Good question Jason!
To answer at least part of your question,: the orchid world dwells on this very
issue, and I think a lot of it comes down to intent more than anything. You
can
take the orchid out of the wild to bring it into cultivation, but to what end?
Its conservation if you intent to try to save it in some capacity (we'll skip
the obvious question of morality in harvesting endangered plants). Its
gardening if your intentions are less well meaning and more
personal/self-interested. Ultimately, gardening is a hobby; a pleasurable,
leisurely activity, aesthetic in nature. Conservation is a means to an end.
I will point out that the idea of gardening in and of itself describes a VERY
open system. You rightly point out that a closed system (put a fence around a
natural area and walk away) is the idealized notion. But no biological system
is truly closed to my knowledge. Not even the most remote of islands or
biodomes built in the desert. You'll never have a natural area that isn't
participating in some sort of ecosystem process (animals in glass cages are a
different matter, but you could still find ties to the natural environment.
It'd be a stretch, but you can do it). Matter of fact, I would go so far as
to
posit that any population that doesn't participate in an ecosystem process
would
soon vanish as one of the most basic tenants of these processes is nutrient
cycling and energy flow in the form of consumption (eating in
animals...nutrient
uptake in plants). Processes are not just about what you put out, but what you
take in also. In most cases where humans have interfered, the processes simply
change, they don't disappear. An indoor plant cleans the air indoors and
contributes to the overall mental and emotional well-being of other organisms
(namely us), and even provides food for those durn pests we horticulturists
hate
so much. So its ecosystem processes have changed, not disappeared.
Make any sense?
Chris
________________________________
From: Jason Hernandez <jason.hernande...@yahoo.com>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 8:08:59 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening?
This question is inspired by a conversation with a former employer. When do
our
interventions cease to be conservation and become gardening?
For the sake of argument, I was taking the purist position: that ideally, we
want to be able to put a fence around a natural area and walk away, letting
nature manage it. But as my employer rightly pointed out, that is just not a
realistic expectation in the 21st century, what with invasive species, systemic
pollution, human pressures on surrounding areas, and countless other factors
which will not go away. But of course, she also knew that there is a degree of
intervention which crosses the line from conservation to gardening, that is,
caring for a population that no longer participates in its ecosystem processes.
There is, of course, a continuum of interventions. Removal of invasive
competitors is a relatively light intervention; growing seedlings in a
greenhouse and then planting them out is more intensive; maintaining an in
vitro
germplasm collection still more intensive. Are there any recognized criteria
for determining the boundary between conservation and gardening? And if a
species is beyond saving with conservation, how worthwhile is it to save that
species with gardening? Can we determine when a species' only hope is
gardening?
Jason Hernandez
Biological Science Technician, USDA Forest Service
