Dear fellow ECOLOGgers, I've gotten one book suggestion and one dialogue response to my query about nonequilibrium ecology and the conservation/preservation topic. Perhaps it would help if I jump-started the conversation with some "cut-and-paste" magic. Here is some of the interesting dialogue I've enjoyed with someone from this list: Me: Conserving a species for its own sake flies in the face of what we've come to understand about ecology, that populations emerge, rise, fall, affect other species and populations, move, emigrate, adapt, and sometimes become extinct. But others develop, hybridize, adapt, and become part of this enormous living soup we call Earth. It's not that we humans should just go ahead and do whatever we wish to the planet. To me, the issue is that we should understand that the way the world works and respect that, as nature changes, so will our comprehension of its relationships and dynamics. Response: “Unfortunately, we don't have perfect knowledge of how all individual species fit into the whole, or of how much of a species' fall might be due to humans, so we tend to assume that we have significantly impacted a species & that it's important in the ecosystem & therefore figure that we better try to save it.” Me: Another question, about the importance of a species: If there are very few of a particular species, say a type of Chinese turtle, for example, at what point does that species no longer have a significant or even relevant impact on its environment? There was a news article some weeks (months?) ago about some zoo in China (I think it was China!) that housed two aging male turtles of some sort. A female of the same species was discovered at another zoo, and the trio was reunited. There was all this talk about "bringing the species back from the brink of extinction..." but I have to ask: to what purpose? With only 3 individuals left in the world, are we preserving them out of nostalgia or guilt? Being in captivity, they obviously no longer hold any sort of "niche" in any ecosystem, and would reviving the species and releasing them into the wild disturb, perturb or damage said ecosystem? Do we do more harm than good when we take on this role of "savior?" Response: “I think nostalgia & guilt are big motivators. I also wonder about brink of extinction restorations, especially when they involve employing other species (like whooping & sandhill cranes), and restoring individuals of mixed or different genetics (like peregrine falcons - this one is even more complex - "restoring" species to breeding status in places where they previously only migrated!). Another important factor often cited to motivate conservation/preservation is the fear of losing potential lifesaving pharmaceuticals. This seems to be especially true of efforts to preserve ecosystems in general, but could also be applied to rescue of individual species. Again, quite an anthropocentric motivation.” Me: True, I agree that the more we learn, the more we discover that we have yet to learn. I have to wonder, though, about that word "important" when it comes to an endangered species. I think the endgangered species idea is very human-oriented in terms of assigning values to different species. We tend to throw money and effort into saving a cute animal or beautiful plant, things that appeal to our sense of wonder or things that we can anthropomorphize. You never hear of anyone on a Save the Nematode campaign or putting up posters to raise awareness of the endangered Slimy-Nosed Subterranean Skincrawler. They aren't cute or interesting or big enough to be deemed important or at least to be considered worthy of our donations and time. Looking forward to hearing from more of you, Kelly Stettner
Black River Action Team (BRAT) 45 Coolidge Road Springfield, VT 05156 http://www.blackriveractionteam.org
