Author Archives: Lena Yang

Posts by Lena Yang

Anti-Development Upstate Stakeholders

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Lena Yang

One of the four primary stakeholder groups are the upstate stakeholders. According to E.C. Vintinner’s case study, “Thirsty Metropolis: A Case Study of New York City’s Drinking Water”, these upstate stakeholders include the Coalition of Watershed Towns and representatives of eight upstate counties. Although there are some residents who advocate for watershed land acquisition, there are just as many who oppose it. Aware that any action would immediately and directly affect those who reside in nearby counties, these anti-development upstate stakeholders believe the impact would be detrimental environmentally.

Land acquisition for watersheds will ultimately involve the process of hydraulic fracturing, also known as “hydrofracking”. Hydrofracking uses a mixture of water, sand and chemicals to extract natural gas from shale rock. Although the extraction of the country’s own natural gas seems ideal, it is not. The industry has not regulated drilling processes. The mixture goes well into millions of gallons, which means that the chemical portion is also great. Most of these chemicals are known carcinogens, such as benzene (known to cause cancer). Not only will these harmful toxins pollute the environment and harm wildlife, they will also adversely affect the health of many residents.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, “Experts’ Review of NY Fracking Soon to be Complete”, “unregulated drilling processes numbering in the hundreds of thousands have impacts on air quality including global warming, drinking water and other waters, soils, air quality, and nearby populations.” Drinking water quality would decline. Some may even see their water supply change in color or become flammable. In addition, workers in the industry will first be exposed to these adverse effects. Serious worker exposures may cause many deadly diseases such as silicosis. In a health impact assessment for hydraulic fracturing study done in Colorado, several health threats were identified. Hence, anti-development upstate stakeholders will not allow such a process to take place in their counties. They will certainly not allow it because the drilling process is unregulated.

Supporters of hydraulic fracturing insist that drilling for natural gas would have more pros than cons. They believe that with better regulation, hydrofracking would boost the economy for the long run. They also believe that the adverse health effects would be monitored to be little to none. But despite EPA’s strengthening of the right-to-know provision for chemicals used by drilling companies, there is still company censorship of toxins released into the environment. This makes anti-development upstate stakeholders further doubt any good land acquisition for watersheds would do.

 

Source:

Wall Street Journal. “Experts’ review of NY fracking soon to be complete – WSJ.com.” Business News & Financial News – The Wall Street Journal – Wsj.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://online.wsj.com/article/AP0708f481ec2844cca10389aca8a10053.html>.

 

Questions for Emma Marris

Posted on October 29, 2012 by Lena Yang

1. Has the advocacy and support of “rambunctious gardens” impacted your life significantly, and if so, in what way?

2. Conservationists often do whatever they can to save resources they use in their daily life. This would include paper, water, etc. What do you do to conserve?

3. Of the seven ultimate goals you listed and argued for, which one in particular is the most important to you? Which one is the most feasible?

4. Was ecology a field you always wanted to pursue, or was it something that you stumbled upon and loved?

5. If you could change one thing in your past, what would it be and why?

Poster Questions

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Lena Yang

1. How polluted are the rivers in the tri-state area? How are their ecosystems different or similar?

2. Is there a difference in the quality of drinking water throughout the five boroughs? If so, what health issues have risen?

3. How can species in different regions of New York City (parks in different boroughs) be compared? What are some of the reasons for similarities and differences among these regions?

Rambunctious Garden – A Menu of New Goals

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Lena Yang

Emma Marris talks about a number of goals in the last chapter of her novel, Rambunctious Garden. In chapter 10, “A Menu of New Goals”, she lists seven aspirations for our ecological future. These include protecting the rights of other species, protecting charismatic megafauna, slowing the rate of extinctions, protecting genetic diversity, defining and defending biodiversity, maximizing ecosystem services, and protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature, respectively. They are feasible goals that are possible to achieve.

She talks about how “humans must reduce their current intensive impact on the Earth” that satisfies “frivolous desires of their consumer society” for the first goal (Marris 155). It is simply the right and moral thing for us to do. Humans owe a responsibility to the natural world. Nature should not be exploited. In fact, nature should have rights just as humans do. Just because we can think and communicate does not mean we have the right to destroy or alter nature.

In the second goal, Marris explains that protecting megafauna does not mean we neglect smaller species. Just because we favor “big mammals with big eyes”, species like lichen and parasites are often overlooked (156). We have to take all the species of an ecosystem into account. Doing so would also help the rate of extinctions, which she talks about for the next goal. All species are “equally valuable” (158). Sometimes, preserving a particular species may cause harm. An example would be populating amphibians in zoos. It takes time to breed populations. How long would it take before ecological niches change and replace these species?

In the fourth goal, protecting genetic diversity is spelled out. Humans do not know for sure the exact distinctions between different animals. For example, studies have shown that “some brown bears are more closely related to polar bears than they are to some other brown bears” (160). Our current concept of species is not accurate and should not be used to determine which groups of organisms should be protected. In the same category, the fifth goal is protecting biodiversity –  a high value. Although it is a difficult conservation goal, it embraces the whole planet and everything natural about it.

“Bits of land and the species therein are valuable to the extent that they help out humanity” (162). For the sixth goal, Marris talks emphasizes how vital ecological resources and services are. Without these services, society would have to spend a fortune. Pollinators help with our harvests. If bees were to go extinct, it would be a huge headache to get flowers pollinated.

For the last goal, she talks about how individuals feel spiritually connected to nature. Humans are attracted to beauty such as the one nature has. These provide “joyful cohabitation” to our future and our planet (170). Therefore, there should be some level of human intervention in nature. Together, beauty of nature can be maximized with the concept of rambunctious gardens. These ecosystems do not harm others. Not only are they aesthetically pleasing, these recreational ecosystems are beneficial to society.

Rambunctious gardening is also a way to manage all these goals. As Marris states, “we’ve forever altered the Earth, and so now we cannot abandon it to a random fate. It is our duty to manage it” (171).

Rambunctious Garden: Chapters 8&9

Posted on October 1, 2012 by Lena Yang

Emma Marris has argued throughout her novel, Rambunctious Garden, that “pristine wilderness” is unrealistic and unfeasible to recreate. Human activities have influenced nature for as long as we existed. It is impossible, if not difficult, to reverse all the impact that has been done or to restore ecosystems. Marris further supports her argument in chapters 8 and 9. She talks about creating “designer ecosystems” that can realistically benefit nature. Together with the idea of “conservation everywhere”, both humans and nature can benefit and coexist with one another.

Marris believes that designer ecosystems are “a best-case future” (Marris 131). They would “create ‘new environments that are ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding and favorable to the continued growth of civilization'” (131). Parks would still be kept for those who want that true feeling of nature, but a majority of these types of environments would be designer ecosystems. These are essentially the rambunctious gardens which Marris appropriately titles her novel. René Dubos, an advocate, microbiologist and environmental thinker, is convinced that managed nature designed to support humans and other species will prosper in the future (130). Perhaps one of the most appealing characteristics of designer ecosystems is from the economic standpoint. It would be far more affordable for governments to maintain these rambunctious gardens than “pristine wilderness” efforts. These ecosystems would utilize land and make them more efficient.

In addition, species would be aided with appropriate habitats. Marris provides us with an example of sinking old ships to provide places for coral reefs to populate (126). Another example would be penguin habitat manipulation. “The manipulation doesn’t return penguin habitat to any particular baseline; it makes the habitat better than ‘normal’ for the birds (127). Nonetheless, there are many people who argue in favor of “Island Civilization”, where “humans retreat to very dense cities, voluntarily limit their own population, and let the rest of the planet run wild” (132).

In these chapters, Marris clarifies why rambunctious gardens are more realistic and beneficial to nature and society. I certainly favor the idea of designer ecosystems simply because it is more plausible to achieve man and nature coexistence. I understand the beauty and love for “pristine wilderness”, but we can create just as beautiful (or even more) ecosystems. Historian Roderick Nash addresses that the “garden scenario” is “human control of nature” that is both total and beneficent” (130). Soil composition and fertility is well maintained, rivers are clean and pure. If designer ecosystems can benefit in many ways, it seems as if we have the best of both worlds. There will still be true nature in addition to these created environments. This can please advocates of pristine wilderness and rambunctious gardens. Moreover, a lot of money will be saved that can be used to better both systems.

Rambunctious Garden: Chapters 6&7

Posted on September 27, 2012 by Lena Yang

Emma Marris commences on the notions of invasive species and novel ecosystems in Chapters 6 and 7 of her novel, Rambunctious Garden. Invasive species, also known as “exotic species”, have been previously introduced to particular ecosystems by humans. Most scientists refer to these species by the former term because they are commonly believed to be injurious to their new environment. For example, “some introduced species can cost farers and ranches big money, as they destroy crops or displace more palatable species on the range” (Marris 99). On the other hand, we have novel ecosystems – man-made niches that are not natural. They are not closely maintained by humans. Surprisingly, these novel ecosystems are found to perform well. Some in fact, perform better than other existing ecosystems because invasive species help native species thrive.

In novel ecosystems, invasive species are present to help support rare native species. Rewilders have introduced species specifically for this purpose. Marris gives us the example of the Atlantic shad. It swims in the Pacific Northwest to help feed endangered salmon (109). In addition, introduced species increase the level of biodiversity in the long run. Both the introduced and native species will learn to adapt and coexist with one another. These new ecological relationships are only possible if we give them a chance before removing them all. We are constantly at war with species we think are “invasive”, such as the Phragmites. Park specialists are on a continuous look out to destroy these plants. It has been discovered however, that the Phragmites is a global species.

According to Marris, Joe Mascaro found “forty-six novel forests dominated by a variety of different species and growing on lava flows of varying ages at various altitudes” in Hawaii (119). There were as many species in these novel forests as native forests. Mascaro argues against the destruction of these modified niches, specifically because they are useful in the restoration of native species. They provide “crucial habit[s]”. Furthermore, he found that these novel forests had great productivity. With regards to soil nutrients and biomass, some matched while others outproduced native forests.

Nonetheless, it is hard for most scientists to accept the concept of invasive species and novel ecosystems. The world’s novel ecosystems have already changed to accomodate both the introduced and native species. However, it is still evident that invasive species can be extremely detrimental to native ecosystems. Instead of helping native species, introduced species are widely believed to cause extinctions. A dramatic example stated by Marris is “the brown tree snake, native to Australia and nearby countries, [killing] off ten of twelve native forest-dwelling birds on the island of Guam after arriving as a stowaway in cargo ships” (99). Novel ecosystems are possible if scientists can determine which introduced species can be a huge problem. Otherwise, there will always be a constant battle as to whether or not we can fully accept invasive or “exotic” species to create novel ecosystems.

The High Line & Stalter

Posted on September 23, 2012 by Lena Yang

A Panorama of the High Line at 23rd Street

I have been to the High Line several times. It is a park created on abandoned railroad tracks, currently stretching from 10th Avenue, West 13th Street to West 34th Street. The idea of a beautiful oasis or Marris’ “rambunctious garden” in the midst of bustling New York City is riveting, making it a hot tourist attraction. The fact that this is all on vintage railways makes it even more fascinating. People and nature come together.  Many would enjoy its variety of flora and fauna. I did, but never paid close attention to them at an ecological standpoint. This assignment certainly opened my eyes to the different species of plants and animals on the High Line, and how they interact with one another. I was particularly interested in several species of pollinators.

Me on the High Line at 23rd Street

I went to visit the High Line on September 20th, from 1pm to 3pm. There was evidence that Fall was just around the corner. It was windy with the temperature at mid 70s… Some flora had dried out. There were leaves on the ground and trees were changing color. Hence, it was surprising for me to find various species of bees pollinating flowers. In fact, I found different types of bees pollinating the same flora. Two types of pollinators I observed were the bumble bee and the honey bee. The first honey bee I saw was darker in color. It was pollinating the asteraceae flora. According to Stalter, the asteraceae is one of “largest families of flora” present on the High Line. The second honey bee I saw was more yellow in color, pollinating purple colored flora and rosa multiflora. The bumble bee was pollinating  the same flora.

Dark honey bees on asteraceae flora at West 16th Street

Yellow honey bees pollinating rosa multiflora found throughout the High Line

Bumble bees pollinating rosa multiflora found throughout the High Line

A small bird found at 25th Street

This eye-opening visit to the High Line made me acknowledge its great diversity. As I walked through the park, I saw different insects including bees, crickets, pill bugs, flies, and butterflies. I also saw birds frolicking in between the grass. At the same time, there were so many people walking through the High Line. There were also people having lunch on their terraces next to the High Line. After reading Marris’ Rambunctious Garden, I looked at the park with a whole new perspective. Not only is it a pretty place to relax and enjoy the view, it demonstrates an anthropocene. Humans walk through these grasslands. At the same time, they are disturbing ecosystems by “trash deposition, trampling, soil compaction and fire” (Stalter 390). Although these activities are not necessarily good things, they create the High Line we see today – changing habitats that account for diversity. With every visit to the High Line in the future, I will definitely close attention to the variety of flora and fauna in the middle of New York City.

Puth & Burns + Marris’s “Assisted Migration”

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Lena Yang

In Chapter 5 of Emma Marris’s Rambunctious Garden, she talks about the idea of “assisted migration”. Compared to “rewilding” in the previous chapter, assisted migration seems more conceivable. In response to the degradation of habitats from human influence, some believe that moving a species to a different region may populate them and establish a permanent existence or presence. It would certainly help species like the American pika, a small mammal that dies in warm temperatures. According to Marris, “conservationists are increasingly considering moving animals [like the pika] in advance of climate change to places where they might thrive in a warmer future” (Marris 73). Although the notion of assisted migration may seem brilliant and harmless, I suspect that it will do more harm than good.

Species richness is declining. With “urbanization and its consequences occurring throughout the world” (Puth & Burns 18), we strive to save what we can of our depleting nature. However, we cannot use assisted migration as a method to do so. Existing ecosystems are complex – from microorganisms to microclimate. Humans cannot be too sure of how species interact with each other and its surroundings to live. By taking a species from one habitat to another,  “organisms could die” (Marris 77). Marris also states that assisted migration may create invasive species that would push out native species. It would harm existing ecosystems in unpredictable ways. In fact, not much research has been done on assisted migration. In this chapter, Marris primarily mentions flora as opposed to fauna. When scientists studied the Torreya taxifolia of Florida, no conclusions were made as to whether climate change affected the tree’s decline. In depth research would take years, too slow for global warming. Thus, we simply cannot just relocate the T. taxifolia to where we think would be suitable.

In addition, assisted migration seems to contradict rewilding and ecological baselines. The purpose of rewilding and ecological baselines is to bring ecosystems back to the past, unaffected by human actions. Assisted migration is furthering human intervention with nature. If we truly wish to save nature, we should not continue to meddle with it. Marris even states that “if ecosystems have a correct baseline to which we must return…then we absolutely cannot move species from one area to another” (77). The concept is also leaving it up to humans to decide which species to relocate and save. What will happen to the small organisms (beetles, mites) that depend on a specific tree species? Not only may relocating species be harmful to existing ecosystems by becoming invasive species, it may also harm the previous ecosystem.

For these reasons, I presume that assisted migration should not be a conservation tool. It is a tempting method to rescue extinct-to-be species, but we cannot predict how they will do or what they will do to new ecosystems. We also do not know how their previous ecosystems will hold up. Until we are sure and find a safe solution to all these problems, we should not use assisted migration and intervene with nature any further.

Rewilding – Marris Chapters 3 & 4

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Lena Yang

Emma Marris articulates the idea of “rewilding” in her book, Rambunctious Garden. According to her, “rewilding posits that the main factors necessary to keep ecosystems resilient and diverse are the regulation provided by large, top-of-the-food-chain predators; the room for these predators to do their work; and connections between predator ranges so they can meet, mate, and maintain a healthy diverse gene pool” (Marris 60). Essentially, it is a  conservation endeavor to create prehistoric ecosystems devoid of human influence. Ecologists can observe ecosystems before humanity. This would be done by reintroducing particular species back into a specific environment. These species would be predators so that less room is made for “medium-sized predators like raccoons or snakes, who then expand and put significant pressure on little creatures such as songbirds” (60). As a result, there would be less instances of extinction.

Although rewilding seems like the ideal solution, it is not scientifically feasible or ethnically sound. The fact of the matter is that we, humans, have altered the entire world. According to Bill McKibben, “all we can do is make it less bad than it will otherwise be” (55). Marris also states that “there can never be any more of this kind of nature, because once touched by humans, it is ruined for eternity” (55). We can try to better our ecosystems, but we cannot reverse the damage.

Marris gives us examples – introducing cheetahs to Arizona or elephants to Missouri. These animals would be isolated from humans and carefully managed under fenced areas. I believe that the amount of scrutiny and intense management in these areas defeats the whole purpose of creating “pristine wilderness” through rewilding. This idea takes human intervention to a new level. In addition, these animals would be a threat to people who live in nearby towns and farms. Rewilding would make these places more dangerous. Furthermore, the ecosystems today have changed. Existing species have adapted and evolved from the past. Results of reintroducing these species would be unpredictable.

The idea of rewilding is unethical because humans are essentially deciding whether a species get to live or not. Marris points out an incident where Vera saw a weak and starving calf. He then called a member of the reserve to shoot it in an effort to end the calf’s misery (66). How can we be sure our decisions are correct? I believe it is not right to kill an animal just to put it out of misery. The right thing to do would be to feed it. And by reintroducing certain animals in particular areas, the other animals of the ecosystems would decrease in population. Moreover, Donlan says something very hypocritical and alarming. If an introduced species becomes invasive, “…we can kill ’em again” (65).

It is with no doubt that we live in a human dominated world. The battle of man versus nature cannot be solved with rewilding. If done so, we are disrupting existing ecosystems even more. Many ecologists believe that rewilding would yield beneficial results. In reality, it is hard to know. Hence, attempting to create ecosystems absent of human influence on today’s world would be unrealistic.

Weeding the Jungle & The Yellowstone Model Response

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Lena Yang

In Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Emma Marris presents a lot of research to debate and argue that humans have changed every inch of planet Earth. Our actions have changed everything on land, in water and in air. In fact, Marris states that “Nature is almost everywhere. But wherever it is, there is one thing nature is not: pristine.” (Marris 2) Finding a “pristine” place is nearly impossible – there is simply no wilderness left. For nature to be pristine, it would have to be completely unaffected by any human actions and activities. But for the past few centuries, we have been striving for that state of nature. Ecologists use baselines to imagine and recreate what a particular place may look like before human influence. Then, they undergo a tedious process of removing introduced species, one by one. Marris talks about Cathcart killing feral animals such as cats and rabbits in Australia in an effort to bring back indigenous species. (11) Another example would be her second chapter, “The Yellowstone Model”. The conservation of Yellowstone Park only provided an idea of pristine wilderness that other countries tried to imitate. These included Australia, Canada, and many African countries. Ultimately however, it is true that Earth will not be able to return to its prehistoric state. Human influence has gone too deep. For thousands of years, humans have been heavily reshaping ecosystems. With this issue, Marris proposes a solution – humans should adopt the idea of a “rambunctious garden” and accept tamed wilderness. We should be take care of certain parts, but other parts should be left up to nature. We should embrace the “nature” that we do have around us, including our own backyards. The concept of a “rambunctious garden” is essentially redefining the relationship between humans and nature. Marris’s solution offers inspiration and hope for the future of nature.

Opting for a “rambunctious garden” seems favorable to me. Hence, I agree with Marris’s solution. If we continue to believe in restoring “pristine wilderness”, it will only lead to more disappointment. To even get close to that state, governments would have to spend a fortune and ecologists would have to spend an ample amount of time. Cathcart waited almost 200 days to catch a single cat. It took a lot of patience and perseverance. With all the time and money spent to hopefully achieve pristine nature, we could have developed landscapes and incorporate more nature into urban areas. In addition, ecosystems are always changing, even without the influence of human activities. If nature reshapes itself, it is pointless for us to keep tampering with it. Marris states that “Around the world, no single goal will provide for a sensible, well-rounded conservation program.” (14) Therefore, it is good idea for society to accept Marris’s more approachable and plausible interpretation of man versus nature.

Lena Yang: Weekly Reading – Kareiva and Vitousek

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Lena Yang

Kareiva defines “Anthropocene” as an era in which humans dominate and impact all aspects of Earth’s environment – from the land to the ocean. This includes “the planet’s ecology and geochemistry.” There is no doubt that the significant influence of human activities has contributed to the extinction of many species. Kareiva even states that “it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is unmarked by human activity.” With the ever increasing human population, nature is being exploited as habitats are destroyed and animals are hunted. Hence, biodiversity is slowly declining within the ecosystem. However, this human era has experienced incredible advancements in technology and way of life. We enjoy the comfort of heat and driving around, both of which emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We build new towns and buildings at the price of deforestation. We overfish to satisfy our demands, contributing to the collapse of the marine food chain.

Perhaps the best solution is comprehend and understand the central issue. Humans want to improve and advance alongside modernization. Meanwhile, it is impossible to revert nature back to the way it was before. We should however, take into consideration the effects of all our actions on our environment. Thus, all developmental decisions should be incorporated with the notion of being eco-friendly – the right kind of development. People should be educated on the importance of our environment. This would instill appreciation and conservation of nature at heart. Throughout the years, humans have made efforts at going “green”.

The same idea can be found in the Science Magazine. Vitousek defines “urban ecology” as the interaction between species and urban communities. Humans have created civilization alongside nature. There is a struggle to between the two as urbanization and modernization compete with the natural environment. We share planet Earth with nature. However, we develop at the expense of the ecosystem. Animals are displaced as habitats are replaced by buildings.  Harmful chemicals such as DDT were released into the environment to kill “pests”. Factories, automobiles, and fossil fuels contribute to air pollution and ozone depletion. Vitousek argues the solution of reducing the rate in which we change our planet so that ecosystems can better adapt. We humans are responsible for Earth and the ecosystems we are surrounded by.

I believe that both Kareiva and Vitousek’s solutions are useful ways of approaching the issue of humans versus nature. Both argue that humans have impacted the ecosystem in a negative way. We have neglected nature through societal advancements. More has to be done to stop the detrimental impact we continue to make on the environment. By educating people to be more mindful of our environment, we can reduce our deleterious footprints. When we make societal developments, we should keep the importance of nature at heart. This way, we humans can bring some positive light to this struggle.

Comments by Lena Yang