Ecolog:
In the context of my statement Ranganathan's podcast of November 18, 2009
(Can the largest of ecosystems be controlled by the smallest of species?), I
meant it perhaps more literally than Silvert's interpretation, so I'll try
to elaborate a bit.
My post said:
"I must say that Ranganathan's podcasts, if the November 18 edition (Can the
largest of ecosystems be controlled by the smallest of species?) is a fair
indication of their quality, should not be missed.
While I might split hairs on the subject of "control," I'll remain silent on
that and concentrate on the central point that no species should be
considered insignificant, a lesson that should perhaps be driven home much
more widely and taken much more seriously. Microorganisms, in particular,
and "non-charismatic" species in general, tend to be left out. Such small
efforts of the intellect, particularly when they are of such high quality,
can themselves have ripple-effects throughout entire fields.
I will be most interested in the reactions of others to this edition in
particular, and look forward to more of Ranganathan's podcasts, especially
if they continue to examine the exceptional once considered so common that
they are overlooked."
My comment was in response to Ranganathan's interview of AP Dobson,
discussing A Disease-Mediated Trophic Cascade in the Serengeti and its
Implications for Ecosystem C, Holdo RM, Sinclair ARE, Dobson AP, Metzger KL,
Bolker BM, et al. 2009 A Disease-Mediated Trophic Cascade in the Serengeti
and its Implications for Ecosystem C. PLoS Biol 7(9): e1000210.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000210, specifically with reference to the
statement "It has been suggested that rinderpest eradication set in motion a
far-reaching and ongoing regulatory trophic cascade throughout the
ecosystem, with the resulting irruption of wildebeest leading to a reduction
of grass biomass and fire frequency, and an increase in tree cover."
If I said anything that left the impression that "we should not play god and
thus all species are equally worthy of protection," I significantly erred. I
meant for my statement to be taken only literally, and in the sense of
ecosystem studies, not sentimentalistic obsession with "ecofaddism."
However, I can certainly understand how Silvert might interpret it that way,
given that we are awash in environmentalist-driven dogma. I meant to say
that it has been my observation that many ecological studies tend to ignore
non-charismatic species, and such omissions can throw out the baby with the
bathwater. So, Bill, put it the way you interpreted it, I don't buy it
either.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:18 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Insignificant species?
I don't buy this part of Wayne's post, which repeats a widely held view.
Usually we hear the argument that we should not play god and thus all
species are equally worthy of protection. Unfortunately as human
populations
expand and encroach on habitat, and as pollution grows, it is not always
possible to preserve all of the species in the world and we either make
some
decisions or leave matters up to chance. I think that we have to be
realistic and make responsible choices.
Some species are essential and need to be protected at virtually any cost,
and as Wayne correctly observes these may not be charismatic species.
Earthworms and other creepy crawlies are among the most essential
creatures
on earth. These are the species that we have to consider "significant".
Keystone species are almost always both charismatic and significant, but
many others are not, and many prey organisms play an essential role even
though only the specialists have heard of them. Without Calanus
finmarchicus
many of the North Atlantic fisheries would collapse.
But when we have hundreds of closely related species that probably
diverged
only recently, is each one "significant"? There may be a thousand
different
species of nematodes in a benthic grab sample, is each one essential?
And there may even be species that we could do without. Do we really need
anopheles mosquitoes and Plasmodium? According to Wikipedia there are
around
3500 species of mosquito, maybe if some of those which spread malaria were
to go extinct we would all be better off (assuming that we don't consider
them a good means of human populaton control). We wiped out smallpox, why
not malaria?
Of course we have to be aware that not everyone would share the judgement
of
ecologists in these matters. I suspect that most people would welcome the
extinction of the common house fly, whose maggots are among the most
important detritivores on earth. From a political point of view we may
have
to take positions different from what we think of as ecologists.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: quinta-feira, 19 de Novembro de 2009 4:32
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems Human intervention Re: [ECOLOG-L] Voyage of
the Beagle: a new podcast on the science of ecology and conservation
I'll ... concentrate on the central point that no species should be
considered insignificant, a lesson that should perhaps be driven home
much
more widely and taken much more seriously. Microorganisms, in particular,
and "non-charismatic" species in general, tend to be left out...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.76/2517 - Release Date: 11/21/09
07:47:00
