No, I'm not talking about the people and buildings in Aspen Colorado. Aspen Colorado's roads and buildings exist instead of trees after all. I'm talking about how wolves play a more clearly beneficial role than the Smokey the Bear cartoon in allowing forests to grow. (by "more clearly" I'm referring to how the US Forest Service prevents smaller fires and therefore causes bigger fires that are far more damaging to trees)
CORVALLIS, Ore. – The wolves are back, and for the first time in more than 50 years, young aspen trees are growing again in the northern range of Yellowstone National Park.
The wolves serve as a deterrent force based on fear who protect the Aspens from the ravenous tree eaters.
The findings of a new study, just published in Biological Conservation, show that a process called “the ecology of fear” is at work, a balance has been restored to an important natural ecosystem, and aspen trees are surviving elk browsing for the first time in decades.
The research, done by forestry researchers at Oregon State University, supports theories about “trophic cascades” of ecological damage that can be caused when key predators – in this case, wolves – are removed from an ecosystem, and show that recovery is possible when the predators are returned. The results are especially encouraging for the health of America’s first national park, but may also have implications for other areas of the West and other important predators.
I'm thinking any gains the Aspen trees make in Yellowstone thanks to the wolves will be eventually swamped by the development of cellulosic technology that turns trees into edible food for ravenous SUVs, motorhomes, and other vehicles. The vehicles will eat into the tree population on a far larger scale than the elks can manage to do.After an absence of 70 years, wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone Park in 1995, and elk populations began a steady decline, cut in half over the past decade. Also, the presence of a natural predator appears to have altered the behavior of the remaining elk, which in their fear of wolves tend to avoid browsing in certain areas where they feel most vulnerable. The two factors together have caused a significant reduction in elk browsing on young aspen shoots, allowing them to survive to heights where some are now above the animal browsing level.
So here's this relative of the dog, not as smart and as sentient as humans, who does far more for the environment than any ten thousand sentient humans. Plus, this species puts out a pretty cool night time howl that few if any humans can beat.
Evil plant eaters kill off saplings years before they have a chance to reach their full potential. Great meat-eating wolves create the ecological room that trees need to establish themselves. Morally virtuous carnivores stop the evil vegetarians from damaging the environment.
“This is really exciting, and it’s great news for Yellowstone,” said William Ripple, a professor in the OSU College of Forestry. “We’ve seen some recovery of willows and cottonwood, but this is the first time we can document significant aspen growth, a tree species in decline all over the West. We’ve waited a long time to see this, but now we’re optimistic that things may be on the right track.”
The study found significant numbers of aspen, especially in streamside “riparian” zones, that have grown from tiny shoots in the past decade to heights of more than seven feet – a key point in their long-term survival, placing their crowns above the height easily browsed by elk and other animals. Tree growth in some stands has been particularly apparent just in the past 4-5 years.
In the early 1800s, 50,000 to 100,000 grizzly bears ranged over North America west of the Mississippi River. By 1900, only small, scattered populations remained. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the grizzly as a threatened species in 1975, estimating that fewer than 1,000 bears remained in a few pockets of Yellowstone National Park and along the Canadian border.
As human populations continue to grow our ability to create suitable habitats for many big animal species will continue to dwindle.
What I also wonder: Will genetic engineering eventually lead to the emergence of highly intelligent post-human species which will rebalance the world's ecology by serving as predators of the currently reining smartest species? Will the new post-humans serve as cunning Hannibal Lecters who enjoy hunting and killing homo sapiens? After all, lions and tigers feel no remorse for their killings. Surely the development of post-humans who enjoy hunting sentient beings will become technologically feasible.
By Randall Parker at 2007 July 28 01:25 PM Trends Ecology | TrackBackTim to get behind Ron Paul! Down with the Forest Service!!! (Insert Howard Dean-esqe crazy scream here)
If the income tax were eliminated (paid for by stopping the $1 trillion we spend on our Emipire), just think how much would go into R & D.
I love you man.
And what is going to save my wife's hosta lilies from the evil deer (a/k/a rats on stills)?
Why, that should be you. If the wolves don't need a permit to take excess elk, why should you need one to take destructive deer?
I've seen road-killed deer in cities, and deer-car collisions are a major danger in many areas. This argues strongly for an open season on urban and otherwise excess deer.
Actually, you have it exactly wrong when you say that the ravenous tree-cutters with their appetite for ethanol will kill the aspen instead of the elk. The exact opposite would happen. Paradoxically, the aspen in the west are in trouble because too few of them are being cut. Aspen is a disturbance-dependent, shade intolerant tree species. In presettlement times frequent fires, both natural and human-caused (burning by native Americans) renewed aspen on a regular basis; average stand ages were low, and there was always more regeneration than the native ungulates could eat (plus the elk & deer were constantly harrased by predators, so they didn't just loaf in their favorite spots). Right now aspen are being hit by a double problem of attrition due to invasion by shade-tolerant conifers, combined by browsing of regenerating stems by elk, and to a lesser extent domestic livestock.
Elk numbers are not coming down anytime soon. Hunting is problematic in National Parks, while on other lands State Wildlife agencies manage for unnaturally large elk herds because they rely on hunting liscense sales for their revenue. I am a forester in an area with lots of aspen and lots&lots of elk. The aspen trees and the subalpine fir that are invading and replacing them hold little value for loggers, and even if I could get more timber cut in these stands I can't cut enough to keep ahead of the elk. The elk look at aspen like icecream - even with upwards of 12,000 aspen sprouts per acre (very common) after harvest I would have to cut 2,000 acres or more in a 3-year period in many areas in order to produce more than the elk would consume.
Being able to harvest aspen and fir for the ethanol market would be the perfect thing for restoring ecological function to the aspen stands in the west. No longer would we be constrained to cutting only the highest-quality trees (the ones someone will actually pay for) - junky, diseased, stunted trees would reduce to alcohol just as well as straight, tall sound ones. Most importantly, we could actually cut enough to ensure successful regeneration. An additional environmental benefit would be increased streamflow, and increased food for livestock and wildlife - as aspen stands convert to conifers more water is used by the forest (an important consideration in the arid west), and understory vegetation reduces (because of less water & more importantly less light reaching the forest floor).
I can't stress enough how badly aspen stands in the Rockies are in need of stand-replacing disturbances either by fire or by harvest. Which one would be better from a climate change perspective seems rather obvious.