Nature and sustainability…

zokes – Member
‘If we want natural environments, then we need to neglect them.’
Except we’ve already made it impossible to do that. By removing apex predators such as wolves, we’ve removed the only natural controls on large herbivore numbers…

There was an apex predator removed that managed large herbivore numbers much better than wolves. It was the native highlander. Burnt and beaten out of their homes so that the big landowners could create this “wilderness”. Also removed were the large herbivores – the highlanders cattle – to make way for the more profitable sheep.

If we want to re-introduce the ultimate apex predator, how about we dispossess the large landowners and return the land to the descendants of those who were turned off it.

epicyclo – apart from being able to put down the large chip on your shoulder, what you’d be doing there is simply recreating another managed landscape, just managed by someone else’s idea of ‘nature’.

I don’t disagree with your point per se, but it’s got bugger all to do with the question here. Replacing humans with humans – you’d still be managing the landscape, and assuming that ‘the descendants’ don’t want eating by wolves / bears, the natural apex predator would still be lacking. You’d just have a few poor people culling deer instead of a few rich people

Humans aren’t very good apex predators, since they tend to exterminate all the others and also destroy the natural flora to grow crops on.

Not that I am suggesting the Clearances were anything other than thoroughly despicable, but humans don’t mix with pristine ecosystems, do they?

zokes – Member
epicyclo – apart from being able to put down the large chip on your shoulder, what you’d be doing there is simply recreating another managed landscape, just managed by someone else’s idea of ‘nature’…

I’ve got a right to that large chip – my family are from those dispossessed people.

Of course it would still be a managed landscape. It always has been. Humans are part of it. That is the point I’m trying to make.

Fiddling around the edges trying to create an urban dwellers romantic idea of wilderness/nature or make it more “natural” is bollocks – it is and was agricultural and pastoral land people made a living from.

It has not been a “pristine ecosystem” for thousands of years.

Heh.. just read the stuff I missed last night when TJ waded in. Most people back down when they are shown to be on shaky ground 🙂

It seems to me that game bird management can be good for biodiversity (I’ve seen loads of pheasant estates down by me with dozens of different plant and tree species being planted for the sake of birds) but I’m sure there are certain spots where it’s not.

However on the hills of Wales it’s nothing but sheep and grass – this is about the least diverse habitat in the whole country I’d wager. Personally I’d rather our hills had more game shooting. As long as they don’t close off the trails too often 🙂

I’ve got a right to that large chip – my family are from those dispossessed people.

Your family. Yes, from how many years ago?

Political history and wrongs from two centuries ago is hardly a basis for making objective statements about ecosystem function. If we’re playing at that game, I suppose my family had better bugger off back to Ireland then. 😯

Seeing as I’m now in Oz, should I kindly request that all european settlers now leave? 🙄 They’ve certainly fecked this place up more than all the toffs in London could to Scotland

However on the hills of Wales it’s nothing but sheep and grass – this is about the least diverse habitat in the whole country I’d wager.

I’d happily take you up on your bet, but you’d be wrong and I’d win 🙂

Loads of different grass, moss, flowering plant species supporting untold numbers of different animals unless it’s chronically over-grazed

Prize for the most biodiverse place in the UK though…

(after Kew gardens, as that’s too easy)

I was going to jump in to this thread some time ago but everyone seems to be arguing about one small aspect. I’ll try and bypass that and point to Einstein’s famous quote about not being able to solve problems at the same level of consciousness that created them.

I am interested in this question. What exactly is that higher state of consciousness required?

Well I have just finished my masters degree in holistic science, and this has given me a very rich understanding of the many news ways of scientific thinking. We covered Gaia theory, complexity theory, emergence, dissipative structures, panarchy, autopeisis, you name it.

There are a number of aspects of what for me would be a new level of consciousness. These are

1) Understanding the nature of being from a phenomenological perspective – understanding how we bring this world into being through our senses.
2) Developing an understanding of the holistic a dynamic processes within nature that do not necessarily lend themselves to a reductionist level of analysis
3) Understanding the hidden orders not just within nature, but within scientific thinking, which can both enlighten us as well as restrain our thinking un-necessarily.

So yeah, a mouthful of garbage there that probably does not make sense. My fellow student Brenda has just published her dissertation on resilience, and I wrote a short overview on my new blog here:

Home Coming – Exploring ecological resilience and the farming communities of east-central Alberta

It’s a great read for anyone who is very much active in the world of sustainability, resilience and transition.

As for the deeper stuff, well you’ll have to wait until my book is published : ) But this is a fabulous book too covering much of what has inspired me:

zokes – Member
…Seeing as I’m now in Oz, should I kindly request that all european settlers now leave?…

Yes, or pay adequate compensation to the survivors of the dispossessed. They would prefer their land back, I suspect.

Less than 40 years ago Aborigines were being held in concentration camps in Queensland.

As an engineer I found this book very helpful, in understanding nature

Once I understood a plant is an evaporation machine, it blew my mind. And the average size of an animal is just 1mm.

The quote that really stuck with me-
Nature vs human technology = “microscopic improvisation vs macroscopic deliberation”
http://www.amazon.com/Cats-Paws-Catapults-Mechanical-Worlds/dp/0393319903

dissipative structures, panarchy, autopeisis, you name it.

Wow I don’t even know what they are, can you explain briefly?

Loads of different grass, moss, flowering plant species supporting untold numbers of different animals unless it’s chronically over-grazed

In a good patch perhaps, I’ve ridden a hell of a lot and seen very little in the way of flowering plant species in some areas.

And simonralli – I think you are diverging from the original topic here 🙂 There is a common consensus of what ‘natural’ means here even if there are many other interpretations.

Zokes – I suspect we are talking slightly at odd.

I do ride and walk thru grouse moors and they contain less species and less wildlife in general – I suspect the difference is the scale – square mile after square mile of short heather with no trees anywhere and no variation is not good habitat for many specie – just a few specialised ones.

I suggest yo have a look at the lammermuirs. I suggest yo have a read of the report that Zulu put up that shows the opposite o what he claimed. A grouse moor managed for shooting was very poor habitat. The RSPB got involved to get them to change their practices to improve the habitat and lo and behold there was an increase in most species

I am not meaning let the heather dominate completely but a few stands of trees, some grassland, that sort of thing increases the variety of habitat without decreasing significantly the species that live on grouse moors.

To say that a huge area of moorland that is regularly burnt for grouse management with no trees and no variation in the ground cover is a more biodiverse habitat that if on the same moor a few stands of trees were allowed to grow, some variation in the vegetation was allowed is just simply wrong.

Its nothing to do witht being a class warrior – its to do with countering the propaganda as spouted by Zulu.

Game management and shooting have a place in the highlands – not least for the money it brings in – however it needs to be sensitively managed to avoid decrearinsg biodiversity and impoverishing the landscape

All over the highlands land use is being managed more and more to reduce the adverse effects of land management for game.

A dissipative structure is one that operates far from equilibrium. It is a term that Prigogine used in his book “Order Out of Chaos” which is an excellent read.

Autopoesis is a term coined by Maturana and Varela, to show how unlike machines, a living system uses its own parts to continually re-create itself. The term can loosely be defined as ‘self-making.’

Fritjof Capra’s book “The Web of Life” is an excellent read and goes into many of these theories of life and living systems.

Some businesses are now looking at natural systems in order to be inspired as to how to both organise themselves, and also be inspired by how they develop their products. It could also be said that our economic dogma, which is based on the fallacy of unlimited growth, could certainly do with modelling itself on natural systems, which after all, have proved resilient over millions and millions of years, as opposed to our current modern age (the last 200 years) which in earth lifespan terms, is nothing more than a millions of a bat of an eyelid really.

Molgrips

That is a fair comment, but I was trying to get at a definition of what life and living systems are. This is very much to do with us being fully a part of nature, and not separate, thinking of nature just as an economic resource to be exploited, If we change our consciousness about nature and our place in nature, then we re-define what nature and natural mean to us.

The lack is all mine though in not making myself clear.

Prize for the most biodiverse place in the UK though…

Morecambe bay mudfalts? Probably holds the most weight of animals per cubic metre anyway.

Otherwise it will be something unusual like suburban gardens at a guess

Less than 40 years ago Aborigines were being held in concentration camps in Queensland.

A fact I am very much aware of, but it’s still got bugger all to do with this thread.

That was 40 years ago and in living memory. Kevin Rudd formally apologised, but it’s hardly his fault is it? Live and let live FFS.

Anyway, as we’re waving willies books about, here’s one by the co-author of 4 of the papers I’m working on at the moment

I do ride and walk thru grouse moors and they contain less species and less wildlife in general

.. than what?

It’s surely poor compared to virgin Caledonian rainforest, but what about sterile sheep grazing? I dunno how much time you’ve spent on the mountains of Wales but things are pretty bad in places I feel.

Ralli – we are indeed a part of nature, how much we affect it is a question of scale that’s all. Any other animal would do what we’ve done if it had the chance.

However the idea of modelling human society on natural ecosystems has a major flaw. In nature, if an ecosystem crashes then most of the individuals die. If it’s mice or beetles then we just see that as part of nature rebuilding itself. If 90% of humans died that’d be something of a tragedy no?

I do ride and walk thru grouse moors and they contain less species and less wildlife in general – I suspect the difference is the scale – square mile after square mile of short heather with no trees anywhere and no variation is not good habitat for many specie – just a few specialised ones.

Less species obvious to the human eye. RSPB focus, unsurprisingly, on birds – hardly a complete ecosystem approach. Managed moors are some of the most diverse habitats in the UK.

To say that a huge area of moorland that is regularly burnt for grouse management with no trees and no variation in the ground cover is a more biodiverse habitat that if on the same moor a few stands of trees were allowed to grow, some variation in the vegetation was allowed is just simply wrong.

You’d be surprised. Just because we like to see clumps of trees here, a flowery meadow there doesn’t mean it suits the wildlife. By all means form corridors between habitats, but fragmenting them in the manner you suggest wouldn’t benefit anything. Clearly ecosystem science isn’t your strong point…

TandemJeremy – Member

Prize for the most biodiverse place in the UK though…

Morecambe bay mudfalts? Probably holds the most weight of animals per cubic metre anyway.

Nope, although interesting thought. But as I’m not an esturine ecologist, I wouldn’t like to judge whether it’s just lots of the same thing (cockles), or many others too.

Otherwise it will be something unusual like suburban gardens at a guess

Closer than you’d think… It’s actually an old refinery site near London. Phenomenal levels of diversity, just not particularly pretty to the human eye.

zokes – Member
‘Less than 40 years ago Aborigines were being held in concentration camps in Queensland.’
A fact I am very much aware of, but it’s still got bugger all to do with this thread.

I agree, but you did raise the issue 🙂

The relevance to this thread is that there really is very little land where the hand of man has had no effect.

I would like to see humankind considered to be part of the natural landscape instead of as a species that should be removed.

Edit: I’ll keep out of the thread from here on because I think I’m diverting it too much into the area of politics.

sterile sheep grazing? I dunno how much time you’ve spent on the mountains of Wales but things are pretty bad in places I feel.

I really must pull you up on this molgrips. Just because you can’t see it, and we seem to intuitively think lush forests win, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. I spent 2 years of my postdoc up and down the Carneddau…

Compared to the same or similar landscape that is varied in its management with a variety of different habitats. A few stands of trees, that sort of thing

And sheep grazing uplands is as zokes said more diverse than people realise

I would like to see humankind considered to be part of the natural landscape instead of as a species that should be removed.

And as we seem to be slowly understanding how our actions affect said landscape, maybe we’ll get there sometime soon

Compared to the same or similar landscape that is varied in its management with a variety of different habitats. A few stands of trees, that sort of thing

But it is varied TJ. The patchwork of 12-year burning, whilst aimed at promoting grouse, is pretty damned good for so many other species that we care not one jot about until it’s not there.

Flies are a nuisance, right? But the world would be pretty buggered without anything to pollinate plants, not to mention the food webs they support. Slight tangent, I know, but I hope it’s illustrative.

A few trees here and there wouldn’t really of much other than solve humankind’s obsession with the things. Ecological corridors though, I agree, would be a different matter…

By all means form corridors between habitats,

this is what I man – and allowing some variation. Not fragmenting the areas of heather moreland, not reducing them in size significantly

As I said I think it a scale issue where we are at odds – in the lammermuirs the area managed as a grouse moor is many dozens of square miles with no trees and no variation – just short burnt heather – no corridors, no variation at all over huge areas. an hours riding and all you see is patchwork heather from burning – not a tree anywhere. No gorse, no braken, no grassl;and – nothing but heather.

Letting a few % of that go to trees or scrubland or sheep grazing would not impair the managed moor as an ecosystem but would provide some variety to allow other species both plant and animal to gain a footbold in the area

edit
zokews – we keep having crossed posts+ here but basically we are meaning the same thing.

The scale point is an interesting one TJ, but it’s less of an issue than you’d think. I’m thinking on ha scale, you’re thinking on sq mile scale. What about an Australian ecologist who thinks on exponentially larger terms?

Letting a few % of that go to trees or scrubland or sheep grazing would not impair the managed moor as an ecosystem but would provide some variety to allow other species both plant and animal to gain a footbold in the area

Scale, again is a very human thing. Each species has its own concept of it, and requires an area to match to thrive. The concept of corridors is only good if distances between fragments are short, and those fragments are large, otherwise you’re still missing the top of the food web that needs large area to support enough things for it to eat.

The converse is the unseen majority – soil microbes (more my area now). sq mm is massive scale for them, we know comparatively so little about them, yet they arguably govern most of the planet’s geochemical cycles. That is, until we come and bugger them about.

I’ve never been to the Lammermuirs, but I’ve seen enough of the landscape you describe in Wales and England, and one thing it most definitely is is diverse…

I really must pull you up on this molgrips. Just because you can’t see it, and we seem to intuitively think lush forests win, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. I spent 2 years of my postdoc up and down the Carneddau…

Look, I’m not thinking of lush forests, I’m more intelligent than that 🙂 I’m also not talking about the Carneddau, which are indeed more diverse (to my ignorant eye) than other places. I’m talking about certain places in Mid and South Wales that I have been

Zokes – I accept it is diverse – but in an area of many square miles would diversity of species not be improved by providing some me variation in the right parts of the land?

diversity of species not be improved by providing some me variation in the right parts of the land?

Diversity may well be improved, whether that equates to ‘better’ place i.e. improves ecosystem function and resilience through species richness and functional redundancy is another matter. However, in the ‘right’ places, yes I guess some variation wouldn’t harm what’s already there. Whether or not it would improve it in an ecological, as opposed to a visual sense is quite another matter. This is an area (for reasons I think we’ve now ably demonstrated) which is still very much up for debate.

Riiiiiiiiiight – we are in basic agreement then and now it gets down to definitions of “best” and so on

Its a very complex debate not helped by rose tinted glasses from one side nor from the other side distorting the debate to justify their practices

My parents were involved in a high level with this sort of thing in Scotland and thus I do understand its all very complex and simplistic solutions do not always produce the desired results and that “more fluffy animals” does not always mean more diversity

It just annoys me when Zulu and others so distort the evidence to suggest that grouse moors intensively managed to produce maximum numbers of grouse are “better” that the same land managed for biodiversity. The langholm experiment shows the opposite. Manage the lands sensitively for biodiversity and you get more species. This does not mean foresting the grouse moors.

There is an increasing trend in Scotland for the land to be managed to increase diversity not to increase game species – and its working and altering the landscape and increasing the numbers of rare species both plant and animal

Yup, it’s a darn sight closer than last time we had an ‘informed discussion’! (nuclear power)

I think I kind of idly waded in over lunch without reading everything, and skim-read yours and zulu’s lengthy posts. But yes, basically we agree – hence my cautious use of inverted commas around ‘better’ etc.

You can measure species richness and diversity in a number of different ways, use all manner of equations to give you a single number, which if higher or lower may be ‘better’. Unfortunately, those that make the policies at best understand half the jargon, and at worst, are understand less than the keyboard warriors on here. Giving them a number, as mentioned previously, can be a double edged sword indeed…

So which is better – diversity of slugs and snails and other creepy crawlies or diversity of raptors?

🙂

Diversity of slugs and snails may lead to a diversity of raptors. Artificial reintroduction of raptors without the food web to support them just means we have to feed them each day e.g. the Red Kite centre at NyA – little more than an open zoo

There is an increasing trend in Scotland for the land to be managed to increase diversity not to increase game species – and its working and altering the landscape and increasing the numbers of rare species both plant and animal

I came across exactly this near where I was staying during my last trip to Scotland.

A large former National Nature Reserve was downgraded and stripped of its status with only a very small area managed by Scottish National Heritage remaining as a National Nature Reserve.

The problem was the deer stalking estates who are keeping hugely inflated numbers of deer on the land. These deer have munched up all the rare arctic/alpine plants on the reserve (some of which only grew on this particular site in the UK). SNH wanted the estate to shoot more deer but the estates weren’t interested as they like to keep numbers high so it is easy for their clients to find and shoot deer when out stalking.

Some of it may be a “rose-tinted view of the past” but many of these ecosystems and habitiats provide vital ecological services e.g. pollenating crops, locking in CO2, providing clean air and water. None of these services are factored in to the economics which results in these areas being undervalued and development / changes in land-use are permitted without evaluating the true costs.

Zokes, Richard Bardgett used to have a nice Klein you working with him?

Zokes – I accept it is diverse – but in an area of many square miles would diversity of species not be improved by providing some me variation in the right parts of the land?

dpends on the variation, modern agricultural use would totally screw it for biodiversity. And thanks for telling me I was just falling for gamekeeper propaganda, because actually its my considered opinion based on a PhD and postdoc research on agricultural biodiversity.

A_A – I was his post doc for 6 months at Lancaster, but he was PI on the same project i worked on at bangor for 18 months prior.

He had umpteen bikes, but I never really paid that much attention to them really. If I ever actually had chance for a meeting he was so busy all I had time to talk about was shop. Relations were sadly a little strained too at the time as on my first day at Lancaster I told him I had the job I’m now doing here in Australia (permanent research scientist post at CSIRO). Pity, I would have quite liked to work a lot more closely with him.

Still, I’ve had lots of feedback on the two MS drafts he’s seen so far, so hopefully no lasting damage…

Did you work for him at Lancaster, or just collaborating with him?

AA – so you are saying allowing a bit of variation in the management of the land would decrease diversity?

No-one in the political elite gives a damn anymore.

There’s lots of quite frightening things happening to the environment, but nothing much will happen while our politicians are running around like headless chickens worrying about economic downfall, the ****ing war on terror and where the next vote is going to come from.

In years to come our children will look back on this time and wonder what on earth we thought we were doing allowing rainforests to be cleared, species to be wiped out, coral reefs to be obliterated, our oceans used as a dumping ground, and the planet to be generally trashed.

Anyway, screw Nature. What’s she ever done for me?

No-one in the political elite gives a damn anymore.

Certainly not in our country – from what I hear, the only area almost certain to suffer 40% cuts is scientific research and universities. Little wonder so many researchers are going abroad. And I’m not just talking about relatively junior researchers like myself – two high profile, world leading profs that I know of in my field have headed over here to Oz in the past two years. Many more have asked me what it’s like.

I’m not quite sure how the UK is supposed to fix itself and innovate, when all the researchers are being forced out. I guess the UK will go with banking to drive the economy with its proven track record then 🙄

I blame Descartes and Bacon.

AA – so you are saying allowing a bit of variation in the management of the land would decrease diversity

TJ – cant you see, that the existence of your monoculture grouse moor IS variation.

Theres plenty of areas of farmland in the country, and a fair number of areas of unimproved grassland and scrub.

If you get rid of the areas of uninterrupted heather moorland by turning it into something else then you’re decreasing the variety of habitats in the region/country/world, you’re just replacing one monoculture with another wider monoculture that you think is “better” – 75% of the worlds heather moorland is found in Britain – by losing that you make the world less diverse!

Heather moorland has an identifiable characteristic variety of species – these species are not found anywhere else, cant you see that breaking that up reduces the diversity of species globally – this is my point about scale – while you’re saying its not diverse, you’re looking as the small scale, having roaming expanses of heather moorland makes the world more diverse, as they don’t exist anywhere else

Now then – what is the critical sustainable level for the survival of these species? if you reduce and break up the heather moorland, at what point do the communities and species that survive there become unviable/unsustainable? if you reduce the size of a moor, will it continue to hold a viable community of grouse/plover/hen harrier?

Grouse and plover do not survive on southern Heathland, despite the fact that they are both heather dominated, nor to they survive in caledonian pine forests – breaking up the “heather monoculture” could very easily endanger these species, is that an increase in diversity or a reduction? you have not quantified the scale, nor have you quantified the risk inherent in changing the status quo. Nor have you quantified the increased risk of wildfire found in longer heather growths, even higher in heather and scrub (and, indeed the severity of the burn and recovery time in heather and scrub!)

Finally TJ – You still have not tackled the red squirrel and Broadleaves dilemma – if in an attempt to increase “diversity” in a location you introduce a common species that threatens the survival of an endangered species, then your original effort is counter productive.

True dilemma by the way, in the early nineties at Kielder we were being sent out to plant thousands of Oak trees in the watercourses (as studies showed they support the highest diversity of species, unlike the monoculture conifer planations)… a few years later they were cutting them all down again! – the law of unintended consequences strikes again

This isn’t gamekeeper propaganda – red grouse and golden plover are (internationally) endangered species – I suggest you go and read

“The effect of management for red grouse shooting on the population density of breeding birds on heather-dominated moorland – A. P. THARME et al”