Per Wayne's request, here are my own thoughts, and some clarifications. First, the clarifications: Wayne asked me to define my terms, so here goes: Conservation -- assisting a species or ecosystem to carry on most of its original life activities and interactions, including reproduction and dispersal. Gardening -- keeping a species or suite of species alive, but dependent on continued human attendance for all reproduction and dispersal (e.g., captive breeding without successful reintroduction; hand-pollination; only those propagules grown or reared by humans successfully establish). Purist -- one whose ideal is the pre-human ecosystem, insofar as we can determine what that was. Fence -- Either a literal fence intended to prevent entry by humans, or a delineated boundary serving the same purpose. "Letting nature manage it" -- Ceasing human intervention, so that only non-anthropogenic processes occur. Obviously, given these definitions, "Building a fence around it and letting nature manage it" is not going to happen. Even if this policy was applied to a given area, air and water quality entering the area would still be affected by anthropogenic activity, and if there are populations dependent on migration into and out of the area, or colonization from an outside source population, the cutting off of this migration and/or colonization would itself be anthropogenic activity. Most of the thoughts given in the various replies went with the theme that the current ecological reality is that the human species is an ecological and evolutionary force, that is not going to change so long as we remain at our current numbers/rate of growth and level of technology, so we might as well work with that reality. "Ye shall be as gods," the serpent said to Eve, and in a sense, we are -- and therefore Eden is forever lost to us. Not that most of us would want to live in an "Eden" defined as the pre-civilization ecosystem -- our cultivated plants, domesticated animals, managed forests, and various mining sites provide commodities few if any of us would consider optional. I have never met any human who would desire to return to the life of a wild animal, even though, in the evolutionary past, that is what we were. Thus, it would seem that, rather than strive for a "pristine" ecosystem, conservation should focus more on a functioning ecosystem, i.e. one that optimizes energy flow in a more or less self-sustaining way. Of course, that definition must be modified somewhat, because optimizing biodiversity may not always coincide with optimizing energy flow, and biodiversity is also an important consideration, not least because it allows for adaptation to unforseen change. It is intersting that bioxenophobia was mentioned. Bioxenophobia naturally follows from the purist position as I defined it above -- a given pre-human ecosystem contained only those species which got there without human intervention. But, from an ecosystem process point of view, are the indiginous species inherently "better" or more optimal than exotics? For example: a Puget Prairie site, with its suite of indiginous grasses and forbs, is converted into what may be termed a "Eurasian Meadow" ecosystem, dominated by imported turf grasses and their associated "weeds." Is the "Eurasian Meadow" more or less biodiverse? Does it optimize energy flow to a greater or lesser degree than the original Puget Prairie? If so, how important is that in the larger landscape? Should we expend lots of resources to replace the Eurasian Meadow with a "restored" Puget Prairie? If we get rid of bioxenophobia, these questions can only be answered after a lot more study. In the end, I am no closer to a definite answer than any of the other respondents. I posed the question mostly as food for thought, which it certainly seems to have been. Jason Hernandez Biological Science Technician, USDA Forest Service ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:52:57 -0800 From: Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> Subject: Re: Conservation or just gardening? Jason, You have asked such good questions that, even though you have received a plethora of very thoughtful responses, I'm going to take another crack at being more directly responsive and insert some additional thoughts into your text in an attempt to keep myself from wandering off the subject. I'll put my responses into double-brackets with my initials [[like this WT]] to minimize confusion in case others may wish to add their own comments or correct mine. At some point, I hope you will write a summary statement to give us your own answers once you have thought about the questions again. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Hernandez" <jason.hernande...@yahoo.com> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 5:08 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? [[I, and perhaps others, may have jumped to conclusions about what you mean by "conservation" and "gardening." I'd be interested in your own definitions of the terms in the sense of your original intent. WT]] 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. [[Again, I think we should consider just what you mean by "purist" and "fence" and "letting nature manage it." WT]] 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. [[And, of course, I/we might have had some difficulty interpreting the context of "intervention" and where "the line" is. WT]] There is, of course, a continuum of interventions. [[This may be a crucial point that requires more attention. WT]] 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. [[This is a key statement, not so much a question, but its implications may be worth far deeper attention than what first meets the mind. For example, your statement brings to mind the intervention that produced the "invasive competitors" in the first place. Some (e.g., Ewell, 1987) have suggested that resistance to invasion is one of the tests of ecosystem restoration and ecological theory, so the first "intervention" to consider might be the event or series of events that caused the "invasive competitors" in the first place (or the uncounted or uncountable "places"). [[To keep from spinning on the tip of this point where angels fear to dance, let's say, for example that the "pristine" conditions was first "invaded" by a cow brought into, say, California by an invading Spaniard and turned loose in an ecosystem that had not evolved under such a critter. The ecosystem did not evolve under the influence of her shuffling gait, her style of grazing, her fecal matter, the Mediterranean diet of oats and associated weed contaminants therein, and perhaps the strains of bacteria, ad infinitum, that were included as unprecedented change-agents in this particular ecosystem. Oats and their fellow-travelers almost immediately reared their ugly heads and began populating the hoof-ploughed ground, opportunistically spreading and multiplying where conditions where right for their germination, growth, survival, reproduction, and distribution. [[Fast-forward a couple of centuries or so, and the ripple effects of that initial invasion have grown in number, diversity, and extent such that colorful names like "rip-gut brome" and "cheat-grass" have come to be accepted as "part" of "the" ecosystem, so numerous and widespread they have become. The "removal" of these "invasive competitors" has come to be considered impossible, yet a select few of their fellow-travelers have been targeted for "removal." "Bioxenophobia" has become big business, helping to inflate the profits of Big Chem and countless lesser players, and promises of cures to these "competitors'" influences continue to ring grant cash registers across the land, under the assumption that an infinity of studies and "removals" will someday remove the menace. Studies of ecosystem recoveries, some spontaneous, some stimulated by well-calculated further interventions, do not get much, if any, funding. Advances and declines over time of "weed" populations do not get much attention, and the cows are still a-lowin' on the mountain-side. WT]] Are there any recognized criteria for determining the boundary between conservation and gardening? [[Excuse me if I've missed it--and please point it out--but I don't think anyone really answered this one very directly; I certainly didn't do an adequate job. But certainly it is the responsibility of ecologists to confront that issue directly and unequivocally define that boundary. To me, gardening is cultivating--replacing a self-sufficient ecosystem with a dependent assemblage of organisms of our choice, not accepting the organisms whose requirements match the uncultivated habitat. I hope others can replace or revise it with something better. WT]] 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? [[Instead of trying to answer this question directly, simply, theoretically, I just went off on one of my favorite rant-- about the California condor--I apologize. I think you have defined it pretty well, Jason; I would only add that "we" need more science and less guesswork--and certainly less politics--so that we can start "gardening" well ahead of the precipice, as when the breeding population is so low and the wild population is in steep, continuous decline. And as was so well pointed out by McCallum, since the cost of preventing extinction pales against the cost of causing it, doing so should be (totally, dude) a no-brainer. Ecologists just have to work harder and harder and never, never give up in providing evidence and persuasion so that more and more people embrace that no-brainer. WT]] Jason Hernandez Biological Science Technician, USDA Forest Service Ewel, J. J. 1987. Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. pp. 31-33 in: W. R.Jordan, M. E. Gilpin, and J. D. Aber (eds.). Restoration Ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Thanks again, Jason, for the excellent post! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
