Washington, Feb 18 : A new research has indicated that nature's balance diverge across the lines of culture, livelihood and political ideology.
Ann Kinzig, an Arizona State University associate professor in the School of Life Sciences, carried out the research.
"Some view nature as fragile, easily upset by human activity and in need of protection," said Kinzing.
"Others view nature as extremely robust and nearly endless in its capacity to continue to supply needed resources in the face of heavy human exploitation. Still others have more nuanced viewpoints or inconsistent perceptions," she added.
According to Kinzig, the biosphere is never perfectly balanced or wholly poised on the brink of a precipitous crash. It can be at once robust and fragile, stable and unstable.
"Moreover, instability in one part of the ecological system may be required to maintain stability in another, as when variations in the populations of individual plant species act to stabilize the overall biomass of an ecosystem.
One's interpretation is greatly dependent upon which features are examined and at what scale. imilarly, humans can have a beneficial or a detrimental effect on resilience, or both.
According to Kinzig, there is no theoretical reason to conclude that ecological systems would grow more resilient in absence of human influences.
"Human interaction could, in theory, serve to either increase or decrease resilience," said Kinzing.
"In practice, it does both, though the examples of human interaction degrading resilience are more numerous," she added.
"Uncertainty can and should influence management decisions," said Kinzig. "Our perceptions about the robustness or vulnerability of nature may be wrong," she added.