Do you feel that by exploring nature we are also killing it?

Thanks for the clarification robotpie:) and it seems the OP is also mindful of the issues. Excuse me if I jumped a bit, it is just such a distressing issue happening all around me, eg pest predator control people walking up hill on wet clay to follow a bait line as required, leaving a bank of native ferns I have been watching for 20 years nothing but a muddy bare slope with deep boot prints; a group course on stream ecology testing wandering freely to the stream’s edge trampling native sedges partially hidden by weed and likely unrecognised anyway; and my own 30 year accumulation of regret and self-recrimination over accidentally disturbed birds, nests, or invert habitat; exposure of seedling habitat to dessication, or to trampling because the weed removal makes it accessible, or of shade-dependent plants to sunlight through misjudging the amount of remaining shade at certain times of day or year…
Sorry, I have gone a bit off-topic, from the possible neg. effects of exploration, to the even more severe possible sided-effects of restoration…since I have never been able to separate the two activities:)

6 Likes

Interesting, I have wondered lately if any of the beetle damage and tree deaths I see in local forest are “unnatural”. Usually I attribute excessive damage of plants to disturbed ecology of vegetation, soil, water, or unbalanced invert polulations. due to predator insects wiped out, etc. I am in New Zealand.

2 Likes

I don’t see any harm done. For discussion like this it is worthwhile to see all possible viewpoints, but I just felt the main point of that paragraph wasn’t getting across so I thought it best to come clean with what I meant. But it is a difficult thing, since I think it is almost impossible to observe nature without disturbing it in some shape or form. What we can do is to try to minimise that disturbance as best we can. And certainly seeing such changes in a long term scale can be disturbing. At the same time, a few centuries back I assume naturalists would be trampling all over the place anyway to write down some observations they made for whatever type of animal, plant or fungus etc, giving us modern folk that knowledge. So in a sense, those pioneers did the disturbing so that us future generations wouldn’t have to do as much of it.

4 Likes

I’d say it varies, here it happens because those forests were planted, trees are of the similar age and they become affected by bark and jewel beetles at the same time, so their numbers go up the way they wouldn’t in another place. Plus as many plant eater insects their numbers can explode in certain years. But there’re problems in Siberia too with them, forests are quarantined, should read about what’s the exact cause there.

5 Likes

I have recently thought about this as I am currently running an experiment, on pollination and pollinators, which requires me to take floral samples of a highly localised and endangered legume. The aspects that make my actions feel justified (or at least that my actions will not have permanent affects on the populations persistence in the area) is that these plants produce copious amounts of flowers, are not obligate reseeders/resprout efficiently after disturbance and are one of the more dominant species in the immediate area. This helps me understand that the tiny reduction in seed set that my actions may be causing will probably not lead to the reduction of this species numbers in the area.

In any case, the rate of development in the area are by far the greatest threats to this species persistence.

4 Likes

It all depends what you’re studying and the quality of the data gathered in my opinion. I worry that a lot of disturbance is being done by people on iNaturalist in the name of ‘gathering data’ while being unaware of the consequences of destructive activities like peeling bark or moving logs from their original position.

On one hand, I’ve seen arguments that iNaturalist is primarily a place for people to learn more about nature and gain some knowledge/respect for the natural world. On the other hand, I’ve seen people advocate for and cite the scientific value of citizen science in documenting species and behavior in a way that may not be feasible otherwise due to limitations in funding/researcher-time. I won’t argue side or the other, just to point out that there may be some cake-having/eating happening.

I doubt this debate will go away or be resolved anytime soon, but I will say that it is disheartening to see some try to ‘wave away’ habitat disturbance/destruction by saying that:

  1. it’s in the name of science
  2. it’s really not that much damage
  3. OK it might be some damage, but see #1
  4. and anyway there’s lots of learning to be done through these activities

As there aren’t clear accepted standards on behavior while naturalizing, ‘[leave no trace principles like ‘leave what you find’ and ‘respect wildlife’](https://www.nps.gov/articles/leave-no-trace-seven-principles.htm)’ aside, I worry that people are left to judge the merits/impacts of their actions alone, and with literally hundreds of thousands of active users (and growing), the impact starts to add up in places that are especially sensitive/visited.

I think the original question is compelling and good to ask another way, Are we loving nature to death?

I’ll leave some articles here which have explored the topic, one of which (1) is a scientific study which proposes that human recreational activities may pose the greatest risk to endangered plants overall.

(2) Popular science digest on the above article (https://insidescience.org/news/nature-lovers-may-risk-loving-nature-death)

(3) Social media like Instagram (and iNaturalist) may be facilitating destruction of natural areas through overuse, (4) trampling superblooms and (5) facilitating poaching of succulents in South Africa and California

I can’t say that we should all stop exploring, since that isn’t practical, but I argue that we need to be more conscious of our collective impact on species and the habitat degradation that comes along with seemingly innocuous acts with good or neutral intentions of learning about and enjoying nature and documenting species.

Perhaps iNaturalist needs an ethical code of conduct similar to ‘leave no trace’ if it doesn’t already have one? Or at least to educate people on the possible impacts of their actions and issues to consider when out in nature. You’ll never be able to reduce impact to zero (just being outside sets animals on edge or could introduce pathogens/weed seeds, etc.), but you can try to minimize your personal impact and educate others to do the same.

All these arguments aside, many activities done in the name of exploring/documenting nature, including handling reptiles in CA are illegal and can be penalized by fines when done on public lands.

Simply by asking the question on whether your activities are endangering the natural world you want to explore, you’re clearly on the right track in my opinion. In case it’s not clear, I enjoy exploring nature, but try to minimize my impact as much as possible while encouraging others to do the same, since without this consciousness, we do indeed run the risk of killing nature as we explore it.

9 Likes

This is really interesting, thanks for sharing! I would not have guessed that recreation would be the largest category of threatening activity for endangered plants in the US. Although I would question if people roaring around on off-road vehicles (the largest subcategory of this threat) should be referred to as “nature-lovers”. It’s a good reminder to be careful and mindful when out enjoying nature.

7 Likes

I like @yerbasanta’s idea of a well-communicated ethical code-of-conduct for iNaturalist participants. It may be something casual observers just don’t think about, so making it front-and-center here could make a real difference in how a percentage of us go about exploring.

This is a good reminder that people who appreciate the natural world should try to be advocates for the restoration and conservation of habitat. Those efforts, some big and some small, I think should outweigh any minor disturbances we make. I’d like to think so anyway.

5 Likes

Heavy rains, strong winds, trees falling over, rock slides, soil collapses on banks or cliffs, etc…do more damage than you as a person can do in reasonable exploration in nature.

2 Likes

Welcome to the Forum, @john_hall :)

1 Like

Bark from our indigenous trees is used in African Traditional Medicine. In rural areas, in earlier times, the bark was sustainably harvested. Fast forward to busy markets in large South African cities … and trees are ring barked and killed.

4 Likes

All the more reason to encourage people to explore sandy beaches where they will mostly find already dead organisms such as empty mollusk shells, pieces of water plants already severed from the underwater substrate, cast-off exuviae of arthropods, and so on.

Not all of nature exploration has to involve serious damage to the organism’s habitat.

12 Likes

:nerd_face:And all of the people that live inland, many hours drive from a beach are just supposed to refrain from exploration??? Just asking??? :thinking:
There are way more people inland than those close to a beach…just saying…

There are many other ways in which inland folks can try to take advantage of observing organisms that are already dead. There’s roadkill of course (unfortunately) but there are also plants that get cut or trimmed by roadsides to improve visibility for traffic. I am sure there are lots of other examples out there if you start looking for them.

And I should point out that smaller sandy beaches also occur on rivers, streams, and lakes, not just on oceans and seas. And all those other beaches accumulate flood debris after rain events and storms, and flood debris has a lot of land-snail and sometimes water-mollusk shells in it.

5 Likes

As I was saying in my first post on this topic…
Heavy rains, strong winds, trees falling over, rock slides, soil collapses on banks or cliffs, etc…do more damage than a person can do in reasonable exploration in nature.
Have you ever seen an area after a bear has been foraging for insects/larvae or roots?
Have you ever seen an area where a flock of wild turkeys have foraged for food?
Have you ever seen an area after animals such as deer, elk, bear or moose have been fighting?
These cause a lot more damage than an individual or even several responsible individuals cause while exploring nature…

4 Likes

Come on people! If we stop exploring (being in) nature, go back to our cities, and focus on our flickering technology, we are still disturbing (or outright destroying) habitat! We need people who not only can recognize their own footprint on the land, but understand their place in ecology and hold a deep reverence for the wild; we won’t get that if we restrain ourselves from time in Nature, merely because our presence causes disturbance (as does the presence of any other large animal).

In New England and the greater northeast, our species has dramatically altered the character of the landscape over the last few centuries; most of our forests today are even-aged second growth forests that lack the structure and biodiversity of old growth forests. In this case, human disturbance, if applied in the right way, can be an immensely positive thing. I heat my house with wood, and cut the wood from living trees, for the exact reason that this forest will benefit from having more light reach the forest floor, more space between individual trees, more deadwood enriching the soil, and more snags and fallen logs providing structure (habitat). Since the forest is still developing and largely short on snags, I also will girdle some live trees, this creates a snag that will eventually fall over and return to the soil, all while providing habitat and food for mammals, birds, insects, amphibians, fungi, plants, etc., during its “lifetime”. Some people, when they’ve seen the little patch of forest I tend (a term I prefer to manage), find themselves in disbelief to learn that I would kill, and then not even use a tree, but they don’t know the flying squirrels who find shelter here, or the sapsuckers and barred owls who have raised their young here; I could go on, but I’m hoping you get my point. Our ecosystems in this region thrive on disturbance (even if it is as simple as a tree dying of old age), but this disturbance has largely been interrupted by humans in the past few centuries; I feel that it is our responsibility to do right by this when and where we can.

As to the original example, yes, I do peel back the bark of trees to look for insects, and I look under logs and rocks to find salamanders, but I do so with moderation; I don’t try flipping over every rock I find, this way there is still plenty of undisturbed habitat available for these animals to move to, if need be. I also do a lot of work to improve habitat for these species, and without knowing how they are using different habitats, this work would be poorly informed.

8 Likes

Too often I see people saying things along the lines of “Well, I can’t criticize governments or corporations or have any opinion on climate change, because I take long showers / don’t always turn my lights off / drive a car etc…” This is an attitude that of course absolutely delights those people who are truly destroying nature, because we’re feeling bad about ourselves instead of getting angry at them. Which is why they do everything they can to encourage this attitude and dismiss us as hypocrites when we call for nature protection.

So I say try to do everything you can to not disturb or destroy anything you don’t have to. But don’t beat yourself up over peeling a bit of bark when in the next lot someone is probably cutting all the trees down.

13 Likes

Thank you this helps a lot.

1 Like

I would add to this that I also work a lot to tend native plant communities, this can be removing destructive invasive species, or “weeding” out unwanted plants, often to favor a different species. And a lot of my “forestry” work has to do with preserving and restoring the herbaceous communities in the understory. Yes, this does involve disturbance, but it is relatively minor in comparison to what ‘natural’ events can do. Just this summer, a powerful thunderstorm leveled several acres of second growth forest near my house, making it look like some kind of clearcut, though it was entirely natural, and perhaps is just what the forest needs if some of the shade-intolerant canopy species are going to persist here into the future. Looking under logs and rocks for salamanders is nothing in comparison.

4 Likes

I was about to reply on your prior post when I saw you covered my additional angle on it right here. :)

In my woods, I do see a lot of foraging disturbance from these animals (plus raccoons, chipmunks etc). I use these particular sites to my advantage when I can: Rather than peeling up a patch of moss myself, I pick up the moss bits that an animal has already scratched up, for example.

Looking for these spots also helps me understand how the animals are “hanging out” when I’m not there.

7 Likes