Gary, Ed: As Ed points the autopoietic concept and preservation concept have problems in terms of defining what indirect effects of people are allowed for a system to still be considered autopoietic. The indirect effects that are allowed or not allowed then lead to all sorts of logic problems with temporal and spatial scale as it relates to preservation.
For example, if autopoiesis includes watching how collective DNA of the species within the preserved area responds to loss of species due to introduced diseases and pests, then small areas could be autopoietic, but if it does not include those indirect effects, then no area is big enough to be autopoietic (or to be preserved), since no size ensures the absence of invasive tree diseases and pests. The temporal scale problem is equally large. Given many thousands or millions of years, all systems will respond and adapt to non native species, climate change and loss of the species that initially were native. The introduction of invasive species, tree pests and diseases, and global warming become a small blip in time, and all systems would be autopoietic. If defined on a time scale of a few centuries, however, all systems would lose autopoeisis, regardless of size, given the onslaught of invasive species and global warming. Its always the temporal and spatial scale issues that are so difficult with any new concept in ecology. It took me 2 years to work through those issues for the neighborhood effect hypothesis of forest dynamics before I was happy enough with the concept to publish it. If people are interested in preserving the last natural systems as they are right now, then there is no spatial or temporal scale at which autopoesis or preservation will work without a lot of management outside of the 'preserved' areas to keep out all invasive species and stop global warming. Lee Edward Frank wrote: > Gary, > > This is certainly a worthwhile discussion. Of late I have become > preoccupied with the remnants of forest at the small end of the > scale. As a couple of general propositions I would suggest the size > required to be an autopoietic forest as you have defined it would vary > from forest type to forest type and it would also vary depending on > the type of direct or indirect human impact it is facing. If for > example a viable option could be discovered to practically inhibit the > HWA to a mere nuisance status, in a hemlock dominated forest I would > favor treatment no matter what the size of the forest. Because the > scale of the impact of the organism is that of a broad geographic > landscape, rather than on the scale of an individual forest. > > The effects of human impacts, direct and indirect, encompass a broad > range of characteristics. They affect the functioning of a forest in > many different ways. In broad general terms the smaller the forest > segment, the greater or faster these impacts affect the integrity of > the system. If the goal is to achieve a forest that falls on the > trajectory for that forest type, then the smaller the forest the more > aggressive the measures needed to maintain the forest along that > path. At the smallest scale parcels, not only must the forest be > managed to mitigate human impacts and edge effects, but elements may > need to be replaced that are lost by circumstance. In a larger system > replacements may come from elsewhere in the forest, while many smaller > pockets are isolated from any natural replacement sources. > > As I said this is just a general concept, and I am sure many > exceptions and arguments could be made where it would not apply, but > it serves as starting point for consideration (for me at least.) > > Ed Frank > > "Oh, I call myself a scientist. I wear a white coat and probe a > monkey every now and then, but if I put monetary gain ahead of > preserving nature...I couldn't live with myself." - Professor Hubert > Farnsworth > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gary A. Beluzo > > <mhtml:%7B4CFA1FFE-3713-4B5A-A75A-A74FE9FFDF5E%7Dmid://00000087/%21x-usc:mailto:[email protected]> > > *To:* [email protected] > > <mhtml:%7B4CFA1FFE-3713-4B5A-A75A-A74FE9FFDF5E%7Dmid://00000087/%21x-usc:mailto:[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:23 PM > *Subject:* [ENTS] Re: New paper on wilderness management and > climate change > > Don: > > I think this topic deserves a full discussion. In a large enough > landscape where forests have enough interiority to resist > anthropogenic fire, pests, and disease, I would say yes, > PRESERVATION only. In our small fragmented natural forests of the > East it becomes a dilemma. I would ask these questions: > > How large does a forest (for a particular forest type let's say > OAK-HICKORY) need to be in in the East to be "autopoietic"? And > what about edge/interior ratio? I define an AUTOPOIETIC FOREST as > a forest that has the degree of naturalness (habitat and niche > complexity) to continue moving along natural trajectories for the > forest type. > > What kind of management would be required in other forests with a > larger edge/interior ratio and degree of naturalness to maintain > current natural trajectories? In other words, if a minimum size > for an autopoietic forest is 5,000 acres then what would need to > be done to maintain a forest in its current trajectory if the > acreage is 2,500, 1,000, 500 etc. This is an interesting question > and one which I am sure some folks on this list would have an > opinion. This will become increasingly more important in the > future as more and more existing forest becomes fragmented and > invaded by anthropogenic disturbances. > > Gary A. Beluzo > Professor of Environmental Science > Division of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics > Holyoke Community College > 303 Homestead Avenue > > "Oh, I call myself a scientist. I wear a white coat and probe a > monkey every now and then, but if I put monetary gain ahead of > preserving nature...I couldn't live with myself." - Professor Hubert > Farnsworth > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
