Ecological Restoration

[freeztar]

This is a topic that is dear to me, but that's not why I started this thread...

Tonight, I had the pleasure of meeting a Biologist that has been researching for 30 years. His story was telling...

He claimed that 99.9% of species were wiped out from human disturbance, in disturbed lands of the temperate zone (much of the USA). We got into a bit of a debate about this because I believe that ecological restoration *can* occur. He *does not*.

I was rather surprised, but I also know when to shut up and listen.

My arguments failed skeptical criticism. On a basic, ecological level, he was right.

His argument that convinced me was that each plot of land (say a square meter) is significantly different from the next (biologically speaking). He stated that it would be impossible to establish a "germ growth" from imported materials.

I argued against this with little luck, but I must admit that I'm much better off learning from these folks, than casting them, and their theories, aside.

This guy has done some serious research and he believes that our present day ecology is a laughable replacement for what we have.

I tend to agree with him, but I think that restoration is still a good objective.

How do you feel about it?

[Ahmabeliever]

I totally agree, our farming methods are a joke. And horticultural science is a worse joke. We've known for decades that the NPK model is ruining the environment only it's trendy to start to talk about now.

Restoration is a joke if you're not at least attempting to reseed fungi and bacteria.

Without micro-biology restoration is merely landscaping.

This guy is another doom merchant, frankly, I'm sick of hearing the problems seems far too many are focused on complaining and doing nothing else. I prefer to stick with people focused on answers.

When the going gets tough, the majority get to complaining.

[Michaelangelica]

Yes it worries me that locally, on the edges of Sydney , developers are required to collect and re-grow local plant seeds (I don't think this happens a lot in practice)
But little regard is made for the indigenous micro flora/fauna in the soil.
Now with all the talk about compost teas, Terra preta and soil inoculatants becoming available, I just worry about the incredible zoo under our feet we may be loosing. before we even have had time, energy, intelligence, the tecnology or the expertise to catalogue it.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by freeztar

...
He claimed that 99.9% of species were wiped out from human disturbance, in disturbed lands of the temperate zone (much of the USA). We got into a bit of a debate about this because I believe that ecological restoration *can* occur. He *does not*.

I was rather surprised, but I also know when to shut up and listen.

My arguments failed skeptical criticism. On a basic, ecological level, he was right.

His argument that convinced me was that each plot of land (say a square meter) is significantly different from the next (biologically speaking). He stated that it would be impossible to establish a "germ growth" from imported materials.

I argued against this with little luck, but I must admit that I'm much better off learning from these folks, than casting them, and their theories, aside.

This guy has done some serious research and he believes that our present day ecology is a laughable replacement for what we have.
I tend to agree with him, but I think that restoration is still a good objective.
How do you feel about it?

Don't Forget....

When we speak of wiping out 99.9% of species (biodiversity), we often forget that number includes all the soil microbes.

Restoration projects focus mainly on the 5-15% (my guess) of above ground species (plants and animals).

Landscaping is a good characterization of that kind of restoration. I also think that kind of restoration foster the below-ground restoration; and that below-ground restoration (at least functional) is much easier to achieve.

Lands (& oceans) are the lungs of the planet, and the microbes are the gas exchange mechanism.
Lands (& oceans) also serve as the metabolic parallel in this "body" metaphor; and again the microbes are the mechanism by which food and nutrients are produced, and homeostasis (temp., pH, etc.) is maintained.

....and recall, homeostasis is itself a process, a balancing act; not a static, ideal state (except for that moment).
Homeostasis is the the act of keeping things from straying too far from that ideal balance; and it involves the monitoring and exchange of massive amounts of information.

Great Topic. I jotted these thoughts (above) earlier; but I hope to add more later.
This topic gets to the heart of the problem ...how we save ...bio-geosphere.

[Rade]

FREETZAR:

According to your biology friend, for the past 25 years, the editors of this journal have been wasting lots of ink:
Ecological Restoration

Sounds like a problem of definition to me. Of course there is a science of Restoration Ecology--which differs from the biological process of making exact copies (such as mitosis). For example, if a dam is removed on a free-flowing river, then you have a process of Restoration Ecology, e.g., the biological communities are restored to the pre-dam (background) ecosystem state. Now, this action differs from trying to re-create a wetland lost to development. Here I would agree, it is very difficult (perhaps impossible) to re-create the wetland system structures and functions that were lost.

[InfiniteNow]

An amazing show on NOVA last night. Lord of the Ants.

MAN OF IDEAS

How do you take the measure of a man who has achieved as much as E.O. Wilson has in his 50-year-plus career? A man who has distinguished himself as scientist, conservationist, writer, artist, teacher, and speaker? A thinker who has launched not just careers but entire scientific disciplines? Like the biodiversity he champions, the depth and breadth of Wilson's accomplishments stagger the mind. One way to sum up his achievements is through his books (two of which have won Pulitzer Prizes). Here, briefly learn about some of the Harvard emeritus professor's most significant contributions, as documented in a dozen of his books.—Peter Tyson

Watch it in its entirety for free online:

NOVA | Lord of the Ants | Watch the Program | PBS

• Chapter 1: Seeing the Big Picture
• Chapter 2: The Chemical Language of Ants
• Chapter 3: Sociobiology and Its Discontents
• Chapter 4: Preserving Life on Earth
• Chapter 5: 78 Years Young

[Thunderbird]

He claimed that 99.9% of species were wiped out from human disturbance, in disturbed lands of the temperate zone (much of the USA).

This cannot be accurate number.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Rade

FREETZAR:

According to your biology friend, for the past 25 years, the editors of this journal have been wasting lots of ink:
Ecological Restoration

Sounds like a problem of definition to me. Of course there is a science of Restoration Ecology--which differs from the biological process of making exact copies (such as mitosis). For example, if a dam is removed on a free-flowing river, then you have a process of Restoration Ecology, e.g., the biological communities are restored to the pre-dam (background) ecosystem state. Now, this action differs from trying to re-create a wetland lost to development. Here I would agree, it is very difficult (perhaps impossible) to re-create the wetland system structures and functions that were lost.

I agree Rade.
What was shocking about his comments were the definitive endpoints. He was talking about extinction. If we look at 1 square meter of soil and document every species present and then wipe out 99% of them, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to restore the complete micro-ecosystem function.

I tend to think that the niches will eventually be filled through evolution, but of course, in this case it would take a very long time to restore (and would likely be quite different).

[freeztar]

Here's an article from the NY Times which talks about stream restoration and the difficulties in doing it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/sc...ewanted=1&_r=1