Today there are new theories that scholars find infatuating. We might mention 

 "MacArthurism"'^ and the sophisticated analytic methods associated with it. This 

 erudition can now be found in the ROW literature. Admittedly the part it plays is yet 

 small, but should it grow, competing for scarce funds for relevant ROW wildlife 

 research, we might experience an episode not unlike the early years. 



Of more concern is the contemporary passion to quantify, to amass and analyze 

 data. Sampling methodologies now dominate ecology; the role they play in ROW 

 research is major. This philosophy is a rub-off from hard sciences like chemistry and 

 physics where facts, relationships and laws are well expressed by numbers, equations 

 and probability statements. But can this elegance carry over into the complex living 

 systems confronting field biologists? Are his integrated communities of interde- 

 pendent-independent, dynamic evolving organisms at all analogous to the primitive 

 non-biologic systems that the chemist and physicist deals with? And when one 

 considers the time and effort required for a biologist to adequately sample a natural 

 biotic system statistically, and then examines the project cost in light of meaningful 

 ecologic knowledge gained, one's skepticism is fueled. 



My concern grows when I see mathematical paradigms insensately applied to 

 ROW vegetation or habitat. How well do these data and indices — this reductionism 

 and excessive abstraction — represent complex plant communities? These communi- 

 ties are characterized by their ever changing structure, texture, color, succulence, 

 form, variety, pattern, and fragrance which may cling, grasp, rip, tear, nurture, 

 protect, and poison. And these communities also are productive, useful, intriguing, 

 rewarding, troublesome, and sometimes even attractive in various ways and 

 combinations. 



If, in contrast to dangerously seductive numerology, future descriptions and 

 interpretations can effectively utilize a "natural history approach," together with 

 clarifying data, literary art, and pictorial records in the image-provoking manner of 

 Botany's A. G. Tansley or Zoology's George Schaller, there is a chance for reshaping 

 the skeptical and apathetic attitudes held by influential people who will determine the 

 fate of biotic science in ROW management enterprises. Let historian-philosopher 

 Will Durant advise us: "Art without science is poverty, but science without art is 

 barbarism."Some rethinking is crucial for those of us who wish to earn our bread in 

 field biology, for we must admit that such enthralling pursuits will surely become a 

 niche of luxury as we enter the Age of Scarcity. 



''a school of quantifying ecology traceable to the late theorist Robert MacArthur w hich holds as a working 

 model that vertebrate species are nicely adapted to intermeshing niches formed through competition, giving 

 rise to neatlv structured communities. 



REFERENCES 



1. Wiltrout, T. R., and H. A. Holt. 1981. Use of 2,4,5-T for vegetation 

 management on rights-of-way. p. 41-1. In Environmental concerns in rights- 

 of-way management: Proceedings of Second Symposium. Electric Power Res. 

 Inst. WS-78-141. Palo Aho, Calif. 



2. Wecksler, A. N. 1973. Seven million acres of new ROW. Electric Light and 

 Power. 51(16): 19. 



3. Egler, F. E., and S. R. Foote. 1975. The Plight of the Right-of-Way Domain: 

 Victim of Vandalism. Futura Media Services. Mt. Kisco, N.Y. 2 Vols. 454 pp. 



4. Clements, F. E. 1928. Plant Succession and Imdicators. H. W. Wilson. New 

 York, N.Y. 453 pp. 



5. Dailey, N. S. 1978. Environmental aspects of transmission lines — a selected, 

 annotated bibliography. Oak Ridge Nat. Lab. Oak Ridge, Tenn. 192 pp. 



217 



