Honorable Ecolog Forum: I'm attaching some correspondence regarding a comment received regarding my last post. First, it is a good example of how criticism can help hone a finer edge on scholarship (not that there was any particular scholarship involved in my stream-of-consciousness piece, but I think responsibility to accuracy is not--or at least should not be--limited to scholarly work. Second, it is an example of how easy it was for me to uncritically accept and propagate such sloppy "statistics." Sloppy though they may be, however, they may or may not be significantly misleading; however, even in the case of the latter, I apologize for passing on statements that now seem to me to be more in the line of Chamber-of-Commerce type bombast that scientific integrity.
In the hope that others on the list will have information to contribute, I am attaching the text of an email I sent to some local authorities. For those interested, I will post all replies at a later time (I will soon be leaving for a month or so, traveling through New Mexico and Arizona, so I will be "dark" during that time). There is the issue of the validity of the claim about San Diego county's supposed uniqueness with respect to species diversity, and the more general issue of how best to aggregate data and use it to convey a more realistic picture of the facts. Thanks to all, WT David: Thanks. Point well-taken. I have never like this generalization, and I am taking steps to try to clarify the reality as opposed to a "statistic" that uses a largely irrelevant context (i.e., political boundaries). I am going to submit this to Ecolog-l for information, but will clip your email, since you apparently wanted to keep this correspondence off-list. WT PS: This is the kind of interchange that helps improve our work. Note: In future correspondence, I hope that everyone will retain the relevant emails and/or retain the original Subject lines when changing them so I don't have to hunt them up to refer to them or can at least find them more easily in the giant haystack of emails. I know, it's messy, but it's handy. At 09:24 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote: >Wayne- > >I believe the high biodiversity in Southern California's counties, >chiefly SD and LA, is in part due to their size. Counties in other >states just aren't as large. > >Cheers, > >David Here is the text of the email I sent to some local authorities, for those interested. It includes text from previous postings, so some may have no need to read that part, or at least all of it. Dear Judy, Jon, and others interested: David (see his email text below; the text that stimulated his comment is below that) may have a good point, and I would like to know at least whether size sufficiently distorts the data to be significantly misleading. I do recognize, however, the absurdity of employing political boundaries when citing such "statistics." This does not necessarily mean that the claim of San Diego county's uniqueness should necessarily be abandoned altogether, but I do believe that I, and others who make such claims should be prepared to further explain it in more disciplined terms. I will appreciate your comments on this issue, and any disciplined studies that might be used to bring greater clarity to it. In the alternative, I can visualize an "isodiversity" map that not only illustrates San Diego's "rank" with respect to species diversity, but illustrates other regions that have varying degrees of diversity. Similarly, I would like to see a similar map that illustrates the occurrence of endemics (again, with respect to what kind of boundaries?). I do not know whether or not such maps exist, or if there are any research projects that are aimed in this direction. I would prefer to see the data aggregated without respect to artificial boundaries--perhaps "bioregions." But then, how would one define bioregions? I would appreciate your comments on any matters you consider relevant to these issues. I hope you can refer me to reliable literature as well. Best, WT I don't seem to have Jon's email anymore >Wayne- > >I believe the high biodiversity in Southern California's counties, >chiefly SD and LA, is in part due to their size. Counties in other >states just aren't as large. > >Cheers, > >David To provide context, here is the text which stimulated David's comment, together with the initial stimulus, should you need to refer to it for clarification (the most relevant text is in [[ ]] the rest you can probably ignore): Subject: Ecology and Economy and Eco nomics Guns or butter and gas or gastronomy Re: Ethanol (in)efficiency To: [email protected] Most Grand High Fellow Ecologgers: Speaking of Mexico and corn, there's a great pair of photographs in A. Starker Leopold's "Wildlife of Mexico: the game birds and mammals" (1959) illustrating several feet of soil erosion of a corn field and the resulting apparent loss of "yield." (I don't recall any mention of the ecosystem that was destroyed (that caused the soil to accumulate in the first place) to make the corn field, or any notes on its productivity and utility as an uncultivated, and thus "free" and sustainable source of nutrition. And I recall flying over the northern coast of Turkey in 1962, and observing the browning of the Black Sea by the sediment-laden rivers, then, up those rivers seeing great landslides in action, dumping stunted trees and stumps from unceasing logging and corn fields, cultivated by gangs of men with great hoes, on slopes so steep one could barely stand on them. I thought of this process, not to mention the huge flocks of goats cutting down just about every other form of vegetation, and how many years this process had been going on, wondering how much longer an increasingly impoverishing "living" could go on utterly decimating ecosystem productivity there in the name of agriculture and forestry. I couldn't help but wonder just what the "Land of Milk and Honey" farther south might have been like a few thousand years ago, and what it was like before the domestication of plants and animals drove the last vestiges of Eden from "The Promised Land." Back here in "River City" (San Diego CA USA) I could snorkel for abalone (big ones, too) on a single dive in 15 feet of water in the early 1970's and heard tales of old-timers (indigenous people in this case) driving a wagon into a stream on their way to a 4th of July picnic in the early part of the 20th century and spearing large trout from it for the feast. The local historical society has at least one photograph of a ten-foot-high wagonload of huge Pismo clams destined as fertilizer for the oat fields that displaced vernal pools (unique, small ecosystems--just about as contained as a subset of the earth ecosystem as you can get) on the mesas (now, by the way, clogged with shopping centers, parking lots, and "Big Box" stores stuffed with consumers of stuff I don't want and wouldn't eat. The San Diego River, and many others, even in this semi-arid region, supported a steelhead fishery, now long gone, its watershed increasingly paved and landscaped, and damed to the maximum. Local "environmentalists" like to crow about the San Diego "River's" (mostly a ditch between shopping centers and golf courses and sports stadiums) "restoration." True, it beats a concrete-lined channel (which part of it is), but the meanders and the riparian woodland and most of the marshes are now gone, the few remainders largely mud-holes that are far from the species-rich habitats wasted by development of the flood plain, made possible by the dams upstream. [[So far, the county remains the most biologically diverse in the nation, according to local authorities, but how long can that statistic last? It is apparently largely the result of a gigantic historic ecotone where two major floristic associations and their associated animal biota have come together, sharing species and genes and having a good ol' time mixing 'em. To some extent it might be an artifact of time and even greater degradation elsewhere. The motto of "modern" culture might be, "Today biofuels ("they" are actually again proposing that this diverse ecosystem--aka "brush" be cut, chipped, pressed, and used as fuel), tomorrow the Promised Land!" (You know, I don't doubt it for a second.)]] All this is to illustrate Warren's point with some specifics that illustrate principles and build on it. I'm not sure whether or not I was deluded enough to think that "trickle-down" economics had only to do with our getting some crumbs from the tables of the mega-feasters and licking their plates. Warren's story hit me in the face--"we" are running our SUV's on the crumbs (increasingly subsidized by US--under which peanut hull or corn cob doth the pea rest?) once trickled down to Mexico's poor. Terrorism or "sustainability?" WT "As ye sow, so shall ye rape." Anon "I laugh, lest I weep." Anon "Soil is a lot cheaper to save than to make." Anon At 07:56 PM 1/31/2007, Warren W. Aney wrote: >I've just heard a BBC news report of protests in Mexico over the increasing >price for corn flour and tortillas (an important diet product made from corn >flour). Apparently the U.S. is a big source for this corn, and a reason >given for this increased price was the (potential? actual?) increased demand >for corn to produce ethanol. > >Warren Aney >Senior Wildlife Ecologist
