Chattooga Conservation Plan's Ecosystem Approach

Large-scale approaches--at the level of ecosystems and landscapes that maintain whole regions with their unique assemblages of native flora and fauna--are the most reliable way to conserve biodiversity. Such approaches avoid the problems that plague species-by-species methods that quickly exhaust 1) the time available, 2) financial resources, 3) public patience, and 4) scientific research resources (Franklin, 1993). A landscape approach offers the advantage of supporting the large array of so-called "lesser" organisms: bacteria, fungi, insects, and other inconspicuous ones that carry out critical ecosystem functions, like decomposition and nitrogen fixation, on which the rest of us depend. A healthy forest needs viable populations of birds, large and small carnivores, plants and fungi, and other basic ecosystem elements to assure that the whole system functions sustainably.

The ecosystem approach is supported by a common sense look at the relative proportions of Earth's living things. Although most single-species conservation efforts are directed at vertebrates, the "charismatic megafauna" (i.e. eagles, bears, bobcats, etc.) actually represent less than one percent of living things. The vast majority of living things have not even been described, let alone studied for their unique chemical compounds that may be useful in medicine or materials engineering. Practical limits in our capacity to research each and every species means we cannot always know which species will be directly useful for such purposes. Valuable species will persist, along with those whose values are as yet undescribed by science, only if their habitats are conserved across the landscape.

A conservative approach to maintaining healthy ecosystems would preserve each habitat type, approximating their proportions in the native landscape, and connect them across the landscape. It would create a secure network of reserves for large carnivores and other species that are sensitive to human activity (Noss and Cooperider, 1994). For land managers, the question then is: how big must a reserve system be to maintain native wildlife populations, considering the drastic changes in the environment brought on periodically by natural disturbances like fires, tornadoes and insect pests? It must be large enough that only a small part of it is disturbed at any one time. In an area dramatically altered by natural disturbances, wildlife "colonists" can move in and re-establish themselves; but only if healthy populations are present in other areas of the landscape and can easily migrate between the two. Large, landscape-level biological reserves are more secure from the major destruction that can be caused by powerful and unpredictable natural forces.

The amount of mature forest interior habitat needed to conserve and restore the ecological integrity of the Southern Appalachian region is not known precisely. A convergence of estimates suggests that "most regions will require protection of some 25 to 75 percent of their total land area in core reserves and buffer zones" (Noss and Cooperider, 1994). In any case, protection does not imply "locking it up" by restricting access only to native wildlife. Reserve designs can accommodate a variety of human uses, including hunting, fishing, hiking, education, and scientific research. Maintaining a variety of ecological, social and economic activities in the watershed broadens the appeal of the reserve, and the active participation and support of local communities.

Previous (From Timber Management to Ecosystem Management)

Next (Core, Corridor and Restoration Area Principles)