Respectable journals won't publish applied material??? I can't let that pass unanswered. There are numerous respectable journals that focus on applied areas such as pollution, aquaculture, agriculture, silviculture, invasion biology, environmental management and so forth. Even ESA has a journal in Ecological Applications!
> Some pretty damn good commentary, if a bit challenging to intelligently > comment upon--mainly due to the scattered nature of the points alluded to. > > While I, too, am looking forward to the citations, I would prefer a > separate > healthy discussion on Clements and "invasion biology" from those > well-versed > in both. > > "Applied folks" tend to be held in disdain by academics, and "respectable" > journals usually do not deign to publish "applied" material. This, too, is > worthy of a separate discussion. > > I'd like to hear more about the "huge social component" with respect to > "invasive" species, and would especially like to hear more about > academics' > discomfort in this regard. (What makes me most "uncomfortable" with the > whole set of invasive species issues is that they seem to be a mile wide > and > an inch deep--a fertile field, if you'll pardon the punny irony, for > academicians to dig deeper into. Perhaps then some of the folklore in this > area of action-with-little-study can be clarified or disposed of. This > brings us back to one of the several reasons Ascension Island might be > instructive. Is it a "human-assembled" ecosystem or is it "just" an > assemblage of species, each of which is doing what it can, when it can, > where it can? Ah-HA! This gets us close to the nitty-gritty of what an > ecosystem is--AND WHY! And perhaps more important, what an ecosystem IS > NOT! > > While the concept of "novel ecosystems" does nauseate me, I'm open to > being > converted--and then falling from grace, as it were, perhaps yo-yo like, > until the end of my days. What I think of it now already seems like > "blithering stupidity" to me, but I'm interested in cogent arguments to > the > contrary. > > Ecological history has always fascinated me, and I hope someone will bring > it all into focus soon! There was an interesting film treatment on (the > History Channel?) what would happen after humans died out fairly recently, > and while it was a good start, it seemed high on sensation and a bit > lacking > on references (well, what can we expect from show-biz?). Let's take this a > bit further into the nuts and bolts of evolution. > > WT > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Duffy" <ddu...@hawaii.edu> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:18 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Human-assembled ecosystem > > >> Hi Ian, >> >> "While plant ecology abandoned Clements a generation or two ago, like a >> lot >> of things that hasn't always trickled down to more applied areas." >> >> Just out of curiosity, can you cite a few references where Clements in >> still used in invasion biology, specifically in "more applied areas"? >> >> I admit it is annoying but applied folks tend not to publish and when >> they >> do, it is often in gray literature. Many academic biologists thus may >> have >> a relatively uninformed, Rumsfeldian knowledge of what happens on the >> ground. In addition, management of invasive species has a huge social >> component. Relatively few academics are familiar, much less comfortable, >> with this aspect. Finally there is the problem when protecting rare >> 'primary' forest that ivory tower academics serve albeit unwittingly as >> effective apologists for the destruction of the same. What does it >> matter >> if the forest goes? Super tramp species can often "provide the same >> services" and look forest. My best examples are all those novel forestry >> projects China has tried, like the Green Wall in its grasslands or the >> evergreen forests in heavy snow belts. >> >> It is sort of like regional cooking versus Western fast food. Macdonalds >> and Kentucky Fried Chicken can arguably provide nutrition and definitely >> taste great, but these invasive aliens threaten regional foods and >> indirectly local cultures. We can live in a world of Big Macs and fries, >> or >> we can sample baozi, feijoada, yak yogurt, gallo pinto, >> pachamanca/hangi, >> or callalo, although, personally having tried them, I will not much >> mourn >> the passing of muktuk, haggis, Vegemite, and guinea pig. >> >> Finally there is the arrogance of the present. Much of conservation >> biology >> is ultimately about preserving options for our children and their >> children's children. Our knowledge about "novel ecosystems" is >> basically >> recent and primitive, as is our knowledge of invasion biology. What >> seems >> like a good idea involving "novel ecosystems" may be seen as blithering >> stupidity a century from now, as new crop pests continue to arrive (elm, >> chestnut etc, etc), local diseases turn epidemic (SARS), fires rearrange >> the suburbs, and watersheds dry up. Not that the US lacks for its share. >> >> There is a marvelous field called ecological history. Cronon, Crosby, >> Pyne, >> McEvoy (to mention a few of my favorites) cover invasive species as >> part >> of a bigger picture which appears to be too often lacking in >> contemporary >> ecology. They are worth reading. Cows, grass, bees, Europeans were all >> invasive taxa that have now become part of the American landscape, >> dominants in "novel ecosystems". Had one asked the Sioux or Nez Perce in >> 1877 or 1890 whether cows or Europeans were invasive, well history >> speaks >> for itself. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> David Duffy >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Ian Ramjohn <iramj...@outlook.com> >> wrote: >> >>> While plant ecology abandoned Clements a generation or two ago, like a >>> lot >>> of things that hasn't always trickled down to more applied areas. >>> >>> For this stuff specifically, there's a whole literature on 'novel >>> ecosystems' that has developed in the last several years...Richard >>> Hobbs, >>> Ariel Lugo, Timothy Seasted, etc. Plenty by Lugo et al. on tropical >>> forest >>> systems. >>> >>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 6:49 PM, "David Duffy" <ddu...@hawaii.edu> wrote: >>> >>> > I'd suggest that before folks get too excited about challenges to >>> "our >>> > ideas regarding community assembly", they reread Gleason (1926), >>> Whittaker >>> > (1975) and Hubbell (2001), amongst others. Also isolated islands with >>> > depauperate faunas and floras may not be the best models for general >>> > ecological theory, although they have done pretty well for evolution. >>> > >>> > David Duffy >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Richard Boyce <boy...@nku.edu> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Here's a *very* interesting story on the human-assembled ecosystems >>> of >>> >> Ascension Island in the tropical South Atlantic: >>> >> >>> http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_a_remote_island_lessons__in_how_ecosystems_function/2683/ >>> >> >>> >> I suspect that further research here may challenge our ideas >>> regarding >>> >> community assembly. >>> >> >>> >> ================================ >>> >> Richard L. Boyce, Ph.D. >>> >> Director, Environmental Science Program >>> >> Professor >>> >> Department of Biological Sciences, SC 150 >>> >> Northern Kentucky University >>> >> Nunn Drive >>> >> Highland Heights, KY 41099 USA >>> >> >>> >> 859-572-1407 (tel.) >>> >> 859-572-5639 (fax) >>> >> boy...@nku.edu<mailto:boy...@nku.edu> >>> >> http://www.nku.edu/~boycer/ >>> >> ================================= >>> >> >>> >> "One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly >>> >> making exciting discoveries." - A.A. Milne >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit >>> > Botany >>> > University of Hawaii >>> > 3190 Maile Way >>> > Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA >>> > 1-808-956-8218 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit >> Botany >> University of Hawaii >> 3190 Maile Way >> Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA >> 1-808-956-8218 >
