Kristin and Ecolog: I hope I have not been misunderstood. I do not object to the study of species interactions and habitat conditions in agriculture; I am concerned, however, that the distinction between "natural" ecosystems and anthropogenic alterations of them. The distinction I believe useful, if not critical, is that between a "system" that is DEPENDENT upon external influence and displacement/destruction of indigenous ecosystems (e.g., plowing, planting and maintenance of monocultures and introduction of other organisms that did not co-evolve with them as a TREND. I certainly do recognize the value of the study of such phenomena, particularly when its trend is in the direction of preservation of genetic diversity, not its reduction. I do seriously question the habit of terming anthropogenic assemblages of species "ecosystems," as they are quite distinguishable from "natural" ecosystems. I think scientists in general, and ecologists in particular, have a duty to do no harm, to pass knowledge along in a clear and directly honest fashion to the population at large. I think the distinction is CRUCIAL.
If I am wrong in this, I look forward to being corrected with persuasive logic and evidence. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kristin Mercer" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos > Dear Wayne, > > The definition you received from another ecologger is a good > one. Given your concern about the term agroecosystems, I think the > best way to understand agroecosystems is to see that they are > connected to, but distinct from, the natural or urban or managed > ecosystems around them. Just as savana may be surrounded by forests, > agroecosystems can exist within a matrix of other kinds of > ecosystems. So although parts of agroecology does study the effects > of agriculture on natural ecosystems, it is certainly not limited to > that perspectives. Studies of weed community dynamics, insect pest > population genetics, nutrient cycling under various management > practices (i.e., studies within the agroecosystem) all fall within > agroecology. > > I would think that few agroecologists see themselves as promoting the > "business as usual" agriculture or "destruction and degredation". In > fact, within the context of needing to grow food on our landscapes, I > think most ESA members would be cheering agroecologists along. In > that vein, the agroecology section of ESA is alive and well. > > Cheers, > Kristin > > > At 06:03 PM 2/3/2009, Wayne Tyson wrote: >>Ecolog: >> >>I received the following off-list response to my enquiry about the >>definition of agroecosystem: >> >>"Agroecosystems are best understood as the unit of study of >>agroecology, which looks at agricultural production systems in terms >>of ecosystem prosperities: e.g. stability, resilience, disturbance >>regime, stocks and flows of nutrients and energy, and niche >>dynamics, etc. Look to Miguel Altieri for a thorough, scientifically >>based discussion of agroecology. Additionally, the wikipedia article >>on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one >>agroecosystems." >> >>I agree with the respondent that "the wikipedia article on >>agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one >>agroecosystems." Agro-ecology seems somewhat less of an oxymoron >>than agro-ecosystem. Certainly the study of ecosystems and the >>effects of agriculture upon them is legitimate, but it seems to me >>that the use of the term agro-ecosystem implies that the two are >>somehow interdependent or that agriculture is just a part of the >>ecosystem in which it stands. On the one hand, there seem to be two >>opposite impulses at work within the field, one trying to minimize >>the adverse effects of agriculture upon ecosystems and recognize the >>positive effects of ecosystem preservation, conservation, and >>restoration upon their integration with agricultural practice, and >>on the other the various hyphenated "dash" ecosystem terms seem to >>be, intentionally or unintentionally, a front for business as usual >>and a cover for continued expediency as the primary driver of >>ecosystem destruction and degradation. >> >>Am I missing something here, or should ESA perhaps take a scientific >>position on this issue? If so, "ecologgers" might be a good place to >>begin drafting a more unified, or at least less vague definition? >>Even if they just buy into one or more of the existing ones? Or >>throw them all out? >> >>I should imagine that the ecological economists would be "all over" >>this. Are they? >> >>WT > > Kristin Mercer > Assistant Professor > The Ohio State University > Department of Horticulture and Crop Science > 310F Kottman Hall > 2021 Coffey Road > Columbus, OH 43210 > > Office: (614) 247-6394 > Lab: (614) 247-8626 (341 Kottman) > Fax: (614) 292-7162 > > email: [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.1/1960 - Release Date: 02/19/09 10:48:00
