Author Archives: Jay Qiu

Posts by Jay Qiu

Natural Gas Company and NYC Water Supply

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Jay Qiu

From a Natural Gas Company Point of View:

The changes implemented from the Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) can greatly limit the growth of the natural gas industry. Hydraulic fracturing has widely been known to be a method to efficiently stimulate oil and gas production. Over the years, hydraulic fracturing has expanded and kept up with the demand for energy. While we do understand that people may be concern about fracturing causing contamination, there has been little evidence that fracturing actually contaminates water supplies.

There have been many published studies and agency investigations that have reported that there is no direct connection between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination. Cases where hydraulic fracturing was involved with contamination often had gas migration that was caused by improperly cased and cemented wells, or excessive pressure from the outside. For example, in Pennsylvania, contamination was caused by methane that had migrated to the water wells that were improperly cased and cemented. There were similar incidents in other areas too. In other words, many groundwater contamination incidents were caused by poor well construction or surface activities rather than a specific hydraulic fracturing process.

In addition, there have been many people who stated that additional regulation is unnecessary. Many state agencies argue against additional regulation because hydraulic fracturing has a long successful history in developing oil and gas resources. Our industry representatives have also stated that additional regulation on fracturing would likely slow domestic gas development and increase energy prices. For these reasons, regulation could cause additional and unnecessary problems.

Since the FAD limits us from performing hydraulic fracturing near the watershed areas, we are forced to choose other areas to perform this task. There is currently no evidence that hydraulic fracturing cause contamination in water supplies. We strongly encourage the EPA and the city to rethink about this requirement.

Source of Information:

Tiemann, Mary. Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Issues. Washington, D.C.. UNT Digital Library. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc83959/. Accessed December 2, 2012.

Questions for Emma Marris

Posted on October 27, 2012 by Jay Qiu

1. How do your daily activities incorporate your ideas of a rambunctious garden or the seven goals listed in the last chapter?

2. In class, we went over some of the worst invasive species in history. While you definitely have a positive view on invasive species, why did you choose not to give more information on destructive invasive species like the zebra mussel?

3. What are your thoughts on the High Lines in New York City? What would you like to see in the High Lines in the future?

4. Is there anything in the book you would like to add or change? Why or why not?

5. What topic are you currently studying on or working on?

Potential Poster Questions

Posted on October 7, 2012 by Jay Qiu

1. Is there any trend that indicates that New York City’s energy is getting cleaner? If so, how is New York City getting cleaner energy? If not, what steps should New York City take to get cleaner energy?

2. Why are pests, such as cockroaches and mice, more common in certain areas of New York City? Is the overall number of pests increasing or decreasing in New York City?

3. What are some recent invasive species in New York City?  How have these species affected humans or other species in the area?

Marris Chapters 10 Response

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Jay Qiu

The final chapter of Rambunctious Garden lists some alternative goals for conservation. These goals do not have any association with the “pristine wilderness” idea, but they are alternate directions we can take to conserve nature. Of course, “no single goal will work in all situations” (154). Some goals are better suited for certain environments and other goals may be better suited for certain species. In the end, many of Marris’s alternative goals do sound reasonable for the future.

The first goal is protecting the rights of other species. This goal essentially gives all species and ecosystems similar human rights and privileges. However, this goal has a large amount of bias. After all, this goal can leave out many “plants, mountains, and landscapes” (155). While mountains and landscapes are nonliving, they are still a part of the ecosystem. It would also be rather difficult to give “rights” to mountains.

The second goal is protecting charismatic megafauna. Protecting charismatic megafauna sounds like a reasonable goal because the megafaunas are often the species that become extinct the fastest. In addition, protecting the megafaunas keep the ecosystem stable since many are keystone species or “species that have a great effect on how an ecosystem works and what it looks like” (156). Lastly, megafaunas, like dophins and elephants, have popular human support, which means there will be many people agreeing on this goal.

The third goal is slowing the rate of extinctions. Slowing the rate of extinctions involves treating every species as equally valuable. This view on the species makes it more cost-effective to stop extinction since there is a guarantee that a species will be save. Unfortunately, there will probably be a great amount of opposition for the idea since people do have favorite species. If every species is equally weighted, this “might mean that if the budget is tight, your favorite species may not get saved” (159).

The fourth goal is protecting genetic diversity. Protecting genetic diversity will enhance the survival of a particular species since there will be more genetic variants that could to lead to “adaptations that help them thrive in a warmer world” (161). Similarly, the fifth goal focuses on defending biodiversity. This goal focuses on protecting the complexity of the ecosystem including the small interactions between species. However, this goal may be difficult to get people to agree on since the world’s “real complexity is hidden and not highly valued by our society” (163).

The sixth goal is maximizing ecosystem services. Many people believe that places with higher biodiversity have better ecosystem services, but there is insufficient evidence. Marris suggest that this goal can be a way to achieve other types of goals. Lastly, the seventh goal is to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. This goal suggests that everyone enjoy nature in some way. Since this value is in many people, Marris suggests that we should also protect it.

Marris definitely have many reasonable goals for conserving nature. Many of these goals do work, but it may be difficult to get everyone to agree on the same goal. Marris also points out that we should be more open about the cost of conserving nature. In summary, she states “be honest about goals and costs, keep land from mindless development, and try just about everything” (170). In the end, it is up to humans to make these decisions.

Marris Chapters 8 and 9 Response

Posted on September 30, 2012 by Jay Qiu

Throughout Rambunctious Garden, Marris has already made her case that creating a “pristine wilderness” is near impossible. She has stated many times that there are other ways to help nature. In Chapter 8 and 9, she offers solutions to help nature and ways for humans to coexist with nature. Marris suggests designer ecosystems and conservation everywhere as two ways to help nature.

Designer ecosystems functions mainly to make the original ecosystem even better. In the past, many ecologists have assumed that before humans arrived, “ecosystems were always maximally efficient at such functions as purifying water, supporting diverse life, keeping sediment from washing away, and so on” (126). However, there is currently some desire to engineer a possibly new ecosystem such as adding additional features to aid the species living there. For example, there are rats eating the chicks of flightless bird in an ecosystem. Instead of getting rid of the rats, scientists “are drilling more nesting holes into the rocks for the birds” (127). This does not reset the ecosystem to the original baseline, but it does give the birds are greater chance to survive. In other words, these designer ecosystems are made to make the habitat better for the species.

Marris also expands her idea of a “rambunctious garden” by telling the reader that conservation can happen everywhere. She states that the “project of conservation is not just defending what we have, but adding lands to our portfolio and deepening value of the lands in play” (135). Since most of the land is already being used on the planet, there should be a greater focus on deepening the use of the land. Corridors can be use to connect small areas together. This will prevent species from leaking and “gene pools can stay large and vital” (137). Connectivity appears to be one key aspect for conservation.

In addition, Marris focuses on how regular people can help connect with nature. Many state conservation agencies have urged people to let nature take over their garden. It may not look pleasing to the eye, but this type of garden creates a more diverse and rambunctious feel to it. Marris states that “If New Yorkers planted more fertile plants and loosened up their gardening standards, bees zooming across the five boroughs could tie isolated specimens together into a metapopulation” (146). Of course, this would create a place with more insects and possible pests such as mosquitoes. In the end, “individuals and communities will have to gauge their own level of tolerance for such threat” (149).

Marris’s idea of a “rambunctious garden” definitely makes much more sense now. Since reverting nature back to a “pristine wilderness” is impossible, people should live in coexistence with nature. After all, “plants and animals are all around us, in our backyards, along roadsides, in city parks” (150). The cities are diverse places for this reason. Marris hopes to grow nature larger than it currently is. However, this will require everyone to change their view on nature. In addition, it will also require a change to the current method of conserving nature. Convincing everyone to agree on the same vision as Marris may be a challenging task in the future.

Marris Chapters 6 and 7 Response

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Jay Qiu

The term “invasive species” often has a negative connotation associated with it. Many ecologists assume that “a species invades, and the ecosystem collapses, species go extinct, and complexity and diversity are replaced with a monotonous and weedy landscape dominated by invaders” (97). While some species do destroy ecosystems, exotic species or “invasive species” can actually benefit some ecosystems and species living in the area.

According to Marris, Davis argues that exotic species can help native species flourish by providing more to the ecosystem. He describes that the introduced species can take “over roles once performed by extinct native species” (105). Furthermore, exotic species can create more habitats and landscape. As Davis explains, “[disturbance] create a more variable landscape, with more kinds of habitats, thus increasing the changes that one niche will suit the arrival” (105). The introduced species can also bring new opportunities and availability of food and nutrients. With all these benefits, it is difficult to see why ecologists would even label exotic species as “invasive.”

Marris also points out that there is some bias associated with the type of species considered to be “native” or “invasive.” Ecologists loosely define these two terms. Since they are loosely defined, almost any species can technically be “invasive.” For example, Kristin Saltonstall confirms that the Phragmites is not an exotic species. Instead, it is a global species that exist in places such as America and Europe. However, it ended up being an aggressive species, so it “behaved” like an invasive species (108). While ecologists strongly believe that these exotic species are causing problems, they are already in many ecosystems. Most are already benefiting the ecosystems and it is entirely possible that these “invasive” species are actually native species. Marris points out “the despised invaders of today may well be the keystone species of the future’s ecosystems” (109).

The ecosystems Marris sees in the future are novel ecosystems. Novel ecosystems are essentially ecosystems that have significant human influence, but they can “function as well or better than native ecosystems and provide for humans with ecosystem services of various kinds” (112). Of course, many traditional ecologists reject this idea because this implies that an ecosystem filled with many exotic species can perform better than a natural ecosystem. Despite their beliefs, “novel ecosystems are now more common than intact ecosystems” (114). In addition, these novel ecosystems look remarkably similar to a “normal” ecosystem. If a regular person was to compare a novel ecosystem with a regular ecosystem, it would be extremely difficult to notice any large differences.

Novel ecosystems create many benefits for the native species. This ecosystem provides certain habitats for native animal species if the original content disappeared. Furthermore, it also provides many services such as filtering water and controlling erosion. Marris describes the ecosystem as “vital and energetic” (121) and compared it to human cultures. Again, it is hard to see why ecologists would despise exotic species and novel ecosystems from this list of benefits. Since there are many novel ecosystems around the world, these ecologists should be studying why these ecosystems are successful instead of ignoring them. There will probably be even more exotic species in different areas in the future. The growing number of novel ecosystems around the world makes them “the future of our planet” (122).

High Line and Stalter

Posted on September 24, 2012 by Jay Qiu

I visited the High Line for the first time on September 20th. After my visit to the High Line, I can definitely say that it is a fantastic place for people to relax and enjoy the scenery around the place. In fact, there was a very peaceful atmosphere on the High Line. Many people were just sitting on the benches or enjoying the surroundings on this elevated railroad. They also did not seem to mind the many pollinators scattered throughout the High Line. While people were relaxing and enjoying the scenery, my group and I were seeking out for pollinators in the area.

The High Line is a place filled with many different plants, insects, birds, and other species. While I could not find many stationary birds in the area, there were quite a number of insects. Of course, many of these insects were pollinators. One of the more common pollinators on the High Lines was the bee. The bees were often found on the pedals of brightly colored flowers including lavender pedals and white-color pedals. I often saw bees with different color and size on various plants, so this shows some of the diversity in the High Line. There were also other insects in the area including a ladybug-like insect and a small orange insect. These pollinators were sometimes difficult to spot due to their small presence.

The High Line is also a great example of a “rambunctious garden.” In Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Marris describes rambunctious gardens happening everywhere in the world. Instead of building walls around nature, people live and interact with the nature. When I saw the High Lines with my group of classmates, I noticed how seamless people interacted with nature. People were not really isolated from the city or from nature. Instead, people seem to be living with nature and accepting what they see on the High Line. It was refreshing to see this. However, this “rambunctious garden” is not perfect. I noticed that there was a small green wire that fenced the plants to the side of the High Line. In a way, this shows some separation between people and nature.

Stalter’s article on the diversity of the High Line supports the idea of a “rambunctious garden.” According to Stalter, humans have greatly influenced the High Line by transporting seeds into the area and by trampling and cutting vegetation. Some people will argue that the High Line is not “pristine” for these two reasons. They are right because the High Line is far from pristine. Many of the species in the High Line were probably accidently transported from a distant land. Even though the High Line may not be “pristine,” it has a peaceful atmosphere where humans and all types of species can interact in the area. This idea of people and nature coexisting and living together definitely supports the idea of a “rambunctious garden.” Perhaps this is the direction we can take to conserve nature in the future.

DOH Portal Assignment

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Jay Qiu

 

This table has data from the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey regarding mice and rats in buildings for the year 2011. According to the table, only 22.8% of households reported having mice or rats in the building.  This means that one out of every four or five New York City household will have a mouse or a rat. The table also shows that the Bronx has the largest percentage of mice and rats reported while Staten Island has the smallest percentage of mice and rats reported. There is not enough data in the table to conclude why this is the case.

This graph shows the general poverty level of the neighborhoods that reported mice or rats in the building.  High poverty is overall decreasing and low poverty is overall increasing. Not surprisingly, the medium poverty had no significant changes. Still, the increase in low poverty and the decrease in high poverty indicate that neighborhoods in 2008 are less in poverty than neighborhoods in 1999.

This graph shows a positive linear correlation between cracks or holes in households and mice and rats in buildings.  As the percentage of cracks or holes in households increase, the percentage of mice and rats in buildings increase. This relationship does not necessarily mean that cracks or holes in households cause more mice and rats to enter households.

This chart shows the number of households that report having mice or rats. According to the chart, the number of households reporting to have mice or rats seems to be relatively the same throughout the years. The year 2005 had the lowest number of reported households with mice or rats, but the number went back up by 2011. The chart suggests that there was no long term change.

This map shows the percent of households reporting mice or rats by neighborhood. It shows that there are two particular areas where mice and rats dominate. The area located around the south end of Bronx and the north end of Manhattan has a large number of households reporting mice or rats. Similarly, the northeast section of Brooklyn has a large number of households reporting mice or rats. On the other hand, Staten Island has the smallest number of reports. The data on this map matches with the data shown in the table from the survey.

Marris Chapter 5 and Puth Burns – Assisted Migration

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Jay Qiu

Assisted migration is essentially moving a species to a new environment in response to the climate changes happening all over the world. Many of these climate changes are caused by “anthropogenic emissions of gases including carbon dioxide and methane and of industrial gases like hydrofluorocarbons” (Marris, 74). With all of this emission happening, the world has become a much hotter place and some places even changed their rain patterns. This directly affects species that cannot survive in warm temperature. Through assisted migration, ecologists want to move these struggling species into a new environment where these species can survive. In other words, if the species can only survive in the cold, the ecologists can move it north.

It seems that assisted migration is a controversial topic to some people. People argue that the organisms could die upon moving to the new environment because the new environment could be lacking “some specific soil microbes or microclimatic condition” (77). Other people say it may create an invasive species and take over the native species. There are even people who say that these species can adapt to the new environment instead of continuing to live in the same environment. While many people do not want assisted migration, Marris actually points out that humans are already doing it unintentionally. According to the Marris’s researchers, the “commercial movements [of plants] may help these species adapts as the climate changes” (83). In addition, the species that we are moving may have been “moved” already. According to Marris, it is completely possible that Garry oak savannas in Canada are a human production. Despite it being a human production, “people are worried that it is unnatural to save them by having humans move them north” (87). In addition, people seem to be very picky with assisted migration. People only seem to assist those species that are considered important. It is very unlikely for people to move “all the beetles and microbes [which is] the vast majority of biodiversity” (89).

Assisted migration can be applied in urban ecology. According to Puth and Burns, there were fewer studies that report species richness in New York’s metropolitan region. They also described that“[most] studies that report trends in species richness [declined]” (17). Furthermore, some of the studies that report an “increasing or stable species richness reflected increases in exotic species” (18). Puth and Burns concluded that there was still an overall decrease in species richness in New York’s metropolitan region. This essentially means that there are fewer unique species in the area. Most of the declines were reported to be from anthropogenic causes including habitat loss and invasive species.  Assisted migration can prevent some of the extinction of these species. However, it is rather unpredictable how much assisted migration can save these species. People can also use assisted migration to move species into the urban environment. Perhaps some species are better adapted to the urban environment and they can live with humans in peace. Assisted migration definitely has potential, but it should not be overused since the effect of assisted migration is still rather unpredictable.

Marris Chapters 3 and 4 – Rewilding Response

Posted on September 9, 2012 by Jay Qiu

On the surface, rewilding sounds like a fantastic idea. Through rewilding, ecologists can study a natural environment free from human interactions. They can also examine how different species interact before the arrival of humans. However, rewilding is not very feasible and it is quite unethical.

According to Dave Foreman, the concept of rewilding comes directly from the food chain of the ecosystems. At the top of the food chain, the predators regulate the population of the other species. If there are fewer predators, the population of the other species decreases. This results into an overpopulation of some species and an extinction of other species. Marris summarizes this by saying that the ecosystem will end up with “fewer species” (60). By reintroducing species into an environment, ecologists hope to restore “evolutionary and ecological potential to populations of large animals… and to inspire people to support nature conservation” (62). It would also prevent the extinction of certain species.

The main problem with rewilding is that it is almost impossible to replicate nature into an environment that existed thousands of years ago.  Dustin Rubenstein points out that “placing proxy animals in a modern landscape could spell trouble” (65). These animals could generate unpredictable results and it could lead to an environment far from the past natural landscape. Furthermore, humans already touched this land thousands of years ago. In Chapter 3, Marris states that many people do not include the early humans because they are not considered “civilized.” However, Marris argues that “first people might have made greater changes to the landscape than the European arrivals ever did” (43). In fact, many large animals died because of the hunters from these early humans. Recreating a landscape with these large animals without the human hunters is arguably not a faithful representation of the environment in the past. Since we cannot recreate this environment, we are essentially observing a completely new environment.

In addition, rewilding is not very ethical. Despite what Donlan said, we are basically playing god since we can pick and choose which species can live and which species can die. In this case, we are basically picking and moving those species that we are interested in studying. Once the species are moved into the new environment, we give the species what it needs to survive. In addition, we can kill off an animal if we want to. In Chapter 4, Vera “called one of the reserve’s staff members to come and shoot [an abandoned calf].” Apparently, “[letting] an animal starve to death is too cruel to be allowed, even in the name of nature” (66). The fact that humans can control life and death of different species through rewilding makes it quite unethical.

Even though humans can create a landscape that looks “natural” to many people, it is not necessarily an ideal environment for studying the past. As Marris points out, “the whole place is cultivated, man-made, created” (70). The fact that it is man-made reinforces the idea that there is no baseline or pristine wilderness. Instead of recreating the past, these ecologists should just focus on the environment of the future. We can start by building a relationship between human and nature instead of separating it.

Marris Chapters 1 and 2 Response

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Jay Qiu

In Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Emma Marris makes it clear that current conservation methods are inefficient and do not work in our world. Within the first few pages, Marris already tells the reader that nature is not “pristine” and it is always changing. She claims that humans already control most of the whole Earth and people should “admit [their] role and even embrace it” (2). In other worlds, people should not depend on the old conservation methods because we have an even greater influence on the world now. This is similar to Kareiva suggesting everyone to not depend on the outdated conversation methods. Marris further adds that nature is more than just “untrammeled wilderness” since nature is almost everywhere in this world.

Marris also shows the reader how the old conservation methods do not work. According to Marris, many people want to transform an area of land into something similar to pre-human existence. Marris often refers to this as the baseline. The baseline is assumed to be “a time in the past or a set of conditions…before all negative changes” (3). However, there is no actual baseline because nature constantly changes. Yellowstone Park is often viewed as one of the most “pristine” places in the world, but it “has always been in flux.” (27). The idea that nature keeps changing makes it impossible to set a baseline because there was never a “zero point” in the first place. Ideally, this zero point should be where everything was in a stable equilibrium, but that is impossible according to Feng Sheng Hu. Marris even argues that if people continue to hold onto the baseline idea for Yellowstone, they may have to make the baseline “under cold circumstances” (35). Of course, this will be very difficult to do with the increasingly warm climate.

I agree with Marris’s case on nature. Regardless of human interaction, nature is always changing and reacting to its surrounding. For this reason, it is near impossible to change nature into a “pristine or untrammeled wilderness.” In fact, Marris calls it a paradox. “A historically faithful ecosystem is necessarily a heavily managed ecosystem… If we define wild as ‘unmanaged,” then the ecosystems that look the most pristine are perhaps the least likely to be truly wild” (12). While managing ecosystems are difficult, Marris argues that managing ecosystems to avoid a large number of extinctions is possible. To be able to do this, people should stop depending on the old romantic view of a “pristine nature” and start embracing the fact that nature is almost everywhere in this world.  In addition, people need to accept the fact that humans are part of many ecosystems. This will change the way people think and perform their conservation method and it will also change the way people react to the term “pristine wilderness.” I think Marris summarized it best by saying to focus on “future, rather than the past, [as] the cutting edge of conservation” (14). Otherwise, we are wasting resources on an unachievable goal by attempting to reserve the past.

Vitousek and Kareiva Response

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Jay Qiu

As discussed in class, the Anthropocene is the era of the human kind. Kareiva describes this era as a period when humans “dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry.” This means humans influence nearly every part of the world in some way. Many people consider this a negative idea since there is a popular belief that nature is fragile and humans are powerful and abusive. While there is evidence that humans are rapidly changing the environment, these changes are not necessarily terrible. Like Kareiva, I believe that people should recognize the strength of nature and they should focus on the relationship between people and nature instead.

Both Vitousek and Kareiva agree that humans are rapidly changing the world. Vitousek states that human activities, such as agriculture and fishing, have altered the Earth’s ecosystem. Similarly, Kareiva admits that humans have changed and destroyed some habitats around the world. While both agree on the general idea of human dominance on the world, Vitousek appears to focus more on the negative consequences of human interaction. For example, Vitousek states that land transformation is the most important cause of extinction, but he adds that even more species will be extinct if this continues. This implies that extinction only leads to more negative changes. On the other hand, Kareiva believes extinctions will continue to happen in the future, but nature is strong enough to adapt to these changes. The American chestnut went extinct due to a foreign disease. Even though the species went extinct, there were no major changes to the forest ecosystem. Kareiva further supports his argument of nature’s resilience by giving examples including the Chernobyl disaster and the 2010 oil spill. Nature responded to these changes and quickly adapted to these situations. Since nature has survived many changes and disasters throughout history, people should acknowledge nature’s strength and resilience.

Both Vitousek and Kareiva offer some solutions to slow the rapid changes happening around the world. Vitousek believes that humans should take greater responsibility in managing the planet. Unfortunately, this is probably difficult to do since there is already a large human population and an overreliance on technology. This means that humans will continue to use technology for their own daily lives and the technology will continue to alter the land, biogeochemical cycles, and modify species population. Furthermore, Vitousek published his article in 1997. The human population and technology have drastically changed since 1997. There is currently a greater demand for resources due to the larger population and greater reliance on technology. While Vitousek want humans to be more responsible with non-human environments, Kareiva suggests finding a conservation method to satisfy both human environments and non-human environments. Satisfying both environments is difficult, but people can start by analyzing the way urban environments interact with nature. Since this type of relationship appears in many human areas, studying this coexistence could give an insight to the conservation method. The coexistence of urban environment and nature is called urban ecology, which will continue to appear in many different areas in the future. Because this is the general direction we are heading, Kareiva’s solution is more likely to be successful.

Comments by Jay Qiu