the name of the culture, aka, "cult." Whereas Nature has been able 
to quickly take out deviants as part of ecosystem function, humans have found 
ways to beat that rap in countless ways. But, as my wife is fond of saying, 
"Nature bats last." I suspect we're past the first inning. 

WT

- Original Message - 
From: "James Crants" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems


I don't see how the CBD definition excludes humans.  We and our artifacts
are part of the environment with which we and other organisms interact.
 (The part of the definition I have trouble with is "interacting as a
functional unit."  I think most of these functional units are artifacts of
the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape.)

That said, I wouldn't agree with anyone who said we are "just another
animal," and I don't think the remedy to the damage we've done by
considering ourselves special is to consider ourselves completely
unremarkable.  People who want to exclude other species from moral
consideration can and will exploit either position.  As we've seen, the
uniqueness of humans has long been used as an excuse to treat the natural
world as if it were made to serve our desires.  On the other hand, if we're
just another animal, then everything we do is just another amoral natural
process.  We can make ourselves out to be just another animal doing what we
can to thrive, ignoring our unusual capacity to identify the consequences of
our actions and form moral opinions about actions based on their
consequences.

I think we need to both recognize that we are part of nature and recognize
that we are an animal with unusual abilities and impacts.  In short, I
advocate the Spiderman approach to nature:  we are creatures of great power,
and with great power comes great responsibility.

Jim Crants


>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of
>>> Fabrice De Clerck
>>> Sent: Fri 6/25/2010 11:20 AM
>>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
>>>
>>>  Dear Friends,
>>>
>>> An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD
>>> definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine
>>> areas
>>> are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of
>>> ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the
>>> definition?
>>>
>>> Here is the original question:
>>>
>>> The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and
>>> micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting
>>> as a
>>> functional unit.
>>>
>>> I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of
>>> the
>>> picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments.
>>> Has
>>> there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an
>>> authoritative quote that balances the CBD愀
>>&

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

JC and Ecolog:

It appears that Crants has caught me napping. And, apparently, in a sense, 
CBD.


I am still uncomfortable with using the same term for the earth (or, I 
suppose, the universe) and the kind of subsets Crants calls "functional 
units." Still, the acid test of a term is its clarity and utility for 
communication, and when we speak of a vernal pool ecosystem, and "the" 
ecosystem, we are usually understood--or at least consistently 
misunderstood. If I have any concern, it would probably be that if people 
come to think of the earth as being made up of discrete ecosystems and not 
seen as an integrated whole . . .


WT

PS: Many years ago someone had created an ecosystem in a glass globe on his 
desk. Does anyone know if it still exists and is still functional?


- Original Message - 
From: "James Crants" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems



WT and Ecolog,

Since the CBD definition of ecosystem calls it "a dynamic complex," not 
"the
dynamic complex," it implies that there is more than one ecosystem on 
earth

(assuming the authors of this definition didn't define it this way to make
room for any extraterrestrial life we might one day discover).

The definition also says that the components of the ecosystem interact "as 
a
functional unit."  I think that part of the definition of a functional 
unit
must be that the biotic and abiotic environment inside the unit differs 
from

that outside it, and that the shift in environment from inside to outside
corresponds with the borders of the unit.  (Minnesota would have a 
different

species list from Iowa, but there's no perceptible shift in biology at the
border between the two states, so they are not discrete functional units.)

A deer's rumen is a functional unit.  If you tried to define the borders 
of
the rumen based purely on community composition and abiotic factors, I 
think
you'd end up with very similar borders to what you'd see if you defined 
them

based on the shape of the rumen.  Similarly, a kettlehole bog would be a
functional unit, and an outcrop of serpentine soil in California might be,
too.  However, an arbitrarily-defined hectare of prairie in the Nebraska
Sandhills would not qualify, since organisms and nutrients would flow 
across

the borders of that hectare plot just as freely as they would cross any
random line drawn through the middle of it, and a sampling transect 
running

across any border of that plot would find no great shift in species
composition or abiotic factors corresponding with the location of the 
border

(except by chance).

There are also functional units that only exist because of what I called
"ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape."  An arbitrary
hectare of prairie surrounded by many other hectares of prairie is not a
functional unit, but the same hectare, surrounded by many hectares of
cornfields, is a functional unit.  It has different species of plants,
animals, and microbes, different nutrient inputs, maybe a different annual
rainfall total (if the cornfields are irrigated), more leaf litter, and a
different soil composition (probably more organic matter, and much more
clearly defined soil horizons in the top foot or so of soil).  It likely 
has

a different fire regime, especially if it's managed to maintain the
pre-settlement vegetation.

Concepts like "community" and "ecosystem" might not seem so natural to us 
if

we did not live in a world where "nature" was largely relegated to islands
in a sea of anthropogenic landscapes, which themselves are cut into
sharp-edged patches of different land uses.  When I wrote about ecosystems
as "artifacts of the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the
landscape," I was thinking of cases like that hypothetical hectare of
prairie, where little bits of natural habitat were turned into isolated
units sometime before scientists started trying to find useful labels for
ecological systems.

Jim Crants

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:




JC and Ecolog:

(Note to Jim: I finally found it.)

"'*Ecosystem*' means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and 
micro-organism

communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional
unit."  https://www.cbd.int/recommendation/sbstta/?id=7027

I don't see that this definition excludes humans either; perhaps DeClerck
will ask her mystery colleague how he/she came to that conclusion?

I don't interpret the definition as necessarily relating to a plurality 
of
units, but rather to the entire ecosystem. I've always had a bit of 
trouble
referring to subsets of the earth's ecosystem as discrete units, even 
though
I recognize the utility of doing so. I would like to understand what 
Crants

means 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[James Crants]

WT and Ecolog,

Since the CBD definition of ecosystem calls it "a dynamic complex," not "the
dynamic complex," it implies that there is more than one ecosystem on earth
(assuming the authors of this definition didn't define it this way to make
room for any extraterrestrial life we might one day discover).

The definition also says that the components of the ecosystem interact "as a
functional unit."  I think that part of the definition of a functional unit
must be that the biotic and abiotic environment inside the unit differs from
that outside it, and that the shift in environment from inside to outside
corresponds with the borders of the unit.  (Minnesota would have a different
species list from Iowa, but there's no perceptible shift in biology at the
border between the two states, so they are not discrete functional units.)

A deer's rumen is a functional unit.  If you tried to define the borders of
the rumen based purely on community composition and abiotic factors, I think
you'd end up with very similar borders to what you'd see if you defined them
based on the shape of the rumen.  Similarly, a kettlehole bog would be a
functional unit, and an outcrop of serpentine soil in California might be,
too.  However, an arbitrarily-defined hectare of prairie in the Nebraska
Sandhills would not qualify, since organisms and nutrients would flow across
the borders of that hectare plot just as freely as they would cross any
random line drawn through the middle of it, and a sampling transect running
across any border of that plot would find no great shift in species
composition or abiotic factors corresponding with the location of the border
(except by chance).

There are also functional units that only exist because of what I called
"ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape."  An arbitrary
hectare of prairie surrounded by many other hectares of prairie is not a
functional unit, but the same hectare, surrounded by many hectares of
cornfields, is a functional unit.  It has different species of plants,
animals, and microbes, different nutrient inputs, maybe a different annual
rainfall total (if the cornfields are irrigated), more leaf litter, and a
different soil composition (probably more organic matter, and much more
clearly defined soil horizons in the top foot or so of soil).  It likely has
a different fire regime, especially if it's managed to maintain the
pre-settlement vegetation.

Concepts like "community" and "ecosystem" might not seem so natural to us if
we did not live in a world where "nature" was largely relegated to islands
in a sea of anthropogenic landscapes, which themselves are cut into
sharp-edged patches of different land uses.  When I wrote about ecosystems
as "artifacts of the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the
landscape," I was thinking of cases like that hypothetical hectare of
prairie, where little bits of natural habitat were turned into isolated
units sometime before scientists started trying to find useful labels for
ecological systems.

Jim Crants

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:

>
>
> JC and Ecolog:
>
> (Note to Jim: I finally found it.)
>
> "'*Ecosystem*' means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism
> communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional
> unit."  https://www.cbd.int/recommendation/sbstta/?id=7027
>
> I don't see that this definition excludes humans either; perhaps DeClerck
> will ask her mystery colleague how he/she came to that conclusion?
>
> I don't interpret the definition as necessarily relating to a plurality of
> units, but rather to the entire ecosystem. I've always had a bit of trouble
> referring to subsets of the earth's ecosystem as discrete units, even though
> I recognize the utility of doing so. I would like to understand what Crants
> means by "functional units" as well as "artifacts of ecological
> discontinuities."
>
> As I have said elsewhere, I see culture as a psychological phenomenon that
> served a utilitarian purpose--that of permitting humans to manipulate their
> environment far more than any other any other species--almost without limit.
> All animal make mistakes--mountain sheep fall off cliffs, but humans seem to
> grow better and better at making mistakes and institutionalizing them than
> other species.  Insanity is not limited to Homo sapiens--sick and injured
> bears fly into rages and sometimes attack even humans and kill "without
> reason." But humans, even apparently healthy ones, have instutionalized not
> only killing but have found ways to rationalize almost any
> murder--particularly mass murder committed in the name of the culture, aka,
> "cult." Whereas Nature has been able to quickly take out deviants as part of
> ecosystem function, humans have found ways to beat that rap in countless
> ways. But, as my wife is fond of saying, "Nature bats last." I suspect we're
> past the first inning.
>
> WT
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

Ecolog:

I know that I am out standing alone in left field on this one, but like most 
crazy people, I'm sticking to my analysis (until persuaded otherwise) and 
setting up a picnic to tempt other marginal types:


Humans are social animals. Other animals are social. But only humans are 
cultural. From the standpoint of survival of Homo sapiens, those populations 
that are more social than cultural (more "primitive" than "modern") are most 
likely to survive if the cultural house of cards collapses. Until then, they 
may be at greatest risk from the effects of culture. Ironic, eh?


WT


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=culture&searchmode=none

culture
mid-15c., "the tilling of land," from M.Fr. culture and directly from L. 
cultura "a cultivating, agriculture," figuratively "care, culture, an 
honoring," from pp. stem of colere "tend, guard, cultivate, till" (see 
cult). The figurative sense of "cultivation through education" is first 
attested c.1500. Meaning "the intellectual side of civilization" is from 
1805; that of "collective customs and achievements of a people" is from 
1867.
 For without culture or holiness, which are always the gift of a very few, 
a man may renounce wealth or any other external thing, but he cannot 
renounce hatred, envy, jealousy, revenge. Culture is the sanctity of the 
intellect. [William Butler Yeats]

Slang culture vulture is from 1947. Culture shock first recorded 1940.


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cult
 cult
 1610s, "worship," also "a particular form of worship," from Fr. culte 
(17c.), from L. cultus "care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, 
reverence," originally "tended, cultivated," pp. of colere "to till" (see 
colony). Rare after 17c.; revived mid-19c. with reference to ancient or 
primitive rituals. Meaning "devotion to a person or thing" is from 1829.
   Cult. An organized group of people, religious or not, with whom you 
disagree. [Rawson]


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=society&searchmode=none
society
1530s, "friendly association with others," from O.Fr. societe, from L. 
societatem (nom. societas), from socius "companion" (see social). Meaning 
"group of people living together in an ordered community" is from 1630s. 
Sense of "fashionable people and their doings" is first recorded 1823.



social (adj.)
c.1500 (implied in socially), "characterized by friendliness or geniality," 
also "allied, associated," from M.Fr. social (14c.), from L. socialis 
"united, living with others," from socius "companion," probably originally 
"follower," and related to sequi "to follow" (cf. O.E. secg, O.N. seggr 
"companion," which seem to have been formed on the same notion; see sequel). 
Meaning "living or liking to live with others, disposed to friendly 
intercourse" is attested from 1729. Meaning "pertaining to society as a 
natural condition of human life" first attested 1695, in Locke. Social 
climber is from 1926; social work is 1890; social worker 1904. Social 
drink(ing) first attested 1976. Social studies as an inclusive term for 
history, geography, economics, etc., is attested from 1938. Social security 
"system of state support for needy citizens" is attested from 1908.



- Original Message - 
From: "James Crants" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems



On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:14 PM, malcolm McCallum <
malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> wrote:




I do not really see ANY difference between the variation in human 
culture,

and the variation in
social behavior of any other organism.


I do.  A difference of degree is still a difference.  I think it's 
important
not to conflate continuous variation with an absence of variation.  This 
is,

after all, and ecology forum.  If differences in degree are meaningless,
that leaves us with very little to discuss.

And I do think the variation in human culture is greater than the 
variation

in the cultures of other species on earth.  Given that humans vary in oral
and body language, clothing, housing preferences, agricultural practices,
religion, social graces, music, vehicle design, and countless other 
cultural

traits, and that we inhabit nearly every continent and large island on the
planet, I find it close to impossible to believe that any other species on
earth displays such a high degree of cultural variation.

Jim Crants







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2973 - Release Date: 06/30/10 
12:24:00

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[malcolm McCallum]

Not all organisms do adapt.
In fact, one could argue that most organisms eventually reach a scenario for
which the do not possess the potential for adaptation to new conditions.  As
a consequence, most organisms that have ever existed have gone extinct.
 Further, I'ld argue that although humans might
recognize the problems that could lead to their demise, they do nothing
because of the the evolutionary drive for self preservation and the
success of one's own genes.  hence, they act in an entirely selfish manner
knowing well that this behavior may ultimately lead to their demise.
Whether any organism recognizes the repercussions of its actions or not is
irrelevant if the species as a whole does not possess the adaptive
plasticity to evolve a "good of the species" response.  In fact, we have
failed to find any truly altruistic organisms.  Therefore, if species act
for the immediate good of an individual, and we do not observe organisms
acting for the good of the species, then we certainly should expect it to be
even more rare to find a species that does things for the good of other
species because it is even less adaptive for individual reproductive
success.  This is most likely the problem with humans in my opinion.  We can
identify and even tell others that our species is doing things that are bad
for other species, but as a group we are evolutionary lacking the traits
capable of dealing with it.  So, unless a few maladaptive individuals who
feel other species are important get control of the masses and force the
issue, no real action ever goes forward.  Understand, I'm not advocating
this, but just pointing out that acting for the good of other species is
evolutionary maladaptive.  Until selection pressure on humans reaches a
level where acting in these ways becomes sufficient to drive evolution, it
is unlikely we will see such changes.   Humans are just acting like every
other species and there are only a few of us who are willing to do anything
about it.

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:

>  Malcolm and Ecolog:
>
> No argument on that! But those organisms are subject to the same feeding
> feedback rules; as they (including humans) deplete the resources upon which
> they depend, their "quality of life" and reproduction suffers--they adapt
> (change their behavior) or "suffer" population decline, catastrophically in
> some rough proportion to the excess consumption that preceded the decline.
> If the decline is gradual, it is an "adjustment," if it is extreme, it is a
> "bust." Humans are not exempt from this principle, but culture (egocentrism
> in place of "species consciousness," coercive hierarchy in place of
> cooperation) has convinced them that they can "find a way" to "feed" 9.3
> billion by 2050 or whatever through "the miracle of technology" or some
> other snake-oil. That's the big difference--humans can avoid decline,
> degradation, famine, and they have--through culture. But they have done it
> at the expense of over-consumption, much like the organism in the Petri
> dish, and the consequences will be the same because those resources are not
> being allowed to recover their productivity. We are eating our seed corn, as
> it were, and Monsanto's boasting, rather than being seen as some kind of
> savior should be seen as a shot across the bow. And as much as I like mesa,
> I would prefer a little more variety in my diet.
>
> WT
>
> PS: There's obviously something I'm not communicating well enough here;
> there's so much that we do agree on--I hope we can back and fill to at least
> a clear expression and understanding if not agreement. But I appreciate the
> good critical review very much; don't give up yet!
>
> - Original Message -----
> *From:* malcolm McCallum 
> *To:* Wayne Tyson 
> *Cc:* ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:38 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals
> maladaptation Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
>
> Sure they do!
> Check out most general ecology texts and you should find reference to an
> experiment with Daphnia in which the species overshoots its resources,
> crashes and then bounces above and below the carrying capacity (k).  Humans
> do the same thing, you can easily argue they do not altruistically do things
> for the good of the species.  You can easily classify humans as supertramps
> that can survive in a wide range of habitats, and they can further be
> classified as invasive species.  And, they are not the only species that
> changes the environment to serve its purposes, beavers are a classic example
> of yet another species that does this when they change stream into a beaver
> pond.  Squirr

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[malcolm McCallum]

Sure they do!
Check out most general ecology texts and you should find reference to an
experiment with Daphnia in which the species overshoots its resources,
crashes and then bounces above and below the carrying capacity (k).  Humans
do the same thing, you can easily argue they do not altruistically do things
for the good of the species.  You can easily classify humans as supertramps
that can survive in a wide range of habitats, and they can further be
classified as invasive species.  And, they are not the only species that
changes the environment to serve its purposes, beavers are a classic example
of yet another species that does this when they change stream into a beaver
pond.  Squirrels expand oak-hickory forests at the expense of grassland
habitats by burying nuts and acorns further and further beyond the edges.
 Any organism's population will expand until its ability to use or
manipulate resources for use is exhausted.

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:

>  Malcolm and Ecolog:
>
> One could argue (I do) that culture is, in the long run, a psychopathology,
> a maladaptive trait in the clothing of "success," through which the seeds of
> failure (degradation and extinction) are sown. An organism in a Petri dish
> dare not extinguish all of it resources, or even exceed its replacement
> rate, if it cares to maintain a population commensurate with that
> rate--humans do, but they can't resist the fantasy that beyond the next
> ocean lies yet another land to plunder (after all, it's worked before). One
> can live in jet-set luxury for a while if one can grab enough resources from
> greater and greater distances from the natal habitat to get around the
> replacement rate problem, but it can't last for such a species--that's
> culture. Social behavior is, fundamentally, cooperation, mutualism, and, in
> its rape-state, the buddy system on steroids--culture. I see a LOT of
> difference. But granted, it's "only" a matter of degree--a HUGE degree.
>
> WT
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* malcolm McCallum 
> *To:* Wayne Tyson 
> *Cc:* ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:14 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
>
> "What distinguishes humans from the other organisms is the psychological
> phenomenon of culture"
>
> One could argue that "culture" is nothing but variation in an adaptive
> trait or set of traits.
> Therefore, we could easily interpret intraspecific variation as aspects of
> culture, especially where
> it involves communication within the local population.  Frogs, birds, and I
> suspect insects all
> show variation in signals such as calling for mates and interpretation of
> those calls.
>
> I do not really see ANY difference between the variation in human culture,
> and the variation in
> social behavior of any other organism.
>
> Malcolm
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:
>
>> Ecolog:
>>
>>
>>
>> It is healthy to continue to subject any concept or definition to
>> scrutiny, and it beats reliance upon authority. Words are convenient labels
>> that ideally convey the same meaning to all others, but this is rarely the
>> case. "Ecosystem" is reasonably well defined by the various "authorities"
>> cited, at least among ecologists and others seriously interested in
>> understanding how life forms work, but, like a lot of terms, it sometimes
>> gets "hijacked" at various times and the meaning gets twisted. Some who use
>> the term have a poor understanding of its meaning. Ecology may well be the
>> most difficult of all phenomena to study; it is a very complex subject.
>>
>>
>>
>> It may not be so much that ecosystem is in need of redefinition but that
>> the terminology used in writing and speaking about it has become far too
>> convoluted, full of terms that are themselves poorly defined and recklessly
>> used. Part of this springs from a sincere effort to develop terms that
>> represent entire concepts so they don't have to be repeated, but part of it
>> also can be phony-needless convolutions and vague definitions that serve
>> mainly as jargon when simpler, plainer words would do the job better. It is
>> too easy to get so ensnarled in pseudo-academic jargon that one forgets what
>> one was examining in the first place. Ecologists have long been accused of
>> being a "soft" science, and some ecologists, intimidated by such criticism,
>> have gone into defense mode with both arcane language and meaningless math
>> to appear to be "more scientific."
>>
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[James Crants]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:14 PM, malcolm McCallum <
malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> wrote:

>
>
> I do not really see ANY difference between the variation in human culture,
> and the variation in
> social behavior of any other organism.
>
>
I do.  A difference of degree is still a difference.  I think it's important
not to conflate continuous variation with an absence of variation.  This is,
after all, and ecology forum.  If differences in degree are meaningless,
that leaves us with very little to discuss.

And I do think the variation in human culture is greater than the variation
in the cultures of other species on earth.  Given that humans vary in oral
and body language, clothing, housing preferences, agricultural practices,
religion, social graces, music, vehicle design, and countless other cultural
traits, and that we inhabit nearly every continent and large island on the
planet, I find it close to impossible to believe that any other species on
earth displays such a high degree of cultural variation.

Jim Crants

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

Malcolm and Ecolog:

No argument on that! But those organisms are subject to the same feeding 
feedback rules; as they (including humans) deplete the resources upon which 
they depend, their "quality of life" and reproduction suffers--they adapt 
(change their behavior) or "suffer" population decline, catastrophically in 
some rough proportion to the excess consumption that preceded the decline. If 
the decline is gradual, it is an "adjustment," if it is extreme, it is a 
"bust." Humans are not exempt from this principle, but culture (egocentrism in 
place of "species consciousness," coercive hierarchy in place of cooperation) 
has convinced them that they can "find a way" to "feed" 9.3 billion by 2050 or 
whatever through "the miracle of technology" or some other snake-oil. That's 
the big difference--humans can avoid decline, degradation, famine, and they 
have--through culture. But they have done it at the expense of 
over-consumption, much like the organism in the Petri dish, and the 
consequences will be the same because those resources are not being allowed to 
recover their productivity. We are eating our seed corn, as it were, and 
Monsanto's boasting, rather than being seen as some kind of savior should be 
seen as a shot across the bow. And as much as I like mesa, I would prefer a 
little more variety in my diet. 

WT

PS: There's obviously something I'm not communicating well enough here; there's 
so much that we do agree on--I hope we can back and fill to at least a clear 
expression and understanding if not agreement. But I appreciate the good 
critical review very much; don't give up yet! 
  - Original Message - 
  From: malcolm McCallum 
  To: Wayne Tyson 
  Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:38 AM
  Subject: Re: Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re: 
[ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems


  Sure they do!
  Check out most general ecology texts and you should find reference to an 
experiment with Daphnia in which the species overshoots its resources, crashes 
and then bounces above and below the carrying capacity (k).  Humans do the same 
thing, you can easily argue they do not altruistically do things for the good 
of the species.  You can easily classify humans as supertramps that can survive 
in a wide range of habitats, and they can further be classified as invasive 
species.  And, they are not the only species that changes the environment to 
serve its purposes, beavers are a classic example of yet another species that 
does this when they change stream into a beaver pond.  Squirrels expand 
oak-hickory forests at the expense of grassland habitats by burying nuts and 
acorns further and further beyond the edges.  Any organism's population will 
expand until its ability to use or manipulate resources for use is exhausted.  


  On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:

Malcolm and Ecolog:

One could argue (I do) that culture is, in the long run, a psychopathology, 
a maladaptive trait in the clothing of "success," through which the seeds of 
failure (degradation and extinction) are sown. An organism in a Petri dish dare 
not extinguish all of it resources, or even exceed its replacement rate, if it 
cares to maintain a population commensurate with that rate--humans do, but they 
can't resist the fantasy that beyond the next ocean lies yet another land to 
plunder (after all, it's worked before). One can live in jet-set luxury for a 
while if one can grab enough resources from greater and greater distances from 
the natal habitat to get around the replacement rate problem, but it can't last 
for such a species--that's culture. Social behavior is, fundamentally, 
cooperation, mutualism, and, in its rape-state, the buddy system on 
steroids--culture. I see a LOT of difference. But granted, it's "only" a matter 
of degree--a HUGE degree. 

WT
  - Original Message - 
      From: malcolm McCallum 
  To: Wayne Tyson 
  Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems


  "What distinguishes humans from the other organisms is the psychological 
phenomenon of culture" 


  One could argue that "culture" is nothing but variation in an adaptive 
trait or set of traits.  
  Therefore, we could easily interpret intraspecific variation as aspects 
of culture, especially where
  it involves communication within the local population.  Frogs, birds, and 
I suspect insects all
  show variation in signals such as calling for mates and interpretation of 
those calls.  


  I do not really see ANY difference between the variation in human 
culture, and the variation in
  social behavior 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[malcolm McCallum]

"What distinguishes humans from the other organisms is the psychological
phenomenon of culture"

One could argue that "culture" is nothing but variation in an adaptive trait
or set of traits.
Therefore, we could easily interpret intraspecific variation as aspects of
culture, especially where
it involves communication within the local population.  Frogs, birds, and I
suspect insects all
show variation in signals such as calling for mates and interpretation of
those calls.

I do not really see ANY difference between the variation in human culture,
and the variation in
social behavior of any other organism.

Malcolm

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:

> Ecolog:
>
>
>
> It is healthy to continue to subject any concept or definition to scrutiny,
> and it beats reliance upon authority. Words are convenient labels that
> ideally convey the same meaning to all others, but this is rarely the case.
> "Ecosystem" is reasonably well defined by the various "authorities" cited,
> at least among ecologists and others seriously interested in understanding
> how life forms work, but, like a lot of terms, it sometimes gets "hijacked"
> at various times and the meaning gets twisted. Some who use the term have a
> poor understanding of its meaning. Ecology may well be the most difficult of
> all phenomena to study; it is a very complex subject.
>
>
>
> It may not be so much that ecosystem is in need of redefinition but that
> the terminology used in writing and speaking about it has become far too
> convoluted, full of terms that are themselves poorly defined and recklessly
> used. Part of this springs from a sincere effort to develop terms that
> represent entire concepts so they don't have to be repeated, but part of it
> also can be phony-needless convolutions and vague definitions that serve
> mainly as jargon when simpler, plainer words would do the job better. It is
> too easy to get so ensnarled in pseudo-academic jargon that one forgets what
> one was examining in the first place. Ecologists have long been accused of
> being a "soft" science, and some ecologists, intimidated by such criticism,
> have gone into defense mode with both arcane language and meaningless math
> to appear to be "more scientific."
>
>
>
> Ecology IS "soft." It is "squishy" and elusive. But that is because it is
> complex, not "soft" in the sense of being "easy" or merely "philosophical."
> Its study requires a synthesis of an impossibly wide intellectual pursuit
> that spans all of the other disciplines, from physics to a kind of
> philosophy of reality, far from, and beyond, the presumptions of Plato and
> Socrates about the meaning of life and all that.
>
>
>
> Certainly, however, some ecologists do come at the subject from such
> philosophical directions as concerns about moral action and intuition, and
> as long as all stay open to observing reality rather than insisting upon the
> confirmation of prejudices, all will sort out eventually. Certainly ecology
> and the ecosystem concept will benefit from reexamination, and any
> refinement or replacement of those terms will be beneficial to an honest
> intellectual pursuit. But what are those replacement terms?
>
>
>
>
>
> WT
>
>
>
> PS: As to whether or not humans are "part" of the ecosystem (or any subset
> thereof), certainly they are, like any other organism. What distinguishes
> humans from the other organisms is the psychological phenomenon of culture,
> which has enabled cultural humans to change their environment to suit them
> rather than changing (evolving) to suit the environment. Nature, or reality,
> however, is indifferent to destiny, and will, as Louis Ziegler once said,
> "shrug off Homo sapiens with no more concern that she has countless other
> species in the history of the earth."
>
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Fabrice De Clerck" <
> fd2...@columbia.edu>
>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:20 AM
>
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
>
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD
> definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas
> are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of
> ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the
> definition?
>
> Here is the original question:
>
> The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and
> micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a
> functional unit.
>
> I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the
> picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has
> there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an
> authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s
>
> All reactions welcome, and citations welcome!
>
> Fabrice
> 
> Fabrice DeClerck PhD
> Community and Landscape Ecologist
> Divis

[ECOLOG-L] Evolution Adaptation Failure of success equals maladaptation Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

Malcolm and Ecolog:

One could argue (I do) that culture is, in the long run, a psychopathology, a 
maladaptive trait in the clothing of "success," through which the seeds of 
failure (degradation and extinction) are sown. An organism in a Petri dish dare 
not extinguish all of it resources, or even exceed its replacement rate, if it 
cares to maintain a population commensurate with that rate--humans do, but they 
can't resist the fantasy that beyond the next ocean lies yet another land to 
plunder (after all, it's worked before). One can live in jet-set luxury for a 
while if one can grab enough resources from greater and greater distances from 
the natal habitat to get around the replacement rate problem, but it can't last 
for such a species--that's culture. Social behavior is, fundamentally, 
cooperation, mutualism, and, in its rape-state, the buddy system on 
steroids--culture. I see a LOT of difference. But granted, it's "only" a matter 
of degree--a HUGE degree. 

WT
  - Original Message - 
  From: malcolm McCallum 
  To: Wayne Tyson 
  Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems


  "What distinguishes humans from the other organisms is the psychological 
phenomenon of culture"


  One could argue that "culture" is nothing but variation in an adaptive trait 
or set of traits.  
  Therefore, we could easily interpret intraspecific variation as aspects of 
culture, especially where
  it involves communication within the local population.  Frogs, birds, and I 
suspect insects all
  show variation in signals such as calling for mates and interpretation of 
those calls.  


  I do not really see ANY difference between the variation in human culture, 
and the variation in
  social behavior of any other organism. 


  Malcolm


  On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Wayne Tyson  wrote:

Ecolog:



It is healthy to continue to subject any concept or definition to scrutiny, 
and it beats reliance upon authority. Words are convenient labels that ideally 
convey the same meaning to all others, but this is rarely the case. "Ecosystem" 
is reasonably well defined by the various "authorities" cited, at least among 
ecologists and others seriously interested in understanding how life forms 
work, but, like a lot of terms, it sometimes gets "hijacked" at various times 
and the meaning gets twisted. Some who use the term have a poor understanding 
of its meaning. Ecology may well be the most difficult of all phenomena to 
study; it is a very complex subject.



It may not be so much that ecosystem is in need of redefinition but that 
the terminology used in writing and speaking about it has become far too 
convoluted, full of terms that are themselves poorly defined and recklessly 
used. Part of this springs from a sincere effort to develop terms that 
represent entire concepts so they don't have to be repeated, but part of it 
also can be phony-needless convolutions and vague definitions that serve mainly 
as jargon when simpler, plainer words would do the job better. It is too easy 
to get so ensnarled in pseudo-academic jargon that one forgets what one was 
examining in the first place. Ecologists have long been accused of being a 
"soft" science, and some ecologists, intimidated by such criticism, have gone 
into defense mode with both arcane language and meaningless math to appear to 
be "more scientific."



Ecology IS "soft." It is "squishy" and elusive. But that is because it is 
complex, not "soft" in the sense of being "easy" or merely "philosophical." Its 
study requires a synthesis of an impossibly wide intellectual pursuit that 
spans all of the other disciplines, from physics to a kind of philosophy of 
reality, far from, and beyond, the presumptions of Plato and Socrates about the 
meaning of life and all that.



Certainly, however, some ecologists do come at the subject from such 
philosophical directions as concerns about moral action and intuition, and as 
long as all stay open to observing reality rather than insisting upon the 
confirmation of prejudices, all will sort out eventually. Certainly ecology and 
the ecosystem concept will benefit from reexamination, and any refinement or 
replacement of those terms will be beneficial to an honest intellectual 
pursuit. But what are those replacement terms?





WT



PS: As to whether or not humans are "part" of the ecosystem (or any subset 
thereof), certainly they are, like any other organism. What distinguishes 
humans from the other organisms is the psychological phenomenon of culture, 
which has enabled cultural humans to change their environment to suit them 
rather than changing (evolving) to suit the environment. Nature, or reality, 
howev

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

Ecolog:



It is healthy to continue to subject any concept or definition to scrutiny, 
and it beats reliance upon authority. Words are convenient labels that 
ideally convey the same meaning to all others, but this is rarely the case. 
"Ecosystem" is reasonably well defined by the various "authorities" cited, 
at least among ecologists and others seriously interested in understanding 
how life forms work, but, like a lot of terms, it sometimes gets "hijacked" 
at various times and the meaning gets twisted. Some who use the term have a 
poor understanding of its meaning. Ecology may well be the most difficult of 
all phenomena to study; it is a very complex subject.




It may not be so much that ecosystem is in need of redefinition but that the 
terminology used in writing and speaking about it has become far too 
convoluted, full of terms that are themselves poorly defined and recklessly 
used. Part of this springs from a sincere effort to develop terms that 
represent entire concepts so they don't have to be repeated, but part of it 
also can be phony-needless convolutions and vague definitions that serve 
mainly as jargon when simpler, plainer words would do the job better. It is 
too easy to get so ensnarled in pseudo-academic jargon that one forgets what 
one was examining in the first place. Ecologists have long been accused of 
being a "soft" science, and some ecologists, intimidated by such criticism, 
have gone into defense mode with both arcane language and meaningless math 
to appear to be "more scientific."




Ecology IS "soft." It is "squishy" and elusive. But that is because it is 
complex, not "soft" in the sense of being "easy" or merely "philosophical." 
Its study requires a synthesis of an impossibly wide intellectual pursuit 
that spans all of the other disciplines, from physics to a kind of 
philosophy of reality, far from, and beyond, the presumptions of Plato and 
Socrates about the meaning of life and all that.




Certainly, however, some ecologists do come at the subject from such 
philosophical directions as concerns about moral action and intuition, and 
as long as all stay open to observing reality rather than insisting upon the 
confirmation of prejudices, all will sort out eventually. Certainly ecology 
and the ecosystem concept will benefit from reexamination, and any 
refinement or replacement of those terms will be beneficial to an honest 
intellectual pursuit. But what are those replacement terms?






WT



PS: As to whether or not humans are "part" of the ecosystem (or any subset 
thereof), certainly they are, like any other organism. What distinguishes 
humans from the other organisms is the psychological phenomenon of culture, 
which has enabled cultural humans to change their environment to suit them 
rather than changing (evolving) to suit the environment. Nature, or reality, 
however, is indifferent to destiny, and will, as Louis Ziegler once said, 
"shrug off Homo sapiens with no more concern that she has countless other 
species in the history of the earth."




- Original Message - 
From: "Fabrice De Clerck" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:20 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems


Dear Friends,

An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD 
definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas 
are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of 
ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the 
definition?


Here is the original question:

The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and 
micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a 
functional unit.


I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the 
picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has 
there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an 
authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s


All reactions welcome, and citations welcome!

Fabrice

Fabrice DeClerck PhD
Community and Landscape Ecologist
Division of Research and Development
CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501
(506) 2558-2596
fadecle...@catie.ac.cr

Adjunct Research Scholar
Tropical Agriculture Programs
The Earth Institute at Columbia University







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2966 - Release Date: 06/27/10 
06:35:00

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[James Crants]

I don't see how the CBD definition excludes humans.  We and our artifacts
are part of the environment with which we and other organisms interact.
 (The part of the definition I have trouble with is "interacting as a
functional unit."  I think most of these functional units are artifacts of
the ecological discontinuities we've imposed on the landscape.)

That said, I wouldn't agree with anyone who said we are "just another
animal," and I don't think the remedy to the damage we've done by
considering ourselves special is to consider ourselves completely
unremarkable.  People who want to exclude other species from moral
consideration can and will exploit either position.  As we've seen, the
uniqueness of humans has long been used as an excuse to treat the natural
world as if it were made to serve our desires.  On the other hand, if we're
just another animal, then everything we do is just another amoral natural
process.  We can make ourselves out to be just another animal doing what we
can to thrive, ignoring our unusual capacity to identify the consequences of
our actions and form moral opinions about actions based on their
consequences.

I think we need to both recognize that we are part of nature and recognize
that we are an animal with unusual abilities and impacts.  In short, I
advocate the Spiderman approach to nature:  we are creatures of great power,
and with great power comes great responsibility.

Jim Crants


>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of
>>> Fabrice De Clerck
>>> Sent: Fri 6/25/2010 11:20 AM
>>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
>>>
>>>  Dear Friends,
>>>
>>> An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD
>>> definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine
>>> areas
>>> are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of
>>> ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the
>>> definition?
>>>
>>> Here is the original question:
>>>
>>> The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and
>>> micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting
>>> as a
>>> functional unit.
>>>
>>> I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of
>>> the
>>> picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments.
>>> Has
>>> there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an
>>> authoritative quote that balances the CBD愀
>>>
>>> All reactions welcome, and citations welcome!
>>>
>>> Fabrice
>>> 
>>> Fabrice DeClerck PhD
>>> Community and Landscape Ecologist
>>> Division of Research and Development
>>> CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501
>>> (506) 2558-2596
>>> fadecle...@catie.ac.cr
>>>
>>> Adjunct Research Scholar
>>> Tropical Agriculture Programs
>>> The Earth Institute at Columbia University
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Gianluca Polgar]

I'm afraid I have far more radical ideas about humans and ecosystems.
In my opinion, humans are animals, not unlike any other animal on the 
planet. Any possible dichotomy between humans and other animals would be 
arbitrary from an ecological point of view, that is, anthropocentric. I 
believe that the big "difference" perceived between Homo sapiens and 
other organisms (not only animals) is merely the effect of the 
extraordinarily disproportionate interest we express for H. sapiens.


For instance, let's think at the Gaia hypothesis: does anyone think that 
the impact of H. sapiens on the biosphere is quantitatively and 
qualitatively more important than any species of denitrifying bacteria, 
or than cyanobacteria? How rapidly the biosphere biogeochemical cycles, 
which are at the base of any biological process on Earth, would change 
if a crucial procariote strain or lineage suddenly disappears? My 
educated guess is that such changes would be much more drastic than any 
"global change" induced by greenhouse gases released by H. sapiens in 
the atmosphere. Fortunately (also for us, I would say), such pivotal 
organisms cannot apparently be threatened by human activity on Earth. 
Analogous examples can be made for several species of insects, with huge 
biomasses and numbers of individuals.


I personally do not think that H. sapiens is the "dominant species" on 
the planet. Its ecological impact on the biosphere is gradually 
decreasing as we consider organisms that are less and less ecologically 
(and up to a certain extent, phylogenetically) related to (e.g. 
interacting with) H. sapiens.
This is probably the main reason why we are the only hominid species on 
the planet, and why so few apes presently survive (most being at risk of 
extinction). This is the reason why H. sapiens drove the majority of 
mammal megafaunas to extinction much before industrialization, and one 
of the reasons why there are so many environmentalist campaigns for 
vertebrates than for arthropods, protists, or procariotes (apart from 
anthropomorphic and demagogical issues).


It is clear that the ability of H. sapiens (or better of some its 
populations) to modify its habitat for his own survival is driving the 
colonised systems to their carrying capacity, rapidly inverting its 
adaptive value. But "carrying capacity" is a concept based on "what must 
be carried by the system"... making this essentially a problem for H. 
sapiens and for "ecologically related" species.


Nonetheless, I think that the same permanence of this trait in our 
r-selective culture is indeed based on this obsolete dichotomy: H. 
sapiens and everything else.
I think that as ecologists, we should be very clear on this point, if we 
propose to manage our habitats and co-evolve with other organisms by 
means of one of our best adaptations: mind.


It is often advantageous to focus on a single organism (e.g. H. sapiens 
or Aedes albopictus) or on a group of organisms, to address specific 
ecological problems. Nonetheless, I think that ecologists should promote 
and sustain a more holistic concept of ecology and ecosystems, with no 
permanent focus on a single portion or process; we reached the limits of 
our habitat: the biosphere must be managed as a whole, and all parts are 
important.


These my two cents.

Cheers,
G

Gianluca Polgar, PhD
Senior lecturer in Ichthyology and Ecology
Institute of Biological Sciences
Faculty of Science, University of Malaya
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

skype: gianluca.polgar
http://www.mudskipper.it
gianluca.pol...@gmail.com



Il 29/06/2010 2.51, Ajay Sharma ha scritto:

I would suggest reading O'Neill, Robert V. (2001). Is It Time to Bury the
Ecosystem Concept? (With Full Military Honors, of Course!). *Ecology*, 82:
3275-3284.
The eminent authors concludes in the article there is need to make revisions
in the concept of ecosystem. Especially, as far as the role and place of
humans is concerned. He points out that the humans are the ultimate invasive
species in the ecosystem that alters both the biotic and abiotic components.
A must read and very interesting article.

Ajay Sharma
PhD Student,
SFRC, UF, Gainesville, FL

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Daniel A Fiscuswrote:

   

Fabrice,

An interesting and evocative question and dilemma! I should really think on
it over time and reply in depth...but some thoughts of the top instead...

I agree with other repliers that the definition really does not exclude
humans per se...unless we focus on the "special" aspect of your ID of humans
as "special animals". So I think the CBD definition is OK in the broadest
sense of all animals.

But I also agree that humans are special animals...so what could we change?

My core idea of ecosystem as I remember Tansley to have originally coined
it mentioned and emphasized "reciprocal" influence between the abiotic and
biotic realms. And I think it a reasonable extension to also suggest the
definition so far includes a sense of a balanced

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Ajay Sharma]

I would suggest reading O'Neill, Robert V. (2001). Is It Time to Bury the
Ecosystem Concept? (With Full Military Honors, of Course!). *Ecology*, 82:
3275-3284.
The eminent authors concludes in the article there is need to make revisions
in the concept of ecosystem. Especially, as far as the role and place of
humans is concerned. He points out that the humans are the ultimate invasive
species in the ecosystem that alters both the biotic and abiotic components.
A must read and very interesting article.

Ajay Sharma
PhD Student,
SFRC, UF, Gainesville, FL

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Daniel A Fiscus wrote:

> Fabrice,
>
> An interesting and evocative question and dilemma! I should really think on
> it over time and reply in depth...but some thoughts of the top instead...
>
> I agree with other repliers that the definition really does not exclude
> humans per se...unless we focus on the "special" aspect of your ID of humans
> as "special animals". So I think the CBD definition is OK in the broadest
> sense of all animals.
>
> But I also agree that humans are special animals...so what could we change?
>
> My core idea of ecosystem as I remember Tansley to have originally coined
> it mentioned and emphasized "reciprocal" influence between the abiotic and
> biotic realms. And I think it a reasonable extension to also suggest the
> definition so far includes a sense of a balanced reciprocity...not
> necessarily equilibrium, stasis, homeostasis or simple stability...but still
> in general a kind of equal weighting, value, importance, dominance, or
> causal driving by the biotic and abiotic realms.
>
> If we tried to address what is special about humans as animals, in this
> context of ecosystem as a functional biotic-abiotic unit...what to
> emphasize?
>
> One option would be to say that when humans enter the integrated functional
> whole of an ecosystem, the relationship is no longer reciprocal or balanced
> between biotic and abiotic realms. This does not necessarily have to mean
> that this change is "bad", just that it is different from ecosystems without
> humans. The change would be compatible with the idea of the anthropocene era
> in which humans are the main driving force of change...even geologic,
> atmospheric, biogeochemical, species extinctions, etc. changes...on the
> planet. Another very general analogy would be to say that without humans the
> organisms and communities within ecosystems (biotic) adapt themselves mainly
> to survival needs as defined by abiotic changes, but humans (biotic) adapt
> (alter) the abiotic (and biotic) environment to our own needs. This is
> grossly general...and not even a clearly separable difference between humans
> and other species, especially those studied as "ecosystem engineers", but it
> is a rough start.
>
> So...a revised approach would be to leave the definition of ecosystem as it
> is (or one of the other classic or widely used versions by Odum and others),
> but to add some modifier to another term or type of ecosystem and define
> that one differently. This might be "coupled human-natural ecosystems" or
> "human-dominated ecosystems" or "human ecosystems" or "ecosystems with
> humans".
>
> But I think you open a can of worms that has to remain fuzzy and
> open-ended, because I think it an open question as to whether we humans can
> continue this lopsided relationship and continue to alter the environment to
> our needs and wishes. If the pendulum swings back as we reach the
> environmental limits of the planet, then the old and original ecosystem
> definition may be fine. If we find some way to transcend these planetary
> limits or "boundaries"...then we humans really are special enough to require
> an expanded definition of ecosystem.
>
> Some thoughts...would be fun to discuss more...
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Fiscus
> Assistant Professor
> Biology Department
> Frostburg State University
> 308 Compton Science Center
> Frostburg, MD 21532 USA
> 301-687-4170
> dafis...@frostburg.edu
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of
> Fabrice De Clerck
> Sent: Fri 6/25/2010 11:20 AM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
>
>  Dear Friends,
>
> An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD
> definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas
> are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of
> ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the
> definition?
>
> Here is the original question:
>
> The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and
> micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a
> functional unit.
>
> I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the
> picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has
> there been any reaction or correction of th

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Daniel A Fiscus]

Fabrice,

An interesting and evocative question and dilemma! I should really think on it 
over time and reply in depth...but some thoughts of the top instead...

I agree with other repliers that the definition really does not exclude humans 
per se...unless we focus on the "special" aspect of your ID of humans as 
"special animals". So I think the CBD definition is OK in the broadest sense of 
all animals.

But I also agree that humans are special animals...so what could we change?

My core idea of ecosystem as I remember Tansley to have originally coined it 
mentioned and emphasized "reciprocal" influence between the abiotic and biotic 
realms. And I think it a reasonable extension to also suggest the definition so 
far includes a sense of a balanced reciprocity...not necessarily equilibrium, 
stasis, homeostasis or simple stability...but still in general a kind of equal 
weighting, value, importance, dominance, or causal driving by the biotic and 
abiotic realms.

If we tried to address what is special about humans as animals, in this context 
of ecosystem as a functional biotic-abiotic unit...what to emphasize?

One option would be to say that when humans enter the integrated functional 
whole of an ecosystem, the relationship is no longer reciprocal or balanced 
between biotic and abiotic realms. This does not necessarily have to mean that 
this change is "bad", just that it is different from ecosystems without humans. 
The change would be compatible with the idea of the anthropocene era in which 
humans are the main driving force of change...even geologic, atmospheric, 
biogeochemical, species extinctions, etc. changes...on the planet. Another very 
general analogy would be to say that without humans the organisms and 
communities within ecosystems (biotic) adapt themselves mainly to survival 
needs as defined by abiotic changes, but humans (biotic) adapt (alter) the 
abiotic (and biotic) environment to our own needs. This is grossly 
general...and not even a clearly separable difference between humans and other 
species, especially those studied as "ecosystem engineers", but it is a rough 
start.

So...a revised approach would be to leave the definition of ecosystem as it is 
(or one of the other classic or widely used versions by Odum and others), but 
to add some modifier to another term or type of ecosystem and define that one 
differently. This might be "coupled human-natural ecosystems" or 
"human-dominated ecosystems" or "human ecosystems" or "ecosystems with humans".

But I think you open a can of worms that has to remain fuzzy and open-ended, 
because I think it an open question as to whether we humans can continue this 
lopsided relationship and continue to alter the environment to our needs and 
wishes. If the pendulum swings back as we reach the environmental limits of the 
planet, then the old and original ecosystem definition may be fine. If we find 
some way to transcend these planetary limits or "boundaries"...then we humans 
really are special enough to require an expanded definition of ecosystem.

Some thoughts...would be fun to discuss more...

Dan



-- 
Dan Fiscus
Assistant Professor
Biology Department 
Frostburg State University 
308 Compton Science Center 
Frostburg, MD 21532 USA 
301-687-4170 
dafis...@frostburg.edu



-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Fabrice De 
Clerck
Sent: Fri 6/25/2010 11:20 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems
 
Dear Friends,

An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD 
definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas 
are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems 
that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition?

Here is the original question:

The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and 
micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a 
functional unit.

I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the 
picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has 
there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an 
authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s

All reactions welcome, and citations welcome!

Fabrice

Fabrice DeClerck PhD
Community and Landscape Ecologist
Division of Research and Development
CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501
(506) 2558-2596
fadecle...@catie.ac.cr

Adjunct Research Scholar
Tropical Agriculture Programs
The Earth Institute at Columbia University

[ECOLOG-L] ECOSYSTEM DEFINITION (s) Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Wayne Tyson]

Dear dialogue participants:

"Definitions" imply authority, but are useful place-holders in the ongoing 
dialogue we have labeled "science," and the subset of intellectual enquiry 
we call "ecology." We accept such definitions provisionally, until a better 
one comes along; it is always useful to explore the most difficult 
questions--endlessly, you say? Of course, endlessly. In a dialectic, each 
participant wishes to convince the other of the validity of their concept; 
in a simple dialogue, the parties jointly explore phenomena. Chew this 
over--if you like. .


WT


- Original Message - 
From: "Fabrice De Clerck" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:20 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems


Dear Friends,

An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD 
definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas 
are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of 
ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the 
definition?


Here is the original question:

The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and 
micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a 
functional unit.


I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the 
picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has 
there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an 
authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s


All reactions welcome, and citations welcome!

Fabrice

Fabrice DeClerck PhD
Community and Landscape Ecologist
Division of Research and Development
CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501
(506) 2558-2596
fadecle...@catie.ac.cr

Adjunct Research Scholar
Tropical Agriculture Programs
The Earth Institute at Columbia University







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2966 - Release Date: 06/27/10 
06:35:00

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Gianluca Polgar]

...well in my opinion that definition is not necessarily specist, unless 
you do not consider humans as animals, as they obviously are.
James, would you please add some details to the problems with the part 
"interacting as a functional unit"?


Ecosystems (once spatially and temporally - and arbitrarily - defined) 
can be described in terms of structures and functions... can't they? I 
agree, as Ricklefs (2008) points out, that understanding ecological and 
evolutionary processes and mechanisms of comunities often requires a 
wider perspective at regional to global level, and not at the level of 
local assemblages, but this seems to me to be another question.


After all, it is perfectly feasible to observe ecological and 
evolutionary processes observing populations of bacteria in a relatively 
very limited space and time interval, treating a simple Petri dish as 
your "ecosystem".


Cheerio,
Gianluca

Gianluca Polgar, PhD
Evolutionary ecologist
University of Malaya,
Institute of Biological Sciences
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
www.mudskipper.it

Il 26/06/2010 19.49, James J Roper ha scritto:

Not only that, but if you have read Ricklefs 2008, the Disintegration of
the Ecological Community (Am. Nat 172:741 - DOI: 10.1086/593002), you
might even realize that THAT ecosystem definition leaves a lot to be
desired, especially the part "interacting as a functional unit."

Cheers,

Jim

Fabrice De Clerck wrote on 25-Jun-10 12:20:
   

Dear Friends,

An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD 
definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas 
are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems 
that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition?

Here is the original question:

The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and 
micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a 
functional unit.

I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the 
picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has 
there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an 
authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s

All reactions welcome, and citations welcome!

Fabrice

Fabrice DeClerck PhD
Community and Landscape Ecologist
Division of Research and Development
CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501
(506) 2558-2596
fadecle...@catie.ac.cr

Adjunct Research Scholar
Tropical Agriculture Programs
The Earth Institute at Columbia University



 
   

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[James J Roper]

Not only that, but if you have read Ricklefs 2008, the Disintegration of
the Ecological Community (Am. Nat 172:741 - DOI: 10.1086/593002), you
might even realize that THAT ecosystem definition leaves a lot to be
desired, especially the part "interacting as a functional unit."

Cheers,

Jim

Fabrice De Clerck wrote on 25-Jun-10 12:20:
> Dear Friends,
>
> An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD 
> definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas 
> are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of ecosystems 
> that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the definition?
>
> Here is the original question:
>
> The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and 
> micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a 
> functional unit.
>
> I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the 
> picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has 
> there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an 
> authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s
>
> All reactions welcome, and citations welcome!
>
> Fabrice
> 
> Fabrice DeClerck PhD
> Community and Landscape Ecologist
> Division of Research and Development
> CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501
> (506) 2558-2596
> fadecle...@catie.ac.cr
>
> Adjunct Research Scholar
> Tropical Agriculture Programs
> The Earth Institute at Columbia University
> 
>
>   

-- 


  James J. Roper, Ph.D.


Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics
of Terrestrial Vertebrates

Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil

E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com 
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715

Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR 
Home Page 
James Roper's citations 
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Joe Poston]

I am confused by the original question. The CBD definition does not  
exclude humans. Nor does it refer only to pristine areas. And I do not  
agree that a general definition of something as broad as "ecosystem"  
should single out humans or any other species.


Joe Poston
High Point NC USA

On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:20 PM, "Warren W. Aney"  wrote:

Instead of looking for recent, confounded definitions, I prefer to  
go back

to simpler, classical definitions such as:
"Any area of nature that includes living organisms and nonliving  
substances

interacting to produce an exchange of materials between the living and
nonliving parts is an ecological system or ecosystem."  (Odum,  
Fundamentals

of Ecology, 1953)
That definition would cover an ant-colonized crack in my driveway,  
the urban
system I live in, and the pristine (almost) wilderness that contains  
my

footprints.

Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
9403 SW 74th Ave
Tigard, OR  97223
(503) 539-1009
(503) 246-2605 fax

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Fabrice De Clerck
Sent: Friday, 25 June, 2010 08:21
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

Dear Friends,

An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with  
the CBD
definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only  
pristine areas

are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of
ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the
definition?

Here is the original question:

The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and
micro-organism communities and their non-living environment  
interacting as a

functional unit.

I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out  
of the
picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine  
environments. Has

there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an
authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s

All reactions welcome, and citations welcome!

Fabrice

Fabrice DeClerck PhD
Community and Landscape Ecologist
Division of Research and Development
CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501
(506) 2558-2596
fadecle...@catie.ac.cr

Adjunct Research Scholar
Tropical Agriculture Programs
The Earth Institute at Columbia University

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

[Warren W. Aney]

Instead of looking for recent, confounded definitions, I prefer to go back
to simpler, classical definitions such as: 
"Any area of nature that includes living organisms and nonliving substances
interacting to produce an exchange of materials between the living and
nonliving parts is an ecological system or ecosystem."  (Odum, Fundamentals
of Ecology, 1953)  
That definition would cover an ant-colonized crack in my driveway, the urban
system I live in, and the pristine (almost) wilderness that contains my
footprints.

Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
9403 SW 74th Ave
Tigard, OR  97223
(503) 539-1009
(503) 246-2605 fax

-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Fabrice De Clerck
Sent: Friday, 25 June, 2010 08:21
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Humans in the definition of ecosystems

Dear Friends,

An environmental economist colleague of mine is disappointed with the CBD
definition of ecosystems which gives the impression that only pristine areas
are ecosystems. Can anyone point us to a more recent definition of
ecosystems that explicitly includes humans as an integral part of the
definition?

Here is the original question:

The CBD defines ecosystems as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and
micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a
functional unit.

I find this boring, as it leaves us humans, as special animals, out of the
picture. When you read it, it is easy to think of pristine environments. Has
there been any reaction or correction of this definition? I need an
authoritative quote that balances the CBD´s

All reactions welcome, and citations welcome!

Fabrice

Fabrice DeClerck PhD
Community and Landscape Ecologist
Division of Research and Development
CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica 30501
(506) 2558-2596
fadecle...@catie.ac.cr

Adjunct Research Scholar
Tropical Agriculture Programs
The Earth Institute at Columbia University