Subject: Re: Scope or focus of newsgroup
From: R.Zwaagstra@ppsw.rug.nl (Ronald Zwaagstra)
Organization: University of Groningen
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 11:36:23 GMT
Message-ID: <MOD$971019.4532@rec.gardens.ecosystems>
References: <MOD$971001.5596@rec.gardens.ecosystems>


kowens@teleport.com (Jeff Owens) wrote:

>I've been reading posts to rec.gardens.ecosystems and can not determine
>what it is about. Is there a FAQ or has there been a discussion of
>what this newsgroup covers?

>When I see the words ecosystems and garden together I think of the
>following characteristics:

> 1. Diversity of plants, animals, and other living organisms.
> 2. Synergistic relationships between all the components of the
> garden.
> 3. Limited human adjustment in the natural cycles once they
> are established.
> 4. High interest in native/local ecosystems and integration with
> the local ecology.
> 5. Acceptance of change and chaos.

I tend to say that the first three points are completely correct.
Points 4 and 5 need some further elaboration however.

A basic knowledge about biology, especially ecology, is a requirement
in successful gardening in concert with nature. Studying the native
and local ecosystems will give our intuition about what will work in
the home garden a substantial boost. Gardens are highly manipulated
areas though, often consisting of a wide variaty of microclimates.
Some of these microclimates may prove suitable for more exotic plant
species, i.e. ones that do not occur within the local ecosystems.
Studying the circumstances in which the exotic species florish, will
often provide indications on how to integrate them in such a way in
the garden that they will thrive.

If we rely on nature rather than on chemicals that are often produced
at substantial environmental costs, we need to have some faith in our
understanding of nature. If we elect to follow advice blindly, without
an understanding about what would make the advice work, we will be
confronted with a mixture of successes and failures. This will surely
create a chaos that most people are not willing to accept. A single
plant may have a hard time for one of several reasons, e.g. a lack of
organic matter, a too shady or too sunny spot, an unsuitable type of
soil. The advice to add lots of compost will not be very fruitful if
the plant is simply misplaced. Unfortunately, this is still a common
kind of advice asked for and offered, even in this group. Life
consists of a web of relations between organisms and physical/chemical
cirumstances affecting each other. As we grow to a better
understanding of this web of relations, we will mostly be able to
create a beautiful garden emplying the dynamics of natural change.
These dynamics may appear as a chaos to those who don't recognise what
is going on, but this kind of chaos is rather different from the mess
we create if we start manipulating without an understanding of the
ecosystems we are interfering with.

>Someone transforming an urban lot from asphalt to a garden would
>probably view ecosystems differently than someone working with a small
>forest. So, I guess the definition can be quite varied. In the case
>of lawns, the ecosystem is usually marginal, unstable and involves
>lots of intervention. My first reaction is to say lawns would not fit
>on this newsgroup. But, in todays world most of us (around 80
>percent) live in urban areas and have a very limited view of ecology.
>Possibly this requires that the discussion change to fit what everyone
>is familiar with?

Though I would sure approve a post that discussed the ecology of a
tropical rainforrest, that was not exactly what the group was created
for. "Ecosystems" refers to webs of interactions ranging from a single
big one, usually refered to as biosphere, to very small webs occuring
in a few cubic inches of soil. As a matter of fact, understanding the
latter ecosystems may be more important for the maintainance of a
natural garden. On a slightly larger scale, the importance of
biodiversity pops up rather quickly. The weird ideal of mono-cropping
without the presence of animals that feed on the crop, requires an
ecosystem that is completely out of balance, and can only be kept that
way by the use of substantial amounts of toxic substances. Such an
ideal can not be achieved by natural means, and does not fit into this
group. Discussions about intercropping and biological means of control
fall into the scope of this group though.

>My personal interests are diverse gardens nudged towards food
>production and habitat. This includes an emphasis on perennials
>(trees, bushes, vines), plants that reseed themselves (grains,
>clovers, tubers) and small animals (geese, ducks, birds, sheep,
>people).

>Things like mono-cropping, hybrids, soil amendments, and all external
>inputs of energy or material are signs of a strongly manipulated
>ecology which is not of much interest. These things seem to lead to
>dominance of nature and not to the more humble attitude of being a
>part of the ecology.

>Does this viewpoint fit here?

Gardens are characterised by human design and maintainance. After all,
that is what makes gardening such a pleasant enterprise. We may enjoy
the beauty of a hybrid flower, use compost as a soil amendment, do
some pruning, use a fence or net to prevent that all our edibles are
eaten before we get a chance to do so. In the end, this group was
created to provide a forum to discuss how to manipulate the ecosystems
of the home garden without damaging them. These discussions require an
acknowledgement that we are just humble parts of ecosystems, even
without the option to stand by, watch live happening, and have no
effect on it.

It seems to me that your point of view fits here, though you will be a
far superior judge for that.

Ronald