Comments on: Be the president….. http://salamandercandy.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/be-the-president/ Writing about biology and other sweet things Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:10:24 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Jacob http://salamandercandy.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/be-the-president/#comment-60 Jacob Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:43:25 +0000 http://salamandercandy.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/be-the-president/#comment-60 Here are some differences I see between the two scenarios. First is the edge/area ratio. Bill A would produce much more “edge” land (i.e. land near the border of the reserve). Edge land is probably bad for wildlife, because the effects of people living nearby could spill over (pollution, house cats hunting the birds, noise, etc.). On the other hand, it’s probably good for people… if there were many large reserves, most people would live far from a reserve, and the interior of the large reserves would have no direct human use (you couldn’t even gaze upon the forested hills, since they’d be too far away). However, many small reserves would allow everyone to live near reserves and enjoy their benefits (aesthetic and recreational, as well as practical benefits like water purification in natural wetlands). Small reserves that no one was allowed to enter could still be viewed from afar, and wildlife would spill out into inhabited areas to the delight of naturalists (and hunters?). Ideally, even the environments we live in can be kept clean, and the landscape would smoothly transition from ecologically healthy populated areas to areas without humans. If we could do that (a big “if,” I know), the negative edge effects on reserves would be minimal. A second difference is that small reserves could be tailored to specific biodiversity hotspots. Large reserves would miss patches of land where rare endemic species lived, and would probably preserve a lot of land with low biodiversity, such as mountaintops (just like our current National Park system does). This is an advantage of small reserves. An advantage of big reserves is that whole ecological processes could be preserved. For example, in a big reserve a population of predators with wide ranges (bears, wolves, etc.) could live sustainably and hunt without destroying the prey population. But in terms of biodiversity conservation, I’m not sure that a few large carnivores should get priority over thousands of insects, plants, mollusks, small vertebrates, etc. Mostly for the sake of arguing with Ivan, I’m going to say the small reserves win in this case, although I would certainly have a tough time deciding if I were actually in this position. Here are some differences I see between the two scenarios. First is the edge/area ratio. Bill A would produce much more “edge” land (i.e. land near the border of the reserve). Edge land is probably bad for wildlife, because the effects of people living nearby could spill over (pollution, house cats hunting the birds, noise, etc.). On the other hand, it’s probably good for people… if there were many large reserves, most people would live far from a reserve, and the interior of the large reserves would have no direct human use (you couldn’t even gaze upon the forested hills, since they’d be too far away). However, many small reserves would allow everyone to live near reserves and enjoy their benefits (aesthetic and recreational, as well as practical benefits like water purification in natural wetlands). Small reserves that no one was allowed to enter could still be viewed from afar, and wildlife would spill out into inhabited areas to the delight of naturalists (and hunters?). Ideally, even the environments we live in can be kept clean, and the landscape would smoothly transition from ecologically healthy populated areas to areas without humans. If we could do that (a big “if,” I know), the negative edge effects on reserves would be minimal.

A second difference is that small reserves could be tailored to specific biodiversity hotspots. Large reserves would miss patches of land where rare endemic species lived, and would probably preserve a lot of land with low biodiversity, such as mountaintops (just like our current National Park system does). This is an advantage of small reserves.

An advantage of big reserves is that whole ecological processes could be preserved. For example, in a big reserve a population of predators with wide ranges (bears, wolves, etc.) could live sustainably and hunt without destroying the prey population. But in terms of biodiversity conservation, I’m not sure that a few large carnivores should get priority over thousands of insects, plants, mollusks, small vertebrates, etc.

Mostly for the sake of arguing with Ivan, I’m going to say the small reserves win in this case, although I would certainly have a tough time deciding if I were actually in this position.

]]> By: Ivan http://salamandercandy.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/be-the-president/#comment-59 Ivan Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:32:49 +0000 http://salamandercandy.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/be-the-president/#comment-59 Okay, I haven't thought about this too hard, so I am going with a combination of highly-educated snap judgment and gut feeling. I say, let's have the big reserves. Small reserves would probably be at greater risk of being fucked up by urbanization, pollution, invasive species, etc. If the degree of interconnectivity among the small reserves was very high, then that might make me change my mind. Maybe. But what are the chances of that? Of course, what are the chances that the giant reserves you speak of could ever be created? But I must remind myself that this is a hypothetical exercise-- so I say BIG reserves! Okay, I haven’t thought about this too hard, so I am going with a combination of highly-educated snap judgment and gut feeling. I say, let’s have the big reserves. Small reserves would probably be at greater risk of being fucked up by urbanization, pollution, invasive species, etc. If the degree of interconnectivity among the small reserves was very high, then that might make me change my mind. Maybe. But what are the chances of that? Of course, what are the chances that the giant reserves you speak of could ever be created? But I must remind myself that this is a hypothetical exercise– so I say BIG reserves!

]]>