Know Your Biomes IX: Chaparral

Fynbos in the Western Cape, South Africa*

As much as any biome or global ecoregion is a challenge to group, differentiate or otherwise generalize, the chaparral or Mediterranean woodlands (scrubland/heathland/grassland) biome may be the best example such classification difficulties. There’s perhaps more general agreement regarding the features of this biome, even if the name tends to change from author to author. Many texts will not even include this biome in their list of major regions, instead making a small reference to it in the section regarding deserts. However, these areas, considering their combined territory, contain about 20 percent of the world’s species of plants, many of them endemic gems found nowhere else. On the flipside, due to the often environmentally heterogeneous nature of this biome, organisms that are prominent, integral members of other biome classifications are found in the chaparral as well. For the sake of consistency in this post, I’ll continue to refer to this biome as chaparral, as incomplete a descriptive designation as that may be.

Specifically, chaparral biomes exist in five major regions: South Africa, South/Southwest Australia, Southwestern California/Mexico, Central Chile and in patches wrapped around the Mediterranean Sea, including Southern Europe and Northern Africa. These regions are unified by their hot, dry summers and mild winters, referred to as an archetypal Mediterranean climate at 40 degrees north and south approximately.

The vast majority of rainfall usually comes with the cold fronts of winter. Annually, chaparral can experience anywhere from 250 mm of rain all the way up to 3000 mm in isolated subregions like the west portion of Fynbos in South Africa.

Plants in chaparral areas tend to be sclerophyllous (Greek: “hard-leaved”), meaning the leaves are evergreen, tough and waxy. This adaptation allows plants to conserve water in an area where rainfall is discontinuous, but probably evolved to compensate for the low levels of phosphorous in ancient weathered soils, particularly in Australia where there have been relatively few volcanic events to reestablish nutrients over millions of years. Obviously, these plants also happen to do very well during the xeric summers of the chaparral where drought is always a threat.

Because of the aridity and heat, the chaparral plant communities are adapted to and often strategically dependent on fire. Evolutionary succession scenarios constructed by scientists typically point to fire as one of the major factors that created much of chaparral areas in Australia and South Africa from Gondwanaland rainforest. (Fire ecology really deserves at least a post of its own, which I’d like to discuss given the time in the future.)

Some of the regions in the chaparral are exceptional. In South Africa, the area known as the Fynbos constitutes its own floristic region (phytochorion) among phytogeographers, the Cape Floristic Region. While it is the smallest of these floral kingdoms, it contains some 8500 species of vascular plants, 70 percent of which are endemic. The March rose (Oromthamnus zeyheri) is one of the standout specimens of the group as well as the national flower of South Africa, the King protea (Protea cynaroides). P. cynaroides is a “resprouter” in its fire-prone habitat, growing from embedded buds in a subterranean, burl-like structure. Another endemic species, the Cape sugarbird, is shown feeding on a King protea below**.

There is one unique threat to the chaparral: anthropogenic fire. In the past, if nature had not provided a fire to burn back the accumulated brush in these areas, often the native peoples would do so, and generally speaking, the fires seemed to be controlled and effective. But increased frequency of fires due to negligence or downed power lines can potentially cause catastrophic, unrecoverable fire. Only so much tolerance to such a destructive force can be built by evolutionary processes.

*Image by Chris Eason
**Image by Derek Keats

Share

No responses yet

Nature and the illusion of peace

Jun 09 2011 Published by under Environment

In the clearing just below my grandfather's hunting cabin, between thick rows of red and blue spruce, you have to be careful with the lawn mower. Three perfect white sitting rocks are quickly overgrown with daisies and other weeds in the spring, so it's important to fish the stones from the tangle to avoid twisting a blade. I spent an evening there, about an hour, sitting, waiting for the sun to fully set, for the sky to blacken. Eventually I lost patience and went inside. The trees remained shadows against dark blue for much of the night.

Down there though, sitting on those rocks, it's quiet. The silence is deep, broken only by the furtive movements of rodents and birds in the woods and the rise and fall of the choral of tiny frogs by the pond. Occasionally the song halts while a larger animal passes - perhaps deer or raccoon - and then resumes. I get edgy thinking it might be a bear.

These are the moments we crave with nature. I sought out the exact place for my cathartic need for the quiet mountain that evening in the same way millions of people seek out specific places to connect with nature: state parks, hiking trails, cabin rentals, on and on. When my grandfather's place was inaccessible due to distance, I found other ways to connect. If I went too long without having that selfish bit of time, I felt pensive, frustrated. E.O. Wilson cites our evolutionary heritage. I tend to agree, but it runs deep in different ways. In my case, it's partially familial. Being in the woods anywhere reminds me of happy, uncomplicated times I spent with my family.

There's something untrue about it all, however. I sit in the night and listen, hearing little, breathing deep, but under my feet billions of organisms fight for territory and resources in the tiny cracks between soil granules. The soil itself is a conglomerate of varied origin, the decayed remains of animals and plants, fragments of ancient rock from continents long dead. The weeds we hacked down just days before have begun to vigorously regenerate, to vie for a better access to sunlight. Down the road, a snake invades the den of a family of chipmunks overnight, consumes the young. The guardians of the den are dead, flattened by passing cars on the asphalt. The babies would have died of starvation anyway.

You can almost see it, hear it when you want to, the cells of every living things around, the innumerable chemical processes firing off and all of this in context temporarily strips away that peace, leaves bare a reality, if not the reality of nature. The limitations of our own senses save us from prolonged exposure, but it invades nonetheless, if you let it.

There is something disrespectfully incomplete about popular conceptions of nature, especially when the escape into these places we love is for pure beauty, pure peace. There's something I dread about reentering that world, seeing the things none of us want to see, the brutality of it: death, chemical compulsions, the needs of predators. It's a reminder of how things really are and squashes that silly daydream of somehow returning to nature and finding our "proper" place among it once more. As a species, we ran away and didn't look back until about 100 years ago or so.

It's easy to wax poetic about the parsimony of nature, the circle of life, the harmless, birds-eye view of the majesty (and other such cliches), but it's difficult to actually witness the sad little realities that form the foundations of the big, happy system. The peace that I derive from nature is always denuded, raw, contextualized; I return to the city relieved but mindful. It's never a light escape. It never should be.

Share

No responses yet

Defining oil, recent news

Aug 23 2010 Published by under [Biology&Environment]

First I want to draw attention to the more recent comments of this post about the state of the oil in the gulf. Beyond my feeble attempt to explain the situation, we've had some folks drop by with a bit more experience. Thank you for that.

Found this post yesterday about the "brown residue" that's been found in different areas along the coast:

Ed Overton, a Louisiana State University scientist conducting oil analysis for the federal government, sent two researchers to accompany the newspaper to areas where the brown material was coming ashore in early August. Water and residue samples were collected from the tip of Dauphin Island to about five miles down the Ft. Morgan peninsula.

“It’s the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen. It’s got some hydrocarbons in it, but it does not match the oil from the Deepwater Horizon,” Overton said, adding that he has received samples collected by federal officials in other places that appear similar. “I have to think it is biological in origin.”

Monty Graham, a marine biologist with the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, said that just because the material coming ashore has a sheen associated with it and contains some of the components of crude does not mean it flowed from the broken well.

“At some level, somebody better define oil. This three letter word is starting to get pretty complicated,” Graham said. “Are we looking at the remnants of oil, of oil that has been worked over by the microbial community? The microbes take what they can, then just leave the parts they can’t eat. That’s likely happening out there on a microscopic level. I’d speculate that’s what we are seeing.”

Overton said he believes that the brown material is likely plankton that ate bacteria that has been consuming some of the oil floating in the Gulf.

Dr. Samantha Joye of UGA and her team headed back to the Gulf as well. Probably a good idea to keep an eye on the Gulf Oil Blog for any new insights:

We’ll be conducting many operations similar to those we conducted on our May/June cruise but our collaborators be doing a lot of work at higher trophic levels to see how oil and gas are moving through the food web and we’ll be collecting sediment cores to see how much oil is on the bottom. Our cruise plan is ambition. We want to locate and map (again) the mysterious deepwater plumes that were discovered on the Pelican cruise in May. We will be further documenting the plume’s distribution and following up the rate measurements we did in May/June with additional rate measurements and a suite of geochemical constituents.

Share

No responses yet

Environmental framing again, a clarification

Aug 20 2010 Published by under [Biology&Environment], [Science in Society]

Matt Nisbet has a post up at Big Think referencing a brief interview with Peter Groffman regarding the recent open-access science communication issue of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Both are worth a read. I was linked in the article (this post, a brief review of some of the content), and while I appreciate it, I do want to clarify and perhaps expand the gist of my post.

Nisbet’s post stated that I feared the “dumbing down” (his words, not mine, despite the quotation marks) of the science for public consumption. I think that certainly represents one of the concerns of framing critics, especially those in the scientific community. Personally, that’s not high on my list. I’m sure the ESA and associated scientists will be able to represent the science behind the problems and potential solutions plainly and efficiently.

The post I wrote was an attempt at expressing a general aversion for comprehensive marketing schemes and questioning, when it comes to the “humanities” portion of the plan, whether or not honesty – in worldview, philosophy or fiction – was important enough to preserve in its entirety. Some of the papers in the publication sounded like every business case, proposal and requirements doc I’ve ever read or written, which is fine, by the way; it’s typical. I’m sneering because documents like those are mostly industry fluff and setup language for the real meat, which can be boiled out rather easily and comprises a very small portion of the actual verbiage. We toss charts and graphs into technical documents to fill them out and give a visual for the sake of color or flow (or because it’s a standard) instead of representing an accurate depiction of process.

I’m being stubborn. Ultimately I think it’s sad and reflects poorly on us that people in positions of influence believe these kinds of campaigns are the key to reaching "the public," that only through demographical media saturation can we ever hope to teach science and instill environmental stewardship. Advertisers have to petition tribally to encourage us to buy; McDonald’s runs unique, culturally stereotypical commercials for WLITE 101.3, WURBAN 105.7 and WROCK 99.1 and it’s permissible to assume that the listeners to those stations are okay with being pigeonholed. I’m usually told something along the lines of “What do you expect?” or “You think this is new?” or “It’s just personal preference. I actually like that commercial,” and probably rightly so. It just doesn’t sit well with me.

Continue Reading »

Share

No responses yet

Gulf oil moving deeper, not disappearing

Aug 17 2010 Published by under [Biology&Environment]

The gulf oil is moving into "deeper waters," according to USF scientists where phytoplankton and other basal organisms will be threatened. I've been reading stories like this for a week, scientists concerned about the settling oil on the ocean floor and the potential toxic effect on the food chain.

This is in addition to GA scientists stating that 80 percent of the spilled oil lingers in the Gulf's waters, starkly contrasting the claims by the US gov that it's mostly gone.

Share

7 responses so far

Evidence that mountaintop mining is impacting water quality

Aug 10 2010 Published by under [Biology&Environment], [Politics]

In Science, an article that has uncovered details of exactly how mountaintop mining or mountaintop removal, the destructive practice of  blasting the overburden in order to access coal seams instead of digging under them, is indeed affecting streams in the same ways that traditional mines have.

Bernhardt and her colleagues overlaid images taken by satellites and aircraft of mining activity in West Virginia's Appalachian Mountains onto topographic maps of the area, allowing them to estimate the amount of mining taking place in mountain watersheds between 1996 and 2009. The research team also had access to data on water quality and invertebrate biodiversity for 478 sites in the area, collected over the same period by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.

The EPA's current acceptable measure of minerals in the water, its ionic content, is up to 500 microsiemens per centimeter (µS cm−1). The UOM "siemen" represents overall conductivity. The higher the ionic content (dissolved minerals, or sometimes not so dissolved) the higher the measure.

The data reveal a very obvious exception (emphasis mine):

Mining had occurred at 208 of those sites, where the average water conductivity was 650 µS cm−1. In the most intensively mined areas, where 92% of the watershed had been mined at some point, conductivity levels rose to 1,100 µS cm−1. Bernhardt says that even in areas where just 2.5% of the watershed had been mined, some 30% of streams still had conductivity levels greater than the EPA's recommendation. The team also noted "sharp declines" in some stream invertebrates in areas where as little as 1% of the watershed had been mined.

Compare those numbers, and even the acceptable EPA limit to those recorded from streams in developed areas, which had an average conductivity of 228 µS cm−1. Without mining or development, the average was 105 µS cm−1.

The National Mining Association is obviously not happy with the results of the study, claiming that, "Conductivity should not be used as an exclusive tool for isolating impacts from mining activity from the many other sources or factors that may impact water quality."

To illustrate the extent of these mines visually, take a look at the growth of the Hobet Mine in WV over 25 years, from 1984 to 2009:

Hobet 1984

1984

Hobet 2009

2009

As you can see, the mine crept west, and as the operation expanded, they implemented reclamation procedures on the area already stripped (light green cover). Restoring the ecology is not as simple as planting a few species of grass and trees and calling it a day however. This area will not recover for a very long time. The soil column is homogenized, the water polluted and the alpha diversity completely shot. This doesn't even consider any public health consequences or the impact on the area's economy.

When I was in college we spent an entire day in the field measuring the conductivity and invertebrate compositions of streams in the middle Appalachian mountains, beginning with a highly polluted stream running through an old coal mining shaft at the top of the system, running through a small town and finally, down into an undeveloped region of a local state park. The ionic content of the initial stream was so high that much of it had fallen out, so to speak, and the rocks almost glowed orange and red. Obviously, the stream was more or less dead.

I spent a lot of time in these areas, saw the worst of it, but I never had to live with it long term. The strip mines can be seen everywhere in the area from the highways. Ambitious wind farmers are starting to build on these areas, making the claim that it's a productive use of the land. It's a conflicted, complicated area that rarely makes headlines because of how quiet, how far away it seems. There are very few large cities in the midst of the energy development, the coal and wind industry in particular, and perhaps that lack of urbanity shifts the focus away. Perhaps it's just the nature of how we as a society deal with most environmental issues; wait until it's the worst it can be and then act.

There are a lot of people working to provide support in Appalachia, however. Sometime this week I'll have a post up about a suite of solutions proposed for the area, a sustainable framework built upon a solid foundation of proper ecological and resource management.

Share

One response so far

Communicating environmental realities: framing and fiction

Aug 03 2010 Published by under [Biology&Environment], [Science in Society]

ResearchBlogging.orgI finally found the time yesterday evening to read through a few of the papers from the latest Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, which is focused on science/environmental communication this time around. The majority of the articles are driven by Nisbet's ideas about framing in general, but I don't really want to dive back into that mire of rhetoric, at least on a broadside.

I'll start out by saying that I do agree to some extent that the idea of stewardship is a good one in that it has been adopted by folks with very different worldviews. I think overall Wilson's The Creation took a good step of putting aside some of the more tedious ideological blockers between materialism and spiritualism in regard to feeling a connection to nature in any affectionate sense compelling enough to engender stewardship. Since it was published (and I'm sure before then) much work has been done to piece together a much more diverse, welcoming environmental movement.

Continue Reading »

Share

2 responses so far

The next incarnation

Aug 02 2010 Published by under [Et Al], [Science in Society]

Hello and welcome! Thrilled to be a part of Scientopia. It's been a hell of a lot of work for the folks working behind the scenes to get us set up here, especially Mark, who has done an outstanding job with the architecture of the site. I haven't played with WordPress in some time, so it'll be a nice switch from Blogger. The fact that the Android WP app is so awesome that I'm disappointed that I didn't switch before.

Below the fold, what this site is about and some musings on ecology, art and rhetorically, where we go from here.

Continue Reading »

Share

No responses yet

Decades later, how has the ecology of coastal Saudi Arabia recovered from the largest oil spill in history?

May 31 2010 Published by under [Biology&Environment]

As the Deepwater Horizon spill progresses, I've been tracking down the science that has been done as a result of other large spills, particularly the monitoring of ecosystem damage and recovery. It's a mixed bag, apples and oranges in some cases, largely dependent on the communities affected, the extent of the spill, the cleanup effort and the environmental/species composition of the affected area.

I went straight to the biggest first, the Gulf War oil spill, which started in January of 1991 and ended up leaking 11 million barrels of oil (one barrel = 42 gallons) into the Persian Gulf, which eventually washed up on to the shorelines of the area, invading the beaches, salt marshes and mangrove forests. In 2001 and then again in 2008, Dr. Hans-Jörg Barth of the University of Regensburg reported on the ecological effects of the spill, which are apparent to this day.

Continue Reading »

Share

No responses yet

A letter to my conservative friend

May 04 2010 Published by under [Biology&Environment], [Politics]

In light of the very real and very dangerous anthropogenic environmental disturbance in the Gulf of Mexico, I’m writing in hopes of engaging you in a conversation regarding some previous generalizations you’ve made about environmentalists and the environmental movement, if we can even still call it a singular philosophical effort.

You’ve decried environmentalism for the arrogance of its proponents and echoed the claim of many others that the planet can take care of itself. If Michael Crichton could be indicted for one crime against fiction it should be for the idiot words of his idiot self-manifestation as a genius, Ian Malcolm, and punished by being forced to hear the phrase repeated by everyone who ever has. Of course the planet will go on. Of course life finds a way. That’s not really the question. The question that most environmentalists are interested in answering is who or what is responsible for how the earth and its systems, biological and otherwise, are changing. This is the first time in the history of the earth that changes to the extent at which they’re being recorded can, in most cases, be directly attributed to an inhabitant of the planet.

You underestimate our power as a species. We’re not just another primate in a long line. We’re the pinnacle of animal intelligence with a thirst for knowledge and dominance, and why not sate that impulse, who or what could possibly stop us? We have reshaped the very face of earth with massive tools, bending the forests and waters to our every whim, constantly reinventing and refining our perceptions with each passing age gaining more and more freedom for the individual. We are no longer beholden to any god if we so choose. Call arrogance by its proper name; call it humanity.

Continue Reading »

Share

No responses yet

Bad Behavior has blocked 374 access attempts in the last 7 days.