Author Archives: Kelvin Wu

Posts by Kelvin Wu

Government Agencies Water Supply

Posted on December 3, 2012 by Kelvin Wu

Government agencies have differeing opinions. For the EPA, they are only concerned with whether the water is filtered and not by its means. Local agencies, such as the NYCDEP want the most cost effective method for the safety for the water supply. For this reason, they are in favor of compromise that allows water flow unfiltered from upstate communities to avoid costly filtration.

Mayor Bloomberg seems to support the buffer zone. He says the acquiring land is important to ptotect the 19 reservoirs and three controlled lakes at the three watersheds. He also says by protecting these areas, it will also prevent hydrofracking in these areas that surround our water supplies. It seems like as years go by, thye feel like they can turn the land they have to have recreational puporses such as fishing, rowing, hiking, hunting, etc. There also programs whose goals were to “support and maintain well-managed family farms and working ofrests as beneficial land uses for water quality protection and riral economic vialbility” (pg. 4).

The government also is very concern about the amount of water usage. They provided many ways of tracking how much you use including a tracking system and will send messages electronically if they detect something is out of place with the amount of water being used.

Also the reason why there is no need to filter water is because the quality of the water shows there is no need to filter it. In 2011, according to the article, “DEP collected more than 33,000 samples from the city’s distribution system and performed more than 357,000 analyses, meeting all State and federal sampling requirements” (pg. 10)

Almost all of NYC water is lead free when it is delivered from the NYC’s upstate reservoir system but the water can asorb from solder, fixtures, and pipes found in the plumbing of some buildings or homes. NYDEP has a program to reduce the amount of lead absorption from service lines and internal plumbing. Under the federal Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), mandated at-the-tap lead monitoring is required and conducted at selected households located throughout New York City. In 2010, the results for the at-the-tap monitoring exceeded the lead Action Level (AL), which is 15 μg/L for the 90th percentile. The Action Level is a standard for the concen¬tration of a substance, which no more than 10 percent of the samples should exceed, and/or 90 percent of the results must be at or below said standard. As a result, DEP returned to semi-annual at-the-tap monitoring in 2011. The results of the 2011 monitoring indicated that lead levels returned to normal and were below the AL.

They also test for cryptosporidium and giardia. Cryp¬tosporidiosis and giardiasis are intestinal illnesses caused by microscopic pathogens, which can be waterborne. From January 1 to December 31, 2011, a total of 104 routine samples were collected and analyzed for Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts at the Kensico Reservoir effluents, and 52 routine samples were collected at the New Croton Reservoir effluent. Of the 104 routine Kensico Reservoir effluent samples, three were positive for Cryptosporidium (0 to 1 oocysts/50L), and 81 were positive for Giardia (0 to 6 cysts/50L). Of the 52 routine New Croton Res¬ervoir effluent samples, one was positive for Cryptosporidium (0 to 1 oocysts/50L), and 39 were positive for Giardia (0 to 12 cysts/50L). These levels are considered low and therefore action is not needed to take against it. Also outbreaks of these diseases in New York City have no evidence of being associated to drinking tap water.

“New York City 2011 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report.” Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2012. .

Questions Emma Marris

Posted on November 7, 2012 by Kelvin Wu

1. Do you believe Pleistocene rewilding is a good idea for conservationists who would like to return for a baseline even given the possible consequences?
2. What is your opinion of what should be done based on the different options written in the book?
3. You make the zebra mussel sound like it is a problem naturally being solved but it is still a big problem for the people and species living there. Do you really think it shouldn’t be removed?
4. What opinion and criticisms of your book have you come across that you have found noteworthy?

Questions

Posted on October 10, 2012 by Kelvin Wu

1. How effective has New York been in preventing smoking adults and the effects of secondhand smoke?

2. What other methods of pest control can the city use besides pesticides?

3. How can we avoid the potential health effects of smoke and air pollutants?

Chap 10

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Kelvin Wu

In this final chapter, Marris discusses the various goals of conservationists and ecologists and difficulties of each goal. The first goal is to protect the rights of other species. However, there are debates on whether one species is equal to another. Does a cockroach have the same right as a whale? The second goal is to protect charismatic megafauna. They are the large animals that humans like and don’t want to go extinct. The example given is the elephants eating all of the plants. Which is more important, the number of species saved or the type of species? The third goal is to slow rate of extinctions. In this goal, we treat all species as equal. According to one person, based on algorithms created, if a money threshold to save the area is not clear for the area, the area might as well not be saved. That means a person’s favorite species might not get saved. Also, stopping extinctions doesn’t mean saving ecosystems necessarily. The fourth goal is to protect genetic diversity. However if someone just wants DNA sequences, then we can just freeze tissue samples of animals but some people might not want that for obvious reasons.

The fifth goal is to define and defend biodiversity. Biodiversity has become shorthand for complexity of an ecosystem. Biodiversity calls for species interacting together to create a beautiful and complex web. The term includes so much that it brings up the question what groups of biodiversity should count: are ecosystems or microbes and fungi more important than say fish in the ocean? The sixth goal is to maximize ecosystem services. Governments have started giving money incentives like tax cuts to stop deforestation of plants, etc. so they can continue the services. However one problem with this approach is people now expect to receive money to do a good thing instead of being punished for doing a bad thing. Also if one is only concerned about ecosystem services, then there is no reason to not plant a monoculture of plants to absorb CO2. It is not always the case that biodiverse systems are the most efficient in services. It has been listed as more like a way to reason with people who don’t listen to the other goals and care only about their benefit. The seventh goal is to protect aesthetic and spiritual sense of nature.

She concludes the book by saying we can manage nature for different reasons. We have changed all of it and must take responsibility for our actions. Even though baselines can’t be returned to completely, we can control nature to help fit some of goals in mind.

After reading this book and reading the goals, her idea doesn’t seem too foreign to me. The goals I have read in the book seem logical and some are already embedded in my mind before reading the book such as protecting the beauty of nature, though usually only pristine areas which I learn may not be as pristine as I thought. Now I realize that the idea of human interference in nature is such a controversial topic. Not just cutting down trees but also changing the ecosystems and the species that live there. However, as she said, everything is up to debate regarding what humans should do for nature.

Chap 8 and 9

Posted on October 2, 2012 by Kelvin Wu

In these two chapters of Marris discuses about designer ecosystems and conservation in areas we may have never thought about. In the beginning of the chapter, Marris talks about how our concept is a running atypical stream. It is actually not natural. It was actually created by the Europeans when they dammed areas that changed swamp areas to areas with the rivers we are trying to return to. 
 
Based on this point, Marris argues going back to a past point not worth it in this case, as in others, since the rivers way of flowing was changed by man and is a bad goal if conservationists want to go back to before humans impacted nature. I agree with Marris that this isn’t worth the money it takes to restore an area is the goal is pristine nature since the baseline may not have been pristine to begin with.
 
A new approach to restoring areas is to engineer or design for specific goals such as nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or the maintenance of one or more small number of named species. Some goals may interfere with others so choose wisely. Restoration ecologists design to a certain extent since the ecosystem 100 years ago cant be exactly recreated, so human technology or proxy species may be used to obtain a similar ecosystem.
 
People may assume that before humans arrived, ecosystems were most efficient in the natural cycles. However, it has been shown that designer ecosystems can be more efficient than a recreation of a ecosystem. It is true that humans recreate ecosystems by design to a certain extent. However, how should we change the ecosystems? Introducing proxy species feel right to me if it helps an ecosystem return to its former functions. Moving animals around to prevent their endangerment feel right to me, too. To improve an ecosystem for our benefit should be only allowed if it also benefit the species living there.

The author’s point in chapter feels very familiar to me. She talks about ways of adding nature to lands not normally thought of for conservation such as planting native plants to cornfields or placing food for butterflies in city parks. Conservationists in Europehad have less pristine land to work with and and they try to maximize nature whenever possible, such as using agri environment schemes. 
 
One idea that I really advocate in this book is to add nature wherever possible in the city. I always believed in that viewpoint that we should add nature wherever possible in the city including workplaces and gardens. Any worker can make a work area a conservation space. I really like the idea of having a garden on the rooftop since instead of seeing concrete on roofs, we see lots of plants which can be appealing given how we don’t see as many plants as we normally would in the city except for parks.

She lists steps and results from turning a garden or an area to a native plant garden: plant local flora, local animals will be attracted since they are already attracted to those plants which are adapted to the climate already. I am not sure to what extent people will start to love nature as she said but this idea of gardens sound much more plausible and digestible than her other ideas.

Chap 6-7

Posted on September 27, 2012 by Kelvin Wu

In these chapters, Marris discuss if invasive species are as bad as we believe them to be and ecosystems that have evolved after the introduction of “invasive” species. One example to disprove invasive species are bad is Rodrigues Island. There are three rare species that live on this island: two types of songbirds and a fruit bat. Almost all of them went extinct due to deforestation of the plants. However after the introduction of exotic species of plants such as timber specie, the species grew back in numbers. Now people are removing the plants to make room for native species that wouldn’t have been able to keep the song birds and fruit bat alive due to their growth speed. Marris states that most exotic species are not harmful but we deem most to be harmful which wastes money and resources to eradicate them. That’s not to say some aren’t harmful such as the zebra mollusk. The common argument against invasive species is that introduced species tend to destabilize ecosystems and reduce their diversity. Invasive species destroy the ecosystem leaving only a few types of species left.

Extinctions are actually almost never the cause of species extinction directly. Few bird extinctions come from new birds eating food sources but killing the birds. Invasive vegetation also doesn’t exist to the complete nonexistence of other plant species. Some evidence shows islands have increased diversity such as Easter Island who had 50 native species, lost 7, but then was introduced to 68 plants after humans came.

Introduced species may not automatically complete with or prey on natives. Exotics species may increase diversity in the future. To prove this, the term novel ecosystems are introduced. Novel ecosystems are defined as new human influenced combinations of species that can function as well or better than native ecosystems and provide for humans with ecosystems services of various kinds. Examples are water filtration and carbon sequestration to habitat for rare species.

Novel ecosystems are not usually under human management except in cases where it is intentionally changed and then left to change however, and some changed by humans from a distance unintentionally, such as climate change, extinctions. It is more common to see introduced and native species living together than exotics dominating an ecosystem.
Species seem to mellow out later after decades and the composition of the species become mixed. For example, zebra mollusks dominated at first, but then were eaten by ducks that later grew in numbers.

There are reasons to keep novel ecosystems which may seem to be ecosystems disturbed by invasive species. Novel ecosystems have proven to be useful for restoration of native species. Novel ecosystems can also provide habitat for native animal species. Novel ecosystems just show signs of evolution and if one believes in that, it should be kept as is. Although species might have to be introduced directly or indirectly due to humans, we could see novel ecosystems as natures’ response to humans.

HIgh Line

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Kelvin Wu

Although the High Line is reputable as a park built upon on abandoned railroad track, I have not visited such area until this assignment came up. I have heard about it but did not really think about how it would look like until I was walking from the train station to meet up with other classmates to walk around the park. When I first saw it, I did not expect it to be on a suspended railroad. I thought it would on railroad tracks at ground level. After I had climbed the stairs and reach the top, I realized the park was nothing like the image I had of it. The park was a lot more beautiful then I expected it to be. There were many flowers and insects going through the plants. I mostly saw bees but I caught a glimpse of a butterfly or two before.

There were many tourists around taking pictures and walking along the park. To one side of the entrance I entered through, the 23rd Street one I believe, tall buildings were towering over the park while to the other where many stores such as restaurants, pharmacies, etc. Although this park is surrounded by city life on both sides, it still flourishes very well. I believe that the Highline fits into Marris’ concept in her book.

Although the Highline is in the city, and at some areas has tall buildings towering over it, the plants still grow there and flourish. According to Stalter’s paper, humans played a part in how the plants grow. It is said in the paper that “material washed from passing trains and wind—deposited soil added” to the mineral content of the soil. It also said humans may have accidentally transferred seeds to the area, another human interaction to the park.

The Highline shows nature can coexist one with nature not without fencing in the area and that humans may potentially add to the beauty or diversity of it just as birds and insects do. Even though the nature has been touched by human presence, it does affect it negatively as other people may believe when human interact with nature. This visit to the Highline was very pleasing and did change my perspective of how we can affect our surroundings in a positive way.

Assisted Migration in Urban Ecology

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Kelvin Wu

After reading about Pleistocene rewilding, another idea has been introduced that considers moving species: assisted migration. Assisted migration moves species in response to climate changes. Around the world, changes include the amount of rain pouring in areas (increasing or decreasing), the timing of flowers blooming. The effect of climate changes will cause species will have to move to different places at different times they are used to, meaning species will have to adapt to these changes. As always, some will die and some will survive through the process of natural selection.

The author stated the first species to be extinct would be mountain species because of poleward changes, there would be less area on the mountain to live on. Some people will think to move the species to another mountaintop but there’s come the argument that they are invasive and that unknown results will come from it.

The two viewpoints as to if assisted migration are the following: Humans caused the climate change so by moving species and saving them from extinction are doing good. However, to conservationists, it is important that if a species is not native then it can’t live in that area. Baselines can’t be changed easily.

In an urban ecology, I believe assisted migration would be a good idea depending on certain circumstances. If a species was on the risk of extinction, easy to transport, and brings benefits to the city or the area, I believe it is reasonable to do it. Biodiversity does seem to be lacking in cities. While adding aesthetic value to the city, it will awesome attract more people to the city. However, what species to include is most important.

The truth of the matter is we don’t always know if a certain species will be able to grow in an area. Experiments can be run to see what is suitable where but according the book, some studies take years or decades to show results. That means certainty over whether it will work or not can only be implemented years later. To only get the truth years or decades later is too long to wait. We must make a choice as to whether or not assisted migration should be a course of action to take.

Assisted migration seems to me to be a useful method for the biodiversity of urban ecology. Although people might argue these species are invasive, there many species in New York City that were invasive before adapting to the climate. If there are some benefits, why not try this method?

Chap 3-4

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Kelvin Wu

In this week’s readings, Emma Marris describes to us the idea that humans have affected the landscape long ago and the idea of Pleistocene rewilding. Back in the Pleistocene era, big mammals roam the earth such as the wooly mammoth and the ground sloths. However, their numbers were greatly diminished by one species: humans. Humans have driven many species to extinction such as the flightless bird the Maori as it was easy prey and had a lot of meat.

When the European explorers found the Americas, Native Americans were stated to have a population of 112 million people then. The reason why later European explorers only saw them in small tribes were due to the fact many have died off due the introduction of European diseases such as smallpox. That means before Europeans came, Native Americans have probably affected a great portion of the lands here before the Europeans settled. Thus, nature that we considered pristine may not actually be as pristine as it is thought to be. Humans have touched the land throughout time and history.

As the author stated, people who spend a lot of time on the wilderness, including the conservationists, don’t have the same standards of purity as those who merely dabble in wilderness do. People who explore and study nature thoroughly know too much about how things have changed to fool themselves into believing an area to be pristine.

To create an area with the characteristics, such as diversity, that conservationists and ecologists want, Pleistocene rewilding is introduced as a new idea. The idea is to introduce proxies for lost animals into an ecosystem to keep ecosystems resilient and diverse. The ones important to the diversity as the predators up top which can range from wolves to cheetahs. The areas would be regulated but it is the danger of predators coming into human dwellings that makes the idea controversial.

Honestly, the idea doesn’t seem too farfetched to me. If anything, there have been results that show this idea is working. There are arguments that since native species already live in certain areas, introducing proxy species might disrupt the ecosystems in unknown ways and create unpredictable results. However, if some people are keen to have biodiversity, I think the idea is worth a try.

Right now, conservationists and ecologists are merely slowly down the rate of loss of biodiversity. If some biodiversity can be created through this process, I am wondering why wouldn’t the ones who want it aren’t supporting it once they hear it. Although the predators can be scary, through strict regulation I believe it is a feasible idea.
The goals of protection of large mammals by expanding their range, biodiversity maintenance (if the theory is correct), tourism and aesthetic values are possible through this idea.

Rambunctious Garden Chap 1,2

Posted on September 4, 2012 by Kelvin Wu

The main idea of the author seems to be that although conservation is not necessarily futile depending on its goals, if its goal is to keep a place the same as it was years ago that is vain and so is our view on nature. The author lists two ways in which nature has been lost. One is through man. An example would be deforestation. Another is what she calls “misplaced” nature.

Our perception of nature is far away, not in the cities, with no people and untouched by mankind. The author points out that nature is everywhere, even in cities such as birds in backyard. Even if not pristine as we view nature, it can still be viewed as such. After all, there is no going back to when nature is considered pristine. The author points out changes happen to nature all the time.

She understands that changing our ideas is hard. The methodology she described as how conservationists go about preserving an area. There are baselines that are the goals, the ecosystem that conservationists want to obtain. According to our nature ethics, it is to go before human touch. Problems that arise though are ecosystems are complicated to figure out. Ecosystems are always changing with or without humans. Although a baseline is created, we don’t always know how the ecosystem looked back then. Most important of all, these goals are almost impossible to achieve unless decides to put in large amounts of money into it and everywhere makes it their priority. I agree with the author when she says it is almost impossible to obtain this.

Even though parks and reserves can be worth having like Yellowstone Park and the reserves in Scotia and Australia, nature is always changing. There are new ways to embrace nature. When the grad student saw the ecosystem in Hawaii, he wasn’t like the other ecologists who believe that it is something to scoff at. They can still have benefits and the ways they interact with each other are unique and interesting as those before. As she says these ecosystems are the ones driving the earth, not the ones of the past.

Even though human touch is thought to be bad, parks with fertile land had people there. The reason nature was there however was the people living there were doing the least harm.

I believe she makes a good case of her main point. People want a stable equilibrium in the ecosystems but it almost impossible. Ecologists know that change is the norm of ecosystems. Some changes in forests aren’t even the work of human. Sometimes it is the work of nature such as the Ice Age. Ecosystems aren’t static.

Even if an ecologist knows nature is always changing, he will try to establish a balance of nature policy. They always change. Even park managers admit so and hope that the system will be resilient. Even knowing change is happening, manmade change is still held to be bad. Searching for the untouched is vain in searching the unchanging. I am one of those people, too. Even if I know nature always changes, having our influence on nature makes me feel conflicted as to what should be done. Even if nature always changes, we can’t help but feel responsible for those changes. I see her point but saying preservation is vain feels off to me.

The Anthropocene

Posted on August 30, 2012 by Kelvin Wu

The articles we read talk about the anthropocene that is occurring in this point in time. Anthropocene is the domination of the ecosystem by humankind. Humankind plays a big role in how the environment can change. The two articles that we read talk about the effects that result from how we interact with nature and the approaches we should take in response.

Kareiva and Vitousek, the authors of the two articles, both agree that humans are playing a big role in the ecosystems of the planet. However, they differ as to what can be done now in relation to our interactions. As Vitousek stated, humans have changed the Earth through its industries. Agriculture has called for deforestation and introduction of new species to the land. The amount of carbon dioxide gas has been rising through fossil fuel combustion of humans. We control how rivers flow for our own use, either by building dams or waterways. Rate of new species in an environment and extinction of species have both increased due to the work of humans.

Vitousek suggests three paths should take knowing how much we impact the Earth: slow the rate of change so ecosystems and species can adapt more effectively, understand the Earth and its ecosystems better and how they interact with us so we can change for the better and accept responsibility for it to help maintain the diversity of species and the functioning of ecosystems.

Kareiva believes that conservation is nearly impossible for practical reasons. Conservation is failing and is losing more it is saving. Examples of conservation would be parks preservations and wilderness areas. They will be protected and sealed off from the touch of the public except for sight seeing. Those sealed off areas will not change but they will not prevent the world from changing. The author states that nature exists amongst the changes in the world and brings up cases to back up his point.

As Kareica points out, is nature really that fragile that one change can change everything? While lost of one species has affected ecosystems, in most cases that doesn’t mean all of the other species in the ecosystem die and ecosystem dissolves. Rather the ecosystem and the species adapt to the change. Nature is resilient that it can recover from major human disturbances. Destroying habitats create new ones.

While I do believe people should make an effort to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, and people should care about the environment, I am sure that not all people will collaborate with Vitousek’s plan because that is how we are. We don’t always listen even if the person makes a good point. Kareiva’s way of thinking will definitely be more appealing to a wider and important audience. Instead of asking, “How can we save nature?” the question that should be asked is, “How can we work with nature?” Although I believe humans should slow down the rate of change to the ecosystems, change is inevitable even if we slow it down, even if it we seal off one place to be untouched. The way we should be thinking is how we can make the change not only to accommodate us, but nature as well.

Comments by Kelvin Wu