* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download biod10
Biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Conservation psychology wikipedia , lookup
Ecological economics wikipedia , lookup
Overexploitation wikipedia , lookup
Fire ecology wikipedia , lookup
Human impact on the nitrogen cycle wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Sustainable forest management wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Conservation biology wikipedia , lookup
Sustainable agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical ecology wikipedia , lookup
Pleistocene Park wikipedia , lookup
Natural environment wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Payment for ecosystem services wikipedia , lookup
Ecological resilience wikipedia , lookup
Ecosystem-based management wikipedia , lookup
Gabriel E. Tamaska March 27, 2001 What ecosystem management really is What exactly is ecosystem management? In the dictionary ecosystem is defined as “a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with its environment.” And management is defined as “the act or process of taking charge of; supervising.”(Lycos dictionary) It would seem ecosystem management is taking charge of and supervising the ecosystem, that is simple enough, but why does the ecosystem need managing. It seems to have done rather well for itself over the last billion years. The answer is simple; we want to use the ecosystem’s resources and still have them available to us in the future. Indeed, we have vastly increased the land’s natural carrying capacity through our management, but at what cost? The basic premise behind the idea of ecosystem management is that humans can manage the ecosystem better than it can manage itself. Were the ecosystem free of human pressures this would be ridiculous since all the components in the ecosystem are evolving and have evolved to exist in the most efficient (easiest) way possible. The ecosystem contains a degree of complexity that baffles human minds and computers, leading us to resort to complex mathematical models that represent a simplification of what the ecosystem is. The ecosystem does have human impact, though, and so in many ways people can manage the ecosystem better than it can manage itself. Humans can manage the ecosystem to produce a greater timber or sap yield than it naturally would. We can manage it so it will support abnormally high populations of game animals. We can manage it so that visitors can safely interact with wildlife. All these management practices have been done and they are certainly better that the alternative. In the early 19th century timber harvest in MI was not managed and massive fires raked the state, burning the land and throwing pollution into the atmosphere. Under management trees are harvested and new ones are planted, the forest is given some meant to recover and produce a future yield. We can manage the ecosystem to continue producing the resources and services we are so hungry for, we can manage it to suite our needs and continue functioning. We can’t manage it, though, for biodiversity, for the complex balance each species within has. That part of ecosystem management is best left to the ecosystem itself, but it won’t be, because we want our continued resources and to get them we must make the ecosystem produce them. Granted, recently policy makers have tried to shift ecosystem management away from the heavy use and more towards ecosystem preservation and natural function, but it still management, and any function reached is artificially maintained. Grumbine states five ecosystem management goals, and all reflect the priority of human use. “Maintain viable populations of all native species in situ.” It sounds noble but it has problems. First, the wording viable populations infers that “excess” population is expendable, and we don’t truly know what a viable population is. Second, this absolutely stops any evolution, since all present native species are to be maintained and all new species eradicated. “Represent, within protected areas, all native ecosystem types across their natural range of variation” This too sounds good, and it is certainly a step up, but it too has problems. Like the first, it stops evolution, and ecosystems are all tied together. If a contiguous gradient is preserved in a series of fragments will the fragments still function the way they used to? “Maintain evolutionary and ecological processes.” The first two statements are counter to this one, and it is hard to maintain what we don’t understand. There may be subtle changes that we don’t recognize and fail to preserve. “Manage over periods of time long enough to maintain the evolutionary potential of species and ecosystems.” This could be done, but it is ironic to preserve evolutionary potential while stopping evolution. In addition if ecosystems are limited to fragments they will have to space to evolve. “Accommodate human use and occupancy within these constraints.” This is the clincher…human use. This is probably the one goal that will be accomplished. The whole purpose for this plan is to accommodate human use. Were humans to all move to a city and recycle every resource (leaving the ecosystem to itself) ecosystem management would not be necessary, but we want our timber products and our gold rings, ore peaceful picnics and thrilling pictures. We want land to build our homes on and protection from the displaced animals. To do all this the ecosystem must be human managed. It is an ironic point that for all we know we can’t reproduce ecosystem function. Out attempt in the Biosphere II failed, people came out months early, eager to breathe earth’s ample oxygen. It seems that the ecosystem is maintaining its function, despite our best efforts. People dominate the planet and we are going to use the ecosystem to support our needs. I admit, I like my nice clothes ant hot tea, a nice fire and plenty of books, all luxuries derived from the ecosystem. Since people will not leave the ecosystem alone it must be managed but I would argue that ecosystem management is not so much the management of the ecosystem as it is the management of the humans using the ecosystem. The trend is toward friendlier use. While there is still a long, long way to go, and while the present proposals fall short, they are certainly better than the alternative.