Major disagreements exist between resource explorers and producers and many ecologists who prefer to preserve lands in their current state. Part of the disagreements are fundamental to our sciences, geology being a science of change, whereas many ecologists attempt to preserve ecological “stasis” or restore past ecological communities. Endangered species preservation and ecosystem management are two of the most prevalent foci of the stasis concept, which assumes that global biota are in stable communities except for the impact of humankind.
Geologists know better, that there are no “flat lines” in earth processes or in evolution of the biota. Finally, here is an ecological discussion of succession and biotic stability written for the lay public with a geological bias: time changes all. As Budiansky’s first chapter title suggests (Good poetry, bad science), much of the rhetoric about saving ecosystems is based on bad ecology.
Using examples from Yellowstone and other parks, the author makes a strong case that very little land in America is still truly wild, untouched by human interference, and even that land or community that is untouched, is constantly changing. Communities do not reach “climax” in succession, but communities continually evolve and there is no level of unchanging stability. Other examples of scientific tinkering with natural areas, including burn experiments and restoration attempts, support the theses of the author.
Management of nature has not been successful largely because ecologists have not understood the mutability of nature. Science based on invalid assumptions tends to be unsuccessful, no matter how popular, is my interpretation of Budiansky’s thesis. For those of us struggling to understand how to produce the resources society demands while maintaining the environmental ambiance required by that same society, this book is a revelation. We need to bring our ecologist colleagues to the table to discuss time constraints on ecology in the same way we understand time constraints on earth processes. Budiansky makes the case for us, although he draws no parallels between geologists and ecologists, addressing only the issues of the latter.
Every environmental or resource geologist should read this book, and examine the ecological principles espoused by its author. This is a well-researched book that any educated scientists can profit from reading. I learned a lot, and have a sharper focus on the issues that divide geologists and ecologists than before.
(1995). Published by The Free Press, New York. 310 pages. No price given.
Acknowledgments and Associated Footnotes
Lee C. Gerhard: Kansas Geological Survey
Source
http://archives.datapages.com/data/deg/1998/005001/39_deg050039.htm