Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

[monsno_leedra]

Hopefully this qualifies as a spin off thread from the closed thread.

.. Okay so you think you should be giving respect to an invasive species (you have a reason for that, right?) fine. So what are you going to do to GIVE that "respect"? Because unless you plan to STOP your conservation activities, you're going to have do something OTHER than taking a live-and-let-live approach. ..

I'd like to go back to the bolded statement as I think it is critical. While I personally think we should give respect to all living things it is an interesting question to ponder: "To what degree and what extent do we give respect to a species that is clearly invasive to the ecosystem?" It also begets the question I suppose of "Where do we draw the line between what is right and best for the individual species versus what is best for the larger ecosystem?"

Many times we have to err on the side of the macro versus the micro ecosystem I think. Granted one has to be aware of the micro when planning or influencing things but individual plants and animals I think have to be judged against the macro versus the micro of a given area unless it is an endangered species or has a very narrow area of existence.

From an animism aspect all life has value and a spirit / soul to some degree yet where is the line drawn when one compares the macro versus the micro ecosystem and its needs?

[MaskedOne]

Re: Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

I'm willing to leave it as a spin-off atm, Monsno.


With that said, this topic will be monitored closely. In the interest of not getting this thread summarily executed, members are strongly advised to pretend that the thread Monsno stole a quote from does not exist from this point on.

[Doc_Holliday]

Re: Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

From my personal belief. That invasive species was likely put there through human intervention. So its kind of been given an advantage over the other plants and organisms who aren't "Trained" to fight it, so I'm okay with killing it.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

From my personal belief. That invasive species was likely put there through human intervention. So its kind of been given an advantage over the other plants and organisms who aren't "Trained" to fight it, so I'm okay with killing it.

While this was spun off the other thread I was hoping we'd leave that one behind and go on the macro versus the micro ecosystem.

I do agree that a species introduced via human action gives the plant an uneven advantage over the natural flora / fauna of an area. Such a disadvantage that it may appear to enhance the micro ecosystem but many times I think hurts the macro ecosystem by removing plant species that support the local animal / reptile species. By consuming resources the invasive or introduced species takes away potentially limited resources that local flora / fauna may have existed on.

In many ways I'm not sure it's much different than the many grass species that were introduced to plains areas and have driven out or destroyed the local ecosystem. The same could be said of many animal species who over graze or destroy local flora / fauna.

[Doc_Holliday]

Re: Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to resurrect. I kind of don't know what Macro vs. Micro means, could you explain? I thought it was the same thing sorta.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

they're a scale consideration Doc. I'm not big on bio so I can't give an answer pertaining to ecosystems but micro is generally small scale and semi-local. Macro is rather large and not so local. For given values of 'small' and 'large'. Several microsystems are contained in a macrosystem.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

I suppose there are a number of ways to define macro and micro ecosystems.

Consider an individual plant species as part of a micro species ecosystem. A macro ecosystem would be the interaction of all plants that are found in a given area. SO you might have rose bushes in a garden, sun flowers in the same garden, daffidils in the gardens, etc. Each flower is a micro system within the larger macro ecosystem that makes up the entire garden. The you have potentially a mega ecosystem that would be the entire flora / fauna system for the entire region for instance. Of course all this just pertains to the plant species in the area add in the animal, avian, reptilian, etc species to the area and you get a more complex micro and macro ecosystem.

Granted that is a rough description of mega, macro, micro ecosystems and how they form a conglamorate system I think its called. Sorry been to long since I went into all the various levels.

[Doc_Holliday]

Re: Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

Thank you. Well in that case I say that care for the two comes hand in hand in a way. By caring for micro systems and ensuring their health, the macro system will in turn stay healthy, I think. Because when all the little parts are "oiled up" and in top shape, the bigger systems they are apart of thrive too.

[anunitu]

Re: Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

There is a certain "order" within nature,the dieing tree provides nutriments for other younger trees and plants. We ourselves in a way do the same,our body decomposes into the elements that we are made of. In a natural way the dead become the new growth. All things in nature have a reason to exist,even some that we consider destructive. They are destructive because they cause things to return to the "common pile" of elements. Life on this planet might not thrive unless there were balance.

I am not an animist,at least not in believing that all things have spirit. I do feel that we are all connected in that we share an energy of life in general. Some might call this an oversoul or some other description.

In my own belief I think of all life being connected in what one might consider the body of nature.

I find it hard to explain my feelings as to what it means to be part of this "Energy" but I do feel it in my viewing of all of natures wonders.

[thalassa]

Re: Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to resurrect. I kind of don't know what Macro vs. Micro means, could you explain? I thought it was the same thing sorta.

Part of the problem here is the term micro and macro--terminology in biology changes. I started my undergrad degree in 1998, and didn't finish it until 2011 (the Navy interrruped for 6 years)...let me tell you how many things changed! Micro just means little and macro means big...the problem here is that it becomes a matter of scale--how little, and how big. For the most part now, micro is now applied to microorganisms (and infact, there is a FASCINATING field of microecology that studies the microbial ecology of microhabitats (like your intestines)) while macroecology is generally applied to global scale ecological problems (like climate change)...but, when I was first getting my undergrad (in the late 90's), a microecosystem was used to denote an ecosystem within an ecosystem--like an ephermal pool in a forest, or a ravine with a creek that feeds into a river as part of a greater river system.

Ecology in a nutshell (and I just pulled out my undergrad Ecology and Conversation Biology notes, lol) goes something like this (also, I'm paraphrasing--some of these are 3 or 4 pages of notes, :P):

*Many individuals of the same species make up a population.
*Many interacting populations (plant and animal) make up a community.
*The place where the community interacts is a habitat.
*The habitat and the community together is an ecosystem.
* Ecosystems can be studied on different scales, from microscopic to global.
*A biome is a classification of a type of ecosystem...like a grassland or an alpine meadow or a tropical rainforest, that may exist in different areas of the world with slightly different ecosystems, but have similar ecological niches to be filled (because they have a similar climate and geography).
*An ecological niche is the sum of all roles and actions a species engages in its ecosystem (like bird species A eats berries B and C, nests in tree D, and competes with bird species E for nesting sites, and competes with shrew species F for berry B, and is often eaten by bird species G, and its young and eggs are a favorite food of snake species H).
*Niches can overlap, but cannot be the same--and if they overlap too much, one species will "lose"--they will be out-competed (resulting in evolution, adaptation, elimination from poor reproduction, emmigration, etc).
*Beyond the ecosystem, an ecoregion is a set of similar ecosystems in a contiguous geological area, while a bioregion is a set of ecosystems AND the people and culture that make up particular contiguous geological area (for example, I live on the Chesapeake Bay...my bioregion is The Bay and its watershed, but my ecoregion is the "Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain" (on the map, #63).
*Short of Earth as a whole, an ecozone is the biggest way to divy up the earth as far as its ecology and geography goes, and it adds a bit of time in there--there are eight terrestrial ecozones (N. America, the Nearctic zone)


So...for me, I think the most "important" level of concern here (and the area in which I focus my spiritual attention) is somewhere between the ecosystem and the bioregion. To have ecosystem (or bioregion/ecoregional health), you need to pay attention to communities, populations, and individuals....but....those things also depend on WHICH individuals are present.

And ecosystem can only form once--I wrote about him in the closed thread, but I'll copy it here, because its a truly classic experiment and illustrates this idea perfectily--E. O. Wilson did some brilliant experiments in the FL keys back in the 60s or 70s where they fumigated entire (tiny) mangrove islands to see how recolonization would play out, and they were truly revolutionary in our understanding of extinction events...it was brilliant science, and pretty destructive, but necessary for a better understanding of how ecosystems are built. Species don't recolonize the same way, or with the same species distribution. Once its gone, unless we very carefully reconstruct it, its gone.

[Rae'ya]

Re: Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

While I personally think we should give respect to all living things it is an interesting question to ponder: "To what degree and what extent do we give respect to a species that is clearly invasive to the ecosystem?" It also begets the question I suppose of "Where do we draw the line between what is right and best for the individual species versus what is best for the larger ecosystem?"

Being born and bred Australian, my opinions on this might by slightly biased. Australia is still a unique ecosystem, with several unique bioregions which are unlike anything else on this planet. The survival of our ecosystem is entirely dependent on us avoiding non-native species, whether they are invasive or not. We've already lost so much through the introduction of things like rabbits, foxes, cane toads and prickly pear. Our native bees are being systematically wiped out by European honey bees. Introduced bird species are taking over habitats and causing native bird species to become extinct. Whole swaths of Australian bushland are under siege from introduced plants, and while the larger trees survive, the undergrowth species are in grave danger.

So my opinion on this matter, as an Australian, an animist, a person who works with land spirits and a person who works with animal and plant spirits is this...

You have to look at the bigger picture, the ecosystem, the bioregion, the way that the species interact with each other to support each other. I don't think that focusing on an individual species that is not native to an area and is causing damage to the local area is in any way a good thing. And that doesn't just go for plants... do we stop killing cane toads just because we respect their individual spirits? If we were to do that, how many thousands of native spirits would be lost? And through that loss, how many unique ecosystems would be forever lost? Individual species do not exist in a vacuum, every living spirit is intertwined with the living spirits around them... some with beneficial effects, some with detrimental ones.

My experience is that the land spirits do not look at individual species, they look at their ecosystem. They generally have a 'sacrifice the individual for the good of the many' sort of attitude and welcome efforts to remove introduced and invasive species. They welcome efforts to conserve their ecosystem, and the unfortunate reality of that is that we sometimes need to cull some individuals in order to do that.

I also just want to point out that invasive species are not always introduced. A species that is native to Australia does not live everywhere in Australia, and may have a detrimental effect on an area that it is not endemic to. So I always consider local natives and what is endemic to a particular ecosystem or bioregion, rather than what is native to the whole of Australia. Also, a plant or animal that is endemic to a particular area can become a pest species if the ecosystem is changed by something else... ecosystems are a delicate balance. If you remove one thing, then everything else is skewed and suddenly you may have a bird species that is endemic, but which is suddenly allowed to over-flourish because of the loss of a prey species of it's competitor. That endemic bird is now a pest.

Take koalas for instance... they are culled in some areas of Australia because there are too many and they are having a detrimental effect on the plant life. Yet they are endangered in other areas. All because the individual ecosystems have been thrown out of balance and can't correct themselves.

Many times we have to err on the side of the macro versus the micro ecosystem I think. Granted one has to be aware of the micro when planning or influencing things but individual plants and animals I think have to be judged against the macro versus the micro of a given area unless it is an endangered species or has a very narrow area of existence.

From an animism aspect all life has value and a spirit / soul to some degree yet where is the line drawn when one compares the macro versus the micro ecosystem and its needs?

The thing to remember is that a bioregion (macro-ish) is made up of smaller ecosystems (micro). Ecosystems can be tiny... the ecosystem of one individual little pond of water within a patch of bushland may be different to the ecosystem of a pond on the other side of that same bushland... and these ecosystems may be seasonal and only appear for a brief time during the year. But they are still an important part of the larger ecosystem of that bushland... the insect growth that happens in that short period of time may have an effect on the pollination of certain plants, or the population of another kind of insect, or the food source for a certain species of bird. Which then may have other effects that lead on from that. The destruction of that one pond may have a detrimental effect on the entire bushland. So in that sense, the 'micro' effects the 'macro' and is as important.

The 'micro' ecosystem is an important consideration in the health of the 'macro' ecosystem. That's just the way that ecology works. So there isn't really such a thing as one being more important than the other.

However, if you're using 'micro' and 'macro' as a metaphor for 'individual species' vs 'ecosystem', then yes, the ecosystem is more important in my mind. And in looking after the ecosystem you may be destroying individual species, but you may also be re-introducing, cultivating or encouraging another individual species. So looking at the big picture is not always destructive.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Macro versus Micro ecosystem needs?

In trying to break this down, a bit, I sort of stumbled upon something I should have thought obvious but which also contradicts the very selfsame ideal born of all life being valued. It may be confusing but it is immensely interesting. There's two extremes, here, that we dance between.

• On a large scale, like global, it takes more than just an individual to make an impact. One person, living off the grid, for example, isn't going to lessen the overall need for fossil fuels. It takes way more than just a localized effort to make such a big change.
  
• On a small scale, the individual is paramount. I think this is kind of where "rights" start coming into play, for humans, to be honest. Huge changes take almost no effort and are, inevitably, at the mercy of the local environment, rather than the other way around.

Each system has it's own set of rules. I think we, as 'arrogant mankind', as well as woefully exemplary in screwing up the balance of things, tend to want to believe that we can control the systems. The natural order. The needs of the few, as well as the needs of the many. But the natural fact is, so it seems at least, we're pawns. Or prawns, even. We most definitely cannot see to the needs of an ecosystem that isn't of our own, individual, making. And even then it's only a chance, for successfully meeting those needs.

Yet, one bad apple...

FUBAR, something humans excel at, can show up from just one small, individual, intentional/unintentional, introduction of something foreign. Invasive species are the prime example of this. But now, wait. One individual can upset an entire system, and at the same time, one individual has no hope of actually controlling an entire system. How does that work?

Well, here's my thoughts: Setting aside groups of people banding together in the same effort, for a second, let's look at just the individual. In order for that one entity to exist/coexist, in it's cozy little environment, its own needs are the only pressing concern. As humans, with a higher brain, and living in an environment of luxury, we can see to those immediate "personal" needs and then look to the needs of others, other species, as a fanciful excursion of our luxury. What that amounts to is that we don't fit into the system's needs, nor do we abide by the same laws of survival. Inevitably, all systems, great and small, should see changes to their make-up. Whether that be through evolution, extinction, devastation or predation, it's going to happen at some point. With or without human assistance.

I think it's only fair that humans should be considered the absolute worst invasive species to ever be seen on this terra firma. They can't even acknowledge the fact that their own [entire] species is fated for extinction. Either by their own handiwork or by natural design. Just the like the ecosystems they destroy or try to save. Either way, the individual only has one choice: survive the day. Or not.