Honorable Forum on Ecology: Gardening, like farming, is the manipulation of habitat and organisms according to the desire, preference, or whim of the gardener or farmer. This manipulation, this cultivation, is the seat of culture (both derived from the Latin cultivare, if memory serves me correctly), and necessarily displaces the organisms that were previously self-sufficient in the habitat (indigenous to the site) before manipulation. Animal "husbandry" or pastoralism is similar "cultivation" with respect to animals.
In uncultivated (natural, undisturbed) habitats, energy/nutrients flowed through biological complexes or ecosystems in a highly efficient process such that available nutrients were sequestered almost entirely within the tissues of the living organisms except for very brief residence times in the non-living detritus of dead organisms, but even in that case, uptake of free(d) nutrients by some form of organism is normally rather rapid. Cultivation shifts nutrient allocations from the complex ecosystem's cycle to a concentration of available nutrients in the desired, preferred, or demanded organism. When that shifting is insufficient to fulfill desires, preferences, or demands, nutrients are added from outside the local system to provide the illusion of increased productivity. Other ecosystems pay the price for meeting such demands. For example, islands and other lands are mined for phosphorous or potash, and mineralized remains in the form of oil and coal are transformed into nitrogen and transported to the site of the excised ecosystem to meet the demands of the culture of manipulation/extraction. This procedure requires additional energy inputs as well. Ecosystems do not demand external inputs; organisms that have adapted to the habitat conditions available in any given place exploit or use nutrients directly in the form of minerals present in non-living form as well as through consumption of other organisms, humans included. Relative populations of different organisms fluctuate according to a complex "system" of feedback loops that can appear to give one organism "the advantage," but eventually populations become self-limiting, and the dominance shifts. Non-living factors such as changes in temperature, volcanism, meteoroid impacts, and countless other events in the firmament of time affect systems. Eventually, every "Peter" (ecosystem) who has been robbed to pay ever "Paul" (cultivare) will eventually have to be "paid." Just a few things off the top of my head for what they're worth--I look forward to corrections. WT PS: "Gardening" techniques are normally not only ill-suited for ecosystem restoration purposes, they may be all that is left as a last resort when action has been delayed until almost the last minute. I believe that the California condor, for example, was (I hope) snatched from the jaws of extinction by "captive breeding," a form of "animal gardening," as it were, but only time will tell if unmanaged populations can be maintained, whether the last few birds were added in time to a seriously diminished gene pool. Y'all can chew over whether or not this was "worth it," but in my opinion it was a bargain, even if it turns out to have been too little too late, thanks in part to some highly cocksure conservationists who stood in the way while the wild populations plummeted increasingly toward certain extinction, especially from the early 1950's to the mid 1980's. The primary causes of the decline were no doubt due to teenage boys with .22's and other louts, but that factor turned out to be impossible to control, as ignorance almost always is, and stupidity always is. "Conservationists" had no excuse other than pure pig-headedness and self-righteousness. NOTE: The standard I used for years to determine whether or not a "restoration" project was "successful" was whether or not the assemblage of organisms continued to improve (reproduce and diversify) rather than degrade over time (up to the carrying capacity of the site), and that it be self-sufficient without outside inputs (as in gardening). I found that the cultivation paradigms not only were not useful or appropriate for ecosystem restoration, but that they could be counterproductive at best, and fatal at worst. "Gardening" is rarely the best choice in conservation or restoration, but we should always hold out the possibility that some kinds of artificial preservation might be needed as a gap-filler or space-holder, especially for critical species, until the ecosystem at large and/or a suitable niche can be made ready. To stand by and let a species go extinct that has been driven there by culture seems to be open to question--to put it politely. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Meiss" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Conservation or just gardening? >I would add that gardening is directed toward different goals than > conservation or restoration. The gardener wants to produce beauty, food, or > some other harvestable product. Also, gardening is almost invariably based > on plant varieties that have been in domestication for a long time, > sometimes millennia, and that represent genotypes and phenotypes not seen in > nature. While a conservation or restoration project may share some of these > goals (e.g., creating beauty) in general the goal is to maintain an > environment in the state it was in before human intervention. It may be > that similar techniques can be employed to reach these different goals, but > the goals themselves let us distinguish between gardening, conservation, and > restoration. > > Martin M. Meiss > > 2011/1/28 Mike Schening <[email protected]> > >> Austin, >> >> There are most definitely legal definitions of conservation that preclude >> extensive manipulations which I assume to be a central tenet of gardening. >> >> IMHO the goal of conservation and restoration is to preserve a habitat in >> the sense that the habitat is the manifestation of a suite of natural >> processes. Habitat conservation requires the continuation of those >> processes while restoration requires the restoration of those processes. >> >> The habitat and suite of natural processes can result in a continuum of >> "natural" species assemblages, so I see conservation and restoration >> resulting in a dynamic "system". >> >> Gardening, on the other hand, results from control and manipulation of the >> natural processes and is directed to one "outcome" or species assemblage, >> regardless of if I'm trying to make my cursed heirloom tomatoes grow, of >> eastern woodland indians are burning areas to create pasture. >> >> (At least that's my understanding as both a gardening and a wetland >> scientist working in wetland creation and restoration. >> >> As for the premise of the article is *Unnatural Preservations*, I just >> don't >> see it happening. We have enough difficulty "manipulating" a 5 acre >> mitigation wetland to promote natives and keep out invasive species, so I >> can't see Yellowstone being managed to preserve the existing communities. >> >> I think it is probably impossible to preserve existing habitats if the >> natural processes that created and support that habitat have changed. >> Alterations to the hydrology of the Everglades due to ditching and >> irrigation can conceivably be restored. >> Preservation of the moisture and temperature regimes of Yellowstone, in the >> fact of global warming, cannot be preserved or restored. >> >> Mike Schening >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "austin ritter" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:19 PM >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOLOG-L Digest - 22 Jan 2011 to 23 Jan 2011 >> (#2011-23) >> >> >> >A week or so ago Jason asked: "Are there any recognized criteria for >> > determining the boundary between >> > conservation and gardening?" >> > >> > This article from High Country News seem extremely relevant: >> > http://www.hcn.org/issues/363/17481. The artical is call *Unnatural >> > preservations* and the thesis is: "In the age of global warming, >> > public-land >> > managers face a stark choice: They can let national parks and other >> > wildlands lose their most cherished wildlife. Or they can become >> gardeners >> > and zookeepers." Its a provocative read no matter what you conservation >> > goal >> > is. >> > >> > -Austin Ritter >> > Middlebury College >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3408 - Release Date: 01/28/11 09:14:00
