1/21/14-Read p. 345-346 in your text, then fill in p. 2 of your outlines, part C, D & E, with definitions & examples to give you the background info you need. Then:
- Blog your answer below to the following question: Do you think MSY represents an appropriate policy for resource managers to follow for ALL resource types? Why or why not? Give examples to support your rationale.
- Do Testing Comprehension on p. 370 #2 and send it to me by email, subject line, "TC p.372 #2".
- There are lots of good info /news links posted on FB. I just saw a good one on Ants & Trees, so search for 'American Forests' & Like the page on FB, so you can check out the info!
Please post questions here & I will respond asap. Others may have the same questions, so it will save time for everyone.
Thanks! Enjoy the snowscape!
No I don't think MSY represents an appropriate policy for resource managers to follow all resource types because they don't take in consideration the time it takes to reproduce overtime and the effects it takes on other species. An example would be timber. Trees may take a while to grow as large as once was because of this species that depend on mature trees had their habitat taken away from them. Another example would be the fish population where fishermen keep the fish population half of its carrying capacity because of this it will effect other species and the food web dynamics of the community living in the water with the fish. This would bring out major ecological changes.
ReplyDeleteGood examples Cheyanna. Some msy recommendations are sustainable but not all.
DeleteMSY does not have an appropriate policy and guidelines for resource managers to follow. MSY has not taken in account the amount of time it takes for some resources to prosper. For instance certain native vegetation that rely on fertile soil can not thrive unless the right amount of nutrients are there. If natural occurances such as erosion as well as human impacts such as urban development continue to compact and degrade our soil, native vegetation will not be able to grow and certain wildlife will lose their habitats and food source.
ReplyDeleteTrue Callie, you have hit on some other limitations of msy, that each resource whether biotic or abiotic, soil or water, fish or forest, contributes its unique part to the ecosystem it inhabits or occupies, and replenishes or reproduces at very different rates. Good insight.
DeleteNo, MSY is not acceptable for all resources. It seems acceptable upon first glance, but it can have drastic effects on other resources in the area, like a domino effect, so that resource managers unknowingly cause catastrophic damage to the ecosystem. By keeping a resource below its carrying capacity or not letting a resource mature, other wildlife could suffer due to shortages. For example, by keeping a fish species at half its carrying capacity, you in turn cut short the carrying capacity of a species that depend upon that fish for food. A species that depends upon the secondary species will also be cut short, by an even greater amount. Thus, it has a large effect on the entire ecosystem of the area and can upset the balance of said ecosystem. Per another example, by clearcutting trees that have not yet matured and not allowing the trees to fully develop, woodland creatures that depend upon mature trees as homes will be left without a place to nest, and will likely dwindle in population, and then a domino effect happens yet again. MSY should not be looked to as ideal.
ReplyDeleteVery good points Danielle! And I like the details you gave in defense, which demonstrate how interwoven and intricate our ecosystems are, so that when even one species is removed, it changes everything! more studies need to be done before these quantities are set, don't your think?
DeleteMSY is not an appropriate policy. At first, MSY may seem like an ideal route because of the goal in mind. The goal of MSY is to achieve the maximum resource amount without damaging the resource. That may seem like a good thing to do. But overtime, this process could not only deplete the environment, but it could eventually deplete some of the resource that is available. An example of this would be trees. Usually when trees are getting cut down, they aren't allowed proper time to mature. If this process is repeated for many years, it can eventually get rid of the habitats that allow mature trees to grow.
ReplyDeleteNo, MSY is not an ideal practice for all resources. MSY tries to extract as much of a resource as possible without depleting it. Although it seems to be in our benefit, it can harm the environment and the flow of species within an ecosystem. For example, someone managing a fishery could keep a population of fish at an intermediate level to increase the rate of rebound. Yet, reducing a population could affect other species and food webs, thus hurting the environment.
ReplyDeleteI believe MSY is not a good practice for all resources. Although you are getting more resources at one time you are harming the enviroment. For example, timber, you can always grow more trees even though it will take a while for them to grow but the more you take away the more soil erosion could occur. When taking the trees away you are harming the creatures that rely on the trees and nothing is helping to hold the soil down. This practice could harm some species and this will have an effect on the other species as well.
ReplyDelete