Loggers, Although I do enjoy and agree w/ Wayne's definitions, I think perhaps we have lost the way of the original post. I certainly do not have the answer nor the free time to pursue the answer, but I would imagine that there would be some value in looking into what we have lost over the years. Find out which ecosystem we have degraded/destroyed most over the years and you will probably find the ecosystem most often "restored".
Just a thought, Jer Jeremiah Yahn Grad student, Zoology Dept. University Wisconsin Madison 250 N. Mills St. Madison, WI 53706 ----- Original Message ----- From: Colleen Grant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:35 am Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation To: [email protected] > Greetings > > Prompted by the memory of a truck backing up to a natural lake in > Colorado to dump a flood of fish into the lake in preparation for the > weekend anglers - utilizing your definitions, would this natural lake > be a conditional ecosystem? > > Colleen Grant > > Wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Honorable Forum, Warren, and Andy: > > > > Please believe me, I do not want to start a head-butting session, only > to > suggest how the terminology might be tightened--that is, how crucial > distinctions might be made where present terminology tends to depend > upon > interpretation to the point of confusion. > > > > "We" have, over the years, come to broaden the term "landscape" to > include > both ecosystems and assemblages of plants arranged for aesthetic > satisfaction (not to mention farms, pastures, woodlots, "viewsheds," > paintings of the preceeding, etc.). It is ironic, especially to > ecologists, > that ecosystem should be subordinated into one of those "landscape" > categories. But subordinating "landscape" into ecosystem wouldn't be > valid > either. > > > > No doubt this problem (implication and interpretation via author > intent, not > to mention presumption which may or may not align with the author's > true > meaning) will persist in the broader lexicon, but there might be some > chance > of avoiding confusion about the technical differences should the > profession > at large reach some agreement about more precise definitions and > encourage > authors (via peer review and editing) to be more precise in usage or > to make > it a practice to define terms when the issue arises. > > > > Many years ago (my publication list is lost, so I can't cite it or > even > remember the title, only that it was some meeting in Berkeley) I > suggested > that the term "landscape" should be reserved for artificial > assemblages of > plants (dependent upon human intent, and replacing or displacing an > ecosystem) as is the practice in landscape architecture. This would be > > "technically" valid, as the term is derived from "land" and the Old > Dutch > "skep," meaning "to scrape," or "to hack," as I recall. > > > > "Ecosystem" should be reserved for any group of organisms that > interact with > each other and their environment in the absence of extra-system > intentional > (human) control. > > > > As to "created" wetlands, the intent, dependency, and control > determinants > should serve to distinguish those which require artificial support and > those > which are self-sustaining, just as any natural wetland would be. For > example, my backyard pond requires my intentional intervention for its > > "MAINTENANCE;" a "pond" behind a dam may or may not be maintained. If > the > ponds in question require intentional external inputs for their > sustenance > they are artificial "landscapes;" if they are self-sustaining, they > are > ecosystems. Of course, even created habitats are characterized by > species > interactions with each other and their created and maintained > environments, > and it that sense are CONDITIONAL ecosystems. Any system that lacks > internal integrity cannot be considered an ecosystem in the same sense > as > one that is fully integrated and self-sufficient. > > > > Whether a "quake lake" or a "lake" created by a human-constructed dam, > both > are subject to the same rules of nature. The important distinction is > > whether or not continued external inputs are required for their > existence. > Nature changes, lakes and ponds and all habitats change, come and go. > The > distinguishing characteristic of a landscape is that when the external > > management that maintains it is withdrawn, it will not remain in the > fixed > state its "creator" intended. So some "created" wetlands should be > considered ecosystems and others artifices, dependent upon the intent > and > supervision of their creators, and others ecosystems, even though > humans may > have altered the earth to enable one habitat to be replaced with > another. > This goes for lawns and forests too. Some pastures and woodlots (or > other > "managed" biological assemblages), once abandoned, will transform-that > is > the central point of validation. > > > > WT > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Warren W. Aney" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:34 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation > > > >I guess it depends on how you define "ecosystem" and what timeframe you're > > talking about. Certainly over the centuries we've created many more > > cropland or pastureland or residential landscape ecosystems than wetland > > ecosystems. And some might argue that even though its human-made, a > > > created > > (or restored) wetland is not really an artificial landscape if > that's > > your > > reference point. Perhaps we need to tighter terminology. > > > > Warren W. Aney > > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > > Tigard, OR 97223 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Andrew Cole > > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:42 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Wetland creation > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm trying to back up an assertion of mine that we deliberately plan > > for and create wetland ecosystems more than any other type of > > ecosystem (save, perhaps, lawns). I'm not necessarily talking acreage > > here - foresters might have the edge there (as I leave myself open to > > criticism from foresters about artificial forests), but actual > > projects. Mind you, this is a gut feeling on my part with no actual > > data - which is the point of my query. Does anyone have any citations > > on this topic specific to wetlands or just on how many artificial > > landscapes we create in the US each year? > > > > Thanks - just another odd question from moi. > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > Charles Andrew Cole, Ph.D. > > Department of Landscape Architecture > > Penn State University > > 301a Forest Resources Laboratory > > University Park, PA 16802 > > 814-865-5735 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://www.larch.psu.edu/watershed/home.html
