Our discussion of
invasive species in the Adirondacks left me thinking about the role we play in
regulating species that are not “native” to an area. As we discussed, there are
numerous nonnative species that have threatened the livelihood of native
species in the Adirondacks. This comes mainly from the fact that these
nonnative species do not have natural predators that many native species do
have in the area. There is nothing to restrict their growth; leading them to
hoard all the resources available to them. However, there is a primary
difference between these nonnative species, and those that exist in new
ecosystems without reeking havoc on the -environment. Invasive species
out-compete native species and seize niches, while other nonnative species can
coexist with native species and bring some benefits in some cases.
I’m particularly
interested in the fine line between the benefits and drawbacks of native and
nonnative species because I have European honey bee hives at my home in
Pennsylvania. I began beekeeping when I was 10, and as I learned more about the
hobby in general, I also learned about the immense importance of honey bees in
the United States. Although honey bees are not native in North America, they
have become critical to our agriculture and ecosystems. This seems like an
illogical statement; if our ecosystems have survived without honey bees, why
should they need them now? This situation boils down to the fact that our
society has modified the land and ecosystems to a point where native
pollinators could never keep up with the amount of pollination required to
sustain our crops and various pollinator dependent plants. Our large
monoculture farms allow for no woody areas suited to native bees; instead, our
only option is to pollinate our crops using honey bees. Additionally, many of
our nations crops, such as apples, are not native to the North America, so can
only be pollinated by honey bees.
This example pertains to my own experience with nonnative
species, but I believe it’s a topic that is extremely relevant to the
Adirondacks, especially as humans continue to modify the land. Fragmentation
and climate change could lead to shifts in the ecosystem of the Adirondacks,
leading these habitats to experience both the positive and negative impacts of
nonnative species. As these changes occur, I’m curious as to what humans with
think about our role in preserving prior ecosystems. Will there reach a point
where we let nature take its course even though we initiated the modification,
or will we do everything in our power to reverse what we started? Will we
tolerate and even promote the introduction of certain nonnative species (such
as honey bees) or will we keep the environment as it was?
Abby, in your post, you grapple with a question that I would consider to be one of the most fundamentally challenging and urgent for our generation to discuss. Your question, "[w]ill there reach a point where we let nature take its course even though we initiated the modification, or will we do everything in our power to reverse what we started," needs to be approached by all scientific disciplines. Over our (relatively speaking) short existence, homo sapiens have effected our planet in every possible way. We have played a role in altering the composition of our atmosphere and we have disrupted nearly every preexisting ecosystem, just to name a couple of examples. Now that we are becoming more "aware" of our direct impact on the planet's future, it is time to discuss what our role should be in attempting to repair. This is a fascinating, and vitally important, conversation, and I appreciate that you posed it through the case study of honey bees, as they represent one of many ecosystems that we have disrupted.
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree that humans have messed up-- ignorant of our effects on fragile but well established ecosystems, we've fundamentally changed how environments today function. The North America today (even the relatively undisturbed sections) would have been unrecognizable to the first Europeans explorers thanks to intentional and unintentional introductions of plants, pests, and animals. While this speaks to how much we've altered the environment, it also speaks to the ingenuity of evolution-- organisms evolving to be valued by humans and thus ensuring their survival and distribution (if you think this is interesting, read Pollan's Botany of Desire!). In many cases, nature has absorbed these introductions into its natural system and one might argue (in the case of honey bees especially) for the better! Though for all the good cases, there are fewer but more publicized disasters. It might be up to us to fix some of the worst cases (or try our best), but we know so little about the complexities of ecosystems that it might be best just to give nature some time to figure it out-- because in the end, it will survive. Maybe a few species might be lost, but this will lead to the rise of other species... it's a complicated question to be sure, and one that almost no one can answer, but let's not underestimate the resilience of the environment.
ReplyDelete