Hi Bill, the answer might depend on the spatial extent and intensity of
the fire ( assuming that the fire happens in a fireprone ecosystem,
where fires have been natural occurances as well), if there has been
active fire suppresion in the area allowing fuel buildup, and so on. If
an arson fire got out of control and burned a whole ecological reserve
down, including islands of vegetation that are normally safe from
groundlevel fires, then it would be destruction. Whether that
destruction is reversible would depend upon the success of species
coming in from the surroundings to recolonize.
Now, if this supposedly arson fire were actually caused by lightening,
and if the area has seen fire suppresion for decades, the fuel buildup
could cause a much hotter fire than normally would be the case. Then it
would also be seen as destruction ( the management leading to fire
suppresion ). If the area has had no intervention in the form of fire
suppresion or hydrological modifications leading to drier conditions,
then it would be a natural process...
To Jer's comment
"Find out which ecosystem we have degraded/destroyed most over the years
and you will probably find the ecosystem most often "restored"."
Its a bit hard to do that, since barring a few isolated spots on the
globe, almost all ecosystems have been degraded/destroyed, and not much
restored.
And to the original idea of thread, i do not know the extent of
artificial wetlands, but like Wayne, I'd like to point out that too
often the general public ( developers, polititians and the like ) glibly
equate a created wetland with one that has been in place for centuries
or even longer. Rarely can an artificial wetland approach the species
diversity and resilience of a natural wetland (in the same bioregion) in
the early ( read that as 20 years, my guess), and the rate at which
diversity builds up would depend on the existence and proximity of other
wetlands for colonizing species to arrive, succession to take place,
hydrological inputs and outputs that maintain the wetland ( as opposed
to succeeding to a bog and then land ), and so on...there lies the most
severe criticism of the "no net loss" policy of wetland mitigation.
I"m not against artificial wetlands, indeed they have tremendous use in
wastewater treatment and habitat creation, but quite often the language
equating different forms of wetlands is diffuse.
cheers
amartya
William Silvert wrote:
A question comes to mind. If an area is burned to the ground as a
result of human carelessness, would we consider it degraded or
destroyed? But if we then find that the fire was actually started by
lightning, and the natural cycle that involves the return of nutrients
to the soil and even the release of seeds that only sprout when burnt,
would we change our view?
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message ----- From: "JEREMIAH M YAHN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L]
Wetland creation
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".
