It is true that ANWR is pretty much untouched. I know it has been
called "America's Serengeti", but that is not true. Tundra has much
much much lower productivity than savanna does. The animals of the
Serengeti are supported by the grass that grows there. But tundra
plants produce much less food for herbivores. That's why there are
really only two species of grazers that live there, caribou and muskox.
Savanna supports dozens of grazers and browsers. As proof of the low
productivity of tundra, remember how long it takes to recover from
disturbance. It can take dozens of years for plants to cover a bare
patch. A high-productivity ecosystem would begin to recover in days.
Interestingly, Alaska had a much more diverse fauna during the ice age.
Back then Alaska supported saiga, horses, ground sloths, mammoths,
mastodon, bison, camel, caribou, muskox, helmeted muskox, sheep, etc,
along with lions, dire wolves, saberteeth, short-faced bears, american
cheetahs. Pollen analysis shows that instead of shrubby tundra,
Alaska was mostly grassland. Ironically Alaska was much more
productive during the Pleistocene. Could be because it was drier, or
perhaps keystone grazers kept the plants differently.
America's REAL Serengeti is now covered in corn and wheat.
However, whether ANWR is comparable to the Sergeneti is irrelevant to
whether we should explore for oil there or not.
=====
Darryl
Think Galactically -- Act Terrestrially
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
