Monday, September 24, 2012

Does the World Need Saving?


Mitchell Groenhof

Is ecological restoration a necessity to save our planet or is the ever changing biodiversity in today’s world caused by human dominated disturbances simply another piece of the natural selection puzzle? Starting in the not so distant past mankind gained the ability to more easily travel vast distances allowing for increased movement of both flora and fauna to new and exotic habitats shifting the balance of native organism ranges. This begs the question, should something be done about this human influence on organism home ranges and newly formed invasions or should it simply be considered ‘natural’?

Ever since I have learned to respect and care for the earth around me I have wanted to restore and preserve it the way it was before human disturbances. Extensive disturbances including wildfires, tornadoes, and hurricanes do occur naturally on the planet, it’s just establishing whether or not mankind’s disturbances should be considered to be natural and we will deal with the consequences or to fix our actions that some think degrade the planet.

The introduction of nonnative species happens more often than I like to acknowledge but it is those that become invasive which most restoration professionals take not of. Species such as Purple Loosestrife, Reed Canary Grass, and Common Reed(Phragmites) can create extensive monocultures allowing for little native vegetation to survive and further reducing native biodiversity and  habitat diversity. The invasion of these new species clogs niches and can change the structure and balance of native ecosystems. These disruptions cause the native flora and fauna to struggle to survive in a niche they may have once thrived in.

Is the immediate protection and slight reversal of Earth’s habitat alterations due to humans necessary for the overall survival of living organisms in today’s world or is it simply the desire of those people who notice these changes to try and keep the native diversity? This is an important question and one that is thrown back into my consciousness quite often in my everyday life. During my recent summer internship the question of why it was necessary to restore native habitats to the lands I was working on was posed to me and it was one of the hardest questions I have ever faced. To answer with a clear and concise answere for everyone to understand was much harder than I had ever imagined. As I am an Ecosystem Restoration Major this question should be fairly easy for me to answer but it seems harder than I previously expected.

Clear-cut forests, forests that have been overridden by Buckthorn, and lowlands dominated by Teasel are all examples of extraordinary changes in habitat structure and composition allowing for further change to the biodiversity and ecosystem services once provided. Are these symptoms of a problem facing our Earth today and is this a problem we should worry about? Frankly, I’m quite positive that the earth will survive our changes to the land and organisms will go on to live on this planet for quite some time. The real question is will we as humans survive all of the changes?

2 comments:

Unknown said...

I would answer that they are absolutely symptoms of a problem, the problem is us. No other species has acquired the habit of self destructing like we have. We also lack the ability to swallow our collective pride and admitt that we are wrong, and instead rationalize the continued degredation of the ecosystem services that we need to maintain the quality of life we have come to expect. It is definitly a problem that we should care about. There is a strong intergenerational moral complusion to preserve the systems and resources that we have been able to utilize for the coming generations, so they don't have to deal with our mistakes.

fox said...

I would agree with Dan here on this. That we as humans are the source of the degregdation and alteration of our surrounding environment. The fact that we as humans seem to have the notion that we have the final say in how the land should be used, regardless of the consequences. The fact that there is so little recognition on our own mistakes only proves the point that there SHOULD be something done about all the damage we have caused. The fact that the earth will survive is debateable but I would feel confident in saying that it will continue to spin. However, with all the economical and technological advances that we are making, we may not be around to see the earth spin in the future. If anything, I believe that we will be our own demise.