What would be America’s version on the cane toad story in Australia? It would have to be something introduced on purpose to control another “pest” species, right? Well, although not carnivores, the Asian Carp might be a similar story here in the US of A.
Okay, so for reconciliation ecology i have “a science focused on inventing, establishing, and maintaining new habitats to conserve species diversity in places where people live, work, or play” but how would that work? How does one “invent” a new habitat for a species? I just can’t seem to think of an example that would help me understand how this would work, so if anyone has any clarifying comments that would be great!
I feel like we may have mentioned this at some point, but which type of cutting should we focus on doing. I would think selective cutting is the best because it does not fragment a habitat; however, I remember reading that selective cutting in rain forests for example is bad because pants connected or dependent upon theses trees suffer too (everything is too connected). We must have lumber, so what is the best thing to do? More tree farms could work, but they could ultimately be destructive by damaging the soil. Overall, what is the best way to get the wood we need?
Okay so I am starting to get a little confused on all the terms that deal with deforestation. I know the difference between clear-cutting, selection-cutting, and strip-cutting, but I also sort of remember some one saying that it was best to cut down old-growth forests rather than second-growth forest. This doesn’t seem right to me because old-growth forest have so much more biodiversity and is the habitat for many species. I might have just made this up…. haha but does anyone know which is the best option: old growth or second-growth or are they just as equally bad for biodiversity and the rest of the environment?
I’m a little confused about the different levels of preservation.What is the difference between a National Wildlife Refuge and a National Wilderness Preservation?? What can you do on a Wildlife Refuge (it’s a “moderately restricted” land) that you can’t do on a National Wilderness Preservation? Can you do anything on a National Wilderness Preservation? I’m just confused about the differing levels of lands…and these are only federal lands, right?? I know a person who privately owns land can do the whole “easement” thing (what’s the term for that again?), but can private land EVER be made a National Wildlife Refuge or a National Wilderness Preservation if their land was big enough? Could a person ever offer it up like that?? Any help is appreciated…thank you!
Hey guys, so as I was reading through my book and looking at my study guide, I realized I never really got a final answer to the question being asked on the chapter 8 study guide, number 23: “Protecting areas as true wilderness ha produced lively debate for over a century. What piece of legislation allows Congress to designate an area as a wilderness area? Why can this be controversial?” The book says that Congress passed the Wilderness Act which allowed the government to protect undeveloped tracts of land from development. But also, later on in the same section, it mentions something about a Secretary of Interior, which I’m not too sure what they do…? Was it just the government that helped protect it? If any one understood this part and got an answer to this question…any help would be great, thanks.
There’s a sentence in the texts that’s confusing me about the types of grasses found in rangelands and pastures.
It reads: ” Blades of rangeland grass grow from the base, not the tip. Thus, as long as only its upper half is eaten and its lower half remains, rangeland grass is a renewable resource that can be grazed again and again.”
But what about pastures? I know they are managed and planted with domesticated grasses, but is it only the rangeland grass which is renewable? Or does pasture grass also grow from the base?
Okay so I have two questions. The first one is from question 22 of our study guide. I think I understand the idea of a biosphere reserve, it’s basically an inner core with two buffer zones that are used by locals, which protects the inner core. I don’t understand is won’t the buffer zones be depleted of their natural resources eventually if they are continually used over a period of time? And then people will want to use the inner core after all?
My second question deals with intrinsic and instrumental value. Is intrinsic value similar to preservation and instrumental similar to conservation? That was a simpler way for me to remember them, so if anyone can help me out that would be great!
Yes, did you hear? The United Nations has declared this year the International Year of Biodiversity? When I read your Watersheds Case Studies this past week, many of you said the solution was “education.” Is this what you had in mind?
Since there are no scribe posts for this unit, I’ll offer this little lesson in species protection….
Hopefully, by now, you’ve learned there are at least five main threats to species (or six, as your text adds climate change which I consider part of pollution): H – habitat destruction and fragmentation
I – invasive species
P – pollution
P – population (human)
O – overharvesting
And, hopefully by now, you’ve learned of two main approaches to protecting threatened or endangered species: the ecosystem approach and the species approach. The first is preferred, because of all the interconnections in nature. For those species in the greatest danger, we need a combination of both.
For those interested, just wanted to offer some additional reading from headlines over the last month. VERY current and timely stuff you are studying….
I know you all are discussing land management strategies to maintain biodiversity this week. One of the topics covered in your book is prescribed (controlled) burning of forest or grassland. This may seem counterintuitive, but sometimes conservation biologists want to purposely burn an area to help improve biodiversity or to reduce fuel loads on the ground (safety). This link is to a video at The Charlotte Observer about a local prescribed burn at nearby Crowder’s Mountain. Check it out-it is just 75 seconds. There was a picture from the burn on the front page today (1/7/09).
Why might burning be “good” for biodiversity? Well, if you think back to our discussion of succession, a controlled burn at ground level is a way of opening an area back up for some plants and animals to recolonize an area. The Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis challenges older notions that biodiversity is highest in older, undisturbed ecosystems. When land managers “prescribe” a fire (yes, like a doctor prescribes a medicine for you), they might be trying to give a little “kick-start” to an old, overgrown forest. Prescribe fires are also used when managing fire-dependent ecosystems. At this site, you can read over some of the fire-dependent ecosystems we have in the USA (some of which you studied in our biome unit). The trick for fire crews is to avoid fires getting out of control. A low, slow, ground fire is the goal–a high, fast, destructive crown fire could kill everything up to the tree canopy.
