All:
Can we agree that "created" wetlands can be of two kinds, those which will
continue to be wetlands without maintenance and those which must have
maintenance of some kind to continue to meet any definition of a wetland
habitat? If we can't, why?
To invoke one kind of example, I have seen "created" wetlands that failed
because they were based on unwarranted underlying assumptions (e.g.,
imaginary water tables) and those whose "success" required continued
maintenance. Others did not meet the full expectations of the creators, but
could pass for/as wetlands because the site conditions were those which
would support a wetland of some description. Some "wetlands" can be
seasonal or ephemeral, dormant in dry periods, but true wetlands when
adequate moisture is present. I suspect that some definitions of (what
"counts" as) "wetland" contain a kind of regional bias, not to mention
aesthetic ones.
I agree with James that semantics is exactly what should be avoided. That
is why technical terminiology exists (apart, I hope, from mere jargon that
needlessly muddies meaning), or should exist to make relevant distinctions
clear, rather than relying upon what we presume another means when broad
terms are used.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Crants" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and faux ecosystems Re: [ECOLOG-L]
Wetland creation
Andrew, I'm not optimistic that you will find your answer. I think some
of the discussion around the semantics of your question is unnecessary
for answering it (we know you're not talking about crops, and the
question is regarding our allocation of resources in creating imitations
of natural ecosystems, not whether our imitations are successful enough
to be called "ecosystems").
However, there are at least three semantic issues that HAVE to be
addressed, as how we resolve them would probably determine the answer to
your question.
(1) What counts as a wetland?
(2) How do we categorize the other kinds of ecosystems people are
creating?
(3) What is your metric for the effort we apply to creating ecosystems?
You say "numbers of projects," but how big does a project have to be to
count?
Finally, I assume that "creating" and ecosystem involves setting out to
make an imitation of a particular kind of natural community, so that an
abandoned gravel pit that happens to flood is not a created wetland, but
unless this is spelled out, I think the confusion on this bit of
terminology is legitimate.
Jim
Quoting William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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".
