Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Restoration and Climate Change Re: [ECOLOG-L] Restoration ecology and climate change survey
I tend to agree with Wayne -- this survey not only had questions that I as a field ecologist couldn't readily answer, I felt that I had some possible answers for which they did not have questions. It was almost as if the survey had been written to validate some deskbound pre-answers and had not been vetted by those with actual field experience in restoration and management. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 6:42 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Restoration and Climate Change Re: [ECOLOG-L] Restoration ecology and climate change survey Ecolog: I did my best to fill out this survey, but I must confess there were just some questions I didn't have an answer for (and, no doubt because my arrogance was in overload, I thought I had answers for which there were no questions, but hey, I'm glad they kept it simple). I have no doubt that the climate is changing; it always has, and the rate and degree of change has always changed too. I don't doubt that cultural activities have had, and are having some influence on those changes, but I don't know how much and in which direction. By simple deduction, there must be people who know a lot more than I do about atmospheric carbon loads, residence times, carbon exchange, the influence of living things like rain forests and bacteria, the tilt of the earth, ad infinitum. But I harbor a dark suspicion that there also are people who are convinced that they know, who don't know as much as it appears. As for restoration, my limited experience has led me to think that it is a mere finger in the dike, and much of that is illusory, at least as far as the role of restorationists is concerned. Ecosystem resilience is a much more important factor than whether or not a restoration ecologist thinks he or she knows where to move organisms and that kind of stuff. I don't mean that restoration shouldn't be done or that it is a futile spit in the ocean, but I suggest that it needs a more questioning than answering perspective. When there's a gash in the face of the earth some actions can be taken to accelerate healing, and that is worth doing, especially if ecosystem degradation can be slowed even a little bit, and if some germplasm that otherwise would have gone down the sewer is able to persist a little longer, maybe even long enough for the forces of degradation to be relaxed long enough to prevent functional extinction. Had some zoo had the foresight to harbor some passenger pigeons, for example, perhaps there could have been releases and enough reproduction to fill whatever niches might have been left, preserved, even restored. While it might be unlikely that the sky would ever be darkened by them again, at least until Homo sapiens cultureboundensis fulfilled hisher potential for perfection or went extinct or bombed himherself back into the Stone Age, a functional, truly sustainable population might have been established. No one is sure, for example, of the California condor will ever reach a self-sustaining population, but if we can hang onto it long enough, we can at least blunt the effects of too many .22 long rifle cartridges, lead-filled offal, puddles of antifreeze, and coyote-getters, ad nauseam, and when we come to recognize the true effects of displacing elk, deer, pronghorns and the like with beeves, maybe there will be enough of them for a sustainable population. I don't know whether or not trying to move organisms to prevent their demise from the coming Great Warming or the Great Cooling, is a good idea or a bad one, or if it answers to the Precautionary Principle on some scale of priorities. Certainly there is what might be called the Ark impulse afoot, and that less-traveled road might make all the difference. It also might suck funding away from other priorities, but how can we know until data sharing and integration comes of age and open sources rule? I guess we can't, so perhaps the present chaotic system is good enough, maybe even superior. What say you? WT - Original Message - From: Tom Kaye t...@appliedeco.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:22 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Restoration ecology and climate change survey The Institute for Applied Ecology is conducting a survey of international professionals, academics, students, etc. about their perspectives on restoration, climate change, and working with and moving organisms. Climate change may be the defining challenge to the field of restoration ecology this century. How does the wider restoration community currently approach the challenges of habitat and species restoration, and how is this approach likely to shift if the climate changes locally and globally? Understanding how
[ECOLOG-L] Ecosystem Restoration and Climate Change Re: [ECOLOG-L] Restoration ecology and climate change survey
Ecolog: I did my best to fill out this survey, but I must confess there were just some questions I didn't have an answer for (and, no doubt because my arrogance was in overload, I thought I had answers for which there were no questions, but hey, I'm glad they kept it simple). I have no doubt that the climate is changing; it always has, and the rate and degree of change has always changed too. I don't doubt that cultural activities have had, and are having some influence on those changes, but I don't know how much and in which direction. By simple deduction, there must be people who know a lot more than I do about atmospheric carbon loads, residence times, carbon exchange, the influence of living things like rain forests and bacteria, the tilt of the earth, ad infinitum. But I harbor a dark suspicion that there also are people who are convinced that they know, who don't know as much as it appears. As for restoration, my limited experience has led me to think that it is a mere finger in the dike, and much of that is illusory, at least as far as the role of restorationists is concerned. Ecosystem resilience is a much more important factor than whether or not a restoration ecologist thinks he or she knows where to move organisms and that kind of stuff. I don't mean that restoration shouldn't be done or that it is a futile spit in the ocean, but I suggest that it needs a more questioning than answering perspective. When there's a gash in the face of the earth some actions can be taken to accelerate healing, and that is worth doing, especially if ecosystem degradation can be slowed even a little bit, and if some germplasm that otherwise would have gone down the sewer is able to persist a little longer, maybe even long enough for the forces of degradation to be relaxed long enough to prevent functional extinction. Had some zoo had the foresight to harbor some passenger pigeons, for example, perhaps there could have been releases and enough reproduction to fill whatever niches might have been left, preserved, even restored. While it might be unlikely that the sky would ever be darkened by them again, at least until Homo sapiens cultureboundensis fulfilled hisher potential for perfection or went extinct or bombed himherself back into the Stone Age, a functional, truly sustainable population might have been established. No one is sure, for example, of the California condor will ever reach a self-sustaining population, but if we can hang onto it long enough, we can at least blunt the effects of too many .22 long rifle cartridges, lead-filled offal, puddles of antifreeze, and coyote-getters, ad nauseam, and when we come to recognize the true effects of displacing elk, deer, pronghorns and the like with beeves, maybe there will be enough of them for a sustainable population. I don't know whether or not trying to move organisms to prevent their demise from the coming Great Warming or the Great Cooling, is a good idea or a bad one, or if it answers to the Precautionary Principle on some scale of priorities. Certainly there is what might be called the Ark impulse afoot, and that less-traveled road might make all the difference. It also might suck funding away from other priorities, but how can we know until data sharing and integration comes of age and open sources rule? I guess we can't, so perhaps the present chaotic system is good enough, maybe even superior. What say you? WT - Original Message - From: Tom Kaye t...@appliedeco.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:22 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Restoration ecology and climate change survey The Institute for Applied Ecology is conducting a survey of international professionals, academics, students, etc. about their perspectives on restoration, climate change, and working with and moving organisms. Climate change may be the defining challenge to the field of restoration ecology this century. How does the wider restoration community currently approach the challenges of habitat and species restoration, and how is this approach likely to shift if the climate changes locally and globally? Understanding how people conduct or support restoration is crucial to engaging in discussions that move our field forward in the face of changing environments. We think you will find many of the questions interesting and thought provoking. Please consider taking this survey if you have any connection to the process of habitat restoration (from policy to research to implementation) or want to make your views known. The survey is available at the following link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JSWHY7Chttp://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TPGCGG5http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=7k5uVLkvD_2bHMUVBCw3ZGvg_3d_3d We are excited to conduct this survey and hope that you will participate (it takes about 15 minutes). We will conclude the survey on 31 January 2010 and the results will be
