Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 625–639 | Cite as

Reflections in a Stock Pond: Are Anthropogenically Derived Freshwater Ecosystems Natural, Artificial, or Something Else?

  • Robert R. CrifasiEmail author
PROFILE

Abstract

“A skyscraper is as natural as a bird’s nest” –Alan Watts

For millennia, people have altered freshwater ecosystems directly through water development and indirectly by global change and surrounding land-use activities. In these altered ecosystems, human impacts can be subtle and are sometimes overlooked by the people who manage them. This article provides two case studies near Boulder, Colorado that demonstrate how perceptions regarding these ecosystems affect their management. These examples are typical of lakes and streams along the Front Range of Colorado that are simultaneously natural and social in origin. Although natural, many of the region’s freshwater ecosystems are affected by ongoing ecologic, hydrologic, chemical, and geomorphic modifications produced by human activity. People and nature are both active participants in the production of these freshwater ecosystems. The concept of “hybridity,” borrowed from geographers and social scientists, is useful for describing landscapes of natural and social origin. Hybrid freshwater ecosystems are features of the humanized landscape and are derived from deliberate cultural activities, nonhuman physical and biological processes, and incidental anthropogenic disturbance. Our perceptions of “natural” freshwater ecosystems and what definitions we use to describe them influences our view of hybrid systems and, in turn, affects management decisions regarding them. This work stresses the importance of understanding the underlying societal forces and cultural values responsible for the creation of hybrid freshwater ecosystems as a central step in their conservation and management.

Keywords

Freshwater ecosystems Hybrid ecosystems Hybrid freshwater ecosystems Human-dominated ecosystems Freshwater ecosystem conservation Altered ecosystems Political ecology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

When I contemplate the production of this manuscript, I realize that it, too, is something of a hybrid. Without the generous input and support of many individuals, this manuscript would never have been completed. To all of them I owe a great debt. In particular, I want to thank the editors of Environmental Management, including Virginia H. Dale and the four reviewers, Becky Mansfield, Morgan Robertson and two other reviewers who remain anonymous. I also want to thank Emily Yeh, Colleen Scanlan, and Jessica Lage at the University of Colorado, Boulder for their critical input and for making suggestions that have greatly strengthened the work. Additionally, I thank C. Morrison, T. Poviltis, G. E. Petts, and another individual who wishes to remain anonymous for providing helpful commentary on a very early prior incarnation of this draft. My gratitude is also extended to the City of Boulder for entrusting me with management responsibility on its extraordinary open space lands. All conclusions and opinions expressed in this article are mine alone.

Literature Cited

  1. Arft, A. M. 1995. The genetics, demography, and conservation management of the rare orchid Spiranthes diluvialis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron J. S., H. M. Rueth, A. M. Wolfe, K. R. Nydick, E. J. Allstott, J. T. Minear, B. Moraska. 2000. Ecosystem responses to nitrogen deposition in the Colorado Front Range. Ecosystems 3:352–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bestegen, K., and B. Kondratieff. 1996. Fishes, macroinvertebrates, and habitat of South Boulder Creek, Colorado, within City of Boulder Open Space property. Final report, City of BoulderGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaikie P. M., H. C. Brookfield 1987. Land degradation and society. Methuen, London. Google Scholar
  5. Braun B. 2002. The intemperate rainforest: nature, culture, and power on Canada’s west coast. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. Google Scholar
  6. Castree N., B. Braun 1998. The construction of nature and the nature of construction: Analytical and political tools for building survivable futures. In B. Braun N. Castree (eds.). Remaking reality: Nature at the millennium. Routledge, London, pp 3–42Google Scholar
  7. City of Boulder, 1981. Charter of the City of Boulder, CO. Open Space Purposes, Article XII, Section 176Google Scholar
  8. City of Boulder. 1998. South Boulder Creek Management Area Inventory Report. Open Space Department, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  9. City of Boulder. 1998. South Boulder Creek Area Management Plan. Open Space Department. Available from http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/openspace/planning/sbc/SBCArea.htm (accessed March 11, 2004)
  10. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1997. Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse riparian habitat classification and mapping project. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  11. Crifasi, R. 1999. South Boulder Creek near Boulder, Colorado: A description of Boulder’s instream flow and riparian management program. Pages 381–384 in R. Sacrison and P. Sturtevant (eds.) Watershed Management to Protect Declining Species. American Water Resources Association, Middleburg VAGoogle Scholar
  12. Crifasi, R. 2001. Of mice and men: Boulder’s Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat conservation plan. Page 58 in M.E. Campana (ed.) American Water Resources Association Annual Conference Proceedings, Middleburg VAGoogle Scholar
  13. Crifasi R. 2002. Political ecology of water use and development. Water International 27(4):492–503Google Scholar
  14. Cronon W. 1995. The trouble with wilderness; or getting back to the wrong nature. In W. Cronon (ed.). Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature. W W. Norton, New York, pp 69–90Google Scholar
  15. Davies, B. R., P. J. Boon, and G. E. Petts. 2001. River conservation: A global imperative. Pages xi–xvi in P. J. Boon, B. R. Davies, and G. E. Petts (eds.). Global perspectives on river conservation: Science, policy and practice. JohnWiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  16. Demeritt D.. 1998. Science, social constructivism and nature. In Braun B. Castree N. (eds.). Remaking reality: Nature at the millennium. Routledge, London, pp 173–193Google Scholar
  17. Demeritt D. 2001. The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 91(2):307–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Denevan W. 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 82(3):369–385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dukes J. S., H. A. Mooney. 1999. Does global change increase the success of biological invaders? Tree 14:135–139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Flores D. 1999. The Great Plains “wilderness” as a human-shaped environment. Great Plains Research 9:343–355. Google Scholar
  21. Gandy M. 2002. Concrete and clay: Reworking nature in New York City. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall, H. 2002. South Boulder Creek range of variability analysis. Data analysis report, City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  23. Hooper, B. P., and R. D. Margerum. 2001. Integrated watershed management for river conservation: perspectives from experiences in Austrailia and the United States. Pages 509–511 in P. J. Boon, B. R. Davies, and G. E. Petts (eds.). Global perspectives on river conservation: Science, policy and practice. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunter M. 1996. Benchmarks for managing ecosystems: are human activities natural? Conservation Biology 10(3):695–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katz C. 1998. Whose nature, whose culture? Private productions of space and the “preservation” of nature. In B. Braun N. Castree (eds.). Remaking reality: Nature at the millennium. Routledge, London, pp 46–63Google Scholar
  26. Krutzsch P. H. 1954. North American Jumping Mice (Genus Zapus). University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 7(4):349–472Google Scholar
  27. Latour B. 1993. We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  28. Meaney C. A., Ruggles A. K,Lubow B. C, Clippinger N. W. 2003. Abundance, survival, and hibernation of Preble’s meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Boulder County, Colorado. The Southwestern Naturalist 48(4):610–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCann J. M. 1999a. Before 1492 the making of the Pre-Columbian Landscape Part I: The environment. Ecological Restoration 17(1 & 2):15–30Google Scholar
  30. McCann J. M. 1999b. Before 1492 the making of the Pre-Columbian Landscape Part II: The environment. Ecological Restoration 17(3):107–119 Google Scholar
  31. McCarthy J. 2002. First world political ecology: Lessons from the wise use movement. Environment and Planning A 34:1281–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Neumann R. P. 1998. Imposing wilderness: Struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in Africa. University of California Press, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  33. Primack R. B. 1993. Essentials of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. Google Scholar
  34. Raffles H. 2002. In Amazonia: A natural history. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Google Scholar
  35. Rangan H. 2000. Of myths and movements: Rewriting Chipko into Himalayan history. Verso, London. Google Scholar
  36. Richter B. D., Baumgartner J. V, Powell J., Braun.D. P. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10:1163–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robbins P. 2001. Tracking invasive land covers in India, or why our landscapes have never been modern. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(4):637–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robertson D., Hull. R. B. 2003. Biocultural ecology: Exploring the social construction of the Southern Appalachian ecosystem. Natural Areas Journal 23:180–189. Google Scholar
  39. Robertson M. M. 2000. No net loss: wetland restoration and the incomplete capitalization of nature. Antipode 32(4):463-493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ryon, T. R. 1996. Evaluation of historical capture sites of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. M.S.E.S. thesis, University of Colorado, DenverGoogle Scholar
  41. Sheridan T. E. 1995. Arizona: political ecology of a desert state. Journal of Political Ecology 2:41–57Google Scholar
  42. Sivaramakrishnan, K. 2003. Scientific forestry and genealogies of development in Bengal. Pages 253–288 in Nature in the global south. P. Greenough, and A. L. Tsing (eds.). Duke University Press, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  43. Soulé M. E. 1990. The onslaught of Alien Species, and other challenges in coming decades, Conservation Biology 4(3):233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spirn, A. W. 1995. Constructing nature: the legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted. Pages 91–113 in Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature. W. Cronon (ed.). W. W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Swyngedouw E. 1999. Modernity and hybridity: Nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890–1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89(3):443–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swyngedouw E., M. Kaika, E. Castro 2002. Urban water: A political ecology perspective. Built Environment 28(2):124–137Google Scholar
  47. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis), recovery plan. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  48. Whatmore S. 2002. Hybrid geographies: Natures cultures spaces. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams M., W., J. Baron N. Caine R. Sommerfeld. 1996. Nitrogen saturation in the Colorado Front Range. Environmental Science and Technology 30:640–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wohl E. E. 2001. Virtual rivers: lessons from the mountain rivers of the Colorado Front Range, Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain ParksBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations