Now on ScienceBlogs: That Which I Sowed in Tears, I Now Reap in Joy: A Love Letter to my Beautiful Readers

Seed Media Group

Thoughts from Kansas

You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain

Search

Profile

Josh at work Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is also a graduate student at the University of Kansas, completing a doctorate in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not modeling species distributions or battling creationists, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.

The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.

Sb/DonorsChoose Drive


Thanks!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Subscribe to TfK:

Accolades

Best of Kansas City

Good posts from history

The Birth of Intelligent Falling

A failure of Intelligent Design

Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism

Write a letter to the editor

My photo albums.

Support TfK

Affiliate programs: buy through the links, and TfK will get a percentage.

Buying some music for your friends?

Apple iTunes

Or maybe some gift certificates?

Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.

Buy yourself things!

Search Now:
Search Amazon.com

Good government

Find your state legislators

Help elect sensible leaders

Re-Elect Nancy Boyda!

Internet neighbors

Add yourself to the Frappr map!
Check out our Frappr or add yourself to it!

Blogroll

« Government can regulate carbon dioxide | Main | Want to boost investment? Cutting taxes may not be the right decision »

Basics: Conservation vs. Preservation

Category: Biology
Posted on: April 2, 2007 1:02 PM, by Josh Rosenau

National Geographic's prairie fireWithin discussions of environmental issues, there are two broad approaches one can take. On one hand there are those who argue that the goal should be the creation and preservation of wilderness free of human influence. This view can be broadly construed as "preservation."

The other major strain favor using human management to ensure that the natural systems maintain the state they enjoyed prior to human involvement. That approach is generally referred to as "conservation."

The differences are instructive. The historic tallgrass prairie was maintained by fire across the broad center of North America. Fires raged across thousands of acres, spurred by lightning strikes (and by native peoples) every few years. These regular burns, like the one photographed by Kansan Jim Richardson for this month's National Geographic (above), destroyed tree and shrub seedlings before they grew thick enough bark to fend off a fire, and before they shaded and poisoned native plants. The prairie's natural rhythm was defined by these fires.

Clearly, such uncontrolled fires are inconsistent with human habitation. As fires were suppressed, trees and shrubs invaded. In 1945, the University of Kansas decided to protect some land for use in research and teaching. They bought a farm north of town, and imposed a deed on the land forbidding artificial manipulation: perfect preservation. You can't kill the animals and you can't set fires.

That farm, which was bare land in 1945, is now a forest. Before it was farm, that area was prairie – a small patch of native prairie still exists across the road. By keeping the land free of human influence, the farm didn't return to prairie, it became a forest.

The plot of native prairie is burned regularly by KU. Next to it are four other plots of land, farmland until the 1970s. On one, the university does nothing. On another, they mow regularly, on the third they allow grazing, and the fourth they burn. When we take classes out to those plots, the only one without any shrubs is the burned site. Even with regular mowing, little cedar shoots pop up. Those shrubs have toxic chemicals, so the grazed site has gigantic junipers growing on it, and the unmanaged site is a thicket.

To protect the prairie, it's necessary for humans to intervene. The fire Jim Richardson photographed was not a naturally occurring blaze, it was set by trained professionals with supervision by a fire department. The fire was contained to a plot of land through careful planning, and the judicious application of meteorology. Without that intervention, it wouldn't be prairie.

It took a long time to learn that we need to let natural fires burn in some forests, and that controlled burns are necessary in other places where natural fire is too rare or too dangerous to rely on. Humans have changed the environment by fragmenting landscapes, by extinguishing fires, and by removing species from their habitats. Protecting those lands does not mean taking our hands off, it means making careful decisions about the right way to manage the land. Preservation winds up destroying wild places. Conservation may make them less wild, but it means they stay around.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/37199

Comments

1

Excellent point, but why is prairie considered more valuable than forest?

Posted by: Jane | April 2, 2007 2:49 PM

2

Yeah; surely we need more forests in order to fight global warming?

Posted by: Enigman | April 3, 2007 9:27 AM

3

Prairies actually sequester a lot of carbon also.

Posted by: Josh | April 3, 2007 1:26 PM

4

I don't think it's a matter of which is more valuable--each has benefits, each has biological communities adapted to that setting. The problem with small "wilderness" areas is that the normal processes may not all be able to operate--fires, migrations, refugia, and, of course, evolution.

Posted by: mark | April 3, 2007 3:21 PM

5

Josh, I'd want to press you on this distinction, and, for the sake of a brief reply, just on this issue: "To protect the prairie, it's necessary for humans to intervene."

That is, if we want to maintain the prairie in its current identity of prairie-ness, we should do prescribed burns. But that doesn't really resolve the issue that generally underlies such debates about what to do in nature, which is more about what value the prairie has to us humans, what kind of prairie we have in mind, and whether or not we humans should be dictating these things. That can't be addressed only as a preservation-conservation binary. Prairie's, as you note, will go to forest if we don't do anything. Whether or not that's the same as "destroying wild places" is a different debate. I don't think it's so easy to claim that a lost prairie is a destroyed wild place. It's a different wild place.

As well, though I agree with the general point that preservation is not the end all and be all, to say "Protecting those lands does not mean taking our hands off, it means making careful decisions about the right way to manage the land" opens up a far more complex can of worms about what any of those ethically contentious and historically shifting terms means ("the right way," "manage," "protecting," etc.). We can look to the high school version clash of preservation v. conservation (and thus greatly simplified as such) as that between Gifford Pinchot and John Muir. Pinchot, conservationist to beat all and founder of the Forest Service, was pro-management. Muir was not. Preservation doesn't mean "destroying wild places." It suggests instead that what we call "wild" is a matter not subject only to human management. We make a value choice about what "destroying" means, what "wild" means, and how we define "place."

Posted by: BRC | April 3, 2007 6:50 PM

6

I agree that management of wild places is a complex problem. My view is that through anything from fire suppression to predator extirpation and even air and water pollution, we have influenced pretty much any given habitat. Management decisions that replicate ecosystem functions which our actions altered seem to me to be conserving wilderness, while the decision not to replicate those functions is still a management decision.

Saying that we aren't taking an action now doesn't negate the intentional or unintentional changes we already made.

Posted by: Josh | April 3, 2007 10:48 PM

7

On last Sunday evening, KCPT ran a one hour program (produced in Iowa) on the tall grass prairie; it was astonishing. As noted above, forest v. prairie isn't a better v. worse kinda thing; but it's accurate to say that the prairie contributed to the development and preservation of what is now one of the richest farming regions in the world. In the course of one human lifetime--roughly 1840 to 1900--man totally changed, and nearly eliminated, an ecosystem that ran from Texas into Canada, and Colorado to Illinois. With a corresponding loss of soil, water reserves, biodiversity and on. They also talked about a number of efforts, several in Ks., to create agricultural models that mimic the tall grass prairie systems, with some success. A show well worth catching if it comes around again.

Posted by: les | April 4, 2007 3:14 PM

8

Thanks for the follow-up. I appreciate your points. A lot of this hinges on which kind of environmental ethic to foreground, and a lot of that, for me, depends on understanding these issues in deeper historical context, which I take it is similar to your view too, based on your comments.

Posted by: BRC | April 4, 2007 6:53 PM

9

I agree that the real argument here is ethical. The mere fact that we can make these choices seems to me to impose a substantial moral obligation on us to make wise and cautious choices.

Posted by: Josh | April 5, 2007 12:38 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM