Interpretation and its relation to science in karst management

Susan White, School of Earth Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083

Abstract

The balance between accurate science and interpretation is difficult to maintain. The need for the interpretation to be interesting to the general public but correct in the light of current cave and karst science is an important aspect of cave and karst management.

Science is a constantly changing group of hypotheses, theories and facts. These have different degrees of accuracy, and they may change over time as more information becomes available or previous interpretations are disproved. There are a number of examples of interpretation which have not been modified in the light of new information. This is particularly a problem in the geological and geomorphological aspects of interpretation.

This paper will explore some of these issues of accuracy in karst science and make some constructive suggestions on strategies that managers and cave guides can adopt to overcome the problems.

Introduction

Science is a system of thought. In theory it seeks the truth in an objective, rational manner through a process of controlled inquiry. Its guiding impulse is curiosity; its beginning a question (what?, why?, how?, where?) to which an answer is sought. Throughout the search, all terms used are defined precisely and all procedures are described carefully so that they can be reproduced. All processes of deductive or inductive reasoning are clearly demonstrable, and each tool or technique employed is explained. Conclusions are not expected to be accepted on faith or solely on the authority of the researcher. Research in science is for those who not only want to know, but who will only be satisfied with an answer that can be verified by reason, analysis and rigorous testing (Haring and Lounsbury, 1971).

Scientific methods

Science is not merely the collection of facts. Although some facts are clearly not changeable - this grass is green, this mineral has a hardness of 4, this material is composed of these components - most science involves the interpretation of a collection of such facts to present information on how something formed.

The main methods of procedure are:

1. the experimental (used by chemists and physicists) as controlled experiments;
2. normative (where the researcher observes events and evaluates observed processes with a view to establishing content relationships or norms (used by biologists, microbiologists, hydrologists). In this case description and analysis are important (dependent variable Y varying proportionately with independent variable X).
3. where neither control or evaluation of variables is possible the researcher records the observations accurately (geologists and geomorphologists use this one extensively).

Interpretation

This can be defined as the art of presenting the meaning of scientific facts. As such interpretation explains and elucidates scientific observations. The bare observations are not enough; we need to have the explanations of them in such as way as to give the facts context. In the case of karst the age of a particular speleothem is often of interest. However the raw date has only limited value unless it is interpreted as to it context in terms of climate of that time and the accuracy of the date. In the future a more accurate date may become available and a new interpretation is needed.

A constantly changing pattern of hypotheses, theories and facts is the reality of science. These have different degrees of accuracy and permanency. Hypotheses are ideas which are still to be proved. An hypothesis is usually based on assumptions, and so some knowledge of the subject is necessary, and will change as it is proved or not. New ones are developed and are in turn subjected to proof. Not all scientific research will have hypotheses as sometimes so little is known about a particular problem or situation that it is impossible to develop a meaningful hypothesis. Hypotheses are by nature very specific and part of a scientist's work is to develop a pattern which will organise the experimental or observational data into a comprehensible whole. Such a pattern is defined as a theory. However a theory can only take into consideration the data that exist at the time the theory is formed. It can be tested by making a prediction on the basis of this theory and carrying out further work to see if the prediction holds true. One of the values of a theory is to suggest such new work. If the new data is not consistent with the theory, the theory must be discarded or revised. In all science therefore, a theory is never proved for all time. It must constantly be able to account for all the new evidence that arises.

Interpretation also needs to be appropriate. The presentation of cave and karst information can be in many forms and should be tailored for the audience. For most karst managers it is to the general public; for karst scientists it is to other karst scientist and to the managers. Interpretation is thus audience specific. Science and interpretation are closely linked. The balance between scientific interpretation which is appropriate for a particular audience and the accuracy of the science is not easy to maintain but is something we should all aspire to. ACKMA members in particular, are intensely interested in interpreting the understanding of caves and karst. The challenge is to maintain accuracy and the excitement of knowledge when maintaining balance between the karst scientists, managers, cavers and the general public.

Practice

In theory there is probably little in the above section not understood or agreed with. However things are never that simple. As the two most common elements in karst are Calcium and Stupidity (Tom Aley, pers comm., 1999), the potential for misinterpretation and inaccuracy is immense.

There are a number of examples of theories and interpretations which have not been modified in the light of new information. This is particularly a problem in the geological and geomorphological aspects of interpretation. For some reason there is a tendency for geological theories to continue in interpretive material long after they have been modified and or disproved by earth scientists. The same level of inaccuracy in the biological sciences is not tolerated and new and updated material is incorporated into interpretive material more readily.

A important component of this is that no-one is immune: anyone who thinks they are, is fooling themselves. The issue is therefore one where we have to keep working at it, all of us, constantly. I believe it is important that we all accept that we have more to learn and that we should not feel guilty about past mistakes - they are past. We should try to improve. We should not be defensive with regard to improvement. Therefore the case studies/examples used here should be taken as constructive criticism. They are used so that we can learn from our mistakes not just ignore them.

What Are The Problems?

Each of these problems occur to various degrees. They need to be identified in order that their influence be minimised. It is unlikely that they can be completely eliminated. The most effective way of managing them is to be aware they occur and constantly work against their pernicious influences! There are six main situations where misinterpretation and inaccuracy enters the karst interpretation scene. These are:

1. Failure to absorb and use new ideas and interpretations of new data and the ongoing use of seriously out of date, and incorrect information and interpretation.
2. Failure of communication by
   • scientists
   • management
   • guides/interpreters
   • cavers/speleologists
3. Tendency to blame lack of resources, time, funds, libraries etc., rather than think our way through such problems.
4. Failure to update signage/notes/interpretation/tours and the retention of out of date material when new ones are developed.
5. Myth and misinformation creep.
6. Bioscience/earth science differences and scientific education problems.

Case studies

In most cases these problems are not encountered singly. Most of these case studies show more than one of the above problems. The following case studies are all drawn from Victoria, as that is the geographical area I am most familiar with. I am sure that more can be found in all other karst areas in Australia and overseas. The case studies are to help cave and karst managers and interpretation people be aware of how easily misinformation occurs and so start the process of how to rectify it.

The "Petrified Forest" Cape Bridgewater/Cape Duquesne.

This site, in southwestern Victoria near Portland, is a well visited tourist location with spectacular coastline landscape containing karst features. Pleistocene Bridgewater Group aeolianites (dune limestones) overlie the late Pliocene/early Pleistocene volcanics. The aeolianites developed solution pipes/ soil pipes as found in many other areas in the region. The limestone is now in a period of erosion. as a result spectacular exhumed solution pipes, often partially infilled are exposed. In the 1950s and 1960s the Northern Hemisphere trained petroleum geologist N. Boutakoff worked for the Victorian Geological Survey (GSV) and produced a memoir on the Geology of Portland (published in 1963). He described the features and interpreted them as a petrified forest. By the mid 1980s there was literature (eg. Trounson, 1985) disproving this interpretation. The GSV geologists in general were not particularly interested in the material but certainly knew that Boutakoff was wrong in his interpretation. However the signs that went up at about this time and subsequent upgrades continue to perpetuate the myth.

The "Petrified Forest" is a large number of solution pipes which were formed in one stabilised calcareous dune. This feature was then subsequently buried and the pipes filled in. The filling is "harder" or more cemented than the surrounding dunes because of the balance between solution and redeposition of CaCO3 in the conditions, especially where there is casing on the tube. Subsequent erosion, currently still occurring, is exhuming these features. They are the same sort of features as found at The Pinnacles (Nambung, WA) and on King Island (I. Houshold, pers comm.). Small cemented roots or rhizomorphs are present but are not an indication of large trees. They are extremely common in the dunes along the southern Australian coast and indicate concretionary processes in more recent and present conditions.

The challenge now is to how to get the erroneous material out of the signs and interpretive material. The signs were upgraded and some improvement but it is still not particularly good. There is a cost; but there is also a cost in inaccurate information in that in an increasingly educated public, the reputation of the management authority becomes compromised. Certainly there has been:

• failure in management
• failure of scientists to really do anything about it rather than just laugh
• failure of interpretation and myth creep.

Now maybe it does not really matter! But what if it related to problems involving water supply and public heath and safety? Certainly there is an obligation on the management for interpretive material to be relatively up to date - this is after all where the public gets some of its education. Nevertheless criticism alone is not necessarily all that helpful to the present management. Constructive information needs to be produced and made available to the current management at Parks Victoria and they need to act on it.

The Buchan impounded karst.

At Buchan in 1960, Marjorie Sweeting, a well known British karst researcher on sabbatical leave at ANU, spent 3 days there and wrote a paper. This paper, plus the 1958 GSV memoir of Curt Teichart and John Talent, was the basis of the understanding of the geomorphology of the area until the 1980s when John Webb and Brian Finlayson and their students reinterpreted the area. This work in the late 1980s and early 1990s completely rewrote the development and age of the karst. In the 1960s it was thought that the caves were probably formed during the Pliocene/Pleistocene as were many northern hemisphere caves which were influenced by the extensive continental glaciations (often called the Ice Ages), that the northern hemisphere experienced during the Pleistocene. Australia was much less glaciated during the Pleistocene; the mainland generally suffered cold dry conditions except in the mountainous areas of the main highlands. Webb and Finlayson and their students showed that the karst features can date back into the Tertiary, probably over 40 million years.

Although the scientific material is highly technical, it is has been used very successfully in interpretation by the local managers and tourist cave operators. This interpretive material does not go into enormous detail on the scientific aspects, but cave tours, signs and pamphlets reflect the new scientific information. Misinformation, such as the caves only being formed since the glacial periods of the Ice Ages in the Pleistocene, has not been continued. So what is better?

1. Communication between the scientists and cave management was better. Scientists were invited to run short karst science training by the Reserve management and they were prepared to do it - often for no money / or only very basic expenses. Short workshops have been run in the area, such as the first of the intermittent karst science workshops, and other workshops by the caving clubs eg. Down to Earth, in March 1999.
2. Signage and printed material was kept up to date. When new printing was done or new signs planned the content was checked with appropriate scientists.
3. Other organisations such as the Friends of the Buchan Caves and the caving clubs had better communication with the management.

Nevertheless, these relationships can be extremely fragile. Everyone has to constantly work at the communication and not become defensive if material is criticised as inaccurate. The major difference has been communication.

Glenelg River and the Princess Margaret Rose Cave

This is an almost classic example of how myth creep can occur, even when everyone is trying to keep up to date and impart accurate information in interpretation. In this case, the interpretation of the formation of the Princess Margaret Rose Cave by a stream became distorted. The idea that the cave was formed by the Glenelg River flowing through the cave is not very probable or accurate. The cave was formed by a stream which was a tributary of the present Glenelg River. However over time the idea that a stream formed the cave transmuted into a river forming the cave. This then went through another transformation (myth creep), as the only river in the area, is the Glenelg River, so the assumption was that the Glenelg formed the cave. This meant that the water would have to have flowed uphill! This case shows how easy it is for such myth creep to occur even when everyone wants accurate information.

Solutions:

ACKMA is doing a great deal to help in these problems. The challenge is to keep working at the problem and to keep looking at new ways of doing it better. Some of the mechanisms for this are:

• ACKMA Journal and especially the Andy Sez series. This is an ongoing program through the Journal which should be supported by us all. Perhaps requests for particular issues to be written up, could be sent to the Journal editor who could then find an 'expert' to explain it.
• Production of commercial or similar material such as the CD ROM produced by Peter Bell at Caveworks.
• Conferences especially ACKMA and ASF conferences where networking with appropriate scientists can occur.
• Scientists have to be prepared to spend time and effort to explain new material in ways it can help managers. Managers can invite scientists to take part in training for guides.
• Training workshops eg. ASF/caving club. The irregular karst science workshops are a good example. The first of these was very productive in fostering the relationship between scientist and managers at Buchan.
• Training in interpretation presentation as well as the information. Some of the 'Train the Trainer' material and workshops are valuable.
• Bibliography - Books, articles, journals, videos and CD ROMs are all valuable sources of information. In particular we need to keep abreast of what is being done in Australia and NZ. The journal Helictite, for example, is an excellent source of Australian cave and karst material. We need to think about the karst bibliographic material. The International Union of Speleology produces an annual bibliography for the world but Australian material is often limited. This is because Australians have not been submitting material. The need for management to have small karst literature collections and attempt to keep them up to date is important. Cave guides and other workers should be encouraged to read extensively.
• Time - We all need to realise that time has to be spent on keeping up to date. Scientists need to be prepared to spend time explaining new ideas to managers and management needs to include such time in their training and interpretive programs.
• Understanding of the nature of science. Scientific interpretation is not unchangeable. New interpretations are part of the important role science has in the understanding of natural phenomena. It is important to realise that old material may have been reinterpreted. My aim is that someone else comes to Bats Ridge and either proves or disproves or upgrades my interpretation of the karst geomorphology there.

We must all accept that we have to keep working at it. There is no end in sight and we should not be looking for one. There may be more things we can do and I want to encourage everyone to continue to improve their understanding and interpretation of cave and karst landscapes.

References

Haring, L.L. & Lounsbury, J.F. (1971), Introduction to Scientific Geographic Research, (W.M.C. Brown Coy Publishing, Dubuque, Iowa, U.S.A.).

Boutakoff N., (1963) The Geology and Geomorphology of the Portland area. Geol. Surv. Victoria, Memoir 22, (Government Printer, Melbourne).

Trounson L., (1985) Diagenetic and pedogenetic features of quaternary dune and beach deposits of the southwest Victorian coast. Unpub MSc Thesis, University of Melbourne.

Sweeting M.M. (1960) The caves of the Buchan area, Victoria, Australia, Zeitschrift für Geomorpholgie, Supplementband 2  pp 81-91.

Webb J.A., Finlayson B.L., Fabel D. & Ellaway M., (1991) The geomorphology of the Buchan Karst - implications for the landscape history of the Southeastern Highlands of Australia. In Williams M.A.J., De Deckker P. & Kershaw A.P. (eds.) The Cainozoic in Australia - a re-appraisal of the evidence. Geological Society of Australia, Special Publication No. 18, pp 210-234.

Webb J.A., Finlayson B.L., Ellaway M., Li Shu & Spiertz H.-P. (1992) Denudation chronology from cave and river terrace levels: the case of the Buchan Karst, southeastern Australia, Geol. Mag. 129, pp 307-317.

Teichart C. & Talent J.A., (1958) The Geology of the Buchan area, East Gippsland, Geol. Surv. Victoria, Memoir 21, (Government Printer, Melbourne).