A couple of questions come to mind. Is origin more important than the functions/values of these habitats? Is characterizing such wetlands as artificial simply a convenience to make it easier to justify their loss? Does the ecological function/value of a restored stream outweigh the ecological function/value of the wetlands being lost?
-----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Andrew Cole Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 12:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ECOLOG-L] wetland acreage I have been discussing the merits of stream restoration with some colleagues and I've been fussing over the potential loss of wetlands as a result of the removal of dams. My stream-oriented friends have been asking why I've been worried about the loss of what amounts to artificial wetlands in the first place? Aside from the fact that they're typically considered jurisdictional, it got me wondering if we (collectively) have any idea whatsoever how many wetlands in the landscape are artificial? In other words, how many wetlands exist because of human activities, such as roads, railroads, and the like? (Let's keep mitigation, stormwater, and treatment wetlands out of the discussion for now.) Anyone have a clue? Thanks. Andy Cole Charles Andrew Cole, Ph.D. Associate Director Center for Watershed Stewardship Penn State University 301a Forest Resources Laboratory University Park, PA 16802 814-865-5735 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.larch.psu.edu/watershed/home.html
