|Ecosystem services definition at http://www.maweb.org/||Nonomura||1/29/12 5:15 PM|
Lionel provided a working definition for ecosystem services derived
from http://www.maweb.org/ and, if there is agreement, I propose that
IPBES accept their definition. On the other hand, the management of
ecosystems is implicated in all services of the reports of MA because,
for the most part, the status of our ecosystems has been the direct
result of human affects. Services and management are inextricably
intertwined, but for the purpose of founding IPBES with working
definitions, I can accept that management is the coordinated task of
humans acting on an ecosystem.
Management of ecosystems is difficult because borders are not
necessarily delineable; borders, it turns out, are a convenience.
This is because Nature is interactive. She is the original
multitasker and, in particular, when it comes to water, an array of
ecosystems may be undergoing change. Ecologists, sociologists,
politicians, investors, zoologists, botanists, microbiologists,
agronomists, oceanographers, visionaries and the general public each
have different views of how they characterize ecosystems. Therefore,
it may be important to develop a taxonomy (Forgive me for the
terminology, but I am a botanist speaking of how to order things and
my roots are in plant taxonomy...) of ecosystems to be certain that we
are speaking of the same things.
Lionel referred to the nomenclature of ecosystems based on habitats
and I referred to bio-named ecosystems. Additionally, there are
service, function, climate, and regional taxons for ecosystems. Have
I missed anything? I am not suggesting that we consolidate or change
names of ecosystems, instead, it is important to understand with what
we are working.
|Re: [IPBES Forum] Ecosystem services definition at http://www.maweb.org/||Evans Mwangi||1/31/12 9:12 PM|
While all these definitions and terms are broadly agreeable to most people irrespective of background, I often feel that attempts to bridge the linguistic and disciplinary diversity inevitably leads to unhelpfully open-ended and sometimes winding phrases. Would it not be better to aim for simple wording that leaves room for interpretation according to the different users’ professional leanings – as happens in law?
|Re: Ecosystem services definition at http://www.maweb.org/||Nonomura||2/2/12 10:18 AM|
Thank you, Evans, for the social perspective and I agree that if it
has broad understanding, then it is effectively communicated. The
meanings of ecology and ecosystem are morphing as a result of usage.
For example, since the word was coined in the 1930's, biologists have
seen the ecosystem as a natural unit, the smaller the better. (The
idea was to understand ecosystems in a state that was untouched by
man.) A complex of a number of interactive ecosystems is a biome;
for example, a forest is a biome, and biomes tend to be regional.
What is being referred to as ecosystem services is, for the most part,
biomic services; but, at present time, biome is not in the popular
usage (where ecosystem is) and, as a result, ecosystem has been
commonly utilized in its place.
The relationship of biodiversity to an ecosystem is inherent to its
niche, therefore, reference to each in the title, IPBE, appropriately
brings this relationship to the public. However, preservation of
biodiversity may be related to biomes and a greater good may be made
as the IPBB.
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Nonomura <anonom...@mail.ucsd.edu> wrote:> > from http://www.maweb.org/and, if there is agreement, I propose that