Two approaches to the same subject

Two accounts of the same events are considered here: one written by a scientist and the other by a wildlife journalist. Both address the ecological impacts of the removal and subsequent re-introduction of Yellowstone Park wolves.

The Wolf Effect

    Throughout this piece, the author gives a decent introduction to some influential ideas in community ecology (e.g., density- vs. trait-mediated effects and trophic cascades, though it was odd not to see mention of  keystone species or top-down vs. bottom-up control of ecosystem function.). While the idea of a food web may be blindingly obvious to your average ecologist, the general public could probably stand to have this concept illustrated and reinforced (I know my father always wants to know what an organism "does" in the world, what its "purpose" is). To this end, the author did an excellent job connecting of wolves to the entire Yellowstone community: elk, bears, coyotes, pronghorn, foxes, rodents, ravens, owls, beetles, trees, and grasses are all impacted by wolves in interesting and sometimes unexpected ways.

    There was, however, one organism's interactions with wolves that I thought the author could have explored more thoroughly. Why did the wolf extirpation happen in the first place? The shooting of the buffalo hints that this action may have been driven by the economic concerns of local ranchers. Human concerns about elk over-population and excessive grazing are understandable, but the author seemed puzzled by the fact that people then became concerned about the dwindling elk population. Could it be that the wolf re-introduction renewed pressure on livestock? I found the lack of coverage on this topic disappointing, especially since humans are the real keystone species driving these trophic cascades.

    The ever-present issue of climate change, and its role in explaining natural phenomena, was treated fairly well here. The author made it clear how if a year was wetter or drier than average, the elk faced adverse conditions. Mechanistic explanations of why precipitation is so important to the elk help to clarify the potential impacts of climate change, and I was glad to see the author devote some time to these descriptions. Overall, I think the average non-scientist would come away understanding that the increased frequency of extreme conditions predicted by current climate change models are bound to have measurable impacts on this ecosystem.

The straightforward, informative style and meaningful content of this piece lead me to believe it was written by a scientist.

Valley of Fear

    Because I had read The Wolf Effect first (it was shorter and had pictures!), I had already decided that this article was written by a wildlife journalist. My belief in this matter was confirmed on every page: the language used was far more poetic and I found the article harder to read. Although the same events were being described, the author placed significantly more focus on individual scientists, their thoughts, and their actions. A slew of direct quotations filled some gaps left by The Wolf Effect: How did the scientists figure this stuff out? How were their hypotheses regarded by their peers? This kind of writing likely gives more life to how the public perceives the pursuit of knowledge, but it wasn't something I found lacking in the first article. However, this approach may be more effective at reaching the public.

    An interesting point that wasn't given enough attention was the public reaction to the scientists' claim that wolves were driving these patterns. The author describes that when research reveals a new "overarching paradigm", people will resist it so long as they have a single point of contention with it. This seems to be the case with the current illogical debates in our society about climate change and evolution. To those who are not scientifically trained, a mountain of evidence can be toppled by one seemingly incongruous fact, even if the theory is fully capable of accommodating that fact. The next sentence in this section raises the possibility that people may be "ideologically opposed" to the results of a scientific study. This certainly seems to be the case with climate change and evolution, but how this fits with the wolf re-introduction is unclear. Probing further into why the public meets these ideas with such resistance may reveal the true shortcomings in the attempt of scientists to communicate their findings.

    I was pleased to see that the author took the time to consult some primary literature. Anyone who has the dual skills of being able to understand scientific publications and effectively convey the results and implications to a non-scientific audience is an asset in the battle to get everyone onto the same page. Perhaps it would be advantageous for research institutions to hire publicists that could serve this function...