Hello all, I am new to the list. I teach Biology, Earth Science, Zoology, and Chemistry. What I have often found difficult is the difference between the concepts of biodiversity and related notions of conservation, equilibrium, ecosystem homeostasis, balance etc and the contrasting concept of dynamic change. Equilibrium is very difficult to identify and harder to manage. There are so many factors to consider, there are so many forces causing change. The one place that I look to when analyzing an ecosystem is the foundation of the food change. It may not be that when one chain of a food web is plucked, the whole collapses, but when the base of a food chain is destroyed, the food chain definitely changes. Although urban development is the most egregious violator of an ecological perspective, that is, urban areas eliminate more species than any other cause, what I find outrageous are 'dead zones' where pesticide and herbicide have accumulated and eliminated all other species. From nuclear disasters to mining sites to deltas, this problem is occuring more and more. What I would like to see is community planning from the earliest developmental phase upwards of complete integration with the original ecosystem, and I think this means that urban life must become extinct. For example, the core of inner cities needs to shut out the traffic and install new forms of transportation. Cities need to transition into metropolitan areas - everyone needs to spread out. Also, there is never any talk of the problem of pronatalism. Pronatal ideology continues unabated even though the rate of reproduction in the West has decreased to 2-3 children per household or couple, there is such a demand for family formation and procreation that the limits of ecosystem destruction are never even considered. Ecology gets a negative image because of this problem. Lastly, the problem with understanding the concept of biodiversity or variation impinges directly on the affective disposition of humans in terms of their propensity to prejudice. The problem of the dislike of other people is similar to the dislike of spiders, or bees, or snakes. Perhaps reviving the affective or appreciation components of educational curricula can have some impact.
Mr. Fred G. Welfare New York City Public High School Science Teacher 631-617-9939 It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. Charles Darwin Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open. Ludwig Wittgenstein Each person's life is lived as a series of conversations. Deborah Tannen Philosophical thinking is "a love-determined movement of the inmost personal self of a finite being toward participation in the essential reality of all possibles." Max Scheler --- On Fri, 12/17/10, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Understanding that diversity is the rule, not the exception Re: [ECOLOG-L] Defining Biodiversity To: [email protected] Date: Friday, December 17, 2010, 11:51 PM Ecolog While most of the comments on Ritchie's thread were useful to me, I'm not sure any of them directly answered Euan's question--" . . . if this term isn't helpful for conveying the importance of species diversity to the public, what term(s) should we use?" As I said, "I dunno." But it has (finally) occurred to me that the message should be that life IS diverse; it is NOT a fixed number of species, even counting the unknown ones --it is a continuum of life that is, as far as we know, a continuously-changing, but always related, phenomenal phenomenon. Just simply that is more important as a portal to understanding than all the cute "Nature" TV programs put together, none of which, as far as I know, have ever advanced this idea. I hope I am wrong about this, and I earnestly hope I will be inundated with examples to the contrary. If not, why not produce one? If not, why not just keep hammering away at that point or a superior or a more creative statement? Most of all, I am eager to hear more of the discussion Euan had with his colleagues, and what conclusion(s) they may have reached. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Meiss" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Defining Biodiversity This thread contains statements of the kind that I think get us in trouble, if not with the public, then with our scientific rigor. Axel Ringe's post begins with what looks like an inclusion from a previous post with this statement "...one metaphor for biodiversity that I remember was the phrase "web of life". The imagery contained in that phrase not only conveys the complexity (species richness)of the organisms making up an ecosystem, but can also convey the importance of the connections and dependencies among those organisms. Pluck one strand, and the whole web may collapse..." Sure, it's presented as a metaphor, but is it a good one? First of all, I have never seen a spider web collapse because on strand was plucked. Spiders are better engineers than that. Even if you *sever* a thread, it usually only causes part of the web to fold up on itself. Second, does anyone know of an ecosystem that has collapsed because one species (or some other entity) was "plucked"? Also, what does it mean to say that an ecosystem has collapsed? That all it's species are extinct? That the habitat that it once occupied is now barren and lifeless? Extreme overfishing may cause an extinction or two, and we can say that the fishery has collapsed, but that collapse is an economic phenomenon, not ecological. The chestnut plague in the early twentieth century virtually wiped out the American chestnut, a dominant species of the eastern forest canopy in many places. This caused hardship for humans who used chestnut products, but I'm not aware of any other species that died off with it. In fact, we could say that many other tree species benefited as they moved into gaps left by the chestnut. Slaughtering the American bison was, in my opinion, a terrible crime, but the vultures loved it, at least for a while. If we want a vivid metaphor to promote conservation and that will stick in the public's mind, maybe we should talk about "environmental rape." This makes the point and at also makes clear that we are talking about *human values*, not scientific truths. Now to Warren Aney's quote: "...A single-age, single-species tree plantation may be productive in economic terms but it lacks species, genetic and structural diversity so it is not as ecologically productive, stable or resilient as it could be because of this lack of biodiversity...." Yes, of course it lacks species, genetic, and structural diversity, because that's how it was defined. This is like saying an all-wood house lacks bricks. It's true, but then what? Further, since it is a plantation, it's not supposed to be "ecologically productive." It's supposed to produce whatever its owner's planted it for, presumably wood. Nor is it supposed to be stable or resilient; it's supposed to last for thirty years or so and then be harvested. Admittedly, during this time its low diversity might make it vulnerable to disease outbreaks, but this risk may be economically justified by the ease of managing a uniform stand and then clearcutting it. Why am I kvetching about these points? In the context of a list serve, I think it is fine to throw out ideas and see what people make of them. However, if these issues are not well thought out and carefully articulated before they are advanced as the basis for public policy, they will not hold up well in debate. The proponents may wind up looking bad and their cause harmed rather than helped. Martin M. Meiss 2010/12/16 Warren W. Aney <[email protected]> > As a field ecologist who has frequently evaluated and described natural > systems in their entirety and then communicated this information to > non-scientists, I find the term and concept of biodiversity very helpful. > To me, the best definition is the most general definition: biodiversity > relates to diversity of species (including genetic and age diversity) and > of > structure, currently and over time. A system with high biodiversity tends > to be more productive, stable and resilient. > > A single-age, single-species tree plantation may be productive in economic > terms but it lacks species, genetic and structural diversity so it is not > as > ecologically productive, stable or resilient as it could be because of this > lack of biodiversity. > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > 9403 SW 74th Ave > Tigard, OR 97223 > (503) 539-1009 > (503) 246-2605 fax > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexandre F. Souza > Sent: Thursday, 16 December, 2010 13:37 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Defining Biodiversity > > Hi Euan, > > I use the broad definition of biodiversity as senctioned by the US > Congressional Biodiversity Act, HR1268 (1990), according to which > > "biological diversity means the full range of variety and variability > within and among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which > they occur, and encompasses ecosystem or community diversity, species > diversity, and genetic diversity." > > I think biodiversity should continue to have a broad and > all-encompassing meaning, and the communication problem you mention > arises much more from the use of the term in place of more specific > ones, when we refer to specific issues. When communicating with the > public, we should be more specific when speaking about specific issues, > rather than abolishing a term that has a broad meaning, and that should > be reserved for broad themes. > > The California Biodiversity Council has a compilation of scientific > definitions of biodiverstiy > (http://biodiversity.ca.gov/Biodiversity/biodiv_def2.html). > > Best whishes, > > Alexandre > > Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:05:31 -0800 > From: "Ritchie, Euan" <[email protected]> > Subject: Defining biodiversity, and does the term capture the public's > attention? > > Hi everyone, > > I have just returned from the Ecological Society of Australia meeting > and a= > mong other issues, there was much discussion about the term > biodiversity. M= > any people argue that this term is hard to define, and importantly, the > pub= > lic have no idea what it actually means and therefore they have less > connec= > tion/concern to preserve/conserve species and habitats. I thought it > would = > be interesting to hear how others define biodiversity, and if this term > isn= > 't helpful for conveying the importance of species diversity to the > public,= > what term(s) should we use? > > Over to you, > > Euan > > > Dr. Euan G. Ritchie, Lecturer in Ecology, School of Life and > Environmental = > Sciences > > > Dr. Alexandre F. Souza > Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia: Diversidade e Manejo da Vida > Silvestre > Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS) > Av. UNISINOS 950 - C.P. 275, São Leopoldo 93022-000, RS - Brasil > Telefone: (051)3590-8477 ramal 1263 > Skype: alexfadigas > [email protected] > http://www.unisinos.br/laboratorios/lecopop > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3319 - Release Date: 12/16/10 07:34:00
