A cornfield requires cultivation. An ecosystem requires no cultivation.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: Ricardo Rivera
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
Why is novel ecosystem nauseating? There seems to be a negative bias
towards this idea in this thread. As scientist that we are, this seems a
bit out of place. For most of the literature on novel ecosystems, there
is evidence that the new arrangement of species (including many
"invasive") can achieve equal or similar ecosystem function as those of
primary forests. See Lugo, Hobbes, Marin-Spiotta and others if
interested. I think that the "human-assembled ecosystem" term is
misleading as even in restoration ecology, humans do a pretty poor job in
assembling an ecosystem. '
Is it a "human-assembled" ecosystem or is it "just" an assemblage of
species, each of which is doing what it can, when it can, where it can?
Ah-HA! This gets us close to the nitty-gritty of what an ecosystem
is--AND WHY! And perhaps more important, what an ecosystem IS NOT!
Exactly, who is to say what an ecosystem is not? Are corn fields an
ecosystem? Why not? Are the forests in Ascension Island not an ecosystem
why not?
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote:
Some pretty damn good commentary, if a bit challenging to
intelligently comment upon--mainly due to the scattered nature of the
points alluded to.
While I, too, am looking forward to the citations, I would prefer a
separate healthy discussion on Clements and "invasion biology" from those
well-versed in both.
"Applied folks" tend to be held in disdain by academics, and
"respectable" journals usually do not deign to publish "applied"
material. This, too, is worthy of a separate discussion.
I'd like to hear more about the "huge social component" with respect
to "invasive" species, and would especially like to hear more about
academics' discomfort in this regard. (What makes me most "uncomfortable"
with the whole set of invasive species issues is that they seem to be a
mile wide and an inch deep--a fertile field, if you'll pardon the punny
irony, for academicians to dig deeper into. Perhaps then some of the
folklore in this area of action-with-little-study can be clarified or
disposed of. This brings us back to one of the several reasons Ascension
Island might be instructive. Is it a "human-assembled" ecosystem or is it
"just" an assemblage of species, each of which is doing what it can, when
it can, where it can? Ah-HA! This gets us close to the nitty-gritty of
what an ecosystem is--AND WHY! And perhaps more important, what an
ecosystem IS NOT!
While the concept of "novel ecosystems" does nauseate me, I'm open to
being converted--and then falling from grace, as it were, perhaps yo-yo
like, until the end of my days. What I think of it now already seems like
"blithering stupidity" to me, but I'm interested in cogent arguments to
the contrary.
Ecological history has always fascinated me, and I hope someone will
bring it all into focus soon! There was an interesting film treatment on
(the History Channel?) what would happen after humans died out fairly
recently, and while it was a good start, it seemed high on sensation and
a bit lacking on references (well, what can we expect from show-biz?).
Let's take this a bit further into the nuts and bolts of evolution.
WT
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Duffy" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem
Hi Ian,
"While plant ecology abandoned Clements a generation or two ago,
like a lot
of things that hasn't always trickled down to more applied areas."
Just out of curiosity, can you cite a few references where Clements
in
still used in invasion biology, specifically in "more applied
areas"?
I admit it is annoying but applied folks tend not to publish and
when they
do, it is often in gray literature. Many academic biologists thus
may have
a relatively uninformed, Rumsfeldian knowledge of what happens on
the
ground. In addition, management of invasive species has a huge
social
component. Relatively few academics are familiar, much less
comfortable,
with this aspect. Finally there is the problem when protecting rare
'primary' forest that ivory tower academics serve albeit
unwittingly as
effective apologists for the destruction of the same. What does it
matter
if the forest goes? Super tramp species can often "provide the same
services" and look forest. My best examples are all those novel
forestry
projects China has tried, like the Green Wall in its grasslands or
the
evergreen forests in heavy snow belts.
It is sort of like regional cooking versus Western fast food.
Macdonalds
and Kentucky Fried Chicken can arguably provide nutrition and
definitely
taste great, but these invasive aliens threaten regional foods and
indirectly local cultures. We can live in a world of Big Macs and
fries, or
we can sample baozi, feijoada, yak yogurt, gallo pinto,
pachamanca/hangi,
or callalo, although, personally having tried them, I will not
much mourn
the passing of muktuk, haggis, Vegemite, and guinea pig.
Finally there is the arrogance of the present. Much of conservation
biology
is ultimately about preserving options for our children and their
children's children. Our knowledge about "novel ecosystems" is
basically
recent and primitive, as is our knowledge of invasion biology. What
seems
like a good idea involving "novel ecosystems" may be seen as
blithering
stupidity a century from now, as new crop pests continue to arrive
(elm,
chestnut etc, etc), local diseases turn epidemic (SARS), fires
rearrange
the suburbs, and watersheds dry up. Not that the US lacks for its
share.
There is a marvelous field called ecological history. Cronon,
Crosby, Pyne,
McEvoy (to mention a few of my favorites) cover invasive species
as part
of a bigger picture which appears to be too often lacking in
contemporary
ecology. They are worth reading. Cows, grass, bees, Europeans were
all
invasive taxa that have now become part of the American landscape,
dominants in "novel ecosystems". Had one asked the Sioux or Nez
Perce in
1877 or 1890 whether cows or Europeans were invasive, well history
speaks
for itself.
Cheers,
David Duffy
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Ian Ramjohn <[email protected]>
wrote:
While plant ecology abandoned Clements a generation or two ago,
like a lot
of things that hasn't always trickled down to more applied areas.
For this stuff specifically, there's a whole literature on 'novel
ecosystems' that has developed in the last several
years...Richard Hobbs,
Ariel Lugo, Timothy Seasted, etc. Plenty by Lugo et al. on
tropical forest
systems.
On Aug 29, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "David Duffy" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I'd suggest that before folks get too excited about challenges
to "our
> ideas regarding community assembly", they reread Gleason
(1926),
Whittaker
> (1975) and Hubbell (2001), amongst others. Also isolated
islands with
> depauperate faunas and floras may not be the best models for
general
> ecological theory, although they have done pretty well for
evolution.
>
> David Duffy
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Richard Boyce <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>> Here's a *very* interesting story on the human-assembled
ecosystems of
>> Ascension Island in the tropical South Atlantic:
>>
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_a_remote_island_lessons__in_how_ecosystems_function/2683/
>>
>> I suspect that further research here may challenge our ideas
regarding
>> community assembly.
>>
>> ================================
>> Richard L. Boyce, Ph.D.
>> Director, Environmental Science Program
>> Professor
>> Department of Biological Sciences, SC 150
>> Northern Kentucky University
>> Nunn Drive
>> Highland Heights, KY 41099 USA
>>
>> 859-572-1407 (tel.)
>> 859-572-5639 (fax)
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> http://www.nku.edu/~boycer/
>> =================================
>>
>> "One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is
constantly
>> making exciting discoveries." - A.A. Milne
>
>
>
> --
>
> Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit
> Botany
> University of Hawaii
> 3190 Maile Way
> Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA
> 1-808-956-8218
--
Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit
Botany
University of Hawaii
3190 Maile Way
Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA
1-808-956-8218
--
Ricardo J. Rivera
