Author Archives: Prerak Paul

Posts by Prerak Paul

Rats in Urban America- Alternate assignment

Posted on December 10, 2012 by Prerak Paul

Source: James M. Clinton, “Rats in Urban America” Public Health Rep. 1969 January; 84(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2031432/?tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract

 

In the study, researchers discuss the evolution of rat populations in urban cities of American and how their rising presence has led to the problem of rat bites and their sequelae. Prior to the 1960’s, metropolitan areas were not highly developed and had a relatively lower population compared to the rural areas. As a result, rat-bite incidences were not as prevalent and almost unheard of in urban cities. As cities developed, the problem of rat-bites rapidly increased and led to the development of public laws, which require documentation of rodent bites. In NYC, the department of health keeps year-to-year records of rat-bites and diseases transmitted through them.

According to the study, public health problems are generally caused by three rat species that are Norway rat, the roof rat and the house mouse. The Norway rat exhibits less fear around humans and will make contact with motionless persons, whereas the roof rat better adapts to the environment than the Norway rat, but generally stays hidden in lofts, attics and trees. Nevertheless, the house mouse usually contributes the greatest to property damage and food contamination. Americans incur over $900 million/year in property and grain crop damages. In terms of diseases, rats contribute to greater than 6000 cases/year of diseases and serve as vectors and reservoirs of salmonellosis, leptospirosis, rat-bite fever and murine typhus.  Out of the three primary urban rat species, Norway rats inflict the greatest number of diseases caused by bites. Furthermore, the total incidence of rat bites is currently at 10/100,000 in urban areas. These rodents quickly access homes through plumbing fixtures, doors and windows and cause a major public health concern.

The rodent population is a major concern to NYC, because its environment does provide suitable breeding grounds for all three major urban rats. They are vectors of several diseases, and due to the high population density the spread of these diseases can significantly multiply just after few outbreaks. It is highly essential to monitor rat-bite incidences and the potential threat of disease associated with it.

Anti-Development: Upstate Stakeholders

Posted on December 3, 2012 by Prerak Paul

Upstate stakeholders oppose the development of water filtering facilities in their communities. The development of the Catskill and Delaware systems has a detrimental effect on the economic and social aspects of eight different upstate communities– Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Delaware, Greene, Schoharie, Sullivan and Ulster. Its essential to consider the implications that the new water filtering facilities will have on the business, recreational and agricultural uses of the land. The plan for the new watershed facilities will provide a solution to the drinking water problem for NYC residents, however the eminent domain land acquisitions will devalue property and make it useless for development.

The initial agreement between the upstate residents and the city’s Dept. of Environmental Protection ended abruptly as the city proposed its new plans of land acquisitions. The new filtering facility, which follows federal guidelines costs over $6 billion and has an operating expense greater than $500 million. The expenses are tremendous, but not only would the facility be expensive to set up and operate, but it will disrupt the economic growth of the affected areas as well. The land acquisitions required to for such a facility will greatly devalue natural resources and cause economic harm to upstate communities. New York City has the largest per capita water use in the world, and its consumption is continually increasing, therefore it is not ethical to eliminate or move farms, businesses and even whole towns just to make way for a watershed for a city with such high water consumption rates. (Perrin 1963) Such a proposal would undermine economic development and could cause farmers to lose over twenty-five percent of tillable land because of new land-use restrictions to prevent runoff. (NRC 2000)

In addition to the economic harms caused by the new water filtering facilities, land regulations and acquisitions. The controversy over rural land use brings up the question of social conflict and whether it is ethical for New York City to regulate the social and biophysical landscape of rural upstate communities. The controversy is similar to a usual trend where rural communities are only valuable because of their contributions to large cities. The upstate communities are not mere raw materials for industrial growth and must not be sacrificed to propel growth of another city. It is highly unethical to subject a local economy to further the interests of a dominant one. The areas east of the Hudson, in the Croton area of the NYC watershed, are predominantly suburban and have a developed economy. Expanding into these lands will greatly disrupt the economic system. It is a major violation of property rights and the New York Home rule.

The expansion plan is unacceptable by upstate communities for economic and social reasons. It disrupts local economies, limits land-use and forces businesses to relocate or liquidate. It is also a major violation of property rights and undermines the value of upstate communities. It is absolutely essential that NYC takes all these factors into account before furthering its acquisition programs. A proper compensation is absolutely necessary for further development plans.

Sources:

“Value-Laden Technocratic Management and Environmental Conflicts: : The Case of the New York City Watershed Controversy” Leland L. Glenna http://sth.sagepub.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/content/35/1/81.full.pdf+html

 

“The making of a regulatory crisis: restructuring New York City’s water supply” Matthew Gandy

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.0020-2754.1997.00338.x/asset/j.0020-2754.1997.00338.x.pdf?v=1&t=hab45bl1&s=9fb688c51919dc64664a248fb7ebd2f8b2331fa7&systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+8+December+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+GMT+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EST%29+for+essential+maintenance

Poster Ideas

Posted on October 9, 2012 by Prerak Paul

1. Investigate the quality of NYC drinking water

2. The relationship between living conditions and birth defects

3. The relationship between living conditions and cancer rates.

Chapter 10

Posted on October 7, 2012 by Prerak Paul

In chapter 10, the final chapter of the Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris outlines seven major goals of conservation. The purpose is to point out that no single goal provides a solution; we need to give up the idea of pristine wilderness and work around these major goals outlined by her. Every piece of land is different; therefore we must apply a combination of various different methods to each situation.

Goal One: Protect the Rights of other Species. The first goal emphasizes deep ecology, i.e. looking after all living species because they have intrinsic value. We shouldn’t be concerned about conservation only because that species benefits humans at the end.  However, the problem comes in when dealing with rights of one animal over another. The idea of intrinsic value differs based on perspectives therefore results in some problems when dealing with invasive species.

Goal Two: Protecting the Charismatic Megafauna. The second goal emphasizes the human love for large mammals with large eyes. As humans, we love some species more than others based on their appearance, such as dolphins, tigers, pandas etc. Even though, the idea of saving species based on human love for them seems unethical, studies have shown that larger animals often form the keystone species therefore their survival is critical to the maintenance of that ecosystem.

Goal Three: Slow the Rate of Extinctions.  The third goal emphasizes the extinction value of species. For this goal, Marris talks about mathematical ecology, which uses algorithms to model the practicality and financial burden of saving one species vs. another. Using such an approach can result in humans losing species that they really love, as well as mirrors breeding because efficiency is stressed out.

Goals Four: Protect Genetic diversity. The third goal focuses on the concept of species. Often times a population is genetically far more different, than another closely related species. As a result, the importance preserving genetic diversity as opposed to just species comes in. It allows for greater complexity of life and helps with the process of evolution. Genetic diversity represents millions of years of evolutionary activity; hence protecting it is highly important. However the idea questions the value of the individual species. Is an animal only important because of its varied gene pool? In that case genetic diversity can simply be preserved in laboratories. As a result, in her fifth goal Marris outlines definition of biodiversity and why it’s important.

Goal 6: Maximize ecological services & Goal 7: Protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature, present contrasting point of views. Maximizing ecological services mirrors an economic approach of maximizing profit, where finite resources are implemented in such a way that the output is the greatest. Ecological services are estimated at billions of dollars, therefore it does make sense to follow that. However, maximizing services doesn’t necessarily guarantee aesthetics. On the contrary, protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature focuses on the emotional response we get from looking at nature that often various from person to person.  Both goals 6 and 7 are rather extreme and something, which is a combination, would be a more acceptable.

Marris sums up her book with the notion that a single approach is not adequate to utilize every form of land and forming rambunctious gardens. Hence, she provides 7 goals which can be used for conservation.

Posted on October 2, 2012 by Prerak Paul

In Ch 8 and 9 of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris introduces the idea of designer ecosystems. Different from restoration and searching for pristine wilderness, creating designer ecosystems is an approach that aims to achieve a particular goal for an ecosystem/population by using a combination of different techniques such as rewilding and assisted migration. Marris also delves further into conservation efforts and discusses how it can be implemented anywhere in any conditions by using designer ecosystems and other various techniques.

In my opinion the idea of designer ecosystems– to restore a lost function or finding an equivalent cost efficient solution seems both practical and feasible. The concept mirrors the scientific process, there is a set goal, limiting parameters, etc. that an ecologist has to work around to engineer a system which achieves that goal. The approach does not necessarily look for baselines and can be implemented almost anywhere. As a result, land, funding and resources are not wasted, while the goal is still being fulfilled. For example, instead of creating a new habitat or eliminating invasive predators, ecologists drill additional nesting holes in Galapagos to decrease the rate of mortality among penguin eggs. The solution is cost efficient and accomplishes the goal. Designer ecosystems do accomplish the ecological goals of a particular landscape, however it is often criticized as being unnatural and not necessarily wilderness. Some may even consider it to be a desperate effort to limit the human impact on nature, which will ultimately eliminate anything that is truly wild and untamed. Nevertheless, in my opinion it is both feasible and cost efficient. It accomplishes the desired goal and since the cost of failure is low, multiple hypotheses can be applied and tested.

Ch 9, as suggested by the title, “conservation everywhere” primarily deals with the idea of  creating everyday places into rambunctious gardens, and using a mix of various unorthodox conservation techniques and implementing it everywhere around us. Whether it maybe be rivers, farms, backyards and rooftops. The idea is to gradually add as much natural areas to increase the species diversity and prevent extinction.

I agree with the ideas presented by Marris in both the chapters, and believe that nature is not a place far away, but all around us. Creating rambunctious gardens can only help and is far more practical than restoring baselines.

 

Invasive Species and Novel Ecosystems

Posted on September 29, 2012 by Prerak Paul

People often fail to acknowledge the distinction between simple exotic species and invasives. There is generally a negative impression associated with all exotics as being invasive and people often go on great lengths to eliminate them. According to Ch 6 in Rambunctious Garden, the words exotic and invasive are often interchanged. Most people believe that simply because a specie was introduced from a foreign habitat it makes it invasive. However, considering a proxy which fills in a missing niche and a feral cat which eliminates an entire bird on an island is too simplistic and foolish. As stated by Marris, the general impression of most exotics remains quite negative– a species invades and the ecosystem collapses, species go extinct and the complexity and diversity are replaced with a monotonous and weedy landscare dominated by invaders. However, such a point of view is quite primitive and is only valid for only a certain instances. Exotic species come in a variety of different form, and only some of them are malignant invasives.

In other cases, exotic species often increase the biodiversity of the place, help an endangered species recover or provide food for the native population. I am quite surprised that Marris does not make a distinction between invasives and exotic species. She presents examples of instances where invasives are beneficial, as well as talks about the ecological and economic consequences caused by invasives such as zebra mussels and yellow crazy ants. By definition an invasive species is the one that results in malignant consequences, therefore invasives will most likely not have any positive influences. Foreign species that help can not be classified as invasives, they are simply exotic.

Nevertheless, invasive species are a major concern and result in significant economic and ecological losses. Government agencies around the world are trying to combat the threat and have taken several steps towards hindering the movement. However, often times invasive species inadvertently find their way into foreign habitats and wreck havoc–like the brown tree snake in Guam, but most exotics often fail, die off or the natives evolve and become accustomed to them.
Another key idea Marris introduces is that of novel ecosystems– a place where exotic species have formed new ecological relationships and have become important or even keystone species. Several novel ecosystems are often a result of inadvertent human activities, but not maintained by humans. Proponents of the idea, support the involvement of exotic species and argue that they function just like or even better than native systems.

I believe the idea is practical and focuses more on the function rather than the identity of the species. Baselines and pristine wilderness is hard to establish, exotic species are present in almost every ecosystem and have become an integral part of them. Nature and the environmental process should not be interfered with. If exotic species go through natural selection and help form a balance then we should not consider them any less than the natives, and let them fulfill their respective niches.

The High Line

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Prerak Paul

A rambunctious garden, as described by Emma Marris, is not a place isolated by walls or fences, it coexists with humanity. Rambunctious gardening is proactive and optimistic; it’s not a romantic notion but a part of our everyday lives. A rambunctious garden can be found anywhere, one doesn’t have to escape his/her daily life to witness it, its all around us and develops with the humankind. A rambunctious garden is evolution in action, a practical form of conservation, which can flourish anywhere. The High Line, an abandoned railway line that runs along the West Side of Manhattan, fits perfectly with the notion of a rambunctious garden. It represents an ecosystem that coexists with the city life and continues to diversify.

The High Line possesses every characteristic, which makes it a suitable candidate for a rambunctious garden. It’s in confined to an area within a busy city, it continues to cultivate despite human disturbances and trampling, and possess an unlikely location. One may suspect that an abandoned commercial railway line, deprived of proper sunlight and nutrient rich soil, may never be suitable to sustain such large biodiversity per ha, but that’s what makes it rambunctious. Primary succession and pioneer species took over the abandoned place and cultivated it to withstand the human hindrances.

The railway line currently stretches 20 city blocks between 13th and 34th streets and parallels 10th avenue. It is no longer just an abandoned strip of land, but has become an urban oasis and a public walkway, which is constantly visited by locals and tourists. As investigated by Stalter in his study, the pioneer species at the site were primarily mosses and grasses. The growing and dying of pioneer species added organic matter, which allowed for vascular plants to grow and thrive and also contributed to the slightly basic pH of the soil.

Furthermore, Stalter’s study concerning the biodiversity and flora, reaffirms its classification as a rambunctious garden. The High Line is one of the most biologically diverse and species rich system in the New York-Tristate area with over 161 species, 122 genera and 48 families.  The study also shows a density of 38.8 species per ha, which is greater than sites like Ellis Island, Liberty Island and Bayswater State Park.

 

The biodiversity of the highline is truly remarkable, and strengthens the support for maintaining and supporting rambunctious gardens, interestingly enough only 59% of the species at the High Line can be classified as “pristine” or “native”, but still the system continues to thrive and seems very natural. The high level of diversity has been made possible by human interactions, mostly humans are considered to be a hindrance for an ecosystem, but in case of a rambunctious garden, humans act as inadvertent pollinators.

 

Nevertheless, after visiting the High Line myself and examining the pollinators and the coexistence of nature and humanity I am convinced that nature doesn’t always have to be pristine and rambunctious garden can exist anywhere and support a species rich ecosystem.

 

 

Assisted Migration

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Prerak Paul

Assisted Migration is another concept related to conservation mentioned by Emma Marris in the Rambunctious Garden. Assisted Migration is a fairly new idea in response to the global climate change and increasing concentration of green house gases.

Assisted migration aims to  provide a new habitat for species that are struggling to adapt or facing extinction due to human induced climate change. Its proponents argue that anthropogenic climate change is the reason why species are struggling to survive, therefore humans must intervene and help solve the problem. However, the opposition to the argument remains and there might be even more severe ecological consequences.

The support for assisted migration is primarily based on climate change and the negative consequences of human actions. Supporters argue that humans have made it difficult for these species to survice in their natural habitat, therefore assisting them in finding another suitable habitat should be an obligation for every individual. Marris points out that climate change is the biggest thumbprint humans have put on this planet. Ice caps are shrinking and the tundra-temperate zones are moving northward. Some species are naturally able to make the move north, while others are stuck and left to face extinction. Marris states that those who support the idea argue that assisted migration does not violate pristiness, the species who are assisted in migration would have survived if the climate did not face accelerated warming.  According to the ICPP, the average species moves 3.8 miles towards the pole every decade. Those species that are unable to move, eventually die.

The idea of assisted migration usually gains a fair amount of sympathy from the audience, however its consequences must also be considered. It may appear that we do in fact have an obligation of helping sweating pikas survive climate change, but the impact of such migrations on the local population, habitat and the migrant specie itself must be assessed. The positives as of now do not seem apparent besides a possibility that the migrant population may survive, but the chances of it succeeding remain unknown. Several species have been unable to extract essential nutrients in the climate and have faced unseen predators which has wiped their populations in the new area.

If the new species are in fact able to adapt and thrive in the new habitat, it is still unclear whether or not they’ll turn into invasives and ruin the existing biodiversity. The idea still seems undeveloped and must be researched and experimented more, before implementing it at a larger scale. I believe that instead of trying to deal with the consequences of climate change, we should leave it up to natural selection to do its job. Our role should be more focused on lowering our impact on the climate and significantly changing  our practices.

Human intervention in migration of species may just increase the problems.

Rewilding

Posted on September 11, 2012 by Prerak Paul

The concept of rewilding is essentially the reintroducing of lost wild-life back into an area to improve its ecological quality.

As discussed by Emma Marris, Rewilding, unlike several other forms of conservation sets a baseline for restoration far before any human interference or impact. It aims to bring back the world to the prehuman era and tries to recreate pristine and untamed wilderness. Theoretically, as proposed by Dave Foreman, the idea of rewilding provides the necessary factors to keep an ecosystem resilient and diverse by reintroducing top-level predators or key stone species and regulating their population. Such a technique allows ecologists to keep check on all other prey and medium-sized predator species, and essentially recreate the world as it appeared more than 13000 years ago.

The idea of rewilding does seem far-fetched and impractical, however rewilding like efforts have already started to take some shape. Oostvaardersplassen, in the lowlands of the Netherlands, is one such place where the idea of Pleistocene rewilding is not just a mad concept but has been implemented fairly well.

However, what are the real life implications? Is it not paradoxical to “manage” wildlife or fence open wilderness? Aren’t the proxies, which are being introduced as makeshift native ancient predators essentially the invasive species that ecologists greatly hate? Do humans have the right to selectively breed wildlife and decide which species have the right to thrive or deserve to fade?

The concept of rewilding appears to be a large scale scientific experiment which will face severe criticism if it was to be implemented at a large scale, especially in North America. Rewilding essentially takes us back to era prior to development of the great civilizations, on several instances the idea of rewilding basically derides the city life that humans have become so accustomed to for centuries and sort of posses a return to the time of where humans had not evolved.

Ecological conservation and preserving biodiversity is crucial and must be pursued, introducing invasive species to recreate an ecological balance is also fair and unquestionable, however rewilding is not as feasible as some of its proponents may suggest.  Having lost species reappear to help maintain biodiversity and even increase the aesthetic values seems quite favorable, but implementing the idea at such a large scale only seems to appear like an untested experiment which has several reasons to go wrong. It is unethical to counter balance thousands of years of evolution and essentially a way of synthesizing nature. In principle the rewilding approach is paradoxical and unpractical with costs that do not break even with the benefits. Human population has greatly impacted the ecosystems, and its activities must be regulated, however there is a reason why the megafauna and large predators in the Pleistocene have faded.

Conservation and preserving diversity is great, however rewilding may just be too extreme.

Rambunctious Garden Ch 1 and 2

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Prerak Paul

In Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris tries to point our mistakes about looking towards nature from an idealistic point of view- that it exists untouched and pristine in a distant corner. Author Marris also points out that the traditionally held point of views about conservation must also be modified because nature not only exists in national parks, boreal forests and the Arctic, but also in backyards, forrest plantations and even city blocks.According to Marris, we must abandon our romanticized notion of pristine wilderness and take on the responsibility of tending a new garden of nature, which is everywhere. We must move on from the deeply held views of “pristine wilderness” as the ideal for every landscape, and adopt a new standard which is as dynamic as the changing ecosystems themselves.

Despite human presence, ecosystems are always changing due to several factors, therefore Marris in the first chapter points out the difficulty in setting an appropriate baseline for establishing a time period- where nature is pristine and untouched. Furthermore, in terms of time and money the procedure often proves to be rather difficult and impractical.

It is clear that most ecosystems or wildernesses have been misplaced, but still several conversationalists strongly adhere to the idea of creating restoration parks that aim to recreate a former time- for instance Cathcart’s efforts in Australia, where non-native species are being eradicated and “pristine wilderness” is being kept in fences.

According to Marris, there is a distinction between preventing extinction and trying to recreate a former system. It may not be feasible to return to the past, but preventing extinction certainly possible and does not require perpetual weeding.

A new view of conservation needs to be established, and the future must be embraced rather than abandoned in an effort to bring back the past. Just because an ecosystem has changed, it doesn’t make it worthless. They still drive the natural processes and help with problems such as climate change.

No one approach to the conservation efforts is adequate, what is important- to layer goals and manage landscapes with an eye for the future, rather than the past. The whole notion of preserving what is native and pristine is a misconception which is deeply rooted into the fields of ecology and must be modified.

I strongly agree with Marris’ point of views- Just because a specie is non-native, and fits perfectly well into an ecosystem does not make it any different. It helps achieve the overall goals and contributes to the landscape.  Furthermore, in the current world wilderness in its pristine and romanticized form can only be kept in controlled zoo-like environments, so is it truly wilderness if its kept tamed? And is justified to eradicate a specie because it doesn’t originally belong to that landscape? Marris makes excellent points and questions are deeply rooted views about conservation, wilderness and ecology.

 

Comments by Prerak Paul