Author Archives: Melanie

Posts by Melanie

Downstate Stakeholders and Water Quality

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Melanie

As a downstate stakeholder, maintaining a safe drinking water quality is important. The water supply upstate not only is a vital resource for billions of people, but also is a defining marker of New York City. The proposed water filtration plant to ensure a clean supply is a solution; however, it is extremely costly to build and maintain and is a cost that a percentage of New York City residents cannot afford. Land acquisition is the far better option. Acquiring land is much less expensive at an estimate cost at $500 million, with the majority of the money going towards purchasing “undeveloped and sensitive land” near the water supply. On the other hand, building a filtration plant costs between $3-8 billions dollars and requires additional taxes to pay for it. Acquiring land is a very cost effective way to protect the water quality.

According to the study conducted by Mehaffey, Nash, Wade, et al., different land uses affect the water quality. This was done by looking at areas with different land covers and measuring the change in land cover and comparing it to change in total phosphorus, total nitrogen and fecal bacteria levels in six watersheds that feed the New York City population. The study concluded that agricultural land use was the major contributor to total nitrogen and total phosphorus in the streams as a result of runoff from erosion. On the other hand it does not have too much influence on fecal coliform bacteria trends, which if consumed by humans, can make them sick. Urban land use also has negatively influences water quality through pollutant runoff to streams and reservoirs. Areas with barely any change in human land use or forest cover have shown to have almost no change in nutrient concentrations. This shows that preventing further human development through land acquisition would protect the water quality.

Acquiring the land would also have other added benefits of protecting the environment, a and adding green space. Conservation practices can help protect hundreds of stream miles and preserve thousands of acres of natural land. Though New York City is far from this area, it can make a great impact on the environment of this area. New York City has been working on becoming more green recently and though the results cannot be seen directly by New York City residents, New York City would be consistent in its efforts. Acquiring land near the watershed would not only benefit the humans who drink the water, but also the natural environment where the watershed is located.

Mehaffey, M. H., M. S. Nash, T. G. Wade, D. W. Ebert, K. B. Jones, and A. Rager. “Linking Land Cover and Water Quality in New York City’s Water Supply Watersheds.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 107.1-3 (2005): 29-44.

Questions for Emma Marris

Posted on October 29, 2012 by Melanie

1. What do you think of the conservation efforts being made in New York City? How would you improve or change them?

2. Given the natural catastrophes (earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes) in the last few years, do you think that conservationists need to alter their efforts in any way?

3. Other than writing the book, how else are you actively promoting your idea of conservation and trying to change peoples’ ideas on what nature is and should be?

4. Is there any new research or development that makes you want to change what you have written in your book?

Questions

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Melanie

1. What kind of environmental factors affect the number of children born with Down Syndrome to mothers under the age of 35?

2. How do holes and cracks in buildings affect the types of pests that live in the city?

3. What effects do exterminators have on the ecosystems that exist in the city?

Marris Chapter 10

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Melanie

In the final chapter of Marris’s novel, Rambunctious Garden, Marris gives seven new goals in conserving nature. The seven goals she lists are: protect the rights of other species, protect charismatic megafauna, slow the rate of extinctions, protect genetic diversity, define and defend biodiversity, maximize ecosystem services, and protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. Of these goals, more are wonderful and potentially useful while one may be problematic.

The goals that positive and could save all types of nature are protect the rights of other species, slow the rate of extinctions, protect genetic diversity, and define and defend biodiversity. These four goals are interrelated in the sense that they aim to protect all types of nature. By trying to achieve only one of these goals, the other three are also benefitting. In other words, by slowing the rate of extinctions, ecologists are also protecting the right of a species to exist, protecting genetic diversity and defending biodiversity having more species would help maintain genetic diversity and defend biodiversity. Although Marris brings up the point that genetic diversity can easily be maintained by having “rows of freezers… containing genetic samples from organisms around the world” since the DNA and genes of various species can be stored and kept this way, the difference between only having frozen samples and having living species is immense (162). If given the choice, scientists and people would much rather to have a species existing in the world naturally than have only a few dead frozen ones. In this sense, protecting genetic diversity would still help out the other three goals and benefit nature in general.

Marris voices some possible problems with having maximize ecosystem services and protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature as goals, but they are necessary in motivating and encouraging the general human population to protect nature. Maximizing ecosystem services involves implementing policies such as “financial incentives, taxes and the like” (164). Critics argue that these policies make saving nature seem like a reward since money is the incentive, it may create the idea that having money give one the power to destroy nature. This may be true; however, money is a big enough reason for many people to comply with such policies, especially with the current economic situation where money is tight. At first, the real reason behind saving nature may be for economic gain, perhaps after seeing the results and benefits people will change their minds. Similarly, though protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature may seem superficial, it is an important motivating factor for most people. If people are able to create a positive spiritual and aesthetic image of nature, then they are more likely to want to protect nature. Both are important in encouraging the general population to save nature.

The only goal that is slightly troublesome is protect charistmatic megafauna. Marris makes the argument that this is helps create sympathy in people to protect nature and that these charismatic megafauna play key roles in ecosystems. While these reasons may be true, protecting only one species may actually cause an imbalance in the ecosystem and lead to destruction rather than conservation. Marris’s example of how the elephant population grew so immense in one sanctuary actually led changing the landscape and ecosystem from overgrazing. This goal is not a bad one, but must be used with caution.

Marris’s seven goals in conserving nature are generally reasonable and practical, although with many things, having goals is simpler than actually achieving them. Hopefully positive changes can be made to effectively attain these goals and protect nature.

Marris Chapters 8&9

Posted on October 2, 2012 by Melanie

In chapters 8 and 9, Marris continues to criticize returning ecosystems to the way they existed before human intervention. She reiterates the idea, this time using designer ecosystems and once again, human misperceptions of nature and the goals of conservation, to illustrate the problems with trying to restore environments in this manner. Marris then clearly offers how people should think of conservation. Marris argues that the goal of conservation should be to create environments that are “ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding and favorable to the continued growth of civilization” (131). This idea of conservation is reasonable and practical given the amount of irreversible changes humans have already made to nature and its ability to appeal to the many people.

Marris has already attacked a variety of conservation ideas such as rewilding and assisted migration. The latest method of conservation she attacks is designer ecosystems. She begins by destroying the common idea held by ecologists and average people alike of what a stream should look like. The thought of a stream being a “single languidly curving channel with high banks” is actually something that has been created as a result of manmade dams during the Industrial Revolution (123). The archetype for an untouched stream is anything but natural. She goes back to the idea of baselines and where people decide untouched by humans really is. One point that she really nails is the idea that designer ecosystems can be expensive, difficult and unsuccessful. The idea of designing an area to look a certain way may require using humans to maintain it. One example she uses is sinking old ships so coral reefs can live on them. Old ships certainly are not a part of the way the ecosystem naturally was, but they are effective solutions. Some designed ecosystems just fail completely due to amount of changes and alterations in an ecosystem. One example she gives is in Australia where the soil and rainfall patterns have changed, that making it incredibly difficult to repopulate the area with eucalyptus trees that have become locally extinct. In such cases, it is fruitless to try to design an area to its original ecosystem; however, in other instances, designer ecosystems should not completely be thrown aside. Using the example of the sunken ships to promote growth in the coral reef, it does offer a solution that works, despite it not being completely natural. Designer ecosystems can save species that are going extinct.

Marris argues that the best type of conservation blends together the needs of humans and nature for a happy medium. An example that she provides that is working towards benefits for both humans and nature is the Duwamish River. The river is an important place that not only functions as a habitat but also a “active industrial waterway” (133). Though the water is polluted, cleanup efforts are being made to improve the ecosystem. A key point that Marris points out is how people are not asking for the entire river to be cleaned up completely and returned to a more ecologically friendly state since the river also provides a vital source of jobs. Perhaps because this idea does not require a drastic change in how humans already altering their behavior that it is often overlooked as a solution. Yet this might also be a selling point, because it is so simple, people might be more willing to adhere to it.

 

Marris Ch. 6 & 7

Posted on September 27, 2012 by Melanie

Prior to chapters six and seven, Marris talks about the dangers of introducing invasive species to an ecosystem. In these two chapters, Marris tries to dispel the negative stigma of invasive species by showing the various reasons why invasive species can be beneficial and why people still might not see invasive species as a positive.

Marris first talks about how invasive species can be beneficial to an ecosystem. One example Marris uses is how a foreign species of trees was able to help save two species of songbirds and a species of fruit bat that lived exclusively on Rodrigues Island (97). These three species were in danger of going extinct when the forest was cut down on the island, thus reducing their fruit source. A nonnative species of “fast-growing timber” were chosen to quickly replant the island, but in the end the rapidly growing plants served to save these three species since native species grew quite slowly and would not have been able to stop the endangered species from going extinct (98). Invasive species can play important roles in the ecosystem. In a similar example, invasive species can actually help nature flourish by taking of the roles of extinct species. In Hawaii, exotic birds are taking over the dwindling native bird species’ important duty of dispersing seeds (105). Sometimes the Without these exotic birds stepping in, seed dispersal might not be happening at all in Hawaii. In fact, some studies show that exotic species may even be considered to be functioning better than native species. One study compared a native only forest with former pine plantations of a similar age showed that the pine plantations were “richer in species, had greater aboveground biomass and used nutrients more efficiently” (113). If functionality is measured through species diversity, amount of biomass produced and the efficiency of using nutrients, then exotic species may function better than native species. In addition to this, exotic species may be able to help not only the ecosystem, but humans as well. One such species is the Chinese brake fern that can take arsenic, a harmful poison, out of the soil. Contrary to popular belief, the invasive species do not seem to be overly terrible and can be quite beneficial to the ecosystems.

Marris then offers an answer to why invasive species are held in such negative light. She suggests that this conception of invasive species partially comes from what people consider differences between species. For example, there are two cousin species of duck, the white-headed duck from Europe and the ruddy duck from the Americas (107). Though they look different and act different, the fact that they are able to successfully create a hybrid shows that they are compatible. The hybrid is becoming dominant, but many people are worried that each separate species will go extinct. Yet some scientists argue that the DNA from both species still carry on so it doesn’t matter if each species separately goes extinct.

In conclusion, Marris provide some great examples to show how invasive species and novel ecosystem can be beneficial to the biodiversity despite misconceptions.

High Line and Stalter

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Melanie

The High Line is a unique park situated on abandoned elevated railroad tracks parallel to 10th Avenue between 13th and 34th Streets. In the past, the tracks were considered an eyesore that lowered nearby property values (Stalter 388). With the many changes made to preserve and transform the tracks into a park, the High Line is a beautiful green space in the middle of concrete that is loved by New York City residents and tourists alike.

Last Thursday I visited the High Line for the second time with Jenny. Despite the fact that my two visits were only about 3 months apart, I was still able to see some changes in the scenery. Both visits I started around the 23rd Street entrance and ended at 30th Street. Due to the change in seasons, many of the wild grasses and plants were beginning to wilt and the leaves on the bushes and trees began to change color. What surprised me was that there were still wildflower blooming. Between 23rd Street and 26th Street there were many little patches of yellow wildflowers, white wildflowers, and purple wildflowers scattered between tall grasses. I found it interesting that one species of these flowers would dominate that specific patch; if it was a patch of white flower plants, the entire patch was of the white flowers. Some pollinators we found in these blooming areas were a few different species of bees, flies, and birds. I found the High Line to be consistent with Stalter’s study in terms of species diversity. I was able to see a large variety of species simply by walking through the park. The environment initially seemed more grassy and meadow like, but as I walked further north, the grass and bushes changed to bigger shrubs and larger plants, having a forest, woodsy feel to it. Yet when we walked further into more sunlit areas, the plants were more meadow like once again.

Moth

Bumblebee on Aster Plants

Bird pollinating flowers

anotha fly

Fly

Honeybee

The High Line fits with Marris’ idea of a rambunctious garden. The High Line is certainly an example of a “half-wild” garden tended by humans (Marris 2). Before the High Line was transformed, there were already examples of primary succession found on the tracks, showing that nature was already reclaiming the space that humans no longer used (Stalter 388). After the High Line was transformed, humans help maintain and preserve the plants. As the plants on the park continue to grow and bloom, people help encourage its growth. The High Line is nature thriving in the middle of a city.

Jenny and Me at the High Line

 

Assisted Migration

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Melanie

Following the concept of “rewilding,” Marris brings forth another controversial conservation idea: assisted migration. While rewilding attempts to recreate environments without human impact, assisted migration tries to help species shift to from rapidly warming places, mainly as a result of global warming, to more suitable climates. An argument for assisted migration is that global warming is changing the climate faster than species can migrate and adapt, thus causing them to die out quickly. Although assisted migration involves human inference, it seems like a plausible way to help prevent species from going extinct. In New York City and other cities, where there seems to be a loss of species diversity, assisted migration may be helpful in slowing or reversing this process.

The most appealing factor that distinguished assisted migration from rewilding is that in most cases, assisted migration is more like a guiding hand that is speeding up what is already occurring naturally. A prime example of this type of assisted migration is in British Columbia, where they are “systematically moving its trees” (Marris 91). A large population of pine beetles is decimating trees in an area the size of Greece in British Columbia. The large population is attributed to the milder winters that allow more of the beetle population to survive. Whereas rewilding might have simply began planting seeds far away from where the trees were originally, the assisted migration team here plants seeds within a certain range of its origin to help shift the population. As of right now, no tree species are planted “outside of that species’ historical range” (Marris 92). In this case, scientists are not transplanting species to unknown places, just encouraging species to grow in places where it might not have grown in for a while. Scientists are not changing how a species would behave, they are simply encouraging some behaviors over others.

Assisted migration would be quite useful in increasing species diversity in urban areas since species richness seems to be decreasing in cities. According to the article by Puth and Burns, only six studies with historical data showed species richness over time while seventeen showed a decrease in species richness out of a total of twenty-six studies with historical data. The decrease may be caused by native species in urban areas migrating away from the city and a lack of new species migrating into the city. Urban areas may not be an ideal place for a species to migrate to since it may be vastly different from its origin. Since “a single road will be an effective barrier to a little species,” it is possible that the high concentration of roads and buildings can act as a barrier to species (Marris 75). Cities may almost act like roadblocks to species in their migration. Assisted migration may be helpful in encouraging migrating species to stay in urban areas and increase species richness. Though assisted migration can be difficult in predicting the outcome of changing an ecosystem, it is positive since it is not trying to completely change nature.

Marris Chapters 3&4

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Melanie

According to Marris, rewilding is essentially returning an area back to the state it would be in today if there were no humans. Although the intentions of rewilding are good, the idea of undoing the changed that humans have caused, the reality of creating such an environment is impossible and unrealistic, not to mention contradictory and unethical.

Firstly, creating recreating ecosystems that existed before humans existed in many cases is completely impossible. Since thousands of years have passed, the species that once existed during the Pleistocene may have evolved. If a species has been exposed to a different environment, they may have changed the way they behave. Though the species is the same as the past, its role and the way it interacts with the environment may have changed. Another common problem is that many of the animals that existed during the Pleistocene have since then become extinct. In order to overcome this, ecologists might introduce a similar species that would play the same role as that of the extinct species in the ecosystem. For example, introducing “Bactrian camels (from the Gobi Desert)” to America to replace the wild horses and camels that used to exist here (Marris 63). No matter how hard humans try, some ecosystems can never be replicated exactly, just approximately. Reintroducing animals also leads to many shifts in the ecosystem. According to field ecologist Josh Donlan, after the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone, “not six month goes by without a new groundbreaking paper… linking some unexpected ecosystem shift” (Marris 62). It is clear that bringing in a single species can drastically alter an ecosystem since the ecosystem would adjust to accommodate the changes. Changes to the ecosystem would also affect humans since the rewilded animals need to be separated from humans and managed carefully. In some areas, towns and farms would need to think about putting up fences to protect themselves from the new large beasts. Though these changes are not impossible, they create great difficulties for humans and could potentially create a great threat if they were not carried out. Recreating ecosystems from the past prove to be troublesome, difficult and scientifically impossible due to the state the world is today.

Rewilding aims to take away human interference with the environment, but by actively taking a hand in recreating environments, rewilding actually does the complete opposite of its purpose. Rewilding is self-contradictory and unethical. One of the criticisms of rewilding that Donlan points out is the idea of “playing god” (Marris 65). Although both introducing and removing species may be considered “playing god,” actually having to ship in animals to different ecosystems altering the ecosystem in a different way. Nature will always readjust itself to the given conditions, but since human effort is needed to maintain such an environment, it is no less natural than its current state. An artificially created environment, no matter how realistic it is, is no substitute for the real thing. The intentions of the ecologists are admirable, but completely misguided.

Marris Chapters 1&2

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Melanie

In the first two chapters of Emma Harris’ book, Rambunctious Garden, she states that the idea that the only true type of nature is “pristine” or untouched by humans is a misguided one. She argues that this view of nature is not only unrealistic, but also impossible. Instead, people today need to readjust their view of nature to embrace it as it is today, despite the human interferences.

Harris first addresses the difficulties of creating these “pristine” areas and the massive efforts needed to create “islands like the past” (9) by using examples of these protected areas. One project the Australian Wildlife Conservancy was working on was to return the condition of a part of the outback to the time when humans first landed in Australia. The creation and maintenance of such a place requires an enormous human effort. Firstly, to ensure that the project can be kept in pristine conditions, “sturdy, tall and electrified” fences surround the area (10). The second step requires removing all the invasive species, humans included, to allow the native species to thrive. At the Sanctuary, this means getting rid of all the cats, rabbits, goats and foxes that were introduced. Various methods were used to remove these animals, such as shooting, poisoning and trapping these species. People who originally lived in the areas are also considered invasive, and thus also forced to leave. In the Yellowstone Model example, the Indians that had an initial agreement to allow them to stay; however they were eventually “forcibly removed” (26). Although many conservationists today are starting to realize that people do not have to leave to protect an area, the idea of having no people from the Yellowstone Model is difficult to change. Harris illustrates the great amounts of work needed to achieve pristine nature.

In addition to showing the difficulties involved in creating untouched nature, Harris states the uselessness of these projects. According to Harris, one of the popular ideas among conservationists is that nature would not have changed much without humans. In response to this, she gives several examples to show how nature is constantly changing, and thus shows how trying to return nature to a certain point in time is pointless. Harris discusses how some ecosystems not only are able to deal with disturbances, but actually “thrive” on it (29). One example is how some seeds are unable to begin growing until there has been a fire. In general, ecosystems are able to return to their original state if the disturbance was not too severe or adapt to the change. Common disturbance involve changes in the climate such as changes in temperature or rainfall patterns, but the ecosystems are able to adapt. Due to these adaptations, ecosystems cannot remain unchanged for “more than a few thousand years” (34). Thus, Harris is saying that these changes the people have caused are not necessarily negative since it is difficult to say how these ecosystems would have changed without human alteration. Finally, Harris points out that these “natural” human created environments are no more real than zoos. Through all these examples, Harris shows how these projects are silly and pointless.

I think that Harris makes a valid argument, especially about how the human created environments almost contradict the entire idea of pristine nature. I also agree that humans need to embrace the natural environment around them, despite how much they have been changed by humans.

Karieva and Vitousek

Posted on August 30, 2012 by Melanie

According to Kareiva in Conservation in the Anthropocene, the Anthropocene is the current geological era in which humans “dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry”. This definition is supported by the Vitousek’s article on the effect of human impact on the Earth’s ecosystems. While both articles talk about human impact on Earth, the authors of the articles have differing views on the significance of it.

Vitousek describes how humans have significantly altered all aspects of the Earth’s systems through land transformation, global biogeochemistry, biotic additions and losses, climate change and loss of biological diversity. Several examples are given for each including extensive water manipulation for human benefit to the point where “only 2% of the rivers run unimpeded” in the United States and very little water from major rivers reach the ocean.  Humans can also cause changes in an ecosystem by permanently taking out a piece of it when a species becomes extinct or introducing a new species. Overall, Vitousek gives an alarming picture of the overall power that humans have over the Earth’s ecosystems. The article suggests using resources more efficiently, slowing the rate of human impact and protecting the existing ecosystems.

Though Kareiva agrees that humans have made a huge impact on the Earth, he states that conservation is not a good option. Conservation cannot reverse what humans have done and bring the ecosystem into its original state. Kareiva brings up the topic of how “conservation” today is really a forced human construction that often is looked unfavorable upon. When trying to save an area, people who live on the land are often pushed out without being given fair compensation thus leaving them with a bad impression of conservation. Another difference from Vitousek is how nature is portrayed. In Vitousek’s article, nature seems quite fragile whereas Karieva shows nature to be rather resilient. Karieva uses several examples of nature overcoming human “disturbances” such as “thriving” wildlife near the Chernobyl nuclear facility despite high levels of radiation. In Conservation in the Anthropocene, nature is shown being able to adapt to difficult situations and survive. As opposed to the conservation method suggested by Vitousek, Karieva recommends saving nature by gaining support and offering a solution that includes humans instead of exclude them.

While both articles give strong arguments, the Karieva article seems to be something that more people would be willing to accept. The current method of conservation pushes people away from nature. Although human interaction with nature is not completely discouraged since there are paths within protected areas, it causes many other problems such as displacement, which may make the traditional kind of conservation seem distasteful. Instead, by working with people and giving them benefits while conserving nature, people are more likely to respond positively and embrace it. As a result, this method is more likely to be successful. The goal in the end is for both nature and people to coexist without harming the other.

Comments by Melanie