Lots.
When this subject comes up, I usually think of the time I found vernal
pool species in some tire-ruts. Environments change, and organisms
change accordingly. Humans, being impatient beings, often make changes
so quickly that organisms can't adjust quickly enough to avoid
extinction. Such changes can be on the scale of a tire-track, a
bulldozer, a footfall, or multiples thereof, in terms of time,
proportion, area, extent and such, and comets and volcanoes, not to
mention beetles and elephants, can have their effects too. But if
"artificial" landscapes (literally, land+scrape) require the hand of
humans (or, say, beavers) for their existence . . .
WT
Charles Andrew Cole wrote:
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
