May 09, 2011 11:21
I'm reading and enjoying an ecological history of Australasia, _the Future Eaters_ by Tim Flannery. I'm only halfway through at this point, just reaching the point of initial human habitation; to date much of the book has been about ecological adaptations to the hard conditions provided by Australia's nutrient poor soils and seas. Kangaroos? Covering lots of territory to get enough food. Marsupials? investing in few offspring and keeping them close to ensure survival. Slow-moving, dimwitted koalas? Very poor quality food, so most of their head is empty rather than energy-expensive brain. Reptiles? Don't have to heat themselves, therefore more energy efficient. Lack of large carnivores? Wasn't enough pasture to support the density of herbivores they need to survive. Proliferation of plant life? Lots of species adapting to particular niches rather than a dominant species outcompeting all of the them.
This is quite different from the sorts of things I usually read, and I'm finding it quite moreish. I was pondering while reading in the bath yesterday what makes it so engaging and compelling to me. Although I've spent years doing work related to ecology, it's about shaping the environment as much as it is being shaped by it. While I'm abstractly aware that happened, I don't think about the evolutionary process of physically differentiating into tall shapes to get the tender upper leaves and stocky ones to digest large volumes of low quality leaves. Political ecology is about the cycle of human impact on the environment, which effects humans, and so on. Humans have been shaping their environment for thousands of years, but that is not an evolutionary timescale.
australia