4 ms·

Both links are paywalled so I can't comment on what they say (positive or negative). That said, I did attend an interesting lecture about systems that looks a b

Both links are paywalled so I can't comment on what they say (positive or negative). That said, I did attend an interesting lecture about systems that looks a bit at the Yellowstone as a cautionary tale about extrapolating how a system works from observational data. Basically it came down to there are secondary and tertiary effects from systems variables that express visibly differently depending on both the magnitude of the system elements influence and the time where it it changes. Thus making "simple" conclusions like 'wolves did this' often insufficient to explain system behavior and sometimes outright incorrect. However, the introduction of wolves did, incontrovertibly, add a system element that had not been present before. Exactly what that element was, and how it expressed is up for interpretation :-)

ForOldHack 1y ago
Brilliant observation. Dynamic systems like this are rarely a cut-n-done. Like the study of ozone, with it's seven counter intuitive steps, it is all an evolving study. It also proves the worth of just simple studies over a long period of time. Science used to do a lot of that, and it was very interesting, as many appear on hacker news, but now it seems that cut-n-done grab more popular news. It also bears the question: what longitudinal studies are popular here besides this one, and retro computing?
- cwmoore 1y ago
  https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/paidservices/longitudinalstudyls https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/paidservices/longitu...
aspenmayer 1y ago
> Both links are paywalled so I can't comment on what they say (positive or negative). Fixed! https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-state-study-debunks-trophic-cascade-claims-yellowstone-national-park/72508642007/ https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-sta... | https://archive.is/k0NqZ https://archive.is/k0NqZ https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/195480918 https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/1954809... | https://annas-archive[.]org/md5/3d5be21998575e23a28fdaa53ff528ed https://annas-archive[.]org/md5/3d5be21998575e23a28fdaa53ff5... (You will have to replace "[.]" with "." in the above link in case that wasn't obvious.)
- ChuckMcM 1y ago
  Awesome thanks. Added to my libraary. Interesting that the Coloradan study was asking a slightly different question regarding wolves in Colorado vs the magnitude of the wolf impact in Yellowstone. I felt the experimental setup was also good but might quibble that Elk have more impact than just eating, they can squash saplings just by walking on them. The point that Colorado maintains its Elk population by hunting was relevant as well, any impact of wolf predation would be less than it would be on a previously un-predated population. All in all though, I quite agree that the stories of Yellowstone’s wolves likely overstate the specific impact of wolves and understate the system dynamics that had other mechanisms also affecting them. I also recognize that ‘popular’ writing is more about persuasion than facts :-) and it was important to persuade people that wolves weren’t “bad/evil” just predators that had lived there before. Telling that story as a rebalancing is certainly more palatable than saying “Yeah, if we had allowed hunting Elk (and perhaps Bison) in Yellowstone it would have similarly improved.” Generally keeping the human role as apex predator out of the headlines :-). Thanks again, great links.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > Thanks again, great links. It was the least I could do to help the discussion, as I’m not really knowledgeable enough about Yellowstone ecology personally to have a nuanced discussion with you or others in this thread, so I have to find other ways to contribute positively to help us all catch where catch can by enabling debate through proper context. You’re welcome, and thank you for your response on the points for the benefit of me and the thread, as it was beyond my ken.

ForOldHack 1y ago

Brilliant observation. Dynamic systems like this are rarely a cut-n-done. Like the study of ozone, with it's seven counter intuitive steps, it is all an evolving study. It also proves the worth of just simple studies over a long period of time. Science used to do a lot of that, and it was very interesting, as many appear on hacker news, but now it seems that cut-n-done grab more popular news. It also bears the question: what longitudinal studies are popular here besides this one, and retro computing?

cwmoore 1y ago
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/paidservices/longitudinalstudyls https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/paidservices/longitu...

aspenmayer 1y ago

> Both links are paywalled so I can't comment on what they say (positive or negative). Fixed! https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-state-study-debunks-trophic-cascade-claims-yellowstone-national-park/72508642007/ https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/news/2024/02/09/colorado-sta... | https://archive.is/k0NqZ https://archive.is/k0NqZ https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/195480918 https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter-abstract/1954809... | https://annas-archive[.]org/md5/3d5be21998575e23a28fdaa53ff528ed https://annas-archive[.]org/md5/3d5be21998575e23a28fdaa53ff5... (You will have to replace "[.]" with "." in the above link in case that wasn't obvious.)

ChuckMcM 1y ago
Awesome thanks. Added to my libraary. Interesting that the Coloradan study was asking a slightly different question regarding wolves in Colorado vs the magnitude of the wolf impact in Yellowstone. I felt the experimental setup was also good but might quibble that Elk have more impact than just eating, they can squash saplings just by walking on them. The point that Colorado maintains its Elk population by hunting was relevant as well, any impact of wolf predation would be less than it would be on a previously un-predated population. All in all though, I quite agree that the stories of Yellowstone’s wolves likely overstate the specific impact of wolves and understate the system dynamics that had other mechanisms also affecting them. I also recognize that ‘popular’ writing is more about persuasion than facts :-) and it was important to persuade people that wolves weren’t “bad/evil” just predators that had lived there before. Telling that story as a rebalancing is certainly more palatable than saying “Yeah, if we had allowed hunting Elk (and perhaps Bison) in Yellowstone it would have similarly improved.” Generally keeping the human role as apex predator out of the headlines :-). Thanks again, great links.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > Thanks again, great links. It was the least I could do to help the discussion, as I’m not really knowledgeable enough about Yellowstone ecology personally to have a nuanced discussion with you or others in this thread, so I have to find other ways to contribute positively to help us all catch where catch can by enabling debate through proper context. You’re welcome, and thank you for your response on the points for the benefit of me and the thread, as it was beyond my ken.