|
What do the "Far
Side" cartoons of Gary Larsen, plant toxicity levels,
the Bhudda, intellectual paradoxes, an image of a sheep
in drag, Forrest Gump, and a brief history of Western
science have in common?
The short answer is: they are all part of
a typical lecture by Dr. Fred Provenza, a professor
in the College of Natural Resources at Utah State University.
The long answer is: they are integral parts
of his thoughtful analysis of the interconnections between
the habits of animals, the nature of scientific inquiry,
the role of stewardship in natural resource management,
questions of sustainability, and the knowledge that
we live in a universe of ceaseless and relentless change.
Delivered with a refreshing sense of humor,
which is where the cartoons come in.
Forrest Gump, however, has a more serious
job. In a recent lecture, Fred (he refuses to be addressed
as "Dr. Provenza"), began with what he considered to
be Gump's dilemma: is life all about one's destiny,
as the character of Lieutenant Dan believed (to die
on the battlefield), or is it dominated by randomness
– symbolized by a box of chocolates – as
Forrest's mother suggested?
In short, what is our role in the universe?
In an attempt to answer this meaty question,
Fred follows with a lesson in the history of science.
For more than two hundred years, Newtonian
physics taught three basic truths: 1) nature was knowable
and predictable (i.e., mechanistic); 2) a whole equaled
the sum of its parts (i.e., reductionistic); and 3)
time and space were absolute and separate. The role
of scientist in this ‘belief' system was to discover
the rules that governed how nature worked.
Then Einstein turned things upside down
in 1905 by proving that time and space were relative
– subject to forces such as gravity – as
well as interconnected. This unsettling insight was
followed closely by the even more disturbing development
of quantum physics, which declared that while nature
is knowable it is NOT predictable, and the sum of the
parts does NOT equal the whole.
In other words, as Fred put it, contrary
to Einstein's famous declaration, God DOES play dice
with the universe.
"Our Western culture teaches us to think
in linear, hierarchical ways," he said. "In fact, there
is no one central controlling force, only a large number
of agents, all interacting and adapting to each other
and to their local environments. Ultimately, a highly
complex order emerges from the local interactions of
all of the parts."
Old ideas of cause-and-effect were replaced
with new ideas of functional relationships between behavior
and consequences. Life, in other words, is an ongoing
series of choices made in the face of uncertainty and
change.
"Animals can better meet
– Dr. Fred Provenza,
Utah State University professor"
This idea has important implications for
conservation, Fred argued, because just as physicists
have been forced to relinquish their rigid Newtonian
views, ecologists, animal scientists and managers of
natural resources need to abandon inflexible perspectives
for ones that reflect the dynamics of life.
This includes environmentalists as well.
To make the point, he quotes the novelist G. K. Chesterton:
"All conservation is based upon the idea that if you
leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you
do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a
torrent of change."
All of which leads Fred to a Big Question:
"How does one manage ongoing interrelationships
among facets of complex, wholly interconnected, poorly
understood, ever changing ecological, cultural, and
economic systems in light of a future not known and
not necessarily predictable, in ways that will not diminish
options for future generations?"
This is where the picture of a sheep in
drag comes in (hint: it has something to do with the
idea that animals have culture too).
Habits
Professionally, the focus of Fred's research
and teaching is animal behavior, livestock specifically
and wildlife more generally. It was an area of interest
that developed early in his life. Growing up in the
Salida Valley of southern Colorado and working on area
ranches, he became fascinated by what sheep, cattle,
deer and elk ate on the open range and curious about
why.
Observing that efforts to help people make
a living often ignored "how animals make their living,"
Fred pursued his interest in range and wildlife science
and animal behavior through a master's degree and a
Ph.D. at Utah State. His dissertation focused on goats
and Blackbrush. Why did goats act like "natural pruning
machines?" he wondered. Why did they make the choices
they did?
To answer these, and other, questions, Fred
moved the goats into pens and separated them into groups.
This was unusual for the time – traditional animal
research meant describing the animal's behavior in the
field, not understanding behavior by asking goats questions
in isolated pens.
But as Fred quickly learned, we are all
creatures of habit. And we do things for good reasons
– though it sometimes it doesn't seem like it.
Take nutrition for example. Herbivores eat
a diverse array of species – as many as 100 species
– but studies showed that the bulk of a meal normally
contains less than ten species, and typically as few
as three to five. Their selections are guided by nutrients
and toxins in foods, and they begin to learn these behaviors
early in life from their mothers.
These studies demonstrated that herbivores
are "nutritionally wise" which, according to Fred, contradicted
the long-standing belief that herbivores are generally
"unwise" because they don't always choose the most nutritious
foods.
This belief created a paradox: we are often
baffled when animal performance declines despite an
abundance of suitable habitats and nutritious forage.
One key to resolving this paradox, Fred
learned, has been a clearer understanding of the role
of experiences early in life on shaping diet and habitat
selection behavior – essentially creating locally
adapted animals that when moved to unfamiliar environments
don't perform well.
Another key to resolving this paradox has
been a clearer understanding of the role toxins play
in animal diet and the regulation they require on food
intake – a role that influences behavior. By setting
limits on intake of any one food, toxins force animals
to eat a variety of foods to meet their nutrient needs.
In a recent paper, for example, Fred asserted
that "Animals can better meet their needs for nutrients
and regulate their intake of toxins when offered a variety
of foods that differ in nutrients and toxins than when
constrained to a single food, even if that food is ‘nutritionally
balanced.'"
Moreover, every individual is different
in its needs for nutrients and ability to cope with
toxins. Thus, grazing practices that allow the individuality
of animals to be expressed are likely to improve performance
of the herd.
Another key is how animals learn. Fred and
his colleagues discovered that when young herbivores
are encouraged to eat only the most preferred plants,
they are not likely to learn to mix foods high in nutrients
with foods that contain toxins. Experienced animals
learn to eat a variety of foods, even when more nutritious
foods are available.
This information clashed with traditional
grazing management which focused on key species and
attempted to maintain uniform distribution across landscapes
in order to maintain carrying capacity.
Other insights that Fred and fellow researchers
uncovered include:
Since life for herbivores exists at the boundary
between order and chaos, animals, humans included,
learn habits to create order and predictability.
-
The origins of animal food habits and habitat preferences
involve interactions between the social organization
(culture) of the herd and the individual.
Although both people and herbivores strive for order,
they also seek variety.
-
Ongoing changes in social and physical environments
require old dogs to learn new tricks all the time.
"Thus, while the behavior of herbivores
may appear to be little more than the idle wanderings
of animals in search of food and a place to rest," Fred
wrote, "foraging is a process that provides insights
into an age-old dilemma faced by herbivores and human
alike: how do creatures of habit survive in a world
whose only habit is change?"
"Cattle can be trained.
– Dr. Fred Provenza
Habits are the products of consequences.
If the consequence is positive, then the habit is reinforced.
The drawback to habit, however, is that as the world
changes, individuals must change or risk becoming obsolete.
In the case of foraging behavior, as a result of selecting
particular foods and foraging in specific locations,
the responses of adults can become rigid to the point
that habit is nature.
"Well-fed animals are cautious of new things,"
noted Fred.
The issue of habit is important because
for long-term sustainability, he continued, behavior
is better shaped by positive reinforcement than by punishment.
The paradox is that animals often must be coerced to
change their habits.
"Coercion can quickly change behavior,"
Fred observed, "but its long-term negative consequences
– the desire to escape the circumstance and avoid
anything remotely related – far outweigh its short-term
benefits."
Behavior
If we are, as Aristotle once remarked, "what
we repeatedly do" then how do we break bad habits and
manage for long-term sustainability?
The first step, according to Fred, is to
try to understand what part of our behavior is cultural
and what is not.
Take, for instance, livestock grazing in
riparian zones – a common source of conflict between
ranchers, environmentalists, and federal agencies in
the West. Cattle are not genetically pre-programmed
to wallow in riparian areas, said Fred. Instead, it
is a learned behavior – a habit.
"Cattle can be trained to prefer uplands
over riparian areas, but only if people manage using
behavioral principles," said Fred. "No gene codes for
living in riparian areas."
As another example, Fred often cites the
example of rancher Ray Bannister, who manages cattle
on his property in eastern Montana according to "boom-bust"
principles which require intensive, soil-and-plant stressing
periods of heavy grazing followed by two years of complete
rest. This system forces the cattle to eat all the forage
in a pasture, not just the "ice cream" plants, thus
eliminating the competitive advantage of the unpalatable
plants.
As a result, said Fred, "It is hard to find
any part of the ranch that lacks abundant plant cover
even during years of drought."
Bannister's challenge, however, was convincing
his Herefords to change their eating habits. It took
three years – a typical period – for his
animals to adjust, during which their weight and performance
dropped dramatically before recovering. Now the mother
cows teach their calves the system and all is well on
the Bannister ranch.
In fact, Fred believes that management-intensive
systems, like the one employed by Ray Bannister, balance
animal, plant, social, and economic concerns.
"These endeavors have made vast strides
to integrate the science of plant-herbivore interactions
with the art of grazing management across landscapes."
Which raises another paradox: Why have we
come to rely so heavily on fences and grazing systems
to manage livestock when vast herds of wild herbivores
apparently managed their grazing just fine for eons
without the help of humans?
The answer, says, Fred, is that we rely
too much on technology and not enough on the culture
inherent to social animals. In herbivores, social organization
leads to culture, which is the collective knowledge
and habits acquired and passed from generation to generation
about how to survive in a particular environment. Culture,
therefore, is key.
Which is where the humorous slide of a sheep
in women's clothing comes in – too often, humans
don't understand that animals have culture too.
"Unfortunately, social organization and
culture are rarely considered important in the structuring
and functioning of ecosystems," said Fred, "and indeed
we manage wild and domestic animals in ways that thwart
the development of cultures perhaps to our long-term
detriment."
If we instead allow cultures to evolve we
may lessen our dependency on technological fixes and
come to rely more on behavioral solutions which cost
very little to implement and are easily transferred
from one situation to the next. Unfortunately, said
Fred, scientists and managers often ignore the power
of behavior to transform systems, despite compelling
evidence.
"Once mastered," he continued, "behavioral
principles and practices provide an array of solutions
to the problems people face in managing to improve the
integrity of the land and to make a living from the
land."
This is, of course, easier said than done
because change often involves stress.
"The Bhudda teaches us that all suffering
arises from trying to cling to fixed forms – objects,
people, ideas," said Fred. "The challenge is to accept
the world as it moves and changes."
Which brings us back to Forrest Gump, who
concluded: "I don't know if we each have a destiny,
or if we're all just floating around, accidental like,
on a breeze. But I think maybe it's both, maybe both
happening at the same time."
|
