north v. south
Locked
 
|
Well, from what I can see walking around there's another factor that
may be either symptom or explantion down here. There are a lot more complete self-sufficient eco-systems in a given area than up north. Of course the Everglades is quite special in that way, with the boundaries between the integrated climax communities of unique species changing in a matter of a few feet some times. It's extraordinary. Something similar can be said for the underwater ecologies here. Very small changes in elevation or currents often means a wholesale shift in the species that inhabit it. In the case of the Everglades it sometimes seems to be the difference between 2" of standing water and 4". Up north, where I'm more familiar with things, that doesn't happen, you need hundreds of miles and hundreds of feet in elevation. So something down here causes smaller differences in physical environment to produce larger differences in unique communities of species it seems. I'm wondering if maybe it means that fewer experimental designs are squashed by competitition or something, that the intensity of competition is lower and experimentation with new form more tollerated? Today we ended the day with feeding 4 and 5 ft tarpon at a dock where they've been coming to receive their treats from the tourists for 30 years. The tarpon party also attracts a lot of gulls, egrets, and pellicans, all of various kinds. Well, gulls are gluls, but it struck me how much fun it was to also swat away all the egrets and pelicans trying to horn in! > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > Here?s an armchair hypothesis: > > Large creatures take longer to grow and more food to do so; hence: longer > reproductive periods and fewer numbers of organisms. > > Smaller creatures have more numbers and more children; so probably shorter > lifetimes. > > I?d expect that any species with higher population numbers and faster > evolution periods would split (or differentiate) more frequently into newer > species; i.e. more diversity. > > The creatures that evolved in the south would have greater diversity, but > would also have adapted to that region, and would want to stay there. > > > > As for the oxygen thing, maybe it has to do with volume to surface area. Big > creatures need more oxygen density because they burn more energy moving one > meter per kilogram; that is, because of surface area (square law friction) > in the liquid as they hunt for food. That?s a guess! > > > > _____ > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf > Of Marko A. Rodriguez > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 8:28 AM > To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] north v. south > > > > I recently saw a documentary on Encephalopods on PBS (encephalopods: marine > creatures belonging to the same family as squid). If I remember correctly, > encephalopods are larger in the North Pacific because the water is more > oxygenated then in the south. Thus, the creatures in the north grow larger > for whatever reason that oxygenated water causes larger growth--I assume for > similar reasons as to why farming works better at lower altitudes. However, > this explanation doesn't explain why there is more diversity in the south. > But don't take my word for it--I'm no cardiologist :). > > > > Marko A. Rodriguez > > Los Alamos National Laboratory (P362-proto) > > Los Alamos, NM 87545 > > Phone +1 505 606 1691 > > http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram > > > > > > On Dec 20, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote: > > > > > > so... I'm in south Florida with my son for a week enjoying the Keys > > and the Everglades (just a little more interesting than the subway!) > > and it came to me that the northern oceans there is lots more > > and in the southern, lots more species. Anyone know if there's a > > model for that? All my notes are home, but I remember some stocks & > > flows model theorists talking about maximizing systems by something > > like internal recycling. Does that connect? > > -- > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > e-mail: sy at synapse9.com > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: sy at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com |
|
|
Well, after thinking it over I think it could also be a case where the
'maximization principle' does not operaterate the same way in northern and southern waters. In all the cases I know of that people offer to demonstrate that the limits of growth occur when an organism maximizes their creativity in taking resources from their competitors I find it's also a good example of the limit of their creativity in making use of uncontested resources. Those are two dimensions of growth limits in every case anyway, both having to do with creativity (the ultimate 'internality' in utilizing 'externalities'). When you look at the multiplicity of ecosystems and species in a place like South Florida it's pretty clear they're each living right on top of each other, but largely each using stuff no one else wants, making creative use of the gaps between other user's resource niches, and developing much more intricate designs of life for it. When systems compete to exclude each other from a resource you may get larger systems but certainly less variety. I've also been reading a suspiciously insightful bit of pop-psychology on the trip, that came highly recommended by an old friend. The book, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, is sometimes a little sloppy in its natural systems theory, and not all his explanations match the penetrating clarity and accuracy of some of his observations. Still, he attempts to describe the profound flaws in the dominant human frame of thought that threaten the planet and does so with considerable success I think. I can name more than one critical issue he mixes up a little, but this is a great jumping off point for any rational person intersted in the core problem of man's role on earth. Perhaps the above thoughts about the kinds of competition that swell volume and multiply loosers vs. those that produce remarkable harmony and variety were somewhat suggested by Quin ponting out the global main stream denial of that difference is a significant issue at this time of deep environmental crisis and choice for the earth... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 7:29 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] north v. south > > > Well, from what I can see walking around there's another factor that > may be either symptom or explantion down here. There are a lot more > complete self-sufficient eco-systems in a given area than up north. > Of course the Everglades is quite special in that way, with the > boundaries between the integrated climax communities of > unique species > changing in a matter of a few feet some times. It's extraordinary. > Something similar can be said for the underwater ecologies > here. Very > small changes in elevation or currents often means a wholesale shift > in the species that inhabit it. > > In the case of the Everglades it sometimes seems to be the difference > between 2" of standing water and 4". Up north, where I'm more > familiar with things, that doesn't happen, you need hundreds of miles > and hundreds of feet in elevation. So something down here causes > smaller differences in physical environment to produce larger > differences in unique communities of species it seems. I'm > wondering > if maybe it means that fewer experimental designs are squashed by > competitition or something, that the intensity of competition > is lower > and experimentation with new form more tollerated? > > Today we ended the day with feeding 4 and 5 ft tarpon at a dock where > they've been coming to receive their treats from the tourists for 30 > years. The tarpon party also attracts a lot of gulls, egrets, and > pellicans, all of various kinds. Well, gulls are gluls, but > it struck > me how much fun it was to also swat away all the egrets and pelicans > trying to horn in! > |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |