Restoration: Artifact or Natural Community?

[Drabav]

In "Faking Nature", Eric Katz argues that a restored ecosystem is an artifact created by people to fufills their wants and needs. Because of its "unnaturalness", he argues that restored ecosystems have less integral value than the original, the value stemming from the historical continuity within an ecosystem. Therefore, projects such as restoration and mitigation are useless in trying to restore value to a lanscape. He says that we are "in fact, faking nature".

 

Please, discuss. I have been wanting to have a conversation about this with someone for a while now.

 

Draba v.

 

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

[Aardvark]

Who is Eric Katz and why should anyone care what he thinks?

 

He sounds like a puffed up idiot.

[Drabav]

Seriously now, this is an important question within Ecological Restoration: Is the restored community natural or is it an artifact, the effect of a persons needs or wants upon nature. What causes a community to be natural? Is it a historical continuim or is it the stability of a natural community? or is it neither, is it something to do with the ability to conserve itself apart from human management?

 

Here is an example: If you control-burn a prarie that is slowly converting into a forest, are you creating an artifact, or are you restoring the ecosystem by reintroducing a neccessary element of a prarie ecosystem?

Draba v.

 

...a postscript to a hope of spring.

[Mokele]

Is he trying to say that the restorations are imperfect, due to our admittedly imperfect understanding of ecology? If so, yes, restored ecosystems are inferior to their state prior to damage. But it's much better to restore them than just not bother, so I'm inclined to say, in the current political climate especially, that beggars can't be choosers.

 

However, if he's going on about some sort of moral continuity, or some artificial distinction that terms anything humans have even touched as "un-natural" (in spite of the fact that we are a part and product of nature), I'd have to agree with my long-tongued colleage above.

 

Mokele

[Drabav]

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.

[Mokele]

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.

 

Mokele

[Skye]

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.

[TimeTraveler]

People value untouched nature' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Good post!

 

My personal feelings are similar. If you use the United States as an example, the entire eastern half has largely been stripped of its natural vegitation. In some cases we have fiddled around and tried to repair it to an extent. But because of human population it can never be repaired to the original. Does that affect the United States and the people? Of course it does, when you look at resource needs, for the most part, they cannot be found on the Eastern half. Now what? The western half is being stripped. As population grows, as of course it does, the Western half will become too populated to ever match the original. Time to strip somewhere else.

 

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.

 

Take only what you really need, and let nature be left alone as much as you can. If we do that then the combination of exciting events that give us life will stay healthy enough to continue to provide us with the things we need to live.

[Sayonara]

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.

[coquina]

Here is coastal Virginia, we have a lot of marshes and swamps - "tidal" and "non-tidal wetlands". Man has had a hand in making some of it and destroying some of it. When the Jamestown settlers landed, the water was clearer and the creeks were deeper, so you could get boats closer to shore. When the land began to be farmed extensively, rain washed a lot of earth down into the streams. (Tobacco was king, but it strips the soil of nutrients - they farmed the fields a few years and then cleared more land.) The bottom of the rivers became silted in with a lot of alluvium, and marshed began to form. Then people started to fill in the marshes.

 

We also have, "non-tidal wetlands", there is a very interesting ecological community called the "Grafton sink-hole complex". People tried to fill these too - but they kept coming back. In later years, it was determined that they are directly related to the Chesapeake Bay impact crater - there are underground faults that makes the surface unstable. Because the land has subsided, and is sort of "saucer shaped" in many places we have many low areas that don't drain properly. In earlier years, when most people first had privys and later septic tanks, a lot of the ground got contaminated and upper reaches of the river became contaminated with fecal bacteria. This also occurred because of extensive livestock farming - especially pigs.

 

So - when people talk about causing damage to the environment by dredging the river, they are really only attempting to undo what has occurred since 1607 - but what do you do with the dredged material? - filling in marshes only causes more trouble.

 

The sinkhole complex has its own ecosystem, with unique frogs and salamanders - however, roads run between them and the critters can't move about from sinkhole to sinkhole without getting squashed.

 

It is, indeed, very difficult to restore something back to the way it was. The habitats took million of years to form, and one just can't dig a hole with a back hoe, throw in some waterloving plants and critters, and expect the remade ecosystem to thrive. (Especially since a number of very hardy non-native species like Japanese honeysuckle have been established and gone wild - that stuff crops up everywhere and chokes out other plants.)

 

Also - the heads of almost all our creeks were dammed during colonial times to make reservoirs and tidemills. That again cut down the amount of water flowing through the river bottoms.

 

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.

[Sayonara]

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.

[coquina]

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.

 

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.

[Aardvark]

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.

 

Exactly.

 

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.

 

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

 

It sounds like this 'Eric Katz' is simply playing word games, not actually contributing anything useful to conservation.

[syntax252]

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.

 

Precisely old man and I might add to the point that mankind, being a quite natural evloutionary development, is just another contributor to the "natural world."

 

Why do people insist on treating man's involvement in the ecology as somehow unnatural? It isn't as if we immigrated here from some galaxy far far away. We were born here.

[Drabav]

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.

[TimeTraveler]

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.

 

Precisely old man and I might add to the point that mankind' date=' being a quite natural evloutionary development, is just another contributor to the "natural world."

 

Why do people insist on treating man's involvement in the ecology as somehow unnatural? It isn't as if we immigrated here from some galaxy far far away. We were born here.[/quote']

 

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.

[Sayonara]

Why do people insist on treating man's involvement in the ecology as somehow unnatural? It isn't as if we immigrated here from some galaxy far far away. We were born here.

Our involvement per se is not unnatural at all. It's when we do things that would not happen otherwise that a distinction can be made.

 

For instance, if a species of eagle starts to decline (for whatever reason) and we intervene to increase numbers, we're messing with selective processes. Or if we dump chemicals that would never arise on their own in earth's geosphere, we're creating an abiotic factor that is literally alien to the ecologies it encounters.

 

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.

 

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

[Drabav]

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.

[syntax252]

Our involvement per se is not unnatural at all. It's when we do things that would not happen otherwise that a distinction can be made.

 

For instance' date=' if a species of eagle starts to decline (for whatever reason) and we intervene to increase numbers, we're messing with selective processes. Or if we dump chemicals that would never arise on their own in earth's geosphere, we're creating an abiotic factor that is literally alien to the ecologies it encounters.

.[/quote']

 

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.

 

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.

 

Now, I am not suggesting that we should not recognize our potential to foul our own nest, and utilize our ability to plan in order to keep that from happening, but if we do make a consious effort to refrain from that, we will be the only member of the animal kingdom to do so.

[Hellbender]

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.

[Drabav]

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.

[Sayonara]

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.

No, it's because there's no such thing as a natural biotic ecological imbalance - it's a contradiction in terms.

 

 

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.

I don't see your point. That cycle is a completely normal part of many predator-prey ecological interactions.

 

 

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.

Yes, that's because beaver's dams are part of the habitat's pre-existing ecological network and part of the beaver life history. Human-built dams are neither of those things.

 

 

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

True, but anthills don't tend to displace tens of thousands of hectares, nor do they sever the interfaces between different habitats, nor do they contaminate food webs, nor do they alter the local microclimate.

[syntax252]

 

 

I don't see your point. That cycle is a completely normal part of many predator-prey ecological interactions.

 

The point is that the foxes breed faster that is healthy for their long term welfare--just as humans do. The balance between available resources and numbers of sustainees gets out of whack and the foxes suffer starvation.

 

 

Yes' date=' that's because beaver's dams are part of the habitat's pre-existing ecological network [b']and[/b] part of the beaver life history. Human-built dams are neither of those things.

 

The beaver dams were not part of the ecology before the beaver showed up. And since humans are a natural product of evolution, their dams are just as "natural" as the beaver's are. If the beaver knew how to generate electricity to operate power tools, don't you think that they would do so? Hell, if they were smart enough, they would be cutting trees with chain saws.

 

 

True, but anthills don't tend to displace tens of thousands of hectares, nor do they sever the interfaces between different habitats, nor do they contaminate food webs, nor do they alter the local microclimate.

 

There are anthill colonies in Africa that cover a LOT or area. There are also prairie dog towns in the US that one cannot shoot accross. But the real reason that ants and prairie dogs have not taken over the planet is because they lack the IQ to do so.

 

Do you think that intelligence in somehow unnatural?

[Sayonara]

The point is that the foxes breed faster that is healthy for their long term welfare--just as humans do. The balance between available resources and numbers of sustainees gets out of whack and the foxes suffer starvation.

Having studied the H-W equilibrium models, vortex distributions and so forth, I can honestly say I have no idea why you think that is relevant.

 

 

The beaver dams were not part of the ecology before the beaver showed up.

Something of a truism.

 

 

And since humans are a natural product of evolution, their dams are just as "natural" as the beaver's are.

Non sequitur.

 

 

There are anthill colonies in Africa that cover a LOT or area. There are also prairie dog towns in the US that one cannot shoot accross.

I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Neither case shares the habitat-modifying features I listed for human cities.

 

 

But the real reason that ants and prairie dogs have not taken over the planet is because they lack the IQ to do so.

I don't think there is just one reason, given the way that ecology works. Anyway, most biologists agree that insects are the dominant macroscopic organisms on Earth, not humans, so IQ (being a relativistic human deceipt in any case) is clearly not a factor.

 

 

Do you think that intelligence in somehow unnatural?

No, but I think it's off-topic.

[syntax252]

Having studied the H-W equilibrium models, vortex distributions and so forth, I can honestly say I have no idea[/u'] why you think that is relevant.

 

WOW

 

 

I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Neither case shares the habitat-modifying features I listed for human cities.

 

Speaking of habitat modification, have you ever visited a pig farm? Or have you ever been around where wild hogs have been in abumdance? Now there is habitat modifiaction.

 

Also, the Beaver doesn't "modify his habitat?"

 

 

I don't think there is just one reason, given the way that ecology works. Anyway, most biologists agree that insects are the dominant macroscopic organisms on Earth, not humans, so IQ (being a relativistic human deceipt in any case) is clearly not a factor.

 

Oh, it is clearly a factor. It is, after all, the human species that is in danger of altering the planet to the point that it is no longer fit for haditation--is it not?