An Oikos of Relationship
Of course I was delighted to unwrap the heavy Christmas gift, obviously a book of some density. And I was especially glad to open it up at random pages there amidst the wrapping paper and see the wonderful glossy images of nature for which National Geographic is famous. What I didn't expect was to become so enthralled in the text--of a 300 page book about Africa, a companion to the PBS series we missed not having television. Ann had seen me at the computer, zooming down to the points of interest on Google Earth that show and tell tantalizing details from the recent extended aerial and ground exploration of the Dark Continent. Santa brought me a version of Africa I can view from the chair in front of the woodstove. There is nothing like the feel of a good book in your hands on a cold winter night.
I've only just begun to savor its pages. To do so makes me ache for the immersion in biology topics that I've recently left behind. The older I get (and I find that happening rather consistently) the more I feel the urgency to follow my heart and speak my mind. I can follow, and I will. But I can't always speak on this page without feeling the constraints of benign censorship when the topic becomes colored with threat or conflict on global issues. Nature-at-risk is not a popular blog topic, even--or especially--if the threats are real and relevant to our children's future on this beleaguered planet. Even in the blogging world, the politics of 'environment' raise the red flags related to the 'who owns the land' issue. But Nature-at-work seems neutral enough. So let me leave this digression and tell you what I wanted to tell you before my typing hands took control of this blog post.
Listen to this: the trees are talking.
One early anecdote from the book describes what has probably become a cliche, an image in our minds from the African savanna that is this: giraffes in exaggerated slow-motion strides feed among the widely-spaced, flat-topped Acacia trees. But there is more to this image than meets the eye. Or the human nose, for that matter.
The giraffe only nibbles a few leaves from the top of each tree, and then moves on--a pattern of feeding that seems energy-inefficient. But this here-and-there snacking is not the giraffe's idea but the tree's. Upon being nipped by the animal's first bite, the tree responds almost instantly by changing its inner chemistry of defense. Within less than a minute, its leaves produce tannins (a bitter substance common in oak bark and acorns as well) that can reach lethal levels. Of course this gives the leaves an off-flavor after a few bites, so the giraffe moves on. But even then, he may remain hungry for some time until he moves away not only from this nibbled tree but from this grove of trees.
The tree that has been attacked raises a danger signal to other acacia trees by emitting ethylene gas--the same gas that causes fruits to ripen more quickly in a paper sack on your kitchen counter. The gas blows down-wind, and within a short while, unnibbled trees 150 feet away have also stepped up their tannin production. A giraffe succeeds in feeding only on about one tree in ten. And so the giraffes are fed, and the trees give up only as much as they can afford so that they live to grow new leaves to sustain just enough but not too many nibbling herbivores.
If there are more vignettes like this one in the three hundred pages I haven't yetturned, there will likely be more 'book reports' in the weeks ahead. But I know I can expect that, in the ecology of human relationships on this massive continent, the story is not one of such beautiful balance.
Comments
Great post! Your love of nature is shown at it's best.
Do not bow down to censorship, benign or otherwise. That is the road to perdition, as you will end up watching your words and writing for someone else's taste, not yours.
On the other hand, you must not consider comments as censorship, even when they are negative in nature. They are merely indicators that your words do not find favor with someone.
If you are looking for agreement, write about Tsuga and spiderwebs and patterms of light and shadow in your Goose Creek Run sanctuary. You will find no argument there and no challenge either, I wager.
Those who read omens correctly can see disaster looming far in advance of its occurrence. Those unfortunate people have a long history of being ridiculed by others who would rather enjoy the moment and do not care to be disturbed by lookouts crying "wolf".
So, what to do? If you see disaster and fail to warn about it, you will probably feel guilty. If you warn about things that others can't appreciate, you will probably get laughed at. I suggest that you might salve your conscience by issuing warnings as "events worthy of further investigation" and let it go at that. The alertly cautious amongst your readers will pick up on your concern and those who choose to ignore bad news will not feel that you have gone over to the dire side.
You might even set up a separate category for these posts.
Whatever you do, keep on blogging and keep your spirits up. Coments are feedback, and nothing more. Use them as indicators of public interest and decide for yourself whether you wish to heed them. This applies to all comments, including this one.
Posted by: David St Lawrence | January 12, 2006 8:37 AM
Boy, am I familiar with tannins! Costs a fortune to remove it from your drinking water.
I'm curious. Does the new growth contain tannins? Do the trees stop producing tannins when the threat is gone? What happens so that the giraffes don't simply run out of trees?
BTW, speak your mind, Fred. Isn't that the point of a blog? NOBODY can be a poet ALL of the time. I can't speak for anyone else, but I enjoy reading about what's on your mind today, be it uplifting or downright scary.
Posted by: M. Lawless | January 12, 2006 8:52 AM
I will be looking for that book.
Posted by: kenju | January 12, 2006 9:08 AM
I agree with David's comments and suggest you say exactly what you want to say, controversial or not. It's your blog isn't it?
Personally, I find this site more interesting when we can debate issues because it prompts me to learn a little more before I blurt out something.
It's normal for multiple opinions to exist and to share them.
I recently wrote two emails to the editors of The Sierran as the Sierra Club produced a study regarding political party, wealth and environmental contributions.
I got some positive feedback and citations in future publications. Much more interesting feedback when you can have two-way discussions.
Posted by: Jim | January 12, 2006 12:54 PM
Hi Fred,
This morning on NPR, I heard a piece about trees emitting methane and thought "sh*t, there goes the greenhouse gas argument." I haven't had a chance to google the matter further, but am curious about your perspective. Any thoughts?
Posted by: lyn | January 12, 2006 2:39 PM
Tannins are great..in wine! Write for yourself and the satisfaction it gives and success will follow.
Posted by: Dave | January 12, 2006 3:01 PM
Oh yes, please don't self censor. We need your knowledgable voice ruminating on important environmental issues.
Posted by: Kathy Barron | January 12, 2006 9:44 PM
Fred:
Of course, a writer should always have the freedom to say what he or she thinks and blogging is, of course, all about freedom of expression.
A writer must be also be able to stand behind what he or she writes and should expect questions or comments about whether or not their concern is fueled by fact, fantasy or an agenda. Free speech carries with it responsibility. A person may have the right to stand up and shout "fire" in a crowded theater but that same person must also accept the consequences of such actions. I say this in a generic sense and it is not intended to suggest that your writings fall into that category.
However, as writers,bloggers, journalists, columnists or visual commentators, we must accept comments and critiques on what we put out there for public consumption. Comments or even questions on intent are not censorship.
The same free speech we enjoy as writers also applies to those who might disagree with our conclusions.
Posted by: Doug Thompson | January 13, 2006 8:03 AM
Nice post, Fred is it? No tv? must be like heaven.
Posted by: road apples | January 15, 2006 8:57 AM