Lenore Fahrig loves nature, but as an ecologist, she has little skilled interest within the vast northern wilderness that defines Canada on the planet’s eyes.
As an alternative, Dr. Fahrig has spent her profession studying the stubborn patches of nature that persist alongside farm fields, highways and suburban strip malls – places where the landscape has been highly altered by human activity.
What she has uncovered is life’s surprising capability for resilience in small and fractured spaces. It is an important insight at a time when Canada is seeking to preserve its own native species while encouraging the preservation of biodiversity across the globe.
On Tuesday, the Carleton University professor was named this yr’s winner of the Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal. The award, bestowed annually by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, a federal funding agency, takes into consideration each the excellence and influence of a scientist’s work. It’s the country’s highest prize for many who focus on non-medical fields of research.
Dr. Fahrig spoke to The Globe and Mail about her quest to discern how nature endures, and the way we may help.
What drew you to check biodiversity in places where humans have had a huge impact?
There aren’t really any ecoregions left where humans have had no impact, but when there have been, the biodiversity there would care for itself. It’s the places where you will have essentially the most land given over to human use where we discover essentially the most threatened biodiversity.
How do you study nature in places like that?
It’s a mix of things. I’ve done quite a little bit of spatial simulation modelling – computer simulations of species in several landscapes. You construct the pc model to attempt to provide you with hypotheses and then you definitely do the sphere work to check the hypotheses.
What’s your favourite a part of the job?
Once I see what the reply is! That’s whenever you get the surprises.
What has been the largest surprise thus far?
Once I began my faculty position, I made a decision to see if I could provide you with any situations where fragmenting the habitat wouldn’t have a negative effect on the power of a species to persist. I used to be pondering possibly there’s some combination of things where you don’t should worry about that when structuring a landscape to conserve species.
I began running these simulations using what was then considered powerful computer. But I didn’t find what I used to be expecting. In a spot where half the landscape was habitat, let’s say, it didn’t matter if the habitat was in three big patches or 500 little patches.
What happened next?
I assumed, this could’t be right, and after all, reviewers thought so, too. I might get these reviews back saying you didn’t include this or that. And I could include those things and the outcomes wouldn’t change. I began to attempt to publish in 1993 and went through five journals before the result was finally published in 1998. Meanwhile, I had a student who was working on a project using bird data that ended up testing the concept. He found that while losing forest overall had a consistent negative effect on forest birds there was essentially no effect from fragmentation.
What’s the sensible take-away from this work?
If you’re in a human dominated landscape plenty of the habitat is in these little patches. It will possibly be hard to make an argument to avoid wasting a small patch of forest or wetland – especially when there’s this concept that natural spaces should be big to have any value. So what this work is actually saying is that if you will have an entire bunch of little patches, it will probably be just as precious or much more precious than having one large area of the identical total size.
What has been the response been wish to your work outside the scientific community?
It’s been pretty rewarding. People who find themselves all for protecting some space of their neighbourhood get really excited once they discover that small bits of land are precious. After all, you continue to must have lots and plenty of those spaces.
Where does your personal passion for nature come from?
I’m from Ottawa and I grew up on the river. It was at the tip of a road and the following property was a small farm, so it was type of country living. My best friend and I spend plenty of time just mucking around. I’ve never been an actual naturalist within the sense of identifying all different species, but I’ve all the time loved nature.
What are you hoping for when international delegates gather in Montreal later this yr to put out their commitments for safeguarding nature? (Canada is among the many countries that has committed to protecting 30 per cent of its land and territorial waters for nature by 2030.)
I don’t know. I assume I’m kind of fed up with talk. The issue with commitments is that the general public thinks that when a commitment has been made, it’s actually carried out. We’re doing 30 by ‘30 because we didn’t manage to do 20 by ‘20. And once we don’t do 30 by ‘30, then it’s going to be 50 by ‘50. These commitments make people feel that it’s all in hand. I’m not cynical in regards to the intentions of the people who find themselves on the meetings, but I just find it pretty frustrating.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.