Dear Warren and Forum: I was trying to come up with different ideas, not criticize theirs. I wish them well, and hope that they will vigorously refute any or all of my responses to their request. It is not my intention to manipulate, but to stimulate. Either the points I have made are true or not true, more true than untrue, or more untrue than true. All may judge them, and, I hope, refute or validate them with intellectual and scientific--CRITICAL vigor. I do see that they are trying, and a laud their efforts and willingness to ask ecologists for "input" (if not invite them to join them). I hope others on this list will make suggestions that are more potent than mine. Intellectual progress, however, comes from questioning assumptions (especially one's own), not manipulating others or being manipulated by them. It is a NEUTRAL process, neither positive nor negative--merely inquisitive.
I guess my definition of ecosystem is defecktive. I consider landscaping that is dependent upon intervention for its persistence to be a cultural artifact, not an ecosystem. A crack in the sidewalk, while not intentionally maintained, is at least indirectly a result of a cultural influences, but more subject to ecosystem processes (colonization and selection of ecotypes if not genotypes), so I'll give you that much. I'll even extend that to "old fields" covered with alien plants--a point I was not so willing to concede fully until Ma Nature gave me a good slap back in '80. In landscaping and gardening, one is altering the environment that has produced a biological complex (ecosystem) congruent with that environment and its fluctuations. Landscaping and gardening act against, not in concert, with that congruity. When the external (cultural) influences are withdrawn, a process of readjustment begins, in accordance with the altered environment, and the biological complex changes to one independent of those influences. The complex of organisms that ultimately develop must do so in accordance with interacting with each other and the environment altered by cultural influences, and often come to at least resemble those which originally occupied the site, but at least more so than not. The exception to this is when the cultural alterations (e.g. alien species introductions) continue to reproduce more than the recolonizing species which once occupied the site. Much of the Hawaiian Islands could serve as an example of this latter phenomenon. The list of species lost because of alien introductions and the "alteration" of the ecosystem is staggering, however true it might be that the present simplified biological complex must be called and ecosystem. Even farming, with its wholesale destruction of ecosystems, may not be as destructive as ornamental horticulture, in terms of permanent effects. Therefore landscaping that is NOT dependent upon intervention for its persistence is a culturally-induced biological invasion. To me, ecosystems in the plural are cultural (ecology) categories of convenience (therefore valid within that box or those boxes) but the "real" ecosystem is the earth on its own (though that might not always be strictly the case if, say, it turns out that all life here hitch-hiked here courtesy one or more comets, in which case we may have to consider the Universe to be an ecosystem). The crucial distinction to me is the self-sufficiency and adaptation of organisms according to the realities of the habitat. When the definition of "ecosystem" goes beyond that, then any smidgen of life, however transitory or dependent upon inputs external to the natural habitat "qualifies," and thus anything goes--and the term loses its meaning. As does "sustainable." WT At 10:09 PM 12/14/2007, Warren W. Aney wrote: >Aw, c'mon Wayne. Can't you see that they're trying. A landscaped plot is >still an ecosystem (heck, a crack in a sidewalk is an ecosystem) although >very simplified and humanized. But a landscaped plot can also be complex >and natural -- check out my yard: no lawn, just native trees, shrubs, >groundcover (and weeds). > >I didn't find any reference to mass-grading. Did you? I did see (page 9) >something about the importance of native soil horizons. > >I didn't find anything about weed-covered wastelands, either. Nor anything >about relying on "expert opinion" nor any seemingly hyperbolic use of the >terms "ecological" "sustainable" "green" -- buy maybe you read the >publication more thoroughly than I did. > >I think this is progress -- and I know we're obligated to help them make >sure it's effective progress. That's why they sent this out for our look >see. Okay, they did send it out late on Friday when we're all cranky after >not getting everything done this week that we intended to. But let's take >another look at it after we've had a good night's sleep. > >Warren W. Aney >Tigard, Oregon > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wayne Tyson >Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:03 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: SUSTAINABLE SITES INITIATIVE - we need your feedback. > > >Uh, oh--I'm headed for trouble again. Nobody=20 >(well, with the exception of a distinct minority)=20 >likes my ideas; they seem to offend just about=20 >everybody. (How can an idea offend? Certainly=20 >rudeness, body odor, etc. can be offensive, but=20 >why do so many of us consider an idea or=20 >statement with which we might disagree=20 >offensive? How can any intellectual endeavor=20 >proceed under pressure to be politically=20 >correct?) Have some fun refuting them. > >Anyway, here goes (with a sample): > >1. End landscaping. Unlike ecosystems,=20 >landscaping requires water, fertilizer,=20 >maintenance, and all the resource/energy/habitat=20 >depletion and outright waste connected with those=20 >activities. But this seems to be attacking a=20 >multi-billion-dollar complex of businesses;=20 >therefore it will be attacked by all those who=20 >think their professional ox will be gored in some=20 >way. Landscaping is, by definition,=20 >unsustainable--a sizeable "footprint" on the face=20 >of the earth, however cosmetic. > >2. End mass-grading. So-called "structural"=20 >fills are a profit-extending device that places=20 >the equivalent of ancient landslides over lower=20 >lands. They will "slide" in the future, when=20 >they load up with water. But that takes enough=20 >time for the "builders" to be long gone. > >3. Permit building only on land that diminishes=20 >only those habitats that are in the greatest=20 >supply. End building in flood plains and other=20 >hazardous sites, as well as biologically rare ones. > >4. Tolerate no lying about biology and=20 >ecology. For example, stop claiming that sites=20 >are "only" weed-covered wastes, and report the=20 >site's historic biological character. And=20 >require that it be treated in accordance with its=20 >biological and ecological potential, based on=20 >real, complete scientific assessment, not upon "expert opinion." > >5. Tolerate no hyperbole via use of the terms=20 >"ecological," "sustainable," "green," etc. > >I could go on and on . . . > >WT > >At 01:54 PM 12/14/2007, Ray Mims wrote: > >** High Priority ** > > > >This is a project of which we are extremely proud to be a part. We are > >in a comment period right now and would like to have additional > >architects, builders, engineers, ecologists, horticulturist, landscape > >maintenance contractors, soil scientist, architect, green building > >consultant and planners to give us feed back. Please take the time to > >look at the email and go to our website to view the draft report. > > > >ALSO PASS ON TO ANYONE YOU KNOW THAT MIGHT HAVE INSIGHT OR COMMENTS. > >thank you, > >Ray > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >= >---------------------------------- > >The USBG has been involved in this partnership and is very excited > >about Sustainable Sites. > >The Sustainable Sites Initiative is developing national, voluntary > >standards and guidelines for sustainable land development and > >management > >practices as well as metrics to assess site performance and a rating > >system to recognize achievement. It is a partnership of the American > >Society of Landscape Architects, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower > >Center, the United States Botanic Garden and a diverse group of > >national > >stakeholder organizations. The U.S. Green Building Council, a major > >stakeholder > > in the initiative, has committed to incorporating these guidelines and > >standards into the > >future evolution of the LEED=C2=AE (Leadership in Energy and Environmental > >Design) Green Building Rating System. These will also be available at > >no cost for > >those that will not go for certification. > > > >The initiative is in the process of developing the Standards and > >Guidelines for Sustainable Sites - a compilation of current research, > >technology, and practices to provide technical guidance and > >performance > >benchmarks. The Preliminary Report on the Standards and Guidelines ( > >www.sustainablesites.org/report.html) is now available for comment. > >The > >purpose of this report is to provide a snapshot of the first findings > >of > >the initiative with the intention of collecting feedback from > >professionals and stakeholders. It is critical to receive knowledge > >and > >input from other professionals and stakeholders to ensure that the > >products of the Sustainable Sites Initiative are relevant to those who > >influence land practices. Please share this document with other > >colleagues. An on-line feedback form ( > >www.sustainablesites.org/questionnaire.html) is available to submit > >comments on the preliminary report. The public comment period will be > >open until January 11, 2008. > > > >Many local and regional efforts now provide guidelines for improved > >land > >development and management practices. Sustainable Sites recognizes the > >importance and relevance of these programs and is interested in > >information sharing and partnering. > > > >Please share this freely with all that you think would be interested. > >If you have any questions, a system has been set up to field them at > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >I hope you will find this effort as exciting as we do. > > > >all the best, > >Ray > > > >Ray Mims > >Conservation Horticulture > >United States Botanic Garden > >4700 Shepherd Parkway, SW > >Washington, DC 20032 > >202.409.1659 cell
