Drabav

If they stick to the plan. I would hope that would happen. Unfortunatly, that doesn't seem to be the history of industry in this country. And actually, the estimate is more along the lines of 2000 acres, but that will most likely be spread over a large area, and the roads and pipelines could cut the 1002 area into a maze. Let me remind you, 1002 has the largest concentration of onshore polar bear dens in the world, the summer home to around 138 species of migratory birds, and the caving grounds of a 123,000 member caribou herd. Not to mention the lichen species, which make up all of the vegitation of the area, are extremely sensitive to pollution. When it comes to wilderness protection, its a big wound to build oil wells in a wildlife refuge. Who knows what could happen next? Drilling in National Parks? Its a sad thought.

And where do you live that they burn gasoline for electrical generation? I've didn't know that it was used that way.

Draba v.

...A postscript to the hope of spring.

The vote has been cast. 51-49, in favor of drilling. Whether we are happy or not about it, oil exploration in ANWR is almost inevitable.

The purpose of this thread is to figure out what the impact of drilling will be upon the ecology of both the area directly drilled upon, as well as the surrounding area. Please feel free to rant on the topic if you wish, or not or whatever. I think I am going to go sleep now. This topic has me personally exausted and depressed.

Draba v.

...A postscript to the hope of spring.

We're all kinda fond of our frog populations in wisconsin. When we disected them in high school, they were shipped in in bags of fermaldehyde and alcohol. Definatly none living there. But I have to say, the best dissection was one of those giant grasshoppers from texas. Yummy!

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

In that case, its about respect in a different way. Just like humans have territories, so do puma. Wolves do as well, but they live in packs for the most part, and seem to be wary of human territories in general. Coyotes, on the other hand, go where the scavenge is, at least around human settlements. Otherwise they are generally rodentiavores.

By where is Sayonara, I mean, isn't he the top poster on this board? He hasn't replied since yesterday afternoon. Well, I guess hes a busy person by any means, more busy than I, and most likely much more productive as well.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

In truth, it is when one fails to respect an animal that one gets mauled by it. At least for wild animals.

But this thread is not about that topic. BTW, where is Sayonara?

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

And wolves will, if they are hungry and their natural prey is unavailable, kill and eat humans.

I just read a statistic that indicates it is more likely you will be hit by lightning than be attacked by a wolf in northern Minnesota. About 3 times more likely. In the past 50 years only 17 people have been reportedly killed by wolves in all of Europe, Russia and North America. You do the math.

IMO, on the side, the real animal you should be wary of is Alces alces, the Moose. That is the species Im staying away from.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

(yes I know. go brag about it then.)

Well if you thought I was laughing because I don't take Coyotes seriousely, you are mistaken. Coyotes can be dangerous animals. They are not, however Wolves, nor are they as dangerous as a pack of wolves.

 

I used the laugh icon in order to illustrate that there is a difference between cute and dangerous.

 

Perhaps the "eek" icon would be a better choice, but I was hoping that everyone here would realize that I wouldn't think that Coyotes killing kids was funny.

Just so you know, there has not been one reported human death by wolf, or by Coyote, in north america since we found out about them. Wolves just don't kill humans, and I don't believe Coyotes have either.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Katz might argue that restored areas are less valuable than untouched ones, but they are more valuable than contaminated rivers and earth, and if we study the untouched ones, it will give us a better idea about how to rehabilitate damaged areas properly.

Very true. And that is why I believe that he is arguing more for ecosystem restoration in terms of damages we create today, rather in past damages.

I saw on TV about a year ago where a hawk of some sort had built a nest on one of the buildings in-I think-New York City.

 

The old Hawk sat up there with his nest on what he might have thought was a cliff overlooking allys and such where he could swoop down and catch a rat or some other vermin to feed his (actually her) young.

You are talking about Peregrin Falcons. They have been doing this for some time now.

To me, that is just another example of one species (the Hawk) using an artifact-if you want to call it that-created by another species, (the Human) as a replacement for a naturally occuring cliff upon which the Hawk likes to build it's nest.

This may be one example, but most are few and far between. The majority of the species on this planet do not use "artefacts" in replacement of "nature".

Now when the Coyotes come and start eating our pets and threatening our kids, that's different.

You laugh at this, so you obviously do not realize the truth in it. In Wisconsin for some time we have been having pets killed by the gray wolves that have slowly been migrating down from the UP and Nothern Minnesota. Many people believe they should all be exterminated. So watch what you laugh at.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

As far as the "value" of the ecosystem in question' date=' then I would say that the term needs to be defined.[/quote']

 

This is absolutely correct. The value of an ecosystem is not an easy thing to interpret, because there are so many factors to consider that it's difficult to compare their relative importance (especially since they are often 'important' with respect to completely different things.)

 

Truly. How do we measure the value of an ecosystem? Do we measure it in utilitarian value? Or perhaps Aesthetics? Possibly it is because of our morals or humanistic concern? Or maybe Scientistic or Naturalistic value, what we can learn from it? Or is our value simply of Ecology? These are all different things people value about "nature". Which one is the best?

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Yes, I'm using shorthand because I can't be bothered typing it out in long form. That back-fired, didn't it?

Im sorry. I just like to understand what I read, rather than just taking as true. Its part of my "nature".

What I mean is that in any given ecosystem (or rather in a community, which is easier to consider without sacrificing too many involved factors), the dynamic equilibrium that exists is unlikely to be expressed in the same way for an extended period of time. Communities change - it's in their nature to do so. The various interspecies mutualisms will eventually erode the stability of the system either as a whole or in part (with the interfaces being the 'points of contact' between different species), which will shift the equilibrium, and those mutualisms may change in strength as the inter- and intraspecies behaviours that they contain react to every stimulus coming their way.

And after reading this explanation, I understand the concept, and realize you are speaking of the process of ecosystem evolution. or at least thats what it seems to be to me. In the long term it may lead to succession and climax communities, at which point the stability continues until there is a abiotic or biotic "disturbance"(just separating this from what Katz deems to be different, namely human disturbance).

Given that communities are so fluid and difficult to scope, as they're supposed to be, it seems odd that Katz should practically lament their passing.

I believe that his arguement is still about this historical continuity. An ecosystem changes in this way "naturaly" in his mind, and the value is still retained. Restoration is an "artefact" of human inclination, and thus he deems it of lesser value.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Furthermore, were it that simple, we would have no need for ecologists.

Too true, and I would have no hope of being able to buy food in the future because of my ecological curiosity.

I find this definition strange. Surely he acknowledges that at some point - which may or may not be arbitrarily selected, it doesn't really matter - any system of interfaces will lose continuity as an expected consequence of the interfaces having their presence in the system.

I am sorry, could you please word that arguement about the system of interfaces differently, because I am not sure if I understand correctly. I am curious, and know a few things, but I am still a student, and your terminology just went over my head, so to speak.

I would be inclined to suggest to Katz that this has more to do with him than the birch grove. However it would be remiss of me to ignore the very probable trophic and diversity differences between that grove, and one that had arisen without human interference.

True, and this is the very reason why his arguement is worth analyzing.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Again, syntax, you forget that, while your definition of "natural" (which, not to be rude, you have not fully provided for us) is not the same as the definition Katz holds, nor, for that matter, the same as mine. It would be good to take that into account when you post. If you are trying to sway anyone with simplistic language, its not helping the disscussion of this thread, which is truly anything but a simple matter. Were it simple, I would not have made a thread about it.

Now, on to Historical Continuity and Ecosystem Value. Katz argues that the ecosystem with the most value is the one that has the longest uninterupted Historical Continuity, that is, the time period where there has been no or very little human disturbance (I believe by very little he means in the sense of "take only photographs, leave only footprints" disturbance, or very near to that.). The reason we value such is for ecosystem integrity, but also Katz argues for the mear fact that we know that it has come about outside the influence of man. The first point holds some truth, of course, but the second is most definatly a debatable point, that depends upon ones direct moral attitude toward "nature", as well as ones definition of "natural". He uses an example (which you might spit upon, depending on your point of view, but hear me out) of a birch grove that he just happened upon (imaginarily) while walking. He admires how stable the grove is, how intact the trees are, and other numerous things dealing with asthetics. Later, he finds out that it was planted not 20 years back, and because of the fact that it did not come about "naturally (that is, by historic continuity of that area) it has lost some of the value he had placed upon it. He also argues that, even when he never knows that an area has lost its Historic Continuity, it still has that reduced value.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Well OK, if you want a definition of "evolutionary development" then I guess I would define that as the product of the process of evolution as applied to a species. In short it is what man has become through the process of evolution.

I would argue that there is no "becoming" in evolutionary development. Every stage is intermediate, there are no missing links, and all stages blend into each other, so well in some stages that you can't easily tell the difference between one stage and the next. I would also bid that this is a process that takes place over millions of years and continues to take place as we type. There are no true "products" in evolutionary developement, just points on a line (or web) that continues far beyond what we see at this moment in both directions.

I would also apologize for this small tangent of mine. When I return from class, I will post on Historical Continuity and Ecosystem value.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

In other news, there is plenty more that can be discussed that is relevant to Katz's position - it's just that what you are saying isn't it.

I know that this statement is not pointed at me, but I would like to ask what other opinions and arguements you have for or against Katz position. I started this thread in hope of disscussion, and I still as well see that there is more that can be discussed.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

That's very unlikely. An ecosystem is not like a metronome - it won't always "swing back" to a single point of equilibrium. It's far more likely that changes to the trophic networks will fundamentally shift the relationships between the various species' date=' leading to a different set of equilibrium dynamics.

 

And let's not forget that primary colonisers are usually unbound by interactive constraints.[/quote']

 

True. After a disturbance as strong as what droid suggested (such as fire, flood, hurricane, tornado, glaciation) there will still be some sort of biological legacy, but more likely than not the abiotic factors of the ecosystem will be affected in such a way (be they pedic, hydric, geologic, topographic, etc) that the secondary succession of the ecosystem will lead away from the original path of primary succession and may evolve into a completly different climax community than the ecosystem caused by primary succession would have. In some cases, however, it is the disturbance itself that creates the climax comunity of an area. One example would be the effects of fire on stands of Jack Pine or prarie.

 

This is not exactly what we are trying to discuss in this thread however. The focus is on human, rather than abiotic, disturbance.

 

(On the side, I just recently read a study in Ecology journal about invasives and their relationship to change in a degraded ecosystem. I thought you may be interested, Sayonara.

 

Macdougall, A. S. and A. Turkington. (2005) Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86: 42-55.

 

What their data shows suggests that they are merely "passengers" of the change in the ecosystem, rather than what is causing and driving the change.)

 

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

 

Edit: Added the part in parentheses.

I think we are falling into the trap of believing that if an environment is 'cleaned up' or 'restored' by humans that , that environment is in some way 'artificial' and therefore in some way less morally valuable.

What is artificial, what is natural? To Katz, artificial has to do with human purpose, to you and I, that subjective meaning is different.

Humans intervene and interact with great swathes of the environment. it is hard to find any purely pristine environment unaffected by human activity anywhere.

I would agree with this statement. I would also add that it is debatable whether there is any land on this planet that exists without human disturbance of some kind. In this point, Katz would reply that the more interaction humans have with the landscape, the less inherent value it has. Or something like that. (When I speak for Katz, remember I do not always agree with his statements, and sometimes I disagree strongly.)

Often humans will act in a way to reduce the level of diversity and life in an area, acting in a way we can see as being damaging to the environment/ecosystem. Humans will then sometimes take measures to limit and reverse some of the impact of those actions. This does not then make any ecosystem in those areas unnatural or an 'artifact'.

Again, Katz would disagree. Personally, my planned profession is to be Wetland Restoration, so I obviously don't agree that we cannot return value to an ecosystem that has been degraded. However, I do agree that we many times cannot return all of the value lost by degradation. This is simply impossible by modern restoration standards. And I also agree that trying to return a landforms to a historical "photograph" is purely "historical ecological nostalgia", as Sayonara put it. There is more to nature than human aesthetics.

We might agree that it would be better if no restoration was needed in the first place, but this is the real world. Trees get chopped down, rivers become polluted and dammed. Land becomes overgrazed and eroded. Sitting on your hands and complaining that this shouldn't have happened in the first place is sterile and pointless. To then deride efforts to reverse some of these actions is sanctimonious intellectual masturbation. Especially in light of how very resilient nature really is. Nature simply needs an opening and it will come charging back in in all its riotous anarchic splendor, nature is never truly controlled or in any way a human 'artifact'. There is no such thing as a human produced ecosystem.

I would argue that Katz is not completely against restoration. From his his essay I see he does not outright say it is wrong. What he is speaking against is the outright destruction of an area for whatever utilitarian purpose you need it for with the idea that you can put it back exactly the same way it was when you are done. And I would agree, such a thing would be an artifact, a product of human nostalgia.

For humans to think otherwise is simply hubris.

Agreed An ecosystem, a true product of abiotic forces and biotic entities, existing within a temporal-spacial scale, a dynamic equilibrium of many parts that creates a sort of changing evolving stability, cannot be created. Such a thing can be imitated in part in laboratory, but when all parts are assembled, hydrology, ecology, pedology, under the sky, and time starts ticking, we can put no ownership on what is taking place. Yes, such a thing would definitely be hubris.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Edit: Word usage and spelling

No, I believe I pointed to the diversity decreasing. Diversity is (by way of the shannon diversity index) the mesure of species richness (no of species in a particular area) in combination with evenness (the number indivduals per species to the total number of individuals). In a pine stand, there is low richness, and low evenness, thus resulting in a low SDI. It is the standard for measuring diversity. Especially among tree populations.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

But the other animals do things that result in ecological imbalances too. It is just that they do not have the ability to put things as far out of balance as humans--with our ability to plan--do.

 

I have seen cycles among the foxes and the rabbits that support this.

 

Rabbits will become plentiful beyond their own welfare and then foxes will increase in numbers because the food source is plentiful. After a few years, the rabbit population decreases, and so does the fox population because they are starved out.

 

Wolves in upper Michigan feed on the deer herds until they are decimated, then the wolf population decreases. They get starved out also.

Very true. The particular case study I was thinking of was the Chaco Canyon study. All wolf populations were depleted by hunters, and without the wolfs acting as predator, the deer starved themselves by overpopulating the area and eating all the vegetation. Massive starvation kills insued.

The Beaver builds dams and back up the water and no one thinks that is important, but if it is proposed to build a dam to produce electricity, everyone shouts about ecological impact.

 

Ants build anthills, humans build cities, but they are really the same thing.

Also true. Although I woul dissagree with two things. 1) Many people do find Bever damming to be important. Its can be seen as a hazard in some situations, and an ecosystem catylist in others. Much like human activity really. 2) Ants and humans both build, but Humans builders are many minds made up of many individuals, while ants are more like one hive mind made up of many individuals. Well, I guess you could argue that as well.

An manmade biome, as opposed to a naturally occuring one, still deserves the same considerations. Human meddling has undoubtedly caused all sorts of problems, and we cannot ignore, and arbitarirly assing less "value" the change we have wrought in the world. I think that this "value" is purely subjective.

True, but if the value is based upon "stability" (dynamic equilibrium) then we find that human produced ecosystems in general have less stablility than those that occur without human management. I would argue that the only kind of variable that I would use to value an ecosystem with IS stability. But I know others would feel differently.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

I do agree with both, it is natural. But we take it to a point that it becomes unnatural. Man right now is an excessive consumer of the Earth, and if we remain unchecked it will be dangerous to our survival.

Its not that its is unnatural. Its rather just the second option: we are deflating the stability that keeps us afloat. This can happen in any population. If the deer population in one ecosystem gets too high, they consume their complete food sourse and starve. Its not so different with humans, except that "food" is more than just plant and animal matter, and our "ecosystem" happens to be the whole of the planet. We, unlike the deer, do not have a buffer zone.

What Katz is talking about are instances of the former, where we are trying to redress some artificial notion of "balance" that we derived from the observations of a particular state which the system has already transited away from.

Yes! And in addition, he is warning us that what we do, what we change, is not easily changed back by any means, or cannot be changed back at all. Responsibility in our actions is the proper responce to what he is saying, I believe. Better to leave it as it is, than break it and not be able to fix it.

You could say that he is criticising empty ecological nostalgia, which is fair enough I suppose, but it doesn't really get us anywhere.

And in a way, that is part of what restoration is: trying to return an area to a historical state that no longer exists, or only existes in part. For the former, I would agree with him. There is a case study of restoration work done on an area outside of chicago that shows the "empty ecological nostaligia" of some restoration projects. I will try to find a copy so I can later paraphrase it better for you all. It has been a while since I read it.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

I start this thread in the hope that I might get minimal responce, go to sleep and class, then come back here to find excelent conversation! Wonderful, wonderful.

I can see how it could be considered to be an artefact, especially if normal succession is prevented.

 

But, I'm also of a rather cynical, pessimistic POV about environmental issues, and feel that the area is better as an artefact than a Wal-Mart parking lot.

Yes, although the argument that succession would not have taken place if humans didn't interrupt the fire process of the prarie in the first place is also there. And yes, I would agree, and Katz would most likely as well, that an area would be better off as an "artefact ecosystem" than an impermiable layer of asphalt.

People value untouched nature, nothing really new in that. However, this shouldn't lead us to completely devalue nature that has been altered, or even created. In some situations it all we have, and in others it is necessary for the survival of the original, untouched community. And to me, it's nice in and of itself.

 

As for tinkering with existing systems, I think you have to recognise we have changed some environments alot. So perversely, there are situations where to maintain an ecosystem, we need to constantly impose changes. This goes back to valuing the original nature, and I think it will keep happening.

 

And what gives us this right? We have the right and responsibility to control our own actions.

I agree with your first statement about value. However, the message Katz is saying is that the value of that untouched ecosystem is much more than that of the restored, simply because of "natural" temporal-spacial evolution, succession, and historical continuity. On the other hand, one may argue that there is nothing "untouched" left on earth, that every piece of land has been altered by humans in some way or form. For your second statement, see my signature. In fact, anyone who hasn't read Round River or Sand County Almanac should do so. And your third statement is true as well. However, I again respond with Aldo's caution for inteligent tinkering.

The Earth can be compared to a cell infected with a bacterial infection. As humans spread across the Earth, the Earth is mutated. A bacterial infection would not be bad if it was not harmful. If humans can manage to be less harmful to the Earth, the Earth will not decay. Humans will be able to spread onto other planets without killing the Earth and killing ourselves in the process.

I think a better analogy would be to compare the Earth to a Cell whos organells are made up of all the organisms the planet contains. (a la "Gaia Hypothesis"). Each part works in order to provide for itself as well as keep Homeostasis within the cell. If one part mutates, or workings stop generating to the homeostasis, the the whole cell is thrown out of balance. Thus we are, as humans, an important piece of the "Cell" which has turned partly away from Homeostasis. And the whole Cell is suffering because of this. We are not an "infection", IMO we are just as natural as any other organism. However, there are some who would argue against this, and their arguements are fairly convincing. Which is why I take the time to study them.

I suspect what he means is that replacing an ecosystem does not stop or revoke the consequences of the prior interruption, which is entirely true.

 

What the ramifications of that are for restoration projects, in terms of how useful they are, is somewhat subjective.

Exactly! His arguement, I believe, is mostly concerned with the process of mitigation, or the process of contiuing reclaimation, the idea that you can just "move" a wetland somewhere else, or destroy a ecosystem for mining and then try to rebuild it, and every thing is okay, no value has been lost. This, to me, is his most convincing arguement, and the reason I take a second look.

..snip...(yes I read it all, just saving space)...Anyway - this area could not sustain a very large human population at all if we were to try to put things back as they were prior to 1607.

This is a very valid arguement. Also, Katz arguement would be that there is no possiblility that we could ever put things back the way they are. Which makes sense: Species have been lost or extripated, landforms changed, hydrology deverted. However, I would argue that some value is returned to the area even if one cannot replace most of what was lost, when one indulges in restoration.

What we all need to bear in mind is one can make the argument that mankind messing about with habitats etc is ecologically no different to any other species interacting with them.

True, but, perhaps, the fact that we can analyze what we do with habitats is possibly the reason that we should.

I get your point. Of course we can do much more damage with a backhoe, than a bear can with its claws, and I doubt there is any other creature that can transport species to entirely new habitats. Sure - a coconut might migrate on the ocean currents and take root on a different island, but that is nothing compared to a cargo ship sucking up ballast water contaminated with zebra mussel larvae on one side of the ocean and discharging it in our great lakes.

This is one of the biggest arguements for restoration: the removal of "invasive species" such as the zebra mussles you mentioned, or purple loostrife, or Glossy Buckthorn. One could also argue that eradicating a species from an area simply because it was moved there by human "hand" is wrong.

On the other hand, from a "devil's advocate" POV - we have evolved the mind to construct tools, so the fact that we use them is part of our evolution too. We may be destroying niches for existing organism, but some other organism will eventually evolve that can thrive in the new niches. Whether that organism is a critter that enhances human survival or deteriorates it is part of the evolutionary cycle.

Because we are a part of the process, we can't observe it objectively.

True, but unfortunatly humans seldom think on the long term like this. Our generations are short, and our lives short as well. We do not have the luxury to wait if that will happen or not.

To criticise a restored environment on the grounds that it is an 'artefact' and has less 'moral' value for some reason because humans have been involved is simply meaningless semantics.

 

Yes, any restored environment is likely to be less ecologically complex and complete than a pristine environment, but it is still an improvement on a blighted and damaged environment. To suggest that human involvement somehow makes the ecosystem less valid is to impose artifical, subjective and completely immeasurable moral values. It also is demeaning to nature. Nature adapts and survives many things, including human activity.

I believe that the criticism is in route of simply "destroying and rebuilding", like we might do an apartment building after an earthquake; to retain the same integral durability and structure within a restored ecosystem is not as easy. I point this comment directly at companies whos reclaimation and mitigation processes are much less than atequate.

To state that an environment is no longer natural simply because of some intervention by the human species is both arrogant and wrong.

This is one arguement that many people disagree upon. What you decide is up to yourself. Me, Im not one side or the other.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Hmmm...so the protien levels (possibly hormones secreated when photosynthesis is occurring or not occurring, or something like that) some how by way of a feedback loop (negative feedback?) cause these circadian rythms which open and close the stoma by way of Calcium Ions? Is this correct?

This would possibly be similar to the feedback loops that cause flowers to open at certain times of the day. Or maybe not. Pure speculation, until someone gives me evidence.

Draba v.

...a postscript to the hope of spring.

Interesting. I didn't realize that plants have circadian clocks for stoma opening and closing. Hmmm, did that article also talkabout the mechanism that causes this particular closing? A hormone, possibly?

Draba v.

....a postscript to the hope of spring.

Other than the part about closing at night, I don't think anything is that bad about these sites. How would you even test such a think, as most light tends to make a plant photosynthesis, and electron scanning can only be done with dead tissue? I think that this is just a statement in the blue, like an urban legend with no proof to back it up.

Please, if someone can offer proof that stomates close for any other reason than dehydration or CAM cycling, I would like to see it.

Draba v.

...a postscript to a hope of spring.

I believe he is saying both, but his more prominent arguement is the unnaturalness of restoration because it has been given a human function and purpose, and therefore become an artifact.

And it is true, I cannot agree with much of what he is saying, but there is some truth to it. Who are we to deem that a certain area should be stopped from continuing along sucsessional stages and be reverted back to a historical fuction(using my prarie example)? How are we to determine the value of what is an intact ecosystem that has been existing for thousands of years and compare that to an ecosystem, functionally and ecologically the same, yet "created" through restoration? These are the things I ask myself.

Draba v.

...a postscript of the hope of spring.

Also, I would add that some plants, by the nature of their refuse, alter the pH of the enviroment they are in, and eventually the diversity of the area. Eastern White Pine (P. strobus) has naturally acidic needles. When they fall to the forest floor, they do not decompose quickly because of their acidity. The acidity of the deepening blanket of needles alters the flora of bacteria and protists that reside in the soil. The acidity of the needles also alter the pH of the soil itself, detering other plant life which is not receptive to acidic soils. Thus you find monotypical stands of E. White Pine, which have made themselves a special place of their own, just by the acidity of their needles.

Draba v.

....a postscript for the hope of spring.