Your point about maximizing energy flow and hence(?) biodiversity is an interesting one - would you care to elaborate? The amount of energy integrated within a forest ecosystem has come up in discussions at Oregon StateU as a significant difference in the forests of today vs. yesteryear, but we are unaware of any body of work on the topic. Managing species by inventory count works well for easily counted individuals, but becomes incredibly intensive and oft times impossible for others. This is what has led (according to my understanding) to managing for habitat associated with particular species and measuring the amount of habitat (as HCPs do), or to identifying an indicator species associated with habitat and populations of a collection of species and counting the population of the indicator species. Both of these approaches have their own sets of problems, too. You suggest doing a species count - how do you propose to handle the difficult or impossible to count ones? Tom Haswell 541-757-7608 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forest@listserv.funet.fi > [mailto:owner-forest@listserv.funet.fi]On Behalf Of Norm Cimon > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 6:49 AM > To: FOREST@listserv.funet.fi > Subject: Re: Environmental Call to Arms > > > The argument is somewhat specious (or species-us if you like). We've always > been part of the ecosystem so the whole argument about natural/unnatural > bores me to tears. There is no seperating ourselves from the lands we > inhabit, and there never has been. Humans and their primate ancestors have, > as all animals do, constantly interacted with and modified their > environment. Only the scope of our activities has changed. > > The only problem with managing for our purposes and goals is that those are > unstated, or too often reflect the desires of a small group of individuals > when everyone should be involved. As for the superiority of one set or > another, we might think seriously about borrowing a few notions from > physics. Maximizing energy flow in an ecosystem and the resulting > biodiversity which results from that are easily stated and even measurable > criteria for any ecosystem. I think that's where we should go. > > As for the need of certain species for specific stages in succession regime, > this can also be quantified, on a species by species basis. For every > bobwhite quail there is at least one ivory-headed woodpecker which has > completely dissapeared. We should make sure we include all the critters, > wouldn't you agree? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee G 347CES/CEV <gregory.lee@moody.af.mil> > To: FOREST@listserv.funet.fi <FOREST@listserv.funet.fi> > Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 4:45 AM > Subject: Re: Environmental Call to Arms > > > >Oh, I agree. Note that I said human activities that "mimic" natural events >
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0