ArticlePDF Available

Don’t Give Up Just Yet: Maintaining Species, Services, and Systems In a Changing World.

DOI:10.1080/21550085.2013.768391
Authors:
Brian Buma at University of Colorado
Brian Buma
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

Invited commentary.
Content uploaded by Brian Buma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brian Buma on Apr 18, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Brian Buma]
On: 06 June 2013, At: 08:49
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Ethics, Policy & Environment
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cepe21
Don't Give up Just Yet: Maintaining
Species, Services, and Systems in a
Changing World
Brian Buma
a
a
Ecosystem Science Division, CIRES, University of Colorado ,
Boulder , CO , USA
To cite this article: Brian Buma (2013): Don't Give up Just Yet: Maintaining Species, Services, and
Systems in a Changing World, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 16:1, 33-36
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2013.768391
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Open Peer Commentary
Don’t Give up Just Yet: Maintaining
Species, Services, and Systems in a
Changing World
BRIAN BUMA
*
*
Ecosystem Science Division, CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
Sandler’s paper, ‘Climate change and ecosystem management’ (2013), takes a clear-eyed
and sober look at conservation via static reserves and ecosystem restoration in the context
of climate change. It is a necessary discussion; while following traditional management
practices is, in some ways, comforting and simple, the consequences of climate change
throw those practices into a questionable light. Climate change makes achievement of
their objectives extremely unlikely, and so their goals must change—losing their species-
protection emphasis and falling back on more general goals of human interdependence,
natural settings, and the like. We must revisit the goals of ecosystem management, better
align our planning with the reality of climate change, and decide how interventionist our
management should be. This paper is an excell ent contribution, and this commentary (and
its somewhat devil’s advocate approach) is offered in the spirit of debate.
Sandler’s thesis is that species-specific or restoration oriented reserve planning goals are
not justified, and therefore those goals must change. This lack of justification follows from
the inherent difficulty of preserving species—it is not practical in a changing climate—and
a shifting ecological context which decreases the value of those species . This commentary
will address the practical and valuation argument, and then talk about some limitations of
this approach—namely that ecosystem processes and services are not contingent on
species in the first place, leading to some overly bleak conclusions.
Practicability
In compelling language, Sandler argues that place-based species preservation is already
‘decreasingly viable’ due to shifting species ranges, climate conditions, and human
pressures, and things will only get worse as climatic shifts increase. This is fairly
uncontroversial (Loarie et al., 2009). Moreover, ecological restoration is somewhat of a
moot point, as ecological communities probably cannot exist in their historical form in a
non-historical climate. This is also fairly uncontroversial in the scientific literature (for
example, Harris et al., 2006).
q 2013 Taylor & Francis
Correspondence Address: 216 UCB, CIRES Building, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 80309, USA.
Email: brian.buma@colorado.edu
Ethics, Policy and Environment, 2013
Vol. 16, No. 1, 33–36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2013.768391
Downloaded by [Brian Buma] at 08:49 06 June 2013
Valuation
In terms of species-focused preservation, Sandler correctly notes that species are best
understood in their ecological context. Then he makes the claim that species values are
dependent upon their ecological context: ‘ ...even if a species is preserved through
assisted colonization, the value of the species is not.’ This is questionable for two reasons.
First, many people would likely disagree that species lose value in isolation; speci es, and
the diversity of species, have intrinsic value for many (he admits as muc h for certain
species). Second, it is limiting. While species may indeed lose their ecological connections
via translocation and movement, they may create new ones. The loss of current context
does not imply a lack of future context.
Is the re any value to be prese rved via restor ation (to historical con ditions)? Sandler makes
the point that what are considered ‘historical reference conditions’ are merely coincident
species ranges overlapping due to climatic and community- driven dynamics , transient by
nature. In this ligh t, valuing the historical reference condition seems more nostalgic than
rational. Yet there is something to be said for historical communities—they worked. Human-
created ecosystems are seldom as successful by a variety of measures, such as resiliency,
diversity, respo nsiveness and so forth. Restoration of historical communities is valued not jus t
for the community itself, but also for the ecological lessons learned when restoration succeeds
or fails (de emed the ‘a cid test’ by Bradsh aw, 19 83). Going forward, ecosystems will go
through a number of fundamental changes as species respond differentially to changing
climates, dispe rsal limitations, community composition shifts, and other factors. To the exten t
that science understands how communities function, assemble, and fail, management of that
transition—from current ecosystems to no vel, future ones—b ecomes pos sible. So the value
in restoration is not just in the en d go al, bu t in the process itsel f.
Novel Communities, the Same Services
Finally, the picture may not be as bleak as implied by Sandler, for some things at least.
Sandler (2013) writes that ‘Because ecosystems ... are coming apart, the environmental
goods and values tied to them cannot be preserved by protecting the places where they
currently are (or have historically been).’ This is a misunderstanding of ecosystem
services. In many cases, ecosystem services are emergent properties of their communities ,
rather than dependent upon a single species. While species may be lost, ecosystem services
are a different story. For example, timber production is an ecosystem service provided by
forests. The specific species that provide timber (and other forest-associ ated ecosystem
services, such as wildlife habitat, hydrologic regulatio n, etc.) may be threatened. However,
many of those services are not species-specific—the introduction (natural or human-
assisted) of other tree species can serve to maintain those services in the future. To the
extent that a system can be preserved through natural or assisted migration, planting, or
other activities, ecosystem services may be preserved (Millar et al., 2007; Seddon, 2010).
Think of preserving a forest, rather than a specific forest.
Preserving Species and New Communities
To return to the valuation argument, species may have value in the future, just in a
different context than they have now. Future climatic contexts and future communities—
34 B. Buma
Downloaded by [Brian Buma] at 08:49 06 June 2013
novel assemblages of species as they may be—could provide the same ecosystem goods
and values, as well as preserving individual species, albeit in a new ecological community/
context. Loss of a species means the loss of a uniqu e puzzle piece that may be used in the
creation of novel ecosystems. Services may be maintained if the appropriate species are
introduced, naturally or huma n-assisted. This sort of ecological planning requires
extensive knowledge of community dynamic s (Brad shaw, 1983; Choi, 2004), which
restoration can inform, and active experimentation (see Chapin et al., 2007).
Preservation of particular species is then a matter of including them in the planning—and
potentially moving them there via assisted colonization (Seddon, 2010). There are many
germane and serious arguments against assisted colonization, in addition to that which
Sandler ci tes (McLachlan, Hellmann, & Sch wartz, 2007). The complexities of eco logical
systems means unexpected outcomes are common. For this reason (and others), many
communities will likely take Sandler’s approach. This is understandable, although ‘naturally’
adapting ecosystems may not be qu alitatively better than ‘planned’ ecosystems (some
naturally adapting ecosystems may be do minated by invasive species and altered disturbance
regimes, and may co ntain less bi odiversity, less resilience, and less value than comparable
‘assisted transition’ eco systems). In addition, the argu ments agai nst inac tion are just as strong
(and also well described by Sandler); the pace of climate change makes continued existence
of many species nearly impossible by any other means (Loarie et al., 2009).
Conclusions
Sandler is correct: our perspective on preservation must change. Yet there are multiple
options. Sandler’s new justification for reserves amounts to a lowered set of expectations,
from spe cies preservat ion to simply being of ‘compa ratively higher’ ecological value
(relative to non-preserved ar eas), which the reserves pr esumably already are. Another option
is attempting to save systems, rather than specific ecosystems; maintenance of a fores t, rathe r
than a sp ecific forest, as a goa l. Species-pr eservation plan s can be incorporated into these
goals, and assisted colonization should be considered in a careful, nuanced, and deliberate
fashion. These two goals are very different, non-interventionist versus interventionist, but not
mutually exclusive (Harris et al., 2006 ). Some locations are likely to be more suitabl e to one
or the other, for ecological or local (human) values. Deciding what to pursue, and where, will
require a frank assessment of the probabilities of suc cess, likelihood of unexpected results,
and options available (Choi, 2004; Seddon, 2010). This will require more research, both
theoretically and locally, as well as expert and practical knowledge (Seastedt, Hobbs, &
Suding, 2008). In a restoration context, Bradshaw (1983) called this planning ‘creative
ecology,’ but that term should apply to climate adaptation more generally. Let us not abandon
species be cause their natur al se tting is being lost. We should acknowledge that ‘natural
settings’ rarely exist an ymore anyw ay; climate change means all setting s are impacted by
human activity. Do not be so quick to abandon species because their ecological context is
changing. If possible, find them a new one.
References
Bradshaw, A. D. (1983). The reconstruction of ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology, 20, 1–17.
Chapin, F. S., Danell, K., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., & Fresco, N. (2007). Managing climate change impacts to
enhance the resilience and sustainability of Fennoscandian forests. Ambio, 36(7), 528 – 533.
Don’t give up just yet 35
Downloaded by [Brian Buma] at 08:49 06 June 2013
Choi, Y. D. (2004). Theories for ecological restoration in changing environment: Toward ‘futuristic’ restoration.
Ecological Research, 19, 75–81.
Harris, J. A., Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E., & Aronson, J. (2006). Ecological restoration and global climate change.
Restoration Ecology, 14(2), 170–176.
Loarie, S. R., Duffy, P. B., Hamilton, H., Asner, G. P., Field, C. B., & Ackerly, D. D. (2009). The velocity of
climate change. Nature, 462(7276), 1052–1055.
McLachlan, J. S., Hellmann, J. J., & Schwartz, M. W. (2007). A framework for debate of assisted migration in an
era of climate change. Conservation Biology, 21(2), 297 – 302.
Millar, C. I., Stephenson, N. L., & Stephens, S. L. (2007). Climate change and forests of the future: Managing in
the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8), 2145 – 2151.
Sandler, R. (2013). Climate change and ecosystem management. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 16, 1–15.
Seddon, P. J. (2010). From reintroduction to assisted colonization: Moving along the conservation translocation
spectrum. Restoration Ecology, 18(6), 796–802.
Seastedt, T. R., Hobbs, R. J., & Suding, K. N. (2008). Management of novel ecosystems: Are novel approaches
required? Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 6(10), 547 – 553.
36 B. Buma
Downloaded by [Brian Buma] at 08:49 06 June 2013
... These varying perspectives on resilience have stimulated substantial discussion in research and management communities regarding its utility (or lack thereof) for bridging social and natural sciences and guiding natural resource management (Buma 2013, Sandler 2013, Standish et al. 2014, Olsson et al. 2015, Davidson et al. 2016. Confusion, ambiguity, and miscommunication about resilience among researchers, managers, and policymakers, who may adopt differing definitions of the term, have created tension among disciplines and hindered the productive operationalization of the concept for natural resource management. ...
Integrating Subjective and Objective Dimensions of Resilience in Fire- Prone Landscapes
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2019
Resilience has become a common goal for science-based natural resource management, particularly in the context of changing climate and disturbance regimes. Integrating varying perspectives and definitions of resilience is a complex and often unrecognized challenge to applying resilience concepts to social-ecological systems (SESs) management. Using wildfire as an example, we develop a framework to expose and separate two important dimensions of resilience: the inherent properties that maintain structure, function, or states of an SES and the human perceptions of desirable or valued components of an SES. In doing so, the framework distinguishes between value-free and human-derived, value-explicit dimensions of resilience. Four archetypal scenarios highlight that ecological resilience and human values do not always align and that recognizing and anticipating potential misalignment is critical for developing effective management goals. Our framework clarifies existing resilience theory, connects literature across disciplines, and facilitates use of the resilience concept in research and land-management applications.
View
... Static boundaries of protected areas represent a fundamental challenge to conservation in a changing climate, and areas once set aside for preserving species may be insufficient (Heller & Zavaleta, 2009). Future conservation strategies may require incorporating lands outside protected areas (Kareiva, 2014) and implementing new active management practices, like planting, assisted migration (McLachlan et al., 2007), expanding reserves (Beier & Brost, 2010), and other adaptive options (Hannah et al., 2002;Buma, 2013). Oakes et al. (2015) found broad acceptance for a portfolio of practices across land designations for yellow-cedar including, for example, experimenting with plantings and increasing protections in areas, or at elevations, where trees may be more likely to survive. ...
Emerging climate-driven disturbance processes: Widespread mortality associated with snow to rain transitions across 10 degrees of latitude and half the range of a climate-threatened conifer
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2016
Climate change is causing rapid changes to forest disturbance regimes worldwide. While the consequences of climate change for existing disturbance processes, like fires, are well studied, emerging drivers of disturbance such as snow loss and subsequent mortality are much less documented. As the climate warms, a transition from winter snow to rain in high latitudes will cause significant changes in environmental conditions such as soil temperatures, historically buffered by snow cover. The Pacific coast of North America is an excellent test case, as mean winter temperatures are currently at the snow-rain threshold and have been warming for approximately 100 years post-Little Ice Age. Increased mortality in a widespread tree species in the region has been linked to warmer winters and snow loss. Here, we present the first high-resolution range map of this climate sensitive species, Callitropsis nootkatensis (yellow-cedar), and document the magnitude and location of observed mortality across Canada and the United States. Snow-cover loss related mortality spans approximately 10 latitude (half the native range of the species) and 7% of the overall species range and appears linked to this snow-rain transition across its range. Mortality is commonly >70% of basal area in affected areas, and more common where mean winter temperatures is at or above the snow-rain threshold (> 0 C mean winter temperature). Approximately 50% of areas with a currently suitable climate for the species (< -2 0C) are expected to warm beyond that threshold by the late 21st century. Regardless of climate change scenario, little of the range which is expected to remain suitable in the future (e.g., a climatic refugia) is in currently protected landscapes (<1 – 9%). These results are the first documentation of this type of emerging climate disturbance and highlight the difficulties of anticipating novel disturbance processes when planning for conservation and management.
View
... As seen here, the managerial response of communities can have a major effect on water supplies downstream, including potential mitigation against high streamflow/flood events arising due to warming temperatures and changing rain-to-snow timelines. However, climate puts limits on the efficacy of even relatively extreme actions, like assisted migration, which is a risky strategy for climate change adaptation (Hewitt et al. 2011, Buma 2013 and which requires extensive longterm planning (Williams and Dumroese 2013). Finally, although this study focused on disturbances in terms of forest mortality, the likelihood that those events could trigger related disturbancessuch as flooding-is an interesting and unexplored next step from this study and warrants future attention. ...
Potential Effects of Forest Disturbances and Management on Water Resources in a Warmer Climate
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2015
There is growing concern that a warming climate will alter water supplies in many regions. Determining the best course of management and adaptation is an important task for water managers. This study explores the impact of climate warming and differing treeplanting scenarios on water supplies (peak flow rates, times, and total water yield) in four forested mountain watersheds in Colorado, USA. Tree migration, disturbance, active management (treeplanting), and a changing climate were simulated with a spatially explicit, high-resolution hydrologic model. Disturbance and climate had considerable impacts: relative to current conditions, forest mortality increased water yield, primarily due to lower transpiration losses; peak flows occurred earlier (1‐2 weeks); and winter baseflow rates were higher (2‐5 times current rates). Planting had minimal effects on peak flow rates/timing and total water yield in some watersheds, but more in others. Simpler topography and low biodiversity were associated with higher sensitivities to vegetation/management choices: depending on the scenario, models predicted a −22 to +12% difference in peak flow rates coupled with a +10 to +117% range in total yield (between scenarios). Overall, certain systems are more sensitive to management than others, and we discuss ways to evaluate potential hydrologic sensitivity to disturbance and management in mountainous watersheds.
View
... But not all ethical responses to assisted migration are negative. Environmental ethicists also argue that, in at least some cases, assisted migration can protect important values without threatening others and may contribute positively to the new location, either ecologically or culturally (137,138). ...
Environmental Ethics
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2014
Environmental ethicsc - the study of ethical questions raised by human relations with the nonhuman environment - emerged as an important subfield of philosophy during the 1970s. It is now a flourishing area of research. This article provides a review of the secular, Western traditions in the field. It examines both anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric claims about what has value, as well as divergent views about whether environmental ethics should be concerned with bringing about best consequences, respecting principles and rights, or embodying environmental virtues. The article also briefly considers two critical traditions - ecofeminism and environmental pragmatism - and explores some of the difficult environmental ethics questions posed by anthropogenic climate change.
View
Assisted Migration in Normative and Scientific Context
Article
Full-text available
Assisted migration (AM), an ecosystem engineering technology, is receiving increasing attention and significant support as a means to save biodiversity in a changing climate. Few substantive, or not obviously deficient, reasons have been offered for why pursuing this conservation goal via these means might be good. Some proponents of AM, including those who identify themselves as “pragmatists,” even suggest there is little need for such argument. We survey the principal reasons offered for AM, as well as reasons offered for not offering reasons. As exemplified by the case for translocating whitebark pine, which may at first seem especially strong, we note the incongruence of framing the goal of AM in terms of “saving biodiversity,” neglect of some crucial moral questions, marginalization of normative and scientific context when AM is cast as the lesser of two evils in a “crisis,” doubtful validity and, in any case, marginal importance of arguments that AM projects ought to be undertaken, inconsistent use of scientific facts, and omission of science that counters sanguine assessments. All told—even in cases such as whitebark pine for which AM may seem most defensible—there is little reason to think that AM projects are good as means to “save biodiversity,” or good as means to other goals that have accreted into arguments for these projects.
View
Should We Move the Whitebark Pine? Assisted Migration, Ethics and Global Environmental Change
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2014
Some species face extinction if they are unable to keep pace with climate change. Yet proposals to assist threatened species' poleward or uphill migration ('assisted migration') have caused significant controversy among conservationists, not least because assisted migration seems to threaten some values, even as it protects others. To date, however, analysis of ethical and value questions about assisted migration has largely remained abstract, removed from the ultimately pragmatic decision about whether or not to move a particular species. This paper uses the case study of the whitebark pine, a keystone species of sub-alpine habitats in western North America, to consider how particular cases of assisted migration may be ethically approached. After taking into account the value of species, wildness, place, ecosystems, culture and sentient animals, we conclude that, on balance, there appear to be good reasons to move the whitebark pine.
View
Theories for ecological restoration in changing environment: Toward 'futuristic' restoration
Article
  • Jan 2004
Ecological restoration is one of the fastest growing fields in applied ecology providing new ideas and opportunities for biological conservation and natural resource management. Despite countless attempts in the past, large portions of restoration projects have been considered unsuccessful mainly due to: unrealistic goals; inadequate restoration plans based on an ad-hoc approach; lack of explicit and quantified evaluation criteria for restoration success; lack of ecological understanding; social, economic, and political constraints; or combinations of these factors. Existing ecological theories, particularly succession theories, may provide a conceptual framework for a restoration trajectory. However, projecting a 'desirable' trajectory and outcome is often challenged by the unpredictability of ecological communities in the changing environment. Particularly, the sustainability of reconstructed 'historic' ecosystems appears to be an unlikely goal in the ever-changing and unpredictable future environment. This paper calls for a shift in the restoration paradigm from 'historic' to 'futuristic.' A 'futuristic' restoration is: (i) to set realistic and dynamic (instead of static) goals for future, instead of past, environment; (ii) to assume multiple trajectories acknowledging the unpredictable nature of ecological communities and ecosystems; (iii) to take an ecosystem or landscape approach, instead of ad-hoc gardening, for both function and structure; (iv) to evaluate the restoration progress with explicit criteria, based on quantitative inference; and (v) to maintain long-term monitoring of restoration outcomes. A theoretical framework for 'futuristic' restoration, in terms of goals, trajectories, evaluation criteria, and monitoring, along with a historical perspective is presented in this paper.
View
Climate Change and Ecosystem Management
Article
  • Mar 2013
This article addresses the implications of rapid and uncertain ecological change, and global climate change in particular, for reserve oriented and restoration oriented ecosystem management. I argue for the following conclusions: (1) rapid and uncertain ecological change undermines traditional justifications for reserve oriented and restoration oriented ecosystem management strategies; (2) it requires rethinking ecosystem management goals, not just developing novel strategies (such as assisted colonization) to accomplish traditional goals; (3) species preservation ought to be deemphasized as an ecosystem management goal; (4) reserve oriented ecosystem management remains well justified, but the goals for it must be revised.
View
The Reconstruction of Ecosystems: Presidential Address to the British Ecological Society, December 1982
Article
  • Apr 1983
Land disturbed or destroyed by mining and similar activities is an inevitable part of civilization. We inherit a large area from the past and the destruction continues to the present. The product is destroyed soils and vegetation. The natural colonization provides an insight into natural processes of primary succession. Colonization is both deterministic and stochastic. Ecosystem development involves a large measure of facilitation. Many sites left to colonize naturally are of considerable ecological value. But natural colonization is slow and ecosystem development must usually be assisted. It is now relatively easy to treat most of the factors limiting development. However, these factors must be handled with ecological understanding. Nitrogen in particular has to be built up to total levels of at least 1000 kg ha-1. Soils may have unexpectedly high phosphorus binding capacities. Treatment of toxicities may involve a number of different strategies. It is relatively easy to reintroduce agricultural and forest tree species. Wild species are more difficult, yet if their reproductive biologies are properly understood they can be handled with ease and reliability. Most animals will return on their own, but recolonization is assisted by careful habitat reconstruction and some important species may sometimes require reintroduction. Despite the readiness with which some people promulgate pessimism, here is an environmental problem for which solutions are available and one to which ecologists have an important contribution to make.
View
View
Management of novel ecosystems: Are novel approaches required?
Article
  • Dec 2008
Most ecosystems are now sufficiently altered in structure and function to qualify as novel systems, and this recognition should be the starting point for ecosystem management efforts. Under the emerging biogeochemical configurations, management activities are experiments, blurring the line between basic and applied research. Responses to specific management manipulations are context specific, influenced by the current status or structure of the system, and this necessitates reference areas for management or restoration activities. Attempts to return systems to within their historical range of biotic and abiotic characteristics and processes may not be possible, and management activities directed at removing undesirable features of novel ecosystems may perpetuate or create such ecosystems. Management actions should attempt to maintain genetic and species diversity and encourage the biogeochemical characteristics that favor desirable species. Few resources currently exist to support the addition of proactive measures and rigorous experimental designs to current management activities. The necessary changes will not occur without strong input from stakeholders and policy makers, so rapid information transfer and proactive research-management activities by the scientific community are needed.
View
From Reintroduction to Assisted Colonization: Moving along the Conservation Translocation Spectrum
Article
Translocation, the intentional movement of living organisms from one area to another is increasingly being used as a conservation tool to overcome barriers to dispersal. A dichotomy exists for conservation-oriented translocations: on one hand, there are those that release plants or animals into known historic ranges and on the other hand, there are releases outside historic distributions. Misuse of or attempts to redefine established terms and a proliferation of variants of new terms such as assisted colonization, confuse and hamper communication. The aim of this opinion article is to describe and define a conservation translocation spectrum, from species reintroductions to assisted colonization, and beyond, and in so doing provide a standard framework and terminology for discussing translocation options. I suggest that we are moving along this spectrum, away from the dictates of historical species distribution records, toward the inclusion of more risky interventions that will be required to respond to habitat shifts due to anthropogenic impacts. To some extent rapid climate change changes everything, including how we should view introductions versus reintroductions. We need to seriously consider adding other approaches to our conservation toolbox. Assisted colonization will start us along this path, acknowledging as it does the accelerated rate of habitat change and the problems of attempting to preserve dynamic systems. The next step along the conservation translocation spectrum may be for reintroduction biology and restoration ecology to more comprehensively join forces on carefully selected projects to use species introductions to create novel ecosystems through active ecological community construction.
View
Ecological Restoration and Global Climate Change
Article
There is an increasing consensus that global climate change occurs and that potential changes in climate are likely to have important regional consequences for biota and ecosystems. Ecological restoration, including (re)-afforestation and rehabilitation of degraded land, is included in the array of potential human responses to cli-mate change. However, the implications of climate change for the broader practice of ecological restoration must be considered. In particular, the usefulness of historical eco-system conditions as targets and references must be set against the likelihood that restoring these historic eco-systems is unlikely to be easy, or even possible, in the changed biophysical conditions of the future. We suggest that more consideration and debate needs to be directed at the implications of climate change for restoration practice.
View
Theories for ecological restoration in changing environment: Toward ‘futuristic’ restoration
Article
Ecological restoration is one of the fastest growing fields in applied ecology providing new ideas and opportunities for biological conservation and natural resource management. Despite countless attempts in the past, large portions of restoration projects have been considered unsuccessful mainly due to: unrealistic goals; inadequate restoration plans based on an ad-hoc approach; lack of explicit and quantified evaluation criteria for restoration success; lack of ecological understanding; social, economic, and political constraints; or combinations of these factors. Existing ecological theories, particularly succession theories, may provide a conceptual framework for a restoration trajectory. However, projecting a ‘desirable’ trajectory and outcome is often challenged by the unpredictability of ecological communities in the changing environment. Particularly, the sustainability of reconstructed ‘historic’ ecosystems appears to be an unlikely goal in the ever-changing and unpredictable future environment. This paper calls for a shift in the restoration paradigm from ‘historic’ to ‘futuristic.’ A ‘futuristic’ restoration is: (i) to set realistic and dynamic (instead of static) goals for future, instead of past, environment; (ii) to assume multiple trajectories acknowledging the unpredictable nature of ecological communities and ecosystems; (iii) to take an ecosystem or landscape approach, instead of ad-hoc gardening, for both function and structure; (iv) to evaluate the restoration progress with explicit criteria, based on quantitative inference; and (v) to maintain long-term monitoring of restoration outcomes. A theoretical framework for ‘futuristic’ restoration, in terms of goals, trajectories, evaluation criteria, and monitoring, along with a historical perspective is presented in this paper.
View
View
The velocity of climate change
Article
The ranges of plants and animals are moving in response to recent changes in climate. As temperatures rise, ecosystems with 'nowhere to go', such as mountains, are considered to be more threatened. However, species survival may depend as much on keeping pace with moving climates as the climate's ultimate persistence. Here we present a new index of the velocity of temperature change (km yr(-1)), derived from spatial gradients ( degrees C km(-1)) and multimodel ensemble forecasts of rates of temperature increase ( degrees C yr(-1)) in the twenty-first century. This index represents the instantaneous local velocity along Earth's surface needed to maintain constant temperatures, and has a global mean of 0.42 km yr(-1) (A1B emission scenario). Owing to topographic effects, the velocity of temperature change is lowest in mountainous biomes such as tropical and subtropical coniferous forests (0.08 km yr(-1)), temperate coniferous forest, and montane grasslands. Velocities are highest in flooded grasslands (1.26 km yr(-1)), mangroves and deserts. High velocities suggest that the climates of only 8% of global protected areas have residence times exceeding 100 years. Small protected areas exacerbate the problem in Mediterranean-type and temperate coniferous forest biomes. Large protected areas may mitigate the problem in desert biomes. These results indicate management strategies for minimizing biodiversity loss from climate change. Montane landscapes may effectively shelter many species into the next century. Elsewhere, reduced emissions, a much expanded network of protected areas, or efforts to increase species movement may be necessary.
View