Author Archives: Megan Chiu

Posts by Megan Chiu

Hydraulic Fracturing and the NYC Water Supply

Posted on December 1, 2012 by Megan Chiu

As a proponent of hydraulic fracturing, my concerns are with the proposed changes to the Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) condition of 1993. I fear that the proposed changes will hinder the hydraulic fracturing industry. Many opponents to hydraulic fracturing base their concerns in the perceived environmental harms. However, progress reports and several studies have proved that hydraulic fracturing has not harmed water supplies as they are thought to do.

According to a study by Samuel C. Schon, published in the Proceedings of the NAtional Academy of Sciences of the United Sates of America, many of the studies done to evaluate the chemical effects of hydraulic fracturing on nearby water supplies are conducted without full disclosure of their sample selection methods and are not a purely random sample of water samples. Schon evaluated the Osborn et al. study done in 2011 and states that the study presents “interpretations without baseline (predrill) data for comparison and without explaining any selection criteria for the small nonrandom sample (n=68) used in the study” (Schon). Schon’s reasoning demonstrates the bias and misconstruction of information regarding hydraulic fracturing on the water supply.

Based on Schon’s research, there is no reason to fear that hydraulic fracturing is contaminating the water supply, neither in terms of the hydraulic fracturing fluids used nor the natural gas released in the process. Methane and natural gas levels have maintained consistent both before and during hydraulic fracturing in local wells. Furthermore, the fracturing is conducted far below the ground, away from watersheds. Overall, hydraulic fracturing has been extremely safe and not imposed any heath risks on people drinking the water from nearby water sources.

The new proposed regulations would greatly restrict hydraulic fracturing efforts in the New York State area, despite the fact that the process has no extreme negative effects on the water supply. By imposing more restrictions on hydraulic fracturing, such as imposing a substantial border around watersheds where hydraulic fracturing cannot take place, the industry would have more difficulty finding already limited natural gas, which our country is running low on. We are not imposing a threat on the environment, but instead helping the society economically, and ask that our requests be accommodated.

 

Source:

Schon, Samuel C. “Hydraulic Fracturing Not Responsible for Methane Migration.”Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. N.p., 13 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3174578/>.

 

 

Questions for Emma Marris

Posted on October 28, 2012 by Megan Chiu

1. What suggestions do you have for conservation in urban areas such as New York City?

2. Which ecological preserve did you enjoy visiting the most and why?

3. What criticisms and critiques have conservational biologists made about the suggestions you made in the book?

4. Which of the seven goals discussed at the end of your book are the most important to focus on in your opinion?

 

Poster Questions

Posted on October 9, 2012 by Megan Chiu

1. What ecological factors contribute to birth defects and complications in NYC?

2. How are ecosystems affected by the quality of drinking water?

3. How does species diversity differ amongst the 5 boroughs?

Chapter 10

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Megan Chiu

In the closing chapter of the book, Marris summarizes the seven goals that ecologists need to try to achieve in their conservation efforts. Because “no single goal will work in all situations” (Marris 154), the challenge of choosing which goal or goals to accomplish, conservation is not completely universal unless all ecosystem managers agree on common goals. Still, these goals will still help modernize conservation efforts, and finally move away from the “pristine wilderness” notion (Marris 153).

 

The first of Marris’ seven goals is to protect the rights of other species. Deep ecologists, ecologists who do not “look after the Earth as an extension of looking after people” (Marris 154), claim that “all living things have intrinsic value and deserve to be protected” (Marris 154).  Thus, ecologists must determine not only how to protect species, but also in the case of a predator and a prey, which species to save

 

The second goal is to protect charismatic megafauna. Aside from the general admiration of these large creatures because of their appearance, megafauna are also useful as “keystone species – species that have a greater effect on how an ecosystem works and what it looks like” (Marris 156). However, this goal raises potential controversy as people could argue for or against saving one particular species over many others.

 

The third goal is to slow the extinction rate and allocating resources to save endangered species. The fourth goal is to protect genetic diversity, which is also focused on saving certain subspecies in order to keep as many species alive as possible.

 

The fifth goal is to define and defend biodiversity, which is to preserve the diverse makeup of an ecosystem based on what species live there. The sixth goal is to maximize ecosystem services to get as much functionality for humanity out of the ecosystem.  The final goal that Marris is to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature, in other words, to protect “the way nature looks, smells, and sounds” (167).  Nature can not only look nice, but can also have cultural value than can and should be preserved.

 

Marris closes by stating that there is no single, universal goal that should be worked towards. I think that the most important goal is to protect the rights of other species. A significant part of the reason why the Earth’s ecosystems are in the poor condition they are in now is because of human interference and human activity, which stemmed from personal human self-supporting goals. I think that the first goals encompasses all the other goals. If humans take a more significant stand towards conservation, they will think about other species aside from just themselves there. Finding a successful policy to solve the general protection goal will create a trickle-down effect to solve issues such as not protecting the megafauna. Shifting the focus from a human-centric driving force to an ecosystem friendly goal will help guide the decisions ecologists make towards handling ecosystems and hopefully preserve them for years to come.

Chapters 8 & 9

Posted on October 2, 2012 by Megan Chiu

In chapter 8, Marris introduces the idea of designer ecosystems, which are ecosystems built to be functional. The purpose of designer ecosystems is not to restore the ecosystem to a historic baseline. Rather, it is to improve the ecosystem and increase its value by helping it serve a purpose. Designer ecosystems are crafted for “for specific measurable goals [such as] nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or the maintenance of one or a small number of named species,” (Marris 125) to name a few. Not only are designer ecosystems more practical, they are also easier to achieve. When Marris discussed some ecologists’ efforts to revert ecosystems to baselines, one of the major arguments against the idea was that there are too many variables that scientists cannot account for in the ecological makeup of an ecosystem to accurately recreate and ensure the survival of every species. According to Margaret Palmer of the University of Maryland, College Park, our methods of conservation and restoration “will just replace one arbitrary baseline with another – neither of which takes into account the changing nature of the landscape” (Marris 124). Designer ecosystems guide ecologists towards building a better future rather than living in the past.

Marris predicts that ecologists will eventually settle on fusing ecosystem designing with untamed nature. To her, these two viewpoints on environmentalism can produce a world that is “’ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding and favorable to the continued growth of civilization’” (Marris 131) but still offers “unweeded and untidy” (Marris 131) patches of nature. However, I disagree that having more unmanaged wilderness will effectively balance the designed ecosystems. Ecosystems need to be contained and maintained so that they do not interfere with other ecosystems and disrupt environmental balances. The idea of pure nature seems contradictory to Marris’s definition of a rambunctious garden in the beginning of the book, as it is less of a hybrid of modern conservation techniques and more of a laissez-faire approach highly dependent on natural regulation.

In chapter 9, Marris introduces the idea of integrating conservation and natural species within our society. The concept of creating conservational efforts within our cities, suburbs, and farms seem to be the most feasible and least radical of all the options Marris presents in the book. It builds on the efforts to increase practicality and functionality from nature. Hydroseeding, [for example, where] seed [of native species are] mixed in with water and sprayed directly on roadsides” (Marris 144), creates new habitats for said species, and utilizes land to its fullest extent. Not only does this promote efficient use of land, but also it also connects patches of nature together. By promoting connectivity and “[patching] together different kinds of land to create connected-up nature: parks, public lands of other types, private lands with special legal arrangements in place, state lands, tribal lands, and so on” (Marris 138), humans can also feel more connected to nature by living so close to it. Conserving and restoring native species and ecosystems, promoting human interaction and appreciation of nature, and higher efficient use of land – all of this can be achieved with a network of nature patches. Compared to Marris’s idea of large unmanaged fields of wilderness, blending conservation efforts with human existence seems more likely to succeed. Although it will not be as successful as perhaps devoting an entire garden to a native ecosystem, some native species will be able to survive in their new environments. Humans will also how to better understand interact with nature, and thus preserve it in the long run.

 

Chapters 6 & 7

Posted on September 27, 2012 by Megan Chiu

In the sixth chapter of her book, Marris discusses the different views that ecologists have developed regarding exotic species. On one end of the spectrum is the idea only the native species of an ecosystem should be considered as “good”, while any foreign or genetically crossed breeds of a species are considered “bad”. The concept of “good versus evil”, synonymizing exotic species with negative invasive species, leaves no room for deliberation about whether a species may be doing more good than harm in an ecosystem, or even if the ecosystem is minutely affected by the introduction of a new habitant.

Marris sides more with ecologist Mark Davis’s attitude on exotic species, which is much more open and flexible than the popularly engrained attitude. Davis proposes that the changes that are made, by introducing new species to different ecosystems, may not be as radical as they are made out to be because “change is the order of the day in all ecosystems…species move around constantly, on multiple scales” (Marris 104). Davis asserts that even though humans are making changes to the ecosystem, this does not necessarily mean that the changes are all that different from what may happen in the future without human interference.

Davis also demonstrates the positive effects of allowing exotic species to thrive. Instead of “[traveling] from park to park – all-terrain vehicle in tow for the off road-areas – read to pull, poison, or burn anything that has been declared out of place” as many park service teams do (Marris 100), Davis examines how “sometimes newcomers might help natives flourish” (Marris 105). Such is the case of the “Pyura praeputialis, a squidgy brown sea-squirt-like creature from Australia [which] has increased biodiversity on Chilean rocky tidal shores by cementing itself down and creating a gelatinous landscape in which large invertebrates and algae can thrive” (Marris 105). Though non-native to the area, the Pyura praeputialis has proven to be produce more benefits than harm to a new ecosystem, which is why Davis does not want the value of these potential benefits to be overlooked.

Some scientists as have categorized these types of ecosystems, ones where exotic species are welcomed and embraced rather than targeted for removal, as “novel ecosystems.” However, a strong distinction that Marris makes about novel ecosystems is that they are any ecosystems “dominated by nonnative species…even if humans” never interfered with it (Marris 114). Even with this distinction, many scientists are still reluctant to accept exotic species as positive contributors to the ecosystem as it challenges the notion of pristine, unaltered nature, the nature that many scientists have tried to recreate and preserve. Even though in some cases, the presence of these exotic species throws off the balance of the ecosystem, the fluctuation is only temporary, as “’high dominance lasts forty for fifty years; after eighty years, the species composition becomes mixd and sometimes the species dominance goes back to the natives’” according to Ariel Lugo (Marris 116-117). In other cases, novel ecosystems have also become ideal conditions for exotic species that would be close to extinction in their native countries to thrive. The potential that novel ecosystems offer if they were embraced rather than feared by most scientists would drastically change how humans approach conservation and preservation.

High Line & Stalter

Posted on September 25, 2012 by Megan Chiu

The High Line, situated on an abandoned elevated railroad track along 10th Avenue, is stark contrast from the streets and traffic below on the West Side of Manhattan. During a simple stroll down the park’s pathway, it is easy to be transported away from the fast-paced city to a tranquil garden.

The abundant patches of flowers that line the path of both sides of the park attract a variety of pollinators. During my visit on September 20, it was hard to find any other pollinators other than a variety of bees. The cool breeze, coupled with the fact that I toured the area in the late afternoon (3:30PM-5:00PM), made both finding and capturing pictures of pollinators slightly more challenging. It was easiest to find pollinators in the vibrantly colored flowers in the Wildflower Field between 26th and 29th Streets, the Chelsea Grasslands by 18th Street and the Diller-Von Furstenberg Sundeck and Water Feature by 16th Street, especially uninhibited sunlight shined on the flora.

The High Line exemplifies Marris’s idea of a “rambunctious garden” well. According to Marris, the “rambunctious garden is everywhere…in parls. On farms, in the strips of land attached to rest stops and fast-food joints, …even in city traffic circles” (2). The rambunctious garden is one that takes advantage of what an area has to offer and transforms it into a sustainable form of “nature”, or as close to nature as it can become. The conversion of old railroad tracks into what is now the High Line park shows how nature can be created anywhere, even amidst the streets of New York City. With the help of pollinators, including the bumble and honey bees that enjoy the sweet pollen of the planted flora, the various species of plants are able to thrive year after year. Marris supports creating and embracing nature that may not be “pristine”.   Despite the fact that the plants in the High Line were placed in the artificially made park, it can still be considered more natural than most any other part of urbanized New York City.

 

The findings in the Stalter piece show just how successful Marris’s version of “nature” can be in an urban area. With just a bit of hard work, the Friends of the High Line foundation was able to cultivate “161 species in 122 genera in 48 families” of flora (Stalter 388). More than half of these species are native to New York as well, proving that it is possible to recreate conditions to help restore some lost nature. Surprisingly, Stalter’s research found the High Line to have a “species richness…greater than species richness at four nearby New York City sites…[and] may have one of the highest levels of species richness (38.8 sp/ha) of any temperature zone urban environment in the region” (389). Stalter’s data shows how well the flora in the High Line are flourishing and how much it resembles the natural flora makeup of a New York City patch of nature despite the fact that it was crafted by humans.

 

Assisted Migration

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Megan Chiu

In a similar vein to rewilding, assisted migration aims to introduce plant and animal species to non-native ecosystems. The potential need of assisted migration stems mainly from climate changes caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide emissions in particular have increased dramatically since the Middle Ages (Marris 74). In conjunction with other gases such as methane and hydrocarbons, the atmosphere has been altered “such that it now retains more heat” (Marris 74).

The changes to the atmosphere play a crucial role in determining species’ need to move. Changes in temperature, for example, have already prompted some species to migrate to new areas while others try to adapt to the changes. For those species that have not yet migrated, either because they cannot relocate themselves or can still survive in the altered yet continuously altering climate, the option exists to proactively relocate such species to more suitable environment in the hopes of stabilizing the species’ population in the new geographical location.

While the notion has the best of intentions, assisted migration is not necessary. One of the arguments supporting assisted migration is the fact that “species richness shows declines” in the New York metropolitan area, as concluded from research done by Puth and Burns for Diversity and Distributions. However, assisted migration carries more risk than potential reward. There is no concrete evidence that moving certain species to certain new locations will ensure their well-being and survival. In the best-case scenario, the species will interact positively with its environment and the ecosystem will stabilize, successfully saving the migrated species. Ecologists opposed to the idea argue, “’organisms could die, because you don’t know exactly what they need to live-some specific microbes or microclimatic condition’” (Marris 77). The temperature of an area alone does not define the climatic conditions in which species live.

If a species’ living conditions is absolutely unbearable, it might find a way to a more suitable environment, just as birds often migrate south to warmer weather during the winter. For those species that are not as mobile, they may have the ability to adapt to the climate changes. However, prematurely moving them from their native ecosystems may jeopardize their abilities to adapt. Furthermore, that species may be vital to the balance of the native ecosystem and thus, removing it could disrupt the balance of the native ecosystem.

Another hesitation to assisted migration is the possibility of creating a “dreaded ‘invasive’ species that takes over and pushes out native species” (Marris 77). What if the assisted migration disrupts its new ecosystem enough that the native species cannot compensate for the new inhabitant? Scientists can only speculate how the ecosystem will react, effectively making assisted migration just a game of chance. Taking all of this into account, it is safer to just leave the species where they are and allow them to, hopefully, adapt to their environments while humans focus more on limiting the negative consequences of their actions.

Humans cannot save every plant or animal. Unfortunately, human activity has created a ripple effect on the Earth’s ecosystem that is now negatively affecting species around the world, directly and indirectly. However, there are too many variables in assisted migration that scientists cannot control, which may allow assisted migration to go awry. As a method of correcting the wrongs that human activity has done to the Earth and its ecosystems, assisted migration can have similar detrimental effects on the environment as human activity has already done, and two wrongs will not make a right.

On Rewilding, Chapters 3 & 4

Posted on September 11, 2012 by Megan Chiu

In keeping with her trend of introducing ecological and conservationist theories and views, Marris focuses on the concept of rewilding in the fourth chapter of the book. Rewilding, the brainchild of ecologist Dave Foreman and adopted by Frans Vera from the Netherlands, combines the goals to return ecosystems to a former baseline as well as the undisturbed characteristics of pristine wilderness that 19th and 20th century conservationists longed for. Together, they form a new ideal to transform areas of land to a baseline from a time far before humans had any major impact on the ecosystem. Vera defines the unaltered and untouched baseline as the closest way to way to achieve a pristinely resurrected wilderness.

The short term goal of rewilding is to utilize “regulation provided by large, top-of-the-food chain predators” (Marris 60). These predators would ideally eventually “meet, mate and maintain a healthy gene pool”  (Marris 60). However, one of the major drawbacks of this plan is that many of the plants and animals that inhabited the specific testing areas no longer exist. Instead, close relatives have replaced them, and these relatives become the new subjects for the reqilding experiment. The logic is that there are existing animals, like the Spanish-native horses, “aren’t that different” (Marris 61) from extinct species such as the Equus caballus.

The concept of rewilding seems flawed. Ecologists seem to be accepting multiple substitutions for their experiment, which can jeopardize the success of the outcome. By introducing substitute modern species of animals for similar prehistoric species, scientists are widening the margin of error for reaching the targeted ecological baseline. In some cases, scientists may find that the most similar animal species to one of the baseline no longer exists, or has adapted to vastly different conditions.

Marris also describes another potential flaw in the rewilding plan- the integration of uprooted and nonnative animals. What is even more disturbing is that some of the species of interest are endangered. The “Asian asses, wild horses and Bactrian camels (from the Gobi Desert)” (Marris 62) would be relocated to North America. All three of these species are endangered, but “could stand in for the wild horses and camels that once roamed the [North American] continent” (Marris 63).  All this would be done for the sake of the rewilding, but at the detrimentally high cost of potentially eliminating an endangered species.

Taking such an enormous risk without the reassurance of a positive outcome seems irrational and unjustifiable. Even if rewilding does become the new standard of pristine nature, is it worth losing countless species of animals over? Not to mention the plants that will be introduced to the alien ecosystem as well, which may suffer the same faith as the imported animals. The question to ask is, is achieving a centuries-old baseline and recreating a natural environment untouched by humans worth risking the ecosystems we have now? Surely not. The irony of creating an artificial human-free natural reserve will no doubt backfire, and leave us hoping for, but not experiencing and living with, yet another variant of pristine nature.

“Rambunctious Garden”, Chapters 1 & 2

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Megan Chiu

Emma Marris opens her book Rambunctious Garden summarizing the preconceived notions and misguided visions of conserving the wilderness that have driven humans to interfere with delicate ecosystems. Activists, scientists and conservationists have all worked to preserve the popular parks and forests, such as the Yellowstone National Park. However, Marris introduces the idea of “a new way of seeing nature” beyond the “carefully managed national parks and vast boreal forest” (2). For years, humans have longed for nature to fit their changing ideas of a pristine sanctuary, yet are unable to achieve it because of the changing tendencies of the Earth. Marris urges that humans need to accept, “even embrace” (2) the effects of their actions on the ecosystem. One statement that she makes towards the end of the first chapter sets up her argument well: “This faith that native ecosystems are better than changed ecosystems is so pervasive…that it has become an unquestioned assumption” (Marris 14). Instead of working to recreate and restore the natural wilderness that existed hundreds of years ago, Marris suggests that humans shift their focus towards creating and preserving flourishing ecosystems, and protect the plants and animals that inhabit the areas regardless of whether or not they originated there.

Marris spends much of the first chapter exploring some of the difficulties ecologists and conservationists have faced trying to restore ecosystems back to a specific standard, referred to as a baseline. She references her first-hand accounts of these issues from her tours ecological tours of parts of Hawaii and Australia. She illustrates some conservationists’ efforts to return to a “baseline”, the reference period that they are trying to recreate. Not all conservationists agree, however, on which baseline to follow, differences that result from varying conservation theories.

In Hawaii, Marris explored some of the conservationists’ experimental areas, ranging from lush gardens with non-native plants and animals to recently cleared and scarcely vegetated forests inhabited by few native plant species. In Australia, conservation efforts have been more violent as non-native animal species are viewed as intrusive, and are sought after and removed, all with the intention of allowing the native species to thrive again.

In the second chapter, Marris traces the evolution of American conservationist theories, going back as far as the 1800’s. She beings to stray away from her points in the first chapter, referencing Yellowstone National Park as the idealistic wilderness park. However, the different ecological theories do reflect the different experimental conservation methods Marris saw in Hawaii and Australia. The summary of the different theories in the first half of the second chapter was useful and relevant background information, but disrupts the train of thought she begins in the first chapter and continues it only towards the second half of the chapter.

Kareiva & Vitousek on the Anthropocene

Posted on August 30, 2012 by Megan Chiu

The articles written by Vitousek et al and Kareiva et al each discuss the Anthropocene, the study of the era during which human existence and interference have dominated and the effects of this on the environment and various ecosystems. The Anthropocene isolates the era during which the changes that humans have caused as a result from a surge in both population and technology (Vitousek et al) have surged. From repurposing land for farming to tendencies for large numbers of people to live in a costal area, humans change the Earth both for themselves and for the other organisms that inhabit the area. The study of the Anthropocene helps humans see these effects, which may otherwise be unnoticeable, noticeable.

Scientific Magazine’s  “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems” offers statistical data to demonstrate just some of the many changes that have occurred to the Earth. Authors Vitousek et al highlight some of the negative and more drastic effects that have come from human actions. For example, “at present, 11% of the remaining birds, 18% of the mammals, 5% of fish, and 8% of plant species on Earth are threatened with extinction” (Vitousek et al) as a result of human presence. Humans also introduced toxic chemicals in the form of pesticides into the environment back in the 1950s, many of which are still present, “accumulated in organisms, and magnified in concentration through food chains” (Vitousek et al). These chemicals, as well as non-toxic but synthetically formed chemicals, threaten the livelihood of not only humans but also other organisms that have been exposed to the chemicals as they continue to circulate the ecosystems. Without Anthropocene, it would be much more difficult to realize and understand the distance to which human actions travel.

Similar to Vitousek, Kareiva et al mentions some of the startling statistics that demonstrate the omnipresence of human activity on Earth. To show the widespread range of the effects of human activity, Kareiva et al also mention in the Breakthrough Journal “fish and whales in remote Arctic oceans are contaminated with chemical pesticides.” Kareiva also explores the unforeseen negative effects of some seemingly positive efforts to protect the Earth. Conservation, “widely viewed as the innocent and uncontroversial practice of purchasing special places threatened by development” (Kareiva et al), has not preserved natural lands and ecosystems so much as it has stripped it of it original elements and characters. While the original 19th century intention for conservation was to protect the “transcendence-enabling idylls” (Kareiva et al) of Earth from increased urbanization in surrounding areas, the results of conservation often led to the uprooting of native people from their homes, and loss of hunting and agricultural land (Kariva et al). Humans’ actions are driven by the desire to both improve and protect land, and this drive overpowers the realization that lives are being unjustly disturbed and uprooted.

The Anthropocene gives humans a time to review, reflect on, and analyze their actions. It provides a time frame to examine all of the effects humans have imparted on the Earth, especially those that were unanticipated and unnoticed before. The Anthropocene highlights the long term and distant consequences that a growing population and dominating tactics have left behind. By acknowledging this era, humans can begin to acknowledge the direct and indirect impacts that the efforts to protect and better the Earth for their own well being have in turn, impacted the Earth for all other organisms as well.

Comments by Megan Chiu