<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Howdy y'all:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[I'm experimenting here with how much of the
original message and the one to which it responds to leave attached. I'll
appreciate Olivia's assessment and I'm sure she will appreciate comments from
others regarding context, thread history, ease of comprehending the entire issue
under discussion, etc. With respect to netiquette, Please note that the original
thread's initial subject-line text was retained, facilitating the search for
past messages in the original thread and a new sub-heading substituted. Also,
Fleming, following the protocol currently in vogue, deleted the rest of the
thread which presumably held zero relevancy to her strand.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Quoting Ty Harrison: "I suggest, not very
originally, that diversity might the touch-stone assessment of ecosystem
health." [The rest of Harrison's post has been deleted, and the entire post
which gave rise to the comment has been deleted. This is an example of what the
moderator on another list demands, not necessarily what I think Kwong has in
mind.] </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>While diversity being the touch-stone of ecosystem
health might not be original, Harrison's suggestion is well-taken, and I suspect
largely correct or at least good enough--without serious defects. What might be
worthy of discussion is the value of intuition in assessments, and the pitfalls
of intuition. I have recently mentioned in another post that I have relied upon
my opinion concerning the degree of ecosystem health, then been soundly trounced
by data following conventional surveys. Similarly, walk-throughs may produce
anecdotal data or leave an impression that might have a hole in it somewhere.
Even surveys do not necessarily provide the whole picture, and even they (the
gold standard of ecosystem analysis) are only a snapshot of the state of the
ecosystem valid only for the instant at which it was taken. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So, pray tell, what IS the "gold standard" with
respect to assessing ecosystem health, and what is the "standard of care" for
"unhealthy" ones? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>