Resurrecting biodiversity

[George Jung]

This article in SA caught my eye, and seems appropo to the multiple AGW threads/discussions.

There are macaques everywhere—climbing on the rocks, grooming one another as they sit on the forest floor. Others have babies on their backs as they trot along at a fair clip. The air is thick with humidity and it must be 35 degrees Celsius or more—the heavy gray clouds above look ready to crack into a noisy tropical thunderstorm at any moment. I'm making my way along a dense rainforest path with the noisy thrum of insects all around me.I could be almost anywhere in the tropics, but here at Kepong, 16 kilometers north of Malaysia's capital Kuala Lumpur, the land holds something very special. For what seems to the untrained eye to be dense primary rainforest is in fact an area that was denuded as recently as the 1920s. Scrubby vegetation, made up of grasses, ferns and fast-growing pioneer bushes and trees, was all that remained after the forest had been stripped to allow tin mining and vegetable cultivation.
But in 1926 pioneering forestry scientists in the pay of the British colonial government started a grand experiment to reseed, and it's now the only place in the world where there is a very large tract of artificially seeded rainforest—one which has slowly been regenerating for nearly 90 years.

There's more at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...t-regeneration

Several points were of interest, among them 1) which countries were actively pursuing this research 2) which countries were not - but should be.
An aside - with the push towards GMO crops, and loss of biodiversity, it appears to me we're painting ourselves into a genetically restricted corner. There are those intent on cataloguing and preserving seeds/varieties, but all indications are it's not ag-industry that's doing so. Interesting - you'd think they'd (Monsanto, ConAgra etc.) be the most interest in 'owning' that stock/info/genetics.

[George Jung]

More:

Initially around 15 tree species were planted, including fast-, medium- and slow-growing timbers, but now the area has more than 70 species of trees, says FRIM's director general Abdul Latif Mohmod. "The timber species that were initially planted acted as nurse trees to provide a microenvironment conducive for other timber species to establish and grow with minimal maintenance." The forest today looks very similar to mature rainforest—it has much of the structure of established forest, but what it lacks is the enormous ecological diversity.

[Chip-skiff]

Being on the board of a group that works to protect what biodiversity we have left, I'm struck by how the USDA and other agencies have been trying to eliminate it. For instance, the USDA Forest Service has promoted terrible overharvesting in public forests in this region, with replacement by single-species, even-aged stands, primarily Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta) which grows fast and is easily harvested, but doesn't support as many species as patchy, diverse woodlands. There are some nice old-growth stands in the steep, roadless canyons. But most of the nearby National Forest is a tree farm.

The BLM has promoted the same sort of ravagement by cows and sheep on the arid shrublands and grasslands, followed by invasions of cheatgrass and other exotics. Our place, and that of one neighbour, is a little island of native veg surrounded by an overgrazed, cowburnt mess. But it's vital to the deer and moose, who use it especially in winter, as a refuge and foraging ground. Cattle and sheep really ruin habitat for native species— the multiple-use thing is mostly crap in biological terms.

[David W Pratt]

Interestingly, sandalwood plantations are quite biodiverse. The sandalwood is parasitic on other trees, so you want a variety of other trees in case one species comes down with the flu, or what ever.

[George Jung]

Nice contribution, Chip-Skiff; I'd be curious your take re: the seeming lack of interest/intent by the various federal groups charged with protecting such an asset. Politicization? Or decimated from within by interlopers?

Notable in the SA article, to me, was the mention of those nations at the forefront of preserving/re-establishing biodiversity - so-called third world nations. Not a western nation in the mix? Mind-bogglingly unbelieveable.

[Chip-skiff]

Nice contribution, Chip-Skiff; I'd be curious your take re: the seeming lack of interest/intent by the various federal groups charged with protecting such an asset. Politicization? Or decimated from within by interlopers?

Ta. The phenomenon at work on US federal agencies is most often called "capture." That is, the regulatory/enforcement functions suffer because the people involved identify with those they're supposed to regulate. The total capture of the Forest Service and BLM range staff by ranching interests is a perfect example. You go to range science conferences, and a horde of geeks who can't even saddle a horse are all wearing cowboy hats and boots. In the Pacific Northwest, there's been a lot of capture by logging interests.

Funny how the international corporations that profit from abuse of public resources relentlessly identify themselves as "local people."

[George Jung]

Figured. So I'm curious - what's 'the cure'? And how have these third-world folk managed to avoid this fate?

[Chip-skiff]

Figured. So I'm curious - what's 'the cure'? And how have these third-world folk managed to avoid this fate?

Wish I knew. Maybe they lack the frontier myth, and all the fantasies that Americans attach to cowboys, loggers, et al.

[switters]

An interesting show was on PBS last night, radioactive wolves. It is about the comeback of Gaea in the Chernoble area. Very instructive, if you want biodiversity, get rid of the humans.

[George Jung]

I dunno - seems a bit severe, and not likely to garner much popular support among the voting base.

[Norman Bernstein]

Ta. The phenomenon at work on US federal agencies is most often called "capture." That is, the regulatory/enforcement functions suffer because the people involved identify with those they're supposed to regulate. The total capture of the Forest Service and BLM range staff by ranching interests is a perfect example. You go to range science conferences, and a horde of geeks who can't even saddle a horse are all wearing cowboy hats and boots. In the Pacific Northwest, there's been a lot of capture by logging interests.

It's a consequence of the corporate mindset: you get rewarded by the next quarter's growth and profitability, but NOT by what you might reap 50 years down the road. They can't help themselves; without a short term profit motive, the only conservation efforts they are willing to be sincere about are the ones that work well, as PR.

[George Jung]

I can understand that for the Godless Capitolists, but... we're talking Government Agencies, excellent jobs/careers/benefits whose jobs/promotions are not tied to any profit motive or growth, but only by their commitment to Mom and Apple Pie (did I mention I love Apple Pie? Yum!) and The American Way.

So .... what happened?

[Chip-skiff]

After getting too much attention and winning too many awards for environmental monitoring (which threatened the interests of Big Oil) I was run out of the US Forest Service by Bush I loyalists in the Washington office and Region 4.

If you imagine that careers in federal agencies are not dependent on politics, then you have a truly idealistic view of America.

[George Jung]

Sorry.... had my tongue so firmly in cheek, I damn near chewed it off!

And.... sorry for your loss/or gain, depends on your perspective. And... I agree. But that situation is a big part of what's wrong with this picture.

[Osborne Russell]

Two things about ecology I've forgotten since college days:

1. There's a "law" -- a broad generalization really -- that X per cent of energy is passed on from one food chain level to the next. I think 20%. IOW 20% of the rabbits support the coyotes.

2. There's a list of factors that determine how much diversity there will be. Generally, there is more diversity toward the equator, but not necessarily more biomass, especially in the oceans.

In any case the question is whether there is some upper limit on diversity, based on losses in converting energy, even without human interference. If so, can humans tweak that limit upwards? It seems well established that they can decrease both productivity and diversity.

[seanz]

This article in SA caught my eye, and seems appropo to the multiple AGW threads/discussions.



There's more at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...t-regeneration

Several points were of interest, among them 1) which countries were actively pursuing this research 2) which countries were not - but should be.
An aside - with the push towards GMO crops, and loss of biodiversity, it appears to me we're painting ourselves into a genetically restricted corner. There are those intent on cataloguing and preserving seeds/varieties, but all indications are it's not ag-industry that's doing so. Interesting - you'd think they'd (Monsanto, ConAgra etc.) be the most interest in 'owning' that stock/info/genetics.

The main point of interest (for me) is....

But in 1926 pioneering forestry scientists in the pay of the British colonial government started a grand experiment to reseed, and it's now the only place in the world where there is a very large tract of artificially seeded rainforest—one which has slowly been regenerating for nearly 90 years.

Takes 90 years to regenerate and isn't as good as before it was cut down. Now I'm not saying don't replant forests, I'd just prefer it if the "old-growth" wasn't cut down in the first place.

[PeterSibley]

Two things about ecology I've forgotten since college days:

1. There's a "law" -- a broad generalization really -- that X per cent of energy is passed on from one food chain level to the next. I think 20%. IOW 20% of the rabbits support the coyotes.

2. There's a list of factors that determine how much diversity there will be. Generally, there is more diversity toward the equator, but not necessarily more biomass, especially in the oceans.

In any case the question is whether there is some upper limit on diversity, based on losses in converting energy, even without human interference. If so, can humans tweak that limit upwards? It seems well established that they can decrease both productivity and diversity.

Humans tend to simplify ecosystems, the more capacity to simplify the faster it happens, at least with the social memes the West possess. We certainly have huge capacity to simplify and modify.

Why that rainforest was allowed to live and grow is incomprehensible within our system. It's also pretty unusual within the Malaysian context.

[Chip-skiff]

Humans tend to simplify ecosystems, the more capacity to simplify the faster it happens, at least with the social memes the West possess. We certainly have huge capacity to simplify and modify.

I was amazed by New Zealand, which is mostly terraformed for commercial agriculture and timbering. The approach to preserving native bird species is to designate offshore island reserves, and keep them pest-free (pests being rats, possums, cats, ferrets, etc.) by massive poisoning campaigns.

Before colonisation (first by Polynesians c. 800 ad) NZ had great diversity in bird and insect species, which filled the niches elsewhere occupied by mammals. The moa was the equivalent of a bison. Large crickets (weta) occupied the niche of mice and voles.

The major principle is that it takes a long time to develop biodiversity, but it can be lost very quickly.

[PeterSibley]

I grew up in New Zealand, an amazing place but with a very limited ecology and now quite sadly diminished, humans are incredibly destructive !

[skuthorp]

An interesting show was on PBS last night, radioactive wolves. It is about the comeback of Gaea in the Chernoble area. Very instructive, if you want biodiversity, get rid of the humans.

I've been saying that for years too! All the problems with species extinctions could be mostly solved by the extinction of just one.

[George Jung]

You are right, of course. It's not going to happen by a vote, however. You have a plan?

[Chip-skiff]

I grew up in New Zealand, an amazing place but with a very limited ecology and now quite sadly diminished, humans are incredibly destructive !

A dear friend, with post-doc in aquatic toxicology, works for NIWA on exotic species and water quality campaigns. She's not exactly running short of things to do. Meanwhile, here in Wyoming, we are on the lookout for Rock-Snot (Diddymo?) and NZ zebra mussels.