Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos
Jane and Forum: While I might quibble about the difference between dependent and adapted to fire, for example, I get the point if what Shevtsov means is that every single bit of life is an ecosystem or a subset of one. There is, however, a great difference between an assemblage of species that cannot shift for themselves, but as soon as the external influence (landscaping or a farm, for example) is removed, the maintained life-forms will revert to an ecosystem that is not dependent upon maintenance. Even after a volcano or an atomic explosion, for example, self-sufficient ecosystems eventually colonize such sites, without any help from culture. Further, the changes that occur in the absence of fire may well be due to its absence, but there is no requirement that their structure be maintained. WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos Wayne and forum, Lots of ecosystems (prairies, chaparral, many pine forests, etc.) are dependent on fire or other types of disturbance to maintain their structure. How is this different from being dependent on humans? Jane On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Kristin and Ecolog: I hope I have not been misunderstood. I do not object to the study of species interactions and habitat conditions in agriculture; I am concerned, however, that the distinction between natural ecosystems and anthropogenic alterations of them. The distinction I believe useful, if not critical, is that between a system that is DEPENDENT upon external influence and displacement/destruction of indigenous ecosystems (e.g., plowing, planting and maintenance of monocultures and introduction of other organisms that did not co-evolve with them as a TREND. I certainly do recognize the value of the study of such phenomena, particularly when its trend is in the direction of preservation of genetic diversity, not its reduction. I do seriously question the habit of terming anthropogenic assemblages of species ecosystems, as they are quite distinguishable from natural ecosystems. I think scientists in general, and ecologists in particular, have a duty to do no harm, to pass knowledge along in a clear and directly honest fashion to the population at large. I think the distinction is CRUCIAL. If I am wrong in this, I look forward to being corrected with persuasive logic and evidence. WT - Original Message - From: Kristin Mercer mercer...@osu.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos Dear Wayne, The definition you received from another ecologger is a good one. Given your concern about the term agroecosystems, I think the best way to understand agroecosystems is to see that they are connected to, but distinct from, the natural or urban or managed ecosystems around them. Just as savana may be surrounded by forests, agroecosystems can exist within a matrix of other kinds of ecosystems. So although parts of agroecology does study the effects of agriculture on natural ecosystems, it is certainly not limited to that perspectives. Studies of weed community dynamics, insect pest population genetics, nutrient cycling under various management practices (i.e., studies within the agroecosystem) all fall within agroecology. I would think that few agroecologists see themselves as promoting the business as usual agriculture or destruction and degredation. In fact, within the context of needing to grow food on our landscapes, I think most ESA members would be cheering agroecologists along. In that vein, the agroecology section of ESA is alive and well. Cheers, Kristin At 06:03 PM 2/3/2009, Wayne Tyson wrote: Ecolog: I received the following off-list response to my enquiry about the definition of agroecosystem: Agroecosystems are best understood as the unit of study of agroecology, which looks at agricultural production systems in terms of ecosystem prosperities: e.g. stability, resilience, disturbance regime, stocks and flows of nutrients and energy, and niche dynamics, etc. Look to Miguel Altieri for a thorough, scientifically based discussion of agroecology. Additionally, the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. I agree with the respondent that the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. Agro-ecology seems somewhat less of an oxymoron than agro-ecosystem. Certainly the study of ecosystems and the effects of agriculture upon them is legitimate, but it seems to me that the use of the term agro-ecosystem implies that the two are somehow interdependent or that agriculture is just
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos
Wayne and forum, Lots of ecosystems (prairies, chaparral, many pine forests, etc.) are dependent on fire or other types of disturbance to maintain their structure. How is this different from being dependent on humans? Jane On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Kristin and Ecolog: I hope I have not been misunderstood. I do not object to the study of species interactions and habitat conditions in agriculture; I am concerned, however, that the distinction between natural ecosystems and anthropogenic alterations of them. The distinction I believe useful, if not critical, is that between a system that is DEPENDENT upon external influence and displacement/destruction of indigenous ecosystems (e.g., plowing, planting and maintenance of monocultures and introduction of other organisms that did not co-evolve with them as a TREND. I certainly do recognize the value of the study of such phenomena, particularly when its trend is in the direction of preservation of genetic diversity, not its reduction. I do seriously question the habit of terming anthropogenic assemblages of species ecosystems, as they are quite distinguishable from natural ecosystems. I think scientists in general, and ecologists in particular, have a duty to do no harm, to pass knowle! dge along in a clear and directly honest fashion to the population at large. I think the distinction is CRUCIAL. If I am wrong in this, I look forward to being corrected with persuasive logic and evidence. WT - Original Message - From: Kristin Mercer mercer...@osu.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos Dear Wayne, The definition you received from another ecologger is a good one. Given your concern about the term agroecosystems, I think the best way to understand agroecosystems is to see that they are connected to, but distinct from, the natural or urban or managed ecosystems around them. Just as savana may be surrounded by forests, agroecosystems can exist within a matrix of other kinds of ecosystems. So although parts of agroecology does study the effects of agriculture on natural ecosystems, it is certainly not limited to that perspectives. Studies of weed community dynamics, insect pest population genetics, nutrient cycling under various management practices (i.e., studies within the agroecosystem) all fall within agroecology. I would think that few agroecologists see themselves as promoting the business as usual agriculture or destruction and degredation. In fact, within the context of needing to grow food on our landscapes, I think most ESA members would be cheering agroecologists along. In that vein, the agroecology section of ESA is alive and well. Cheers, Kristin At 06:03 PM 2/3/2009, Wayne Tyson wrote: Ecolog: I received the following off-list response to my enquiry about the definition of agroecosystem: Agroecosystems are best understood as the unit of study of agroecology, which looks at agricultural production systems in terms of ecosystem prosperities: e.g. stability, resilience, disturbance regime, stocks and flows of nutrients and energy, and niche dynamics, etc. Look to Miguel Altieri for a thorough, scientifically based discussion of agroecology. Additionally, the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. I agree with the respondent that the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. Agro-ecology seems somewhat less of an oxymoron than agro-ecosystem. Certainly the study of ecosystems and the effects of agriculture upon them is legitimate, but it seems to me that the use of the term agro-ecosystem implies that the two are somehow interdependent or that agriculture is just a part of the ecosystem in which it stands. On the one hand, there seem to be two opposite impulses at work within the field, one trying to minimize the adverse effects of agriculture upon ecosystems and recognize the positive effects of ecosystem preservation, conservation, and restoration upon their integration with agricultural practice, and on the other the various hyphenated dash ecosystem terms seem to be, intentionally or unintentionally, a front for business as usual and a cover for continued expediency as the primary driver of ecosystem destruction and degradation. Am I missing something here, or should ESA perhaps take a scientific position on this issue? If so, ecologgers might be a good place to begin drafting a more unified, or at least less vague definition? Even if they just buy into one or more of the existing ones? Or throw them all out? I should imagine that the ecological economists would be all over this. Are they? WT Kristin Mercer Assistant Professor The Ohio State University
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos
Kristin and Ecolog: I hope I have not been misunderstood. I do not object to the study of species interactions and habitat conditions in agriculture; I am concerned, however, that the distinction between natural ecosystems and anthropogenic alterations of them. The distinction I believe useful, if not critical, is that between a system that is DEPENDENT upon external influence and displacement/destruction of indigenous ecosystems (e.g., plowing, planting and maintenance of monocultures and introduction of other organisms that did not co-evolve with them as a TREND. I certainly do recognize the value of the study of such phenomena, particularly when its trend is in the direction of preservation of genetic diversity, not its reduction. I do seriously question the habit of terming anthropogenic assemblages of species ecosystems, as they are quite distinguishable from natural ecosystems. I think scientists in general, and ecologists in particular, have a duty to do no harm, to pass knowledge along in a clear and directly honest fashion to the population at large. I think the distinction is CRUCIAL. If I am wrong in this, I look forward to being corrected with persuasive logic and evidence. WT - Original Message - From: Kristin Mercer mercer...@osu.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos Dear Wayne, The definition you received from another ecologger is a good one. Given your concern about the term agroecosystems, I think the best way to understand agroecosystems is to see that they are connected to, but distinct from, the natural or urban or managed ecosystems around them. Just as savana may be surrounded by forests, agroecosystems can exist within a matrix of other kinds of ecosystems. So although parts of agroecology does study the effects of agriculture on natural ecosystems, it is certainly not limited to that perspectives. Studies of weed community dynamics, insect pest population genetics, nutrient cycling under various management practices (i.e., studies within the agroecosystem) all fall within agroecology. I would think that few agroecologists see themselves as promoting the business as usual agriculture or destruction and degredation. In fact, within the context of needing to grow food on our landscapes, I think most ESA members would be cheering agroecologists along. In that vein, the agroecology section of ESA is alive and well. Cheers, Kristin At 06:03 PM 2/3/2009, Wayne Tyson wrote: Ecolog: I received the following off-list response to my enquiry about the definition of agroecosystem: Agroecosystems are best understood as the unit of study of agroecology, which looks at agricultural production systems in terms of ecosystem prosperities: e.g. stability, resilience, disturbance regime, stocks and flows of nutrients and energy, and niche dynamics, etc. Look to Miguel Altieri for a thorough, scientifically based discussion of agroecology. Additionally, the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. I agree with the respondent that the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. Agro-ecology seems somewhat less of an oxymoron than agro-ecosystem. Certainly the study of ecosystems and the effects of agriculture upon them is legitimate, but it seems to me that the use of the term agro-ecosystem implies that the two are somehow interdependent or that agriculture is just a part of the ecosystem in which it stands. On the one hand, there seem to be two opposite impulses at work within the field, one trying to minimize the adverse effects of agriculture upon ecosystems and recognize the positive effects of ecosystem preservation, conservation, and restoration upon their integration with agricultural practice, and on the other the various hyphenated dash ecosystem terms seem to be, intentionally or unintentionally, a front for business as usual and a cover for continued expediency as the primary driver of ecosystem destruction and degradation. Am I missing something here, or should ESA perhaps take a scientific position on this issue? If so, ecologgers might be a good place to begin drafting a more unified, or at least less vague definition? Even if they just buy into one or more of the existing ones? Or throw them all out? I should imagine that the ecological economists would be all over this. Are they? WT Kristin Mercer Assistant Professor The Ohio State University Department of Horticulture and Crop Science 310F Kottman Hall 2021 Coffey Road Columbus, OH 43210 Office: (614) 247-6394 Lab: (614) 247-8626 (341 Kottman) Fax: (614) 292-7162 email: mercer...@osu.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos
A quick and simplistic response: There are very few natural ecosystems because nearly all have been anthropogenically altered. Even a Pacific Northwest forest wilderness has been altered by past overgrazing of its meadows, fire suppression, and introduction of exotic species. Perhaps the mid-Antarctic or the deep ocean has escaped anthropogenic alteration, but I would have a hard time identifying other systems where this is the case. So maybe it's not about whether or not a system has been altered by humans, maybe its more about how much of an alteration has occurred before we no longer consider it natural. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 15:26 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos Kristin and Ecolog: I hope I have not been misunderstood. I do not object to the study of species interactions and habitat conditions in agriculture; I am concerned, however, that the distinction between natural ecosystems and anthropogenic alterations of them. The distinction I believe useful, if not critical, is that between a system that is DEPENDENT upon external influence and displacement/destruction of indigenous ecosystems (e.g., plowing, planting and maintenance of monocultures and introduction of other organisms that did not co-evolve with them as a TREND. I certainly do recognize the value of the study of such phenomena, particularly when its trend is in the direction of preservation of genetic diversity, not its reduction. I do seriously question the habit of terming anthropogenic assemblages of species ecosystems, as they are quite distinguishable from natural ecosystems. I think scientists in general, and ecologists in particular, have a duty to do no harm, to pass knowledge along in a clear and directly honest fashion to the population at large. I think the distinction is CRUCIAL. If I am wrong in this, I look forward to being corrected with persuasive logic and evidence. WT - Original Message - From: Kristin Mercer mercer...@osu.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos Dear Wayne, The definition you received from another ecologger is a good one. Given your concern about the term agroecosystems, I think the best way to understand agroecosystems is to see that they are connected to, but distinct from, the natural or urban or managed ecosystems around them. Just as savana may be surrounded by forests, agroecosystems can exist within a matrix of other kinds of ecosystems. So although parts of agroecology does study the effects of agriculture on natural ecosystems, it is certainly not limited to that perspectives. Studies of weed community dynamics, insect pest population genetics, nutrient cycling under various management practices (i.e., studies within the agroecosystem) all fall within agroecology. I would think that few agroecologists see themselves as promoting the business as usual agriculture or destruction and degredation. In fact, within the context of needing to grow food on our landscapes, I think most ESA members would be cheering agroecologists along. In that vein, the agroecology section of ESA is alive and well. Cheers, Kristin At 06:03 PM 2/3/2009, Wayne Tyson wrote: Ecolog: I received the following off-list response to my enquiry about the definition of agroecosystem: Agroecosystems are best understood as the unit of study of agroecology, which looks at agricultural production systems in terms of ecosystem prosperities: e.g. stability, resilience, disturbance regime, stocks and flows of nutrients and energy, and niche dynamics, etc. Look to Miguel Altieri for a thorough, scientifically based discussion of agroecology. Additionally, the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. I agree with the respondent that the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. Agro-ecology seems somewhat less of an oxymoron than agro-ecosystem. Certainly the study of ecosystems and the effects of agriculture upon them is legitimate, but it seems to me that the use of the term agro-ecosystem implies that the two are somehow interdependent or that agriculture is just a part of the ecosystem in which it stands. On the one hand, there seem to be two opposite impulses at work within the field, one trying to minimize the adverse effects of agriculture upon ecosystems and recognize the positive effects of ecosystem preservation, conservation, and restoration upon their integration with agricultural practice, and on the other the
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos
Dear Wayne, The definition you received from another ecologger is a good one. Given your concern about the term agroecosystems, I think the best way to understand agroecosystems is to see that they are connected to, but distinct from, the natural or urban or managed ecosystems around them. Just as savana may be surrounded by forests, agroecosystems can exist within a matrix of other kinds of ecosystems. So although parts of agroecology does study the effects of agriculture on natural ecosystems, it is certainly not limited to that perspectives. Studies of weed community dynamics, insect pest population genetics, nutrient cycling under various management practices (i.e., studies within the agroecosystem) all fall within agroecology. I would think that few agroecologists see themselves as promoting the business as usual agriculture or destruction and degredation. In fact, within the context of needing to grow food on our landscapes, I think most ESA members would be cheering agroecologists along. In that vein, the agroecology section of ESA is alive and well. Cheers, Kristin At 06:03 PM 2/3/2009, Wayne Tyson wrote: Ecolog: I received the following off-list response to my enquiry about the definition of agroecosystem: Agroecosystems are best understood as the unit of study of agroecology, which looks at agricultural production systems in terms of ecosystem prosperities: e.g. stability, resilience, disturbance regime, stocks and flows of nutrients and energy, and niche dynamics, etc. Look to Miguel Altieri for a thorough, scientifically based discussion of agroecology. Additionally, the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. I agree with the respondent that the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. Agro-ecology seems somewhat less of an oxymoron than agro-ecosystem. Certainly the study of ecosystems and the effects of agriculture upon them is legitimate, but it seems to me that the use of the term agro-ecosystem implies that the two are somehow interdependent or that agriculture is just a part of the ecosystem in which it stands. On the one hand, there seem to be two opposite impulses at work within the field, one trying to minimize the adverse effects of agriculture upon ecosystems and recognize the positive effects of ecosystem preservation, conservation, and restoration upon their integration with agricultural practice, and on the other the various hyphenated dash ecosystem terms seem to be, intentionally or unintentionally, a front for business as usual and a cover for continued expediency as the primary driver of ecosystem destruction and degradation. Am I missing something here, or should ESA perhaps take a scientific position on this issue? If so, ecologgers might be a good place to begin drafting a more unified, or at least less vague definition? Even if they just buy into one or more of the existing ones? Or throw them all out? I should imagine that the ecological economists would be all over this. Are they? WT Kristin Mercer Assistant Professor The Ohio State University Department of Horticulture and Crop Science 310F Kottman Hall 2021 Coffey Road Columbus, OH 43210 Office: (614) 247-6394 Lab: (614) 247-8626 (341 Kottman) Fax: (614) 292-7162 email: mercer...@osu.edu
[ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos
Ecolog: I received the following off-list response to my enquiry about the definition of agroecosystem: Agroecosystems are best understood as the unit of study of agroecology, which looks at agricultural production systems in terms of ecosystem prosperities: e.g. stability, resilience, disturbance regime, stocks and flows of nutrients and energy, and niche dynamics, etc. Look to Miguel Altieri for a thorough, scientifically based discussion of agroecology. Additionally, the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. I agree with the respondent that the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. Agro-ecology seems somewhat less of an oxymoron than agro-ecosystem. Certainly the study of ecosystems and the effects of agriculture upon them is legitimate, but it seems to me that the use of the term agro-ecosystem implies that the two are somehow interdependent or that agriculture is just a part of the ecosystem in which it stands. On the one hand, there seem to be two opposite impulses at work within the field, one trying to minimize the adverse effects of agriculture upon ecosystems and recognize the positive effects of ecosystem preservation, conservation, and restoration upon their integration with agricultural practice, and on the other the various hyphenated dash ecosystem terms seem to be, intentionally or unintentionally, a front for business as usual and a cover for continued expediency as the primary driver of ecosystem destruction and degradation. Am I missing something here, or should ESA perhaps take a scientific position on this issue? If so, ecologgers might be a good place to begin drafting a more unified, or at least less vague definition? Even if they just buy into one or more of the existing ones? Or throw them all out? I should imagine that the ecological economists would be all over this. Are they? WT
