Restoration: Artifact or Natural Community?

[Drabav]

Furthermore, were it that simple, we would have no need for ecologists.

 

Too true, and I would have no hope of being able to buy food in the future because of my ecological curiosity.

 

I find this definition strange. Surely he acknowledges that at some point - which may or may not be arbitrarily selected, it doesn't really matter - any system of interfaces will lose continuity as an expected consequence of the interfaces having their presence in the system.

 

I am sorry, could you please word that arguement about the system of interfaces differently, because I am not sure if I understand correctly. I am curious, and know a few things, but I am still a student, and your terminology just went over my head, so to speak.

 

I would be inclined to suggest to Katz that this has more to do with him than the birch grove. However it would be remiss of me to ignore the very probable trophic and diversity differences between that grove, and one that had arisen without human interference.

 

True, and this is the very reason why his arguement is worth analyzing.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

[syntax252]

Again' date=' syntax, you forget that, while your definition of "natural" (which, not to be rude, you have not fully provided for us) is not the same as the definition Katz holds, nor, for that matter, the same as mine. It would be good to take that into account when you post. If you are trying to sway anyone with simplistic language, its not helping the disscussion of this thread, which is truly anything but a simple matter. Were it simple, I would not have made a thread about it.

 

Now, on to Historical Continuity and Ecosystem Value. Katz argues that the ecosystem with the most value is the one that has the longest uninterupted Historical Continuity, that is, the time period where there has been no or very little human disturbance (I believe by very little he means in the sense of "take only photographs, leave only footprints" disturbance, or very near to that.). The reason we value such is for ecosystem integrity, but also Katz argues for the mear fact that we know that it has come about outside the influence of man. The first point holds some truth, of course, but the second is most definatly a debatable point, that depends upon ones direct moral attitude toward "nature", as well as ones definition of "natural". He uses an example (which you might spit upon, depending on your point of view, but hear me out) of a birch grove that he just happened upon (imaginarily) while walking. He admires how stable the grove is, how intact the trees are, and other numerous things dealing with asthetics. Later, he finds out that it was planted not 20 years back, and because of the fact that it did not come about "naturally (that is, by historic continuity of that area) it has lost some of the value he had placed upon it. He also argues that, even when he never knows that an area has lost its Historic Continuity, it still has that reduced value.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.[/quote']

 

The reason that I post in simple terms is that I am not trained in biology. I hope that that does not disqualify me from expressing my amature opinion on the matter. I am not trying to troll or provoke any argument, I am only expressing a long held belief that man is just as entitled to be considered part of nature on Earth as any other species.

 

As far as the "value" of the ecosystem in question, then I would say that the term needs to be defined. If one refers to "value" as something with seniority, then obviousely the ecosystem that has existed the longest would be the most valued. But if by value, one refers to an ecosystem that is viable and supports the life forms that it did before it was disrupted, (here I refer to the "restored" in the query) then they would be both of the same value since they were both the result of the natural world and they both supported the same life forms.

 

That's all I am saying.

[Sayonara]

I am sorry, could you please word that arguement about the system of interfaces differently, because I am not sure if I understand correctly. I am curious, and know a few things, but I am still a student, and your terminology just went over my head, so to speak.

Yes, I'm using shorthand because I can't be bothered typing it out in long form. That back-fired, didn't it?

 

What I mean is that in any given ecosystem (or rather in a community, which is easier to consider without sacrificing too many involved factors), the dynamic equilibrium that exists is unlikely to be expressed in the same way for an extended period of time. Communities change - it's in their nature to do so. The various interspecies mutualisms will eventually erode the stability of the system either as a whole or in part (with the interfaces being the 'points of contact' between different species), which will shift the equilibrium, and those mutualisms may change in strength as the inter- and intraspecies behaviours that they contain react to every stimulus coming their way.

 

Given that communities are so fluid and difficult to scope, as they're supposed to be, it seems odd that Katz should practically lament their passing.

[Sayonara]

As far as the "value" of the ecosystem in question, then I would say that the term needs to be defined.

This is absolutely correct. The value of an ecosystem is not an easy thing to interpret, because there are so many factors to consider that it's difficult to compare their relative importance (especially since they are often 'important' with respect to completely different things.)

[Drabav]

Yes, I'm using shorthand because I can't be bothered typing it out in long form. That back-fired, didn't it?

 

Im sorry. I just like to understand what I read, rather than just taking as true. Its part of my "nature".

 

What I mean is that in any given ecosystem (or rather in a community, which is easier to consider without sacrificing too many involved factors), the dynamic equilibrium that exists is unlikely to be expressed in the same way for an extended period of time. Communities change - it's in their nature to do so. The various interspecies mutualisms will eventually erode the stability of the system either as a whole or in part (with the interfaces being the 'points of contact' between different species), which will shift the equilibrium, and those mutualisms may change in strength as the inter- and intraspecies behaviours that they contain react to every stimulus coming their way.

 

And after reading this explanation, I understand the concept, and realize you are speaking of the process of ecosystem evolution. or at least thats what it seems to be to me. In the long term it may lead to succession and climax communities, at which point the stability continues until there is a abiotic or biotic "disturbance"(just separating this from what Katz deems to be different, namely human disturbance).

 

Given that communities are so fluid and difficult to scope, as they're supposed to be, it seems odd that Katz should practically lament their passing.

 

I believe that his arguement is still about this historical continuity. An ecosystem changes in this way "naturaly" in his mind, and the value is still retained. Restoration is an "artefact" of human inclination, and thus he deems it of lesser value.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

[Drabav]

As far as the "value" of the ecosystem in question' date=' then I would say that the term needs to be defined.[/quote']

 

This is absolutely correct. The value of an ecosystem is not an easy thing to interpret, because there are so many factors to consider that it's difficult to compare their relative importance (especially since they are often 'important' with respect to completely different things.)

 

Truly. How do we measure the value of an ecosystem? Do we measure it in utilitarian value? Or perhaps Aesthetics? Possibly it is because of our morals or humanistic concern? Or maybe Scientistic or Naturalistic value, what we can learn from it? Or is our value simply of Ecology? These are all different things people value about "nature". Which one is the best?

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

[coquina]

You wrote:

"Now, on to Historical Continuity and Ecosystem Value. Katz argues that the ecosystem with the most value is the one that has the longest uninterupted Historical Continuity, that is, the time period where there has been no or very little human disturbance (I believe by very little he means in the sense of "take only photographs, leave only footprints" disturbance, or very near to that.). "

 

Certainly untainted echosystems are to be treasured, but they are few and far between. That is true especially here in Tidewater Virginia, which was one of the main ports of entry in Colonial times. It would seem to me that one of their most valuable aspects would be as a model for the restoration of other places that have been damaged.

 

Katz might argue that restored areas are less valuable than untouched ones, but they are more valuable than contaminated rivers and earth, and if we study the untouched ones, it will give us a better idea about how to rehabilitate damaged areas properly.

[syntax252]

This is absolutely correct.

 

 

I am stunned!

[syntax252]

You wrote:

 

 

Certainly untainted echosystems are to be treasured' date=' but they are few and far between. That is true especially here in Tidewater Virginia, which was one of the main ports of entry in Colonial times. It would seem to me that one of their most valuable aspects would be as a model for the restoration of other places that have been damaged.

[/quote']

 

Few and far betwen indeed!

 

I saw on TV about a year ago where a hawk of some sort had built a nest on one of the buildings in-I think-New York City.

 

The old Hawk sat up there with his nest on what he might have thought was a cliff overlooking allys and such where he could swoop down and catch a rat or some other vermin to feed his (actually her) young.

 

To me, that is just another example of one species (the Hawk) using an artifact-if you want to call it that-created by another species, (the Human) as a replacement for a naturally occuring cliff upon which the Hawk likes to build it's nest.

 

It is somewhat akin to birds getting water from a hog wallow or from small animals getting water from holes dug by elephants who were searching for water.

 

Personally I like to see that. Maybe I am perverse in that regard, but I enjoy watching the other animals blend in with us. I actually find it more valuable that what might be discribed as a pristine envrionment.

 

Now when the Coyotes come and start eating our pets and threatening our kids, that's different.

[Drabav]

Katz might argue that restored areas are less valuable than untouched ones, but they are more valuable than contaminated rivers and earth, and if we study the untouched ones, it will give us a better idea about how to rehabilitate damaged areas properly.

 

Very true. And that is why I believe that he is arguing more for ecosystem restoration in terms of damages we create today, rather in past damages.

 

I saw on TV about a year ago where a hawk of some sort had built a nest on one of the buildings in-I think-New York City.

 

The old Hawk sat up there with his nest on what he might have thought was a cliff overlooking allys and such where he could swoop down and catch a rat or some other vermin to feed his (actually her) young.

 

You are talking about Peregrin Falcons. They have been doing this for some time now.

 

To me, that is just another example of one species (the Hawk) using an artifact-if you want to call it that-created by another species, (the Human) as a replacement for a naturally occuring cliff upon which the Hawk likes to build it's nest.

 

This may be one example, but most are few and far between. The majority of the species on this planet do not use "artefacts" in replacement of "nature".

 

Now when the Coyotes come and start eating our pets and threatening our kids, that's different.

 

You laugh at this, so you obviously do not realize the truth in it. In Wisconsin for some time we have been having pets killed by the gray wolves that have slowly been migrating down from the UP and Nothern Minnesota. Many people believe they should all be exterminated. So watch what you laugh at.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

[syntax252]

You laugh at this' date=' so you obviously do not realize the truth in it. In Wisconsin for some time we have been having pets killed by the gray wolves that have slowly been migrating down from the UP and Nothern Minnesota. Many people believe they should all be exterminated. So watch what you laugh at.

 

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.[/quote']

 

Well if you thought I was laughing because I don't take Coyotes seriousely, you are mistaken. Coyotes can be dangerous animals. They are not, however Wolves, nor are they as dangerous as a pack of wolves.

 

I used the laugh icon in order to illustrate that there is a difference between cute and dangerous.

 

Perhaps the "eek" icon would be a better choice, but I was hoping that everyone here would realize that I wouldn't think that Coyotes killing kids was funny.

[coquina]

I saw on TV about a year ago where a hawk of some sort had built a nest on one of the buildings in-I think-New York City.

 

The old Hawk sat up there with his nest on what he might have thought was a cliff overlooking allys and such where he could swoop down and catch a rat or some other vermin to feed his (actually her) young.

 

As Draba said, the birds are Peregrine Falcons - they were once endangered. Their favored habitat are cliffs, and their favored prey is birds - thus their newly acquired niche - high rises with pigeons for prey. This has been encouraged by placing nesting boxes for them atop high rise buildings. Many of them have "falcon cams" where you can watch them lay their eggs and rear their young. I guess one could say they have formed a "mutualistic symbiotic relationship" with humans. That is to say, both species benefit from the association.

 

As to the coyotes - they are far more widespread than you realize. Urban coyotes are a big, big problem in many cities. http://www.westcov.org/council/coyote.html

 

Some animals are very adaptable to different habitats, and coyotes are one of them - they are like canine garbage cans and will eat just about anything.

 

We invaded their habitat, with sheep and cattle farming, and they will kill lambs and calves, because that is their nature. Before people came, they dined on prairie dogs and jack rabbits.

I guess "turnabout's fair play" we invaded their turf, now they're invading ours.

 

The sheep farmers poisoned the coyotes, and they were smart enough to move on - now we're working on the prairie dogs. For $350, you can go shoot them all day long. http://www.rockin7ranch.com/prairie_dog_hunting.html

 

This is an example of how human competition changes an ecosystem. What was once controled by nature is no longer. We humans have had a nasty habit of eliminating whatever we thought was in our way. Many times, the results of our actions have come back to bite us on the butt.

 

I think that is why the preserved untainted areas are important to keep and study. Although we have learned more about how niches intermingle to form a viable ecosystem, there is still much more to learn.

[Drabav]

Well if you thought I was laughing because I don't take Coyotes seriousely, you are mistaken. Coyotes can be dangerous animals. They are not, however Wolves, nor are they as dangerous as a pack of wolves.

 

I used the laugh icon in order to illustrate that there is a difference between cute and dangerous.

 

Perhaps the "eek" icon would be a better choice, but I was hoping that everyone here would realize that I wouldn't think that Coyotes killing kids was funny.

 

Just so you know, there has not been one reported human death by wolf, or by Coyote, in north america since we found out about them. Wolves just don't kill humans, and I don't believe Coyotes have either.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

[syntax252]

Just so you know' date=' there has not been one reported human death by wolf, or by Coyote, in north america since we found out about them. Wolves just don't kill humans, and I don't believe Coyotes have either.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.[/quote']

 

I saw a report on TV within the past year that this woman in California heard her dog raising hell in the back yard and when she went out there a Coyote had her young son by the arm and was pulling him into the wooded area behind the house.

 

The kid was small, about 3 or 4, I would say and the little dog was one of those 6 pound things that offered nothing in the way of protection-although in this case, it probably saved the kid's life-this womad grabed a round nosed shovel and ran the coyote off. So it does happen.

 

And wolves will, if they are hungry and their natural prey is unavailable, kill and eat humans.

[Drabav]

And wolves will, if they are hungry and their natural prey is unavailable, kill and eat humans.

 

I just read a statistic that indicates it is more likely you will be hit by lightning than be attacked by a wolf in northern Minnesota. About 3 times more likely. In the past 50 years only 17 people have been reportedly killed by wolves in all of Europe, Russia and North America. You do the math.

 

IMO, on the side, the real animal you should be wary of is Alces alces, the Moose. That is the species Im staying away from.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

 

(yes I know. go brag about it then.)

[syntax252]

I just read a statistic that indicates it is more likely you will be hit by lightning than be attacked by a wolf in northern Minnesota. About 3 times more likely. In the past 50 years only 17 people have been reportedly killed by wolves in all of Europe' date=' Russia and North America. You do the math.

 

IMO, on the side, the real animal you should be wary of is Alces alces, the Moose. That is the species Im staying away from.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

 

(yes I know. go brag about it then.)[/quote']

 

Oh, I agree that the number is small, but I would doubt that those 17 would be very much comforted by that.

 

The reality is that wild animals with fangs and claws are dangerous and as their numbers increase through reintroduction, as has been done in Michigan with wolves, there will be problems.

 

In California people are being attacked by Mountain Lions. Bears are a problem in some areas because they feed in garbage dumps and are completely at ease with Human scent. It is a mistake to take it for granted that any animal is harmless if it is big enough to be dangerous.

 

And that even goes for domestic livestock.

[Drabav]

In truth, it is when one fails to respect an animal that one gets mauled by it. At least for wild animals.

 

But this thread is not about that topic. BTW, where is Sayonara?

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

[syntax252]

In truth' date=' it is when one fails to respect an animal that one gets mauled by it. At least for wild animals.

 

But this thread is not about that topic. BTW, [u']where is Sayonara[/u]?

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

 

In Coventry.

 

Actually in California the Mountain Lion attacks were of joggers and bicycle riders. I don't know what they did to be disrespectful. And I agree that it is off topic.

[Drabav]

In that case, its about respect in a different way. Just like humans have territories, so do puma. Wolves do as well, but they live in packs for the most part, and seem to be wary of human territories in general. Coyotes, on the other hand, go where the scavenge is, at least around human settlements. Otherwise they are generally rodentiavores.

 

By where is Sayonara, I mean, isn't he the top poster on this board? He hasn't replied since yesterday afternoon. Well, I guess hes a busy person by any means, more busy than I, and most likely much more productive as well.

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

[Sayonara]

Having seen Coventry and I can assure you it's the last place I'd want to be found.

 

Since I last posted in this thread, I have had a good night's sleep and done a full day of work.

[coquina]

Having seen Coventry and I can assure you it's the last place I'd want to be found.

 

Since I last posted in this thread' date=' I have had a good night's sleep and done a full day of work.[/quote']

 

Thank God for small favors.

[Aardvark]

In truth, it is when one fails to respect an animal that one gets mauled by it. At least for wild animals.

 

I think that is sentimental nonsense. Animals can decide to attack, or not, for a variety of reasons, they could be hungry and willing to chance it, in a bad mood, startled, mistake the human for something else or any of a miriad of reasons.

 

If you're wandering off into the wilderness you should take more protection than a feeling of respect.

 

Rather than this being off topic i think it goes to the root of the discussion. The idea that our opinions and feelings are what count. The very idea that an ecosystem could be artifical, an 'artifact' or in some way owned by humans is derived from this antropcentric, sentimental mush.

 

It really is quite simple, a habitat would generally be better off if left alone. However humans have a habit of interfering. Therefore the next best thing is for that impact to be minimised and where possible any damage to be repaired and put right as far as possible.

 

Where a habitat is restored the ecosystem there is still not a human construct or artifact. Humans simply do not have the knowledge or ability to achieve that even if they wanted to. Nature is more complex and much less controllable than this thread seems to be assuming. humans can't control the species balance, population numbers or interactions between those species. After any restoration the ecological dynamics will develop in ways that humans can neither control or forsee.

 

Yes, it would be better if habitats were undamaged in the first place, but no, those habitats which are restored do not become artifacts. That idea is meaningless, of no pratical use and therefore simply arrogant sterile intellectual posturing.

 

(and Sayonara's right about Coventry, yuck!)

[TimeTraveler]

Last night I was watching a documentary. In the documentary it illustrated how the clear cutting of trees in alot of cases leads to increased landslides in the clearcutted area. The landslides can lead to silt buildup in the creeks, rivers, and lakes in the area causing massive harm to the fish populations. Also the products that are sprayed (Usually a roundup, made by the Monsanto corp.) gets into the water systems and does even further damage by killing the eggs of fish.

 

I think this is a good example of how humans make a natural environment unnatural.

[coquina]

Last night I was watching a documentary. In the documentary it illustrated how the clear cutting of trees in alot of cases leads to increased landslides in the clearcutted area. The landslides can lead to silt buildup in the creeks' date=' rivers, and lakes in the area causing massive harm to the fish populations. Also the products that are sprayed (Usually a roundup, made by the Monsanto corp.) gets into the water systems and does even further damage by killing the eggs of fish.

 

I think this is a good example of how humans make a natural environment unnatural.[/quote']

 

That is exactly the point I was making about what the original colonists did when they came to Virginia. After all the trees were cut down, the ground was ploughed year after year and more and more topsoil washed into the bay and its tributaries. The fishing and particularly the crabbing declined, and VIMS (VA Institute of Marine Science) studied the cause. They determined that the eel grass beds (a kind of sea weed that reminds me of daffodil leaves) was almost gone from the shallow regions of the bay and that it was the nursery for juvenile crabs and other species. They transplanted grasses and replaced it in areas where it had died, and the new grass died too. Then they discovered that it was not getting enough light. The fine particles of runoff sediment remained suspended in the water and blocked out so much light the plants couldn't photosynthesize. Now farmers must leave and undisturbed area close to the water, and allow it to grow wild. They plow the land horizontal to the dip of the land, and are even experimenting with "no til" farming. Where the old crops are cut down but not turned under, but left to hold the soil. Now all the states in the Chesapeake Watershed (http://wrc.iewatershed.com/) are passing laws in an attempt to "Save the Bay".

[rakuenso]

Anyone remember Eden Project?