No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
What's wrong with novel ecosystems, really?: What's wrong with novel ecosystems
Abstract
The novel ecosystems concept has gained much traction in the restoration community. It has also drawn the ire of several prominent ecologists and is the focus of an ongoing debate. We consider three key aspects of this debate: irreversible thresholds, non-native species, and the hybrid state. Irreversible thresholds have been acknowledged in restoration for years, but predicting when a threshold will be crossed and the degree of reversibility is problematic. Oftentimes reversibility is a function of multiple factors, such as cost and public support. In this sense, a novel ecosystem is not an alternate state but a decision. The need for pragmatism regarding control of non-natives has also long been recognized in restoration circles. Proponents of the novel ecosystem idea adopt this pragmatism by recommending that management decisions be based on impacts conferred by species in altered ecosystems, regardless of their origin. The concept of a hybrid state has proven difficult to operationalize. We suggest that rather than trying to identify the boundary between hybrid and novel states, ecosystems exist on a gradient of alteration. We offer a decision tree for restoration action that integrates aspects of novel ecosystems with other perspectives in modern restoration ecology. We conclude that the idea of novel ecosystems, though not perfect, deserves a place under the “big tent” of restoration that includes efforts to return fully to a reference state, as well as strategies for reinstating lost ecological processes and enhancing ecosystem services in transformed landscapes where such a return is deemed infeasible.
... According to some authors [14][15][16], this term suggests a positive connotation and may send a conflicting message. Nevertheless, the term is merely designating a new "novel" kind of ecosystem that emerged through human-induced changes without using a pejorative label [34]. ...
... Restoration to nontangible pristine conditions seems an unrealistic endeavor for many contexts and conditions, not just because of the associated efforts and costs but also due to the complex ecological relationships emerging in these ecosystems, especially in urban settings. The concepts allow practitioners to justify alternative goals when the restoration is not practical or desirable and helps to reserve restoration efforts for worthy locations where restoration to historical conditions may still be feasible [28,34]. Even though these ecosystems emerge from intentional and unintentional human influence, they do not require human management to provide ecological functions [3] and essential ecosystem services (e.g., degraded land reclamation, watershed protection, carbon sequestration/storage, habitat for rare and native species, stormwater management, climate mitigation, and recreational opportunities) that are comparable to other types of ecosystems [28,31,32,36]. ...
... They fear that accepting NE and NUE will lead to irreversible biodiversity losses, uncontrolled species invasions, and unpredictable climate change effects [5]. Simultaneously, they are concerned that decision-makers will eventually reduce investments in nature conservation or that land managers will renounce restoration even when it is feasible [16,34]. Much of these concerns are related to the fact that NE and NUE have theoretically crossed ecological thresholds to the point that returning them to a previous ecological state is highly challenging. ...
Novel assemblages of biotic, abiotic, and social components resulting from human-induced actions (e.g., climate change, land-use change, species movement) have been labeled as “Novel Ecosystems”, or “Novel Urban Ecosystems” when emerging in urban contexts. This concept has been shifting perspectives among some scientists and making them question traditional values about human-nature interactions in a rapidly changing era dominated by anthropogenic actions (Anthropocene). Controversial dimensions surrounding the Novel Ecosystems and Novel Urban Ecosystems terms may be preventing the evolution and further research of these concepts. The environmental problems that our society will soon face support a search for innovative solutions and transdisciplinary efforts. For that reason, this discussion should not cease, rather should expand to other fields of knowledge that can contribute with pertinent insights and collaborations. This way, this short communication aims to reflect on the opportunities from Landscape Architecture to the discussion, research, and application of the novel ecosystems concepts in the real world, particularly in the urban landscape, and also reflect on the opportunities of this debate to the Landscape Architecture field. Ultimately, Landscape Architecture can contribute with innovative and creative perspectives, acceding valuable and advanced tools, facilitating dialogues between fields of knowledge, and bridging gaps between science, people, and nature.
... No caso de plantas exóticas introduzidas em ecossistemas naturais, torna-se necessária a avaliação do impacto dessas populações sobre a composição, estrutura ou processos ecológicos mantenedores da comunidade vegetal ali existente. Miller e Bestelmeyer (2016) [3] argumentam que, mesmo que a remoção de todas as espécies introduzidas seja possível, nem sempre é desejável, pois pode facilitar a invasão por outras espécies exóticas [4,5,6] ou essas espécies podem ter assumido funções valiosas em alguns ecossistemas [7,8,9]. Como exemplo, pinheiros exóticos (Pinus pineaster Aiton) são utilizados como fonte alimentar para a cacatua-negra (Calyptorhyncus baudinii Lear) no Sudoeste da Austrália, o que torna o manejo da espécie invasora dependente da reconstrução de habitat para essa população de aves [10]. ...
... Para Miller e Bestelmeyer (2016) [3] é importante diferenciar neoecossistemas de ecossistemas híbridos, pois este último pode ser restaurado mais prontamente a um estado anterior à degradação, enquanto neoecossistemas cruzaram um limiar além do qual a restauração é, na melhor das hipóteses, muito improvável [13]. Portanto, a existência de limiares "irreversíveis" separam os ecossistemas híbridos dos neoecossistemas, além do qual a restauração é impossível [11]. ...
... Nesse cenário é preciso maior atenção aos ecossistemas que apresentam comunidades persistentes de exóticas invasoras, para os quais a erradicação total parece ser praticamente impossível, aproximando-as do conceito de neoecossistemas [3,9]. No caso do PEAL, a erradicação de exóticas no componente adulto e regenerante transiente parece ser uma tarefa menos árdua do que o controle daquelas muito abundantes no componente regenerante residente, mas a definição das técnicas a serem empregadas deve prever e monitorar o efeito da supressão das invasoras sobre o banco de plântulas e sementes ali presente, a fim de evitar que o processo de invasão por uma ou mais espécies se torne cíclico. ...
As espécies exóticas invasoras ameaçam a manutenção da biodiversidade, pois podem ocupar o espaço das nativas e dominar grandes extensões. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a regeneração secundária no Parque Estadual Alberto Löfgren, São Paulo – SP, e a influência das espécies exóticas invasoras na sucessão. Foram instaladas 22 parcelas de 100 m² e, em cada uma, 10 subparcelas de 1 m² para amostragem do estrato regenerante. Foram coletados dados dos indivíduos de altura maior ou igual a 20 cm e diâmetro na altura do solo menor que 5 cm. Os indivíduos amostrados foram distribuídos em grupos funcionais de polinização, dispersão e sucessão. Foram registrados 1.150 indivíduos, distribuídos em 93 espécies (21% exóticas), 86 gêneros e 48 famílias. A maior parte das espécies são polinizadas (84%) e dispersas (61%) por animais. Apesar do estrato regenerante apresentar grupos funcionais compatíveis com a trajetória sucessional progressiva, o destaque das exóticas nos parâmetros fitossociológicos foi expressivo, o que evidencia competição com a regeneração nativa e pode retardar o processo de sucessão ecológica na área.
... The size of each circle is indicative of the level of human intervention, in terms of design and engineering, and also initial disturbance through mining activities. Figure adapted and drawn based on literature (Higgs et al., 2016;Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016). Case studies of natural restoration of pre-disturbance ecosystem structure and function are scarce. ...
... However, some contradictions exist in literature on the processes responsible for the formation of novel ecosystems. For example, Figure 2 adapted from literature suggests that novel ecosystems may form through strong human interventions via design, engineering and construction (Higgs et al., 2016;Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016). This seems to contradict the notion that novel ecosystems are formed via self-assembly or self-organization (Doley and Audet, 2013). ...
... A few studies even make a distinction between change and novelty (https://novelecosystems.wiscweb.wisc.edu/overview/). The current author's interpretation of Hobbs et al. (2013) definition and Figure 2 adapted from literature (Higgs et al., 2016;Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016) is that, novel ecosystems can be formed through design and engineering, but subsequent re-organization of ecosystem structure and functions is largely driven by selfassembly, while human intervention is minimal. Designer ecosystems are those whose composition, structure and function are strongly controlled by engineering or other human interventions. ...
Degraded post-mining landscapes exhibit unique biotic and abiotic components and processes relative to pre-disturbance natural ecosystems. Yet the concept of pre-disturbance reference natural ecosystems and their associated soil quality indicators (SQIs) (e.g., pH, soil organic carbon) are prominently used for assessing restoration of post-mining landscapes. Limited reviews exist on the validity, limitations, opportunities and knowledge gaps associated with the application of the concept and SQIs on post-mining landscapes. Hence, evidence was examined to highlight constraints, opportunities and future research directions pertaining to the concept and SQIs. First, as novel, hybrid or designer ecosystems, severely degraded post-mining landscapes lack reference natural ecosystems. The framing of restoration is multi-dimensional, and dependent on spatial and temporal scales. Therefore, short-term data on SQIs often measured at point scale cannot adequately account for the multi-dimensionality and scales. Moreover, evidence linking SQIs to ecosystem functions, goods, values, services and benefits on degraded post-mining landscapes remains weak. Potential redundancy exists among SQIs, because soil properties exhibit spatial and temporal correlation. The universality of SQIs remains unconfirmed, because data validating the measurement protocols and interpretation of SQIs across various biomes are scarce. A framework is presented proposing: (1) a shift from the concept of reference natural ecosystems to novel and designer ecosystems in restoration ecology, (2) the development of the next generation of hierarchical or ecosystem cascade indicators, and end-points addressing the multi-dimensionality and scale issues, and (3) a decision matrix for integrating novel, hybrid and designer ecosystems. The potential applications of novel tools such as drones, laser-based cameras, genomics and big data analytics are highlighted. Such novel tools could unravel the complex linkages among biotic and abiotic components, and ecosystem function and services, which are currently difficult to investigate using conventional techniques. Finally, ten tentative hypotheses are presented on the restoration of degraded post-mining landscapes.
... In this context, "restoration" is distinguished from "rehabilitation" in that the former aspires to substantial recovery of the native biota and ecosystem functions (Gann et al., 2019, emphasis in original), whereas the latter strives not to recover an entire ecosystem formed only of native species but only to reinstate a level of ecosystem functioning sufficient to provide ongoing, defined ecosystem services. In this sense, a rehabilitated ecosystem may include nonnative components (see also Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016;Zimmer, 2018). Although Elliott et al. (2007) suggested that "restoration" be used to describe any activity (including restoration, rehabilitation, and reclamation) aimed at promoting any type of ecosystem recovery in coastal and estuarine environments (including mangroves), we follow Field (1998), Abelson et al. (2016), and Gann et al. (2019) in distinguishing rehabilitation from restoration in mangrove ecosystems. ...
... At the same time, intentional design of ecosystems with functional characteristics to provide particular services has been proposed as an alternative to rehabilitation or restoration projects with high costs or low likelihoods of success; to take advantage of nonnative species with equivalent functionality; or to be effective in rapidly changing environmental conditions (Hobbs et al., 2006;Morse et al., 2014;Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016). Such designed ecosystems foreground people, societies, and the ecosystem services that support them, and use engineering principles and technical knowledge to assemble a group of taxa into appropriate environments (Zimmer, 2018). ...
... Intentionally designed and engineered ecosystems that include novel combinations of species (Hobbs et al., 2006;Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016) may be more resilient to ongoing and future climatic changes while providing a broad suite of desirable ecosystem services (Cheong S.-M. et al., 2013;Zimmer, 2018). ...
Rehabilitated and restored mangrove ecosystems have important ecological, economic, and social values for coastal communities. Although a sine qua non of successful mangrove rehabilitation or restoration projects is accurate attention to local hydrology and basic biology of mangrove trees and their associated fauna, their long-term success depends on far more axes, each with their own challenges. Rehabilitation projects: are planned, designed, executed, and managed by people with diverse backgrounds and different scientific and socio-political agendas; need to be responsive to these multiple stakeholders and agents who hold different values; are often influenced by laws and treaties spanning local to international scales; and must be able to adapt and evolve both geomorphologically and socioeconomically over decades-to-centuries in the context of a rapidly changing climate. We view these challenges as opportunities for innovative approaches to rehabilitation and restoration that engage new and larger constituencies. Restored mangrove ecosystems can be deliberately designed and engineered to provide valuable ecosystem services, be adaptable to climatic changes, and to develop platforms for educating nonspecialists about both the successes and failures of restored mangrove ecosystems. When mangrove rehabilitation or restoration projects are developed as experiments, they can be used as case-studies and more general models to inform policy- and decision-makers and guide future restoration efforts. Achieving this vision will require new investment and dedication to research and adaptive management practices. These ideas are illustrated with examples from mangrove restoration and rehabilitation projects in the Indo-West Pacific and Caribbean regions, the two hotspots of mangrove biodiversity and its ongoing loss and degradation.
... Thus, delibera signed parks, gardens, cemeteries, playgrounds, sport fields, etc., are not include novel ecosystems framework because of their intensive management ( Figure 5). The concept of novel ecosystems has continued to develop further [14,28] been revised [16,29] and critiqued [30] by several ecologists and conservationists f ferent countries. One of the main critiques of the concept is the exclusion of urb scapes in the scope of novel ecosystems, as highlighted by European scholars [7] ample, modified remnants of native forests or grasslands in Australian cities can sidered "novel ecosystems" but not the created ecosystems in an urban park or garden. ...
... However, ecologists responsible for developing the novel ecosystem conce moved toward broadening its scope by acknowledging that the range of urban no systems may include abandoned demolition and industrial sites and degraded nat etation fragments in urban areas [31]. The concept of novel ecosystems has continued to develop further [14,28] and has been revised [16,29] and critiqued [30] by several ecologists and conservationists from different countries. One of the main critiques of the concept is the exclusion of urban landscapes in the scope of novel ecosystems, as highlighted by European scholars [7]. ...
Urban nature and ways of protecting, designing and even mimicking natural processes are some of the most popular themes inspiring humanities and natural science studies in different disciplines around the globe. Urban nature, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions are three intertwined concepts. This paper will highlight some of the many visions for urban nature (e.g., four urban natures: native, cultivated, designed/horticultural and spontaneous natures) and interpretations of nature-based solutions. While there are some similarities in the interpretation of urban natures by different disciplines, some significant differences exist. This paper analyses and synthesises knowledge from divergent theoretical concepts of urban natures in Europe and Australia, and the associated ecological concepts of novel and designed ecosystems. The complexity of urban natures and native landscapes has fostered the development of several typologies that often lead to misunderstanding between discipline areas and difficulties with practical implementation, such as in urban planning or landscape design. We argue that differences in interpreting the scope of urban nature are often underlined by the specific socio-political, historical, cultural and ecological contexts of a country or region (e.g., Australia and Europe). By applying an interdisciplinary approach, we explore the concept of urban natures by analysing and synthesising links between different disciplines. A transdisciplinary perspective is an important premise for collaboration between ecological sciences and landscape architecture in many restoration projects, or when social and ecological sciences jointly address societal challenges with the help of nature-based solutions co-created using participatory approaches. The latter highlights the role of transdisciplinary research to link practitioners, policymakers and scientists, helping to engage with citizens and inform design. The analysis of several examples from Europe and Australia allowed us to depict different approaches to existing urban natures and methods of their design, enhancement and conservation. These examples highlight that different urban natures are sources of inspiration for nature-based solutions that can be successfully implemented in contemporary landscape and planning practice.
... With so many positive impacts of IAPS being reported and the 'novel ecosystems' concept gaining support, it is unsurprising to see the increased denialism of their negative impacts (Boltovskoy et al. 2018), and invasion biologists are struggling to translate their findings into meaningful management actions (Russell & Blackburn 2017). The 'novel ecosystems' concept has met with strong opposition from invasion biologists, who have recognized the disastrous effects that IAS can have on a community if the 'novel ecosystems' attitude is followed inconsiderately (Murcia et al. 2014, Miller & Bestelmeyer 2016. ...
While scientific research highlights the threats of invasive alien species (IAS) to the environment and human livelihoods, another voice is rising that recognizes their beneficial impacts. With evidence increasing of the contrasting impacts of some IAS, the lack of communication between science and society makes decision-making processes more complex. Here, we consider the beneficial aspects of invasive alien plant species and take examples from other life forms to argue that, over time and space, the detrimental impacts of IAS might endanger sustainable livelihoods by increasing invasion debt manyfold. We therefore suggest that future studies reporting the positive impacts of IAS and those encouraging the management of IAS through their utilization should include value judgements that acknowledge the potential risks involved in the practice and the scale and context specificity of such studies. Studies highlighting the negative impacts of IAS should also recognize the context dependency of their findings and emphasize the benefits to be gained from the management of the IAS. We provide a more complete picture of IAS impacts that could help to inform management decisions in the face of different potential choices and the possible impacts of these choices on sustainable livelihoods in the long term.
... A novel ecosystem is defined as "a system of abiotic, biotic, and social components (and their interactions) that, by virtue of human influence, differs from those that prevailed historically, having a tendency to self-organize and manifest novel qualities without intensive human management" [60]. While the novel ecosystem concept has become popular over the last decade, it has also raised debates in the restoration community [63,64] . Interestingly, while there is mounting evidence that the fundamental environmental drivers of ecosystems are undergoing unprecedented change, policies are still limited to conventional approaches for restoring lost ecological processes and enhancing ecosystem services in transformed landscapes where such a return is deemed infeasible. ...
Restoring degraded ecosystems is an urgent policy priority to regain ecological integrity, advance sustainable land use management, and mitigate climate change. This study examined current legislation and policies supporting forest landscape restoration (FLR) in Canada to assess its capacity to advance restoration planning and efforts. First, a literature review was performed to assess the policy dimension of FLR globally and across Canada. Then, a Canada-wide policy scan using national databases was conducted. While published research on ecological restoration has increased exponentially in Canada and globally since the early 1990s, our results showed that the policy dimensions of FLR remain largely under documented in the scientific literature, despite their key role in implementing effective restoration measures on the ground. Our analyses have identified over 200 policy instruments and show that Canada has developed science-based FLR policies and best practices driven by five main types of land use and extraction activities: (1) mining and oil and gas activities; (2) sustainable forest management; (3) environmental impact assessment; (4) protected areas and parks; and (5) protection and conservation of species at risk. Moreover, FLR policies have been recently added to the national climate change mitigation agenda as part of the nature-based solutions and the net-zero emission strategy. Although a pioneer in restoration, we argue that Canada can take a more targeted and proactive approach in advancing its restoration agenda in order to cope with a changing climate and increased societal demands for ecosystem services and Indigenous rights. Considering the multifunctional values of the landscape, the science–policy interface is critical to transform policy aspirations into realizable and quantifiable targets in conjunction with other land-use objectives and values.
... The majority of definitions for identifying a novel ecosystem focus on the role of direct or indirect human influence on shaping irreversible ecosystem changes (see [33], Table 1). However, as Truitt et al. [33] discuss, there is not one unified definition of what constitutes a novel ecosystem through time, nor is there uniform acceptance of the concept (e.g., [34]) This can be challenging from the perspective of sustainability goal setting, governance, and policy [35][36][37]. Nonetheless, much like recognizing and defining sustainability, historical baselines are essential to establishing standardized metrics from which to measure the timing and composition of novel ecosystem development within sustainability and management goals [33] (see also [38]). ...
Humans and the diverse ecosystems we inhabit face numerous sustainability challenges due to climate change, rising seas, population growth, overfishing, natural habitat destruction, accelerating extinctions, and more. As an interdisciplinary paradigm that leverages both natural and social sciences to better understand linkages between humans and the environment, sustainability science focuses on how these connections shape understandings of and approaches to sustainability challenges. Here, we argue that archaeology and historical ecology are essential components of sustainability science. We view sustainability as a long-term process where historical sciences are critical to effectively measuring where we stand today and modeling future trajectories based on the baselines from the past that archaeology and historical ecology provide. We demonstrate that islands around the world are central to this endeavor because they serve as model systems that can capture the timing of human arrival, subsequent effects of cultural behaviors on pristine environments , and how humans adapted, survived, and often thrived for centuries or millennia. These cases provide important lessons about human responses in the past to similar challenges that we now currently face. In the uncertain futures of the Anthropocene, such historical baselines will contribute significantly to scientific approaches for building more resilient and sustainable societies.
... This would represent a paradigm shift in conservation biology that embraces novel ecosystems (Hobbs et al., 2006;Hobbs et al., 2009), rather than a fruitless effort to restore the past (Lynn et al., 2019;Wallach et al., 2020). It is not our intention to argue the scientific validity of coexistence over control strategies here, and it should be noted that the concept of novel ecosystems is not without criticism (Driscoll & Watson, 2019;Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016). However, how language is used within the rhetoric of control is problematic because it depersonalizes or devalues each individual according to the ideologies of only the dominant culture. ...
This paper examines the use of the term "feral" as a form of control over other animals. The concept of this "power word" is explored within the context of what it means for those who find themselves labelled as such. As a prefix, "feral" is used by various interest groups to justify the treatment of subpopulations of species, particularly with regards to wildlife conservation. The "feral" label differentiates animals that are perceived as being out of place or out of control from those who are kept as companions or commodities. "Feral" is most often used to describe an unwelcome presence or noise, and can be contrasted to alternative words, such as "wild" or "free-living" that control how these presences are perceived by humans.
... The need for a more pragmatic approach to control non-native species has also been widely recognised in restoration ecology (Miller and Bestelmeyer 2016) it was used to stabilise sandy soils and mixed with Scot's pine it was used to prevent fires and disease (Nyssen et al. 2016a). When it became apparent that black cherry was hindering the regeneration of desired native trees, extensive eradication programs were implemented. ...
Background
Non-native tree species (NNT) whose natural range is outside Europe have long been part of the cultural development of the European forest landscape, providing numerous benefits as well as posing risks to biodiversity and other ecosystem services. On the one hand, NNT are valued for their timber properties, high growth rates and resistance to drought for improving forestry or adapting forests to climate change. On the other hand, they can potentially negatively impact the environment and economy, particularly when they spread into protected areas, become established there and can only be controlled at great expense under risk management. Given their (potential) negative impacts, some NNT are classified as invasive in multiple European countries based on the results of risk assessments. The ones classified as invasive may be included in regional, national, or EU legislation, which may result in imposing restrictions on their cultivation. However, the methods applied in risk assessments across Europe were not specifically developed for NNT, and countries differ in their approaches. Existing methods may therefore not sufficiently identify the ecological risks associated with NNT unless they explicitly address the characteristics of tree species and site-specific aspects of forest management. Moreover, country-specific approaches may hamper the harmonisation of information and hinder risk assessments that extend across European borders. No studies to date have investigated the methods of risk assessments for NNT used in European forestry. Since NNT can have both risks and benefits, a careful and scientifically sound risk assessment is thus vital to provide clear evaluations for management, policy decisions and scientific purposes.
Research objectives
The main purpose of this thesis was to improve risk assessment approaches for the use of NNT in European forestry. In this context, the first objective was to review current risk assessment methods in Europe in terms of their suitability in identifying the ecological risks associated with NNT, thereby supporting both forest and risk management decisions (first objective). Based on the analysis of existing methods, it became obvious that it is necessary to improve the data base for risk assessments, e.g. by using forest inventory data (second objective), and to establish new criteria for assessing the risks of NNT (third objective). In summary, the main research objectives were as follows:
(1) analyse the methods of existing risk assessment schemes in Europe for their practical applicability and consistency for potentially invasive non-native tree species.
(2) strengthen the evidence base for risk assessments of widespread non-native tree species in Europe, using systematically collected data from forest inventories.
(3) develop a risk assessment method that permits a more generalisable consideration of the costs and benefits of using non-native tree species in forests.
Methods
(1) Analysis of existing risk assessment tools
Several risk assessment tools currently used in Germany and neighbouring countries were analysed for their practical applicability and consistency using four NNT (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh., Paulownia tomentosa (Thunb. Ex Murray), Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, and Quercus rubra L.) as case studies. Literature reviews were carried out to collect the required information on the invasion biology of the four NNT in Europe. Different methods were applied by assessing the tools’ criteria for each NNT using the information derived from the literature review based on the same reference area (Germany).
(2) Strengthening the evidence base for risk assessments
The relevance of using large scale forest inventory data for risk assessments was demonstrated using the two potentially invasive NNT, Quercus rubra and Pseudotsuga menziesii, in Germany as case studies. For this purpose, the establishment success of natural regeneration was quantified in terms of cover and height classes using national forest inventory data for Germany. The current extent of spread into protected forest habitats was investigated using a regional dataset for the State of Baden-Württemberg (south-west Germany).
(4) Developing a risk assessment method for NNT
First, basic principles and steps were identified and formulated for the development of a new methodological framework in order to assess the risks of NNT. Subsequently, four workshops were conducted with interdisciplinary groups of experts, public authorities, and stakeholders from the areas of forest conservation, silviculture, and nature conservation. Workshop participants were encouraged to evaluate each component of the proposed method and suggest improvements.
Results and discussion
Using different tools to classify risks for the same NNT yielded inconsistent results for all NNT. Different criteria are used in the methods and/or similar criteria are weighted differently. In most cases, no differentiation is made between the risks posed by NNT at different sites and ecosystem types. When data quality was poor, the precautionary principle (of considering only the worst observed effect) was typically applied without ranking the available ecological studies by their evidence. As a result, observations of small case studies are often extrapolated to large spatial scales by providing one single risk classification, i.e., typically ‘invasive’ or ‘potentially invasive’. Such a single undifferentiated risk classification is unlikely to provide meaningful guidance for a wide range of different ecosystems and regions.
Large-scale forest inventories can provide valuable data across a range of different forest types to support the risk assessments of widespread NNT in forests. Based on the assessment of Pseudotsuga menziesii and Quercus rubra, there was no evidence of high establishment and spreading potential for the majority of forest types in Germany. Natural regeneration of both NNT has been reported in a small proportion of protected forest habitats. Semi-natural forests with sufficient light in the understory and competitively inferior tree species can be considered most sensitive to invasion. To mitigate any potential negative effect of both NNT, management approaches may involve buffer zones around sensitive ecosystems. When natural regeneration of NNT is systematically recorded, the approach could also be applied in other countries or regions.
A new methodological framework was developed to mitigate risks associated with the use of NNT in European forestry while taking advantage of their ecosystem services. In contrast to the previously developed risk assessment approaches, the proposed method takes different ecosystem sensitivities to NNT into consideration as well as existing silvicultural methods to control or exclude potential risks. The framework comprises eight steps and is based on the existing knowledge as well as collecting new data. In addition to the use of the proposed method, several changes of environmental policy and forest management are recommended in order to achieve positive outcomes in the sustainable management of NNT.
Conclusions
The analysis of existing risk assessment tools (first objective) has shown that the results of the different risk assessment methods applied in Central Europe cannot be used as a reliable decision support tool for both forest and risk management of NNT. To strengthen the evidence base for risk assessments (second objective), forest inventories can provide important data for assessing the establishment and spreading potential of widespread NNT across a range of sites, thus identifying sensitive ecosystem types. The risk assessment criteria developed in this thesis enable NNT with a low current risk to be identified and considered for planting. The criteria thus provide a framework for integrating risk mitigation into forest management and represent an important step towards reliable, Pan-European risk assessments of NNT (third objective).
The knowledge derived from such risk assessments should be made available for various stakeholders. In addition, clear communication is necessary between practitioners, policymakers, and the public about the risks of NNT regarding different forest types, sites and regions, as well as available management options and uncertainties in the data. At the same time, further monitoring of NNT and more research on potential impacts are required to continuously improve the information basis for risk assessments. To strengthen the benefits of NNT while mitigating their risks, new political approaches based on unifying principles are needed in Europe. These issues need to be addressed to arrive at risk assessments that are of high practical value for the responsible use of NNT in European forestry.
... It argues that derelict farmland, abandoned lots, and, yes, landfills deserve consideration alongside old-growth forests and coral reefs as we decide where to focus our ecological efforts. To identify a novel ecosystem is to call attention to the fact that it "deserves a place under the 'big tent' of restoration" (Miller and Bestelmeyer 2016). The conceptual role of NOVEL ECOSYSTEM is not merely to describe certain places as they are, but to color our reaction to certain places, helping us see possibilities where formerly we only saw failure. ...
The very idea of novel ecosystems has been controversial in ecology. Critics have complained about its imprecision, and that it illicitly smuggles problematic ethical and political values into the science. By labelling a human-modified system a ‘novel ecosystem,‘ they worry, we give policymakers a “license to trash nature.“ The critics are right to be suspicious. I show that proponents of the novel ecosystem concept have been unable to make it both value-free and precise enough to allow for applied use.
Also, the critics are right to be suspicious, because a goal for many proponents of novel ecosystems is to bring new values into applied ecology. But the critics are wrong that this is illicit. I defend a value-laden conception of novel ecosystems, showing that applied ecologists are comfortable with other value-laden concepts (e.g. invasive species), and that the value shift motivating discussion of novel ecosystems is necessary if we want to understand and protect nature in a changing world.
... As some scientists suggest, it is important that we not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" (Prober and Dunlop 2011) or abandon fundamental principles of ecological restoration, such as focusing on ecosystem processes and functions (Hanberry et al. 2015). Yet, there is growing recognition that, in some areas, the rate and degree of climatic changes are going beyond the adaptive capacity of species and ecosystems to cope or adjust, which may necessitate more rigorous interventions to forestall change, or, alternatively, decisions to either accept or actively manage for change (Millar and The consideration of ecological transformations as an outcome of restoration may be particularly appropriate in instances where landscapes are so altered that a return to a previously desirable set of conditions, such as those represented by HRV/NRV, is deemed unlikely or infeasible, with or without management intervention (Miller and Bestelmeyer 2016). For instance, low-elevation ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests in parts of the West may already have passed a threshold where regeneration is unlikely due to the combined effects of climate change and high-severity fire ). ...
A rapidly changing climate, including rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and more extreme storms, is having profound consequences for America’s national forests. Climate-related impacts on forest systems include larger and more severe disturbances (e.g., wildfires, drought, and insect outbreaks), shifts in tree species ranges and forest composition, and changes in forest dynamics and regeneration capacity.
Many of our national forests have been significantly modified by past management and land use, and forest managers are contending with ongoing threats from invasive species, disease outbreaks, and other challenges. With the added impacts on forest systems
from climate change, an enormous mismatch exists between the level of restoration work currently underway and the scale of the challenge. As a result, there is a need to substantially increase the pace, scale, and quality of restoration on our national forests,
and to ensure that this restoration is carried out in an ecologically appropriate and climate-smart manner.
Continuing and accelerating climatic changes, and their associated impacts, have significant implications for the effectiveness of traditional forest restoration efforts, including reliance on historical conditions as benchmarks for restoration outcomes. Drawing on a growing body of evidence, research, and experimentation, this science review and synthesis looks at how climate change is inspiring an important
evolution in approaches for national forest restoration and management. Over the past decade, the U.S. Forest Service has made considerable progress in understanding the effects of a changing climate on forest ecosystems and working to incorporate climate
considerations into its planning and management.
Nonetheless, varying perspectives on what climate change means for ecological restoration in practice and how to navigate potential trade-offs continue to pose challenges to integrating climate adaptation and mitigation in national forest planning and management. Addressing this challenge would benefit from a shared understanding among agency staff and stakeholders of what constitutes a forward-looking and climate-smart approach to national forest restoration. To this end, this report reviews and summarizes recent advances and ongoing evolution in how the concepts and
principles of climate adaptation and mitigation can help promote the development and application of climate-smart forest restoration.
... To address this issue, at least in part, Naeth et al. (2012) proposed an entirely new soil order classification system, which acknowledges that some soils have been "highly modified or constructed by human activity." Miller and Bestelmeyer (2016) suggested that three key aspects of the debate over the novel ecosystems concept are irreversible thresholds, non-native species, and the hybrid state. These authors integrated aspects of the novel ecosystems concept with other concepts from restoration ecology to create a decision tree for restoration activity. ...
A 2019 survey of the reclamation and restoration economy in Alberta explored the types of businesses involved, the number of employees, and their revenues and expenditures.
... For example, which of the physical functions that the eco-engineered habitat will provide are essential (e.g., coastal defense, conservation of an endangered species), and which are just desirable (e.g., improved water quality, recreational use)? Is the ecological goal "restoration" -recovery of the native ecosystem (Gann et al., 2019) -or "rehabilitation" -recovery only of some ecosystem services (Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016;Zimmer, 2018)? The choice of WwN strategy should then be determined with reference to this possibly complex metric. ...
As the artificial defenses often required for urban and industrial development, such as seawalls, breakwaters, and bund walls, directly replace natural habitats, they may produce population fragmentation and a disruption of ecological connectivity, compromising the delivery of ecosystem services. Such problems have increasingly been addressed through “Working with Nature” (WwN) techniques, wherein natural features such as species and habitats are included as additional functional components within the design of built infrastructure. There now exists a convincing body of empirical evidence that WwN techniques can enhance the structural integrity of coastal works, and at the same time promote biodiversity and ecosystem services. While these benefits have often been achieved through modification of the hard surfaces of the coastal defense structures themselves, the desired ecological and engineering goals may often demand the creation of new soft substrates from sediment. Here we discuss the design considerations for creating new sediment habitats in the intertidal zone within new coastal infrastructure works. We focus on the sediment control structures required to satisfy the physiological and ecological requirements of seagrass and mangroves – two keystone intertidal species that are common candidates for restoration – and illustrate the concepts by discussing the case study of soft habitat creation within a major multi-commodity port.
... It is likewise necessary to recognize the need for a taxonomy of ecosystems and the importance of addressing this need using a multi-dimensional, non-species-centric approach, as well as to accept that phytosociology is a useful component of field observation and description methods but is nevertheless of limited value for ecosystem conceptualization and nomenclature. We believe it is time to end repeated inter-disciplinary disagreements Carrión, 2010;Carrión and Fernández, 2009;Chiarucci et al., 2010;Eliot, 2011Eliot, ,2007Larson, 2016;Loidi et al., 2010;Loidi and Fernández-González, 2012;Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016;Mucina, 2010;Murcia et al., 2014), in particular between those who think that classifying is a need (related to ecological organicism) and those who hold that it is an artefact (continuum), a conflict that we regard as counter-productive and directly responsible for the reluctance to pursue the development of ecosystem taxonomy for fear of being subjected to virulent criticism (each side being unaware that the other represents a valid viewpoint). ...
Over the last several years, the IUCN Red List approach for assessing the risk of extinction faced by species has been adapted into a Red List of Ecosystems methodology. This endeavor faces several important challenges, including how to define the types of ecosystems to which the Red List criteria are applied, and how to manage information on the geographic distribution of ecosystems in an open, transparent, and standardized manner linking mapping, typology, and field studies. We propose a fundamentally novel approach that differs from currently available ecosystem typologies in three important aspects by (1) offering a new way of conceptualizing types of ecosystems, (2) providing an explicit method for communicating the conceptualized ecosystems and how they are circumscribed, and (3) developing technical tools for managing the resulting conceptual model. Firstly, ecosystem types are defined by studying biogeoclimatic gradients using an approach that is both modular (in which combinations of ecological factors are studied at a given scale) and hierarchical (involving relative spatial and temporal scales in which local/site gradients are dependent on bioclimatic/regional gradients). This avoids the problem of classes that are not mutually exclusive and enables the classification of all types of ecosystems, including for example marshes on rocky outcrops in superhumid tropical montane areas. Secondly, the names of ecosystem species are linked to a nomenclatural type defined by a ‘type site’ or ‘biotype’, adopting a principle that makes clear a given author's notion of an ecosystem type even if the accompanying name and description are partial or imperfect, or when the ecosystem type is delimited too broadly according to the interpretation of another author. Ecosystem names are structured as a descriptive diagnosis based on a standardized set of characters and character states. This typological approach for facilitating the naming and comparison of ecosystem circumscriptions is thus truly taxonomic in nature. Thirdly, in order to facilitate the use and application of the conceptual approach presented here, we translate it into a practical tool by developing a smartphone-based system to collect data for observing and describing virtual ecosystem specimens in the field, along with the "Bio" database, which manages ecosystem data and also enables tracking synonymies using an open system that entails assigning determinavits to biotypes.
... Some argue that they allow flexible management of systems unlikely to return to historical conditions (e.g. 'designer' flows; Acreman et al., 2014); others argue that adopting these ecosystems may lead to de-prioritizing restoration activities (Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016). It remains to be seen whether these ecosystems can provide suitable habitats for native species (but see Ebner, Lintermans & Dunford, 2011). ...
• Freshwater biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate. Freshwater conservationists and environmental managers have enough evidence to demonstrate that action must not be delayed but have insufficient evidence to identify those actions that will be most effective in reversing the current trend.
• Here, the focus is on identifying essential research topics that, if addressed, will contribute directly to restoring freshwater biodiversity through supporting ‘bending the curve’ actions (i.e. those actions leading to the recovery of freshwater biodiversity, not simply deceleration of the current downward trend).
• The global freshwater research and management community was asked to identify unanswered research questions that could address knowledge gaps and barriers associated with ‘bending the curve’ actions. The resulting list was refined into six themes and 25 questions.
• Although context-dependent and potentially limited in global reach, six overarching themes were identified: (i) learning from successes and failures; (ii) improving current practices; (iii) balancing resource needs; (iv) rethinking built environments; (v) reforming policy and investments; and (vi) enabling transformative change.
• Bold, efficient, science-based actions are necessary to reverse biodiversity loss. We believe that conservation actions will be most effective when supported by sound evidence, and that research and action must complement one another. These questions are intended to guide global freshwater researchers and conservation practitioners, identify key projects and signal research needs to funders and governments. Our questions can act as springboards for multidisciplinary and multisectoral collaborations that will improve the management and restoration of freshwater biodiversity.
... Some argue that they allow flexible management of systems unlikely to return to historical conditions (e.g. 'designer' flows; Acreman et al., 2014); others argue that adopting these ecosystems may lead to de-prioritizing restoration activities (Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016). It remains to be seen whether these ecosystems can provide suitable habitats for native species (but see Ebner, Lintermans & Dunford, 2011). ...
... Este nuevo concepto de ecosistema sugiere que las sociedades invertirían tiempo de manera más eficiente, esfuerzo y recursos financieros, una vez se centran en la gestión de nuevos ecosistemas para los servicios de los ecosistemas que éstos pueden proporcionar, en lugar de intentar restaurarlos a su estado anterior o histórico. A pesar de que estos nuevos enfoques y definiciones han recibido cierta aceptación por la comunidad científica (Hobbs et al., 2014;Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016), así como contradictores (Kattan, Aronson, y Murcia, 2016;Murcia et al., 2014), el esquema planteado en la Figura 2.3 se soporta en las consideraciones expuestas por Hobbs et al., (2009). ...
En el libro SUCESIÓN ECOLÓGICA EN PAISAJES FRAGMENTADOS DE LA
AMAZONIA COLOMBIANA se presentan los principales avances, en la generación
de conocimiento, sobre la sucesión ecológica en los bosques secundarios,
en áreas con alto grado de fragmentación en la Amazonia colombiana. A
partir de dicho conocimiento, se muestran los diseños y las consideraciones
técnicas y sociales para la implementación de acciones de restauración ecológica.
La síntesis aquí presentada es una fuente de información académica
para la formación de recurso humano y es el punto de partida para investigaciones
futuras en torno a la sucesión ecológica, en bosques secundarios
y su restauración. Adicionalmente, se constituye en una oferta tecnológica
relevante para la Amazonia nor-occidental, para el desarrollo de procesos de
restauración ecológica de las áreas de pasturas degradadas por uso ganadero
y las áreas de protección de fuentes hídricas y humedales, consideradas
como los ecosistemas más impactados en la intervención agropecuaria de la
Amazonia y de mayor vulnerabilidad ante los efectos del cambio climático.
Los resultados contenidos en esta publicación se obtuvieron en desarrollo
del proyecto de investigación “Restauración de Áreas Disturbadas
por Implementación de Sistemas Productivos Agropecuarios en zonas
de Alta Intervención en el Caquetá “ejecutado mediante el Convenio
No. 60-2013 suscrito entre la Gobernación del Caquetá y el Instituto Amazónicode
Investigaciones Científicas SINCHI; co-ejecutado con la Universidad
dela Amazonia, la Asociación de Reforestadores y Cultivadores de Caucho
de Caquetá, (Asoheca) y la Federación Departamental de Ganaderos del
Caquetá, (Fedeganga); cofinanciado con recursos del Fondo de Ciencia,
Tecnología e Innovación - FCTeI del Sistema General de Regalías – SGR
... However, ER actions are not magic bullets for instantly recovering the composition and functions of ecosystems (Menz et al., 2013). Uncertainty is to be expected in dealing with the recovery of ecological functions, which will not match exactly the reference ecosystem characteristics and will, frequently, support lower ecological integrity (Miller and Bestelmeyer 2016). Moreover, the willingness of recovering a 'pristine' reference ecosystem is nowadays no longer relevant. ...
Ecological restoration (ER) of terrestrial ecosystems has become widespread in past decades. However, assessing its success is complex mainly due to the diversity of objectives pursued, actions undertaken but also statistical methods for treating data. We demonstrate here that, due to the heterogeneity of collected data, the success of restoration actions can be overestimated in meta-analyses. We advocate analyzing distinctly two types of actions in ER, those aiming at increasing an ecosystem attribute (e.g. species richness of a native plant species, ER⁺), and those aiming at decreasing it (e.g. invasive species cover, ER⁻). We also suggest that only one index for assessing the success of a restoration action is not enough. We propose here to complete RR (Remaining Recovery) by a novel index informing on ‘what has been restored by comparison to what should have been recovered’: the ‘Achieved Restoration’ index (AR).
... As increasing urbanisation reduces natural habitat and replaces it with buildings, road infrastructure and amenity gardens, some ornamental plants, such as Phoenix canariensis (Spennemann 2019d), have become significant components of the developing novel ecosystems. These new plants provide habitat for adaptive indigenous as well as exotic species, creating hybrid as well as novel ecosystems which are deemed to be 'valid' environmental states (Hobbs et al. 2013; but see Murcia et al. 2014;Miller and Bestelmeyer 2016). Washingtonia needs to be considered in the same vein. ...
Background
Dispersed by the horticultural industry, Washingtonia filifera and W. robusta have become one of the most ubiquitous ornamental palm species throughout all temperate zones.
Aims
This paper systematically reviews the state of knowledge of the ecological provisioning services provided by these palms.
Methods
Review of the extant literature based on a combination of systematic database searches with snowballing.
Results
Globally, Washingtonia are a major urban food source for native and invasive animal species. The majority of vectors contribute little to medium-or long-range dispersal. Avian and terrestrial species with a high connective potential facilitate long-distance dispersal. The dead leaves surrounding the stem serve as habitat for numerous native and invasive species.
Conclusions
The horticultural plantings of Washingtonia in areas adjacent to but contiguous with their endemic range have allowed a number of user species to expand their range, with one example (Icterus cucullatus) in excess of 1000 km. In non-contiguous areas of introduction (e.g. Europe, Middle East, South Africa or Australia) several species native to those ecosystems have adapted to feeding on Washingtonia drupes, but only few species have adapted to using Washingtonia as habitat.
... A novel ecosystem differs in composition and/or function from present and past ecosystems and is often linked to LULC change and agriculture (Hobbs et al., 2009). There is much discussion about the negative implications of novel ecosystems in general (Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016) and Eucalyptus in particular (Poore & Fries, 1985;Sunder, 1993). On-the-otherhand, in Ethiopia Eucalyptus establishment has been found to have an indirect positive impact on soil and water conservation mainly through the reduction of soil runoff (Mhiret et al., 2019;Nyssen et al., 2009 increasing frequency of drought that affects crop and livestock production" (Jenbere et al., 2012). ...
Despite global commitments to forest restoration, evidence of the pathways through which restoration creates social and ecological benefits remains limited. The objective of this paper is to provide empirical evidence to generate insights on the relationship between forest cover change and key provisioning ecosystem services and reforestation pathways. In Southern Ethiopia, three zones along a gradient of decreasing land cover complexity and tree cover were examined. The land cover change was assessed using satellite remote sensing and complemented ground-based tree inventory. Perceptions of land cover and ecosystem services change and farmer responses were evaluated through three Participatory Rural Appraisals and eight Focus Group Discussions. Since the 1970s, a landscape shift from a forest-grassland to a cropland mosaic was associated with increased food production, improved food security, and higher incomes. However, this shift also coincided with reductions in livestock, construction materials, fuelwood and water availability, prompting reforestation efforts designed to recover some of these lost ecosystem services. In particular, some households established Eucalyptus woodlots and encouraged natural regeneration. Natural trees, Eucalyptus woodlots, Ensete plantations (a type of plantain), and grasslands were positively associated with homestead proximity; thus, homestead establishment resulting from population increase in this predominately agricultural landscape appeared to foster a viable forest restoration pathway-that is, 'more people, more trees'. This is a reforestation pathway not previously described in the literature. A return to a more diverse agricultural landscape mosaic provided more secure and diversified income sources along with better provisioning of construction materials, fuelwood, and higher livestock numbers.
... The literature reveals that restoration outcomes vary widely (Rinkevich, 2017) and that restoration endpoints exist along a gradient of alteration (Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016). The additional benefits of ecological engineering in reef restoration acts are yet to fully materialize, but it is clear that, through new habitat formation, ecological engineering tactics may revert or delay species extinction, one of the most devastating outcomes of habitat loss (Newmark et al., 2017). ...
The combined accelerated footprint of climate change and enhanced anthropogenic pressures and the poor outcomes of many traditional management activities raise the needs for active reef restoration tactics (targeting coral mariculture/transplantation), backed by ecological engineering approaches. These approaches include, among others, the use of ecosystem engineer species, which, through modifications in their physical or biological properties, they create new habitats characterized by novel biodiversity (through either autogeny or allogeny engineering acts). Only a small number of studies on coral reef restoration have discussed/mentioned “ecological engineering” or “coral reef engineering”. Examining reef restoration publications (2016–2019; 145 publications) reveals only 39 (26.9%) dealing with ecological engineering aspects, with 10 classes of “applications” (26 publications) and 4 classes of “properties” (n = 13). Ecological engineering “applications” incorporate all aspects of reef restoration, while the ecological engineering “properties” deal with assisted genetics, coral chimerism, aqua-culturing reef-dwelling organisms, and the consideration of life history parameters of maricultured/transplanted key species. Yet, many ecological engineering applications focus on particular coral species, addressing their specific community issues, while only few address the needs of the entire ecosystem/landscape restoration. It is concluded that rather than trying to return ecosystems to historic states, ecological engineering should shift towards creating novel ecosystems not existed before.
... Le terme de « néo-écosystème » a été appliqué à une grande variété d'écosystèmes (Kowarik, 2011;Mascaro et al., 2012;Collier, 2013) et des pratiques, notamment dans la perspective de restauration et conservation pourraient en découler même si la question reste très débattue dans la communauté scientifique Murcia et al., 2014Murcia et al., , 2015Miller et Bestelmeyer, 2016). L'identification de ces « néoécosystèmes » se révèle être important pour décider comment allouer des ressources pour la restauration des écosystèmes (Hobbs et al., 2009;Morse et al., 2014 (Losfeld et al., 2015). ...
La biosphère traverse une crise de biodiversité pour laquelle les milieux insulaires sont l’épicentre. Les invasions biologiques y constituent l’un des principaux facteurs de forçage, notamment du point de vue de l’altération des mutualismes, pour le fonctionnement et le maintien des écosystèmes. Durant notre travail en Nouvelle-Calédonie, nous nous sommes intéressés à un groupe clé de voute pour le fonctionnement des écosystèmes, les fourmis, et leur implication vis-à-vis de la dispersion de graines (myrmécochorie). Nous avons réalisé la première identification de plantes autochtones myrmécochores, avec une prépondérance des espèces sur substrats ultramafiques. Puis, nous avons testé la dispersion par les fourmis sur ces substrats. Après avoir caractérisé les communautés selon un gradient de perturbation anthropique, nous avons évalué la dispersion et la contribution des fourmis invasives à ce service par rapport aux fourmis natives. Ainsi, Solenopsis geminata semble capable d'une meilleure dispersion que les espèces natives. A contrario, Wasmannia auropunctata exclue les espèces natives sans assurer de dispersion efficace. Dans le contexte d’un régime de perturbations intense, nos travaux illustrent une communauté néo-assemblée de fourmis, dominée par des exotiques dont certaines pourraient assurer un relai de fonction pour la dynamique des maquis. Nos travaux illustrent la « contexte dépendance » des impacts d’espèces invasives en fonction du niveau de perturbation anthropique. Ils permettent de discuter la contribution possible de ces fourmis pour la restauration après perturbation sur substrats ultramafiques, voire de leur valorisation en ingénierie écologique.
... In conclusion, it should now be possible to validate the effectiveness of different practices and intensity of ecosystem management in promoting sustainability, by performing our assessment approach periodically after every update of provincial forestry maps. Such periodical assessments could also be useful for identifying critical resilience thresholds (Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016;Seidl et al., 2016). During intervals between management interventions, resilience should enable managed forests to recover higher levels of naturalness (Mori, 2011;Barrette et al., 2014b;Seidl et al., 2016). ...
One-quarter of forest areas worldwide are managed for forestry purposes. Depending upon the type of practice and intensity of management, forestry may alter forests to various degrees and raise sustainability issues. To mitigate the alteration of natural forests by forestry and to promote sustainability, ecosystem management has been implemented widely over the past quarter century. A need remains for the development of comprehensive and operational assessment approaches to validate its effectiveness. Naturalness assessment could be used to validate effectiveness of ecosystem management since this concept relates to the degree to which a natural state has been altered. We developed an approach that integrates stand-and landscape-scale traits of naturalness into a single comprehensive assessment that can be performed using only forestry maps. To illustrate our approach, we assessed naturalness in four managed forest landscapes (2184 km 2), representing a management gradient of increasing intensity from passive restoration to plantation forestry. We defined four naturalness classes, i.e., natural, semi-natural, altered and artificial. Assessment was performed in two steps. At step one, we attributed a class to each managed stand by comparing its current composition with natural stand compositions of its potential natural vegetation. At the landscape scale, certain developmental stages or forest types could be in excess in managed forest landscapes compared with natural forest landscapes. At step two, we transferred numbers of stages or types in excess from the natural class to more altered classes. We demonstrated that naturalness decreased as management intensity increased. Passive restoration and extensive management generated a landscape where semi-natural forests predominated in mixtures with a lower abundance of natural forests. Intensive management generated a largely semi-natural forest landscape. Plantation forestry generated a landscape where semi-natural and altered forests predominated. In conclusion, it should now be possible to validate the effectiveness of different practices and intensity of ecosystem management in promoting sustainability, by performing our assessment approach periodically following every update of forestry maps. Our approach could also allow for more comprehensive assessment of forest management strategies developed to mitigate global change by putting into better perspective their potential effects upon forest alteration of various forestry practices that have been implemented to sequester carbon.
... This study is one of the first that highlighted the benefits associated with the transplantation of 'coral sod' units (made of genotypes and ramets from many coral species), preset ahead of outplanting, adding to the reef restoration toolbox. Using this approach, reef restoration follows the path of forestation where simple 'revegetation' endeavors had been advanced by ecological restoration theories (Bradshaw, 1996) that moved from contemplating past conditions (primarily by the appraisal of reference sites), into novel ecosystem paradigms (Hallett et al., 2013;Hobbs, 2013;Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016). In a similar way to forestation (Stanturf et al., 2014) reef restoration approaches may also consider 'landscape restoration' and 'functional restoration' (Horoszowski-Fridman and Rinkevich, 2017). ...
Hard bottom substrates that are the hallmark property of the coral reefs can be expanded by transforming
sedimentary areas into engineered reefs. Testing this rationale, we developed here two preset coral-carpet
prototypes (‘coral sods’; 6 units, each 7.5 m2
), one containing branching species and one with both coral forms
(mixed-units) that were transplanted on a soft bottom area, containing 10 coral species (five branching, five
massive; 354 ramets from 30 genotypes and 181 whole-colonies). Ramets from branching genotypes were distributed in central and peripheral coral-sod locations, whereas all massive colonies were put in central locations.
The ‘coral sod’ carpets were set-up at the Eilat, Red Sea nursery, held in place for 2–8 months, then transplanted
into a highly hostile soft-bottom area (15 m depth) and monitored for up to 17 months. Results revealed high
survival rates for corals in the peripheral/center positions (80–100%; most combinations). A fast increase in
ecological volume (EV) was recorded during 447 residency days, up to 112% in EV for Acropora variabilis mixedunits in the peripheral position. There was no statistically significant difference between treatments and sod's
locations, except for the Pocillopora. damicornis branching/mixed treatment. At day 514, corals' aerial coverage
has increased from 50% at onset to 67.3% for the branching units and to 61.5% in the mixed-units. Larvae
released from transplanted Stylophora pistillata corals outperformed those of natal colonies in the two following
reproductive seasons, significantly higher in the first reproductive season when compared to the second. Coral
recruitment (day 485) was up to 4 times higher in the centers compared to the peripheries, in both coral-sod
types. Using gypsum sticks dissipation, we recorded reduced water velocities at lateral and uppermost colonial
architectures and in the coral sod centers as compared to peripheries. These results reveal the first steps for
improved ‘coral sod’ units aiming to shape sandy tropical areas into flourishing coral reef sites.
... Despite the value placed on animals in the land ethic (as "fellow-members"), practitioners of environmental management have not resolved how to support the well-being of individuals while also maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem (Swaisgood 2010;Lorimer et al. 2015; but see Dubois et al. 2017). Another challenge is the growing call for restoration to integrate with a broader suite of environmental issues and disciplines (Miller & Bestelmeyer 2016;Beausoleil et al. 2018), while also increasing the effectiveness of the projects under its auspices (Brudvig et al. 2017). To address these problems, we examine theories and case studies which illustrate the value of wild animal welfare for reducing uncertainty during ecological restoration, conceptualizing and restoring biotic integrity, and strengthening human-nature relationships. ...
The restoration community continues to discuss what constitutes good environmental stewardship. One area of tension is the extent to which the wellbeing of wild animals should inform restoration efforts. We discuss three ways that the perspective of wild animal welfare can augment restoration ecology: strengthening people's relationship with nature, reinforcing biotic integrity, and reducing mechanistic uncertainty. The animal welfare movement elevates sentient animals as stakeholders and explores how environmental context directly impacts the wellbeing of individuals. Viewing wild animals through this lens may encourage people to think and act with empathy and altruism. Second, we incorporate animal welfare into the concept of biotic integrity for ecological and ethical reasons. Restoring ecosystem processes may enhance animal welfare, and vice versa. Alternatively, there may be a trade‐off between these factors, requiring local decision‐makers to prioritize between restoring ecosystem function and promoting individuals' wellbeing. We conclude by discussing how welfare can impact population recovery, thereby adding insights about mechanisms underpinning restoration objectives. Ultimately, restoration ecologists and proponents of wild animal welfare could enjoy a productive union. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... The large-scale translocation, and effectively globalisation, of plant and animal species during the late Anthropocene, for both their amenity and production values, has led to the creation of novel ecosystems (Hobbs et al., 2013;Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016;Murcia et al., 2014) in which a mix of native and exotic frugivores feed on a combination of native and exotic plant species (Minderman et al., 2010). As these novel ecosystems continue to develop, it is those vectors that traverse multiple ecological landscapes which play a crucial role in mediating between those novel and the remnants of the established ecosystems. ...
Many plants rely on fruit consuming animals (frugivores) to disperse their seed. Successful dispersal is influenced inter alia by quantity of seeds dispersed, dispersal distance, nature of seed deposition and post-depositional seed predation. The germination potential of the seed is commonly enhanced through physical or chemical scarification while the ingested fruit is processed in the gastrointestinal tract. Most discussions of animal-mediated seed dispersal are vector-centric and explore in depth the minutiae or the consumption by species or examine mutualistic networks. This paper provides a framework that conceptualises the effect of animal-mediated seed dispersal in terms of net benefits to the plant. These benefits, viewed in terms of a dispersed plant’s presence in the landscape, are codified as suisubstitution (new term), intensification, expansion, and colonisation. Only vectors with an ability to traverse and utilise multiple ecological landscapes provide true net colonisation benefits to a plant species. This is particularly essential in this later period of the Anthropocene where ecological landscapes have become increasingly fragmented and are being augmented or replaced by novel ecosystems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0367253019305389
... In contrast to hybrid systems, novel systems are impossible to restore to histori cal conditions. Differentiating novel from non-novel ecosystems is, however, difficult (Hobbs, Higgs, & Hall, 2013;Kueffer, 2015;Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016;Morse et al., 2014). Novel ecosystem characteristics such as self-perpetuation of states and critical thresholds are often difficult to define (Radeloff et al., 2015). ...
... Across the globe, the later periods of the Anthropocene have seen a rapid expansion of urban as well as production landscapes at the expense of 'natural' (i.e., largely unmodified) environments, which are reduced in size and increasingly fragmented (e.g., Atasoy, 2018;Canedoli et al., 2018;Gbanie et al., 2018;Liu et al., 2019). In these heavily modified landscapes, novel ecosystems have developed, which are populated by a pastiche of native and exotic animals feeding on native and exotic food sources ( Adams et al., 2005;Hobbs et al., 2013;Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016). ...
With the increasing expansion in urban areas, many species have adapted to utilising horticulturally used plants as alternate or augmentary food sources, in particular, during winter – when native foods are largely absent. Ornamental palms, particularly Canary Island Date Palms, fruit continuously during most of the year and thus provide a stable food supply. Based on observational, metric and bio-chemical data, this paper examines the role Canary Island Date Palms can and do play in the nutrition of frugivorous animals, in particular, for birds. It demonstrates that with its nearly year-round provisioning of drupes, the palm plays a major role as a ‘staple’ and backup food source for several species.
... The concept has been embraced by many ecologists, but it also sparked discussions on the normative meaning and the management goals for anthropogenically modified ecosystems. Critics fear that the term and its underlying ideas may open the doors to impunity and put previous political achievements of nature conservation at risk, whereas proponents emphasize its usefulness for broadening the possibilities of conservation efforts (Marris et al. 2013, Murcia et al. 2014, Kattan et al. 2016, Miller and Bestelmeyer 2016. ...
Global change has complex eco-evolutionary consequences for organisms and ecosystems, but related concepts (e.g., novel ecosystems) do
not cover their full range. Here we propose an umbrella concept of “ecological novelty” comprising (1) a site-specific and (2) an organismcentered,
eco-evolutionary perspective. Under this umbrella, complementary options for studying and communicating effects of global change
on organisms, ecosystems, and landscapes can be included in a toolbox. This allows researchers to address ecological novelty from different
perspectives, e.g., by defining it based on (a) categorical or continuous measures, (b) reference conditions related to sites or organisms, and (c)
types of human activities. We suggest striving for a descriptive, non-normative usage of the term “ecological novelty” in science. Normative
evaluations and decisions about conservation policies or management are important, but require additional societal processes and engagement with multiple stakeholders.
... The concept has been embraced by many ecologists, but it also sparked discussions on the normative meaning and the management goals for anthropogenically modified ecosystems. Critics fear that the term and its underlying ideas may open the doors to impunity and put previous political achievements of nature conservation at risk, whereas proponents emphasize its usefulness for broadening the possibilities of conservation efforts (Marris et al. 2013, Murcia et al. 2014, Kattan et al. 2016, Miller and Bestelmeyer 2016. ...
Global change has complex eco-evolutionary consequences for organisms and ecosystems, but related concepts (e.g., novel ecosystems) do not cover their full range. Here we propose an umbrella concept of "ecological novelty" comprising (1) a site-specific and (2) an organism-centered, eco-evolutionary perspective. Under this umbrella, complementary options for studying and communicating effects of global change on organisms, ecosystems, and landscapes can be included in a toolbox. This allows researchers to address ecological novelty from different perspectives, e.g., by defining it based on (a) categorical or continuous measures, (b) reference conditions related to sites or organisms, and (c) types of human activities. We suggest striving for a descriptive, non-normative usage of the term "ecological novelty" in science. Normative evaluations and decisions about conservation policies or management are important, but require additional societal processes and engagement with multiple stakeholders.
... That is why restoration ecologists now find themselves at a crossroads (Hobbs, 2018) where new concepts like novel and designed ecosystems (Higgs, 2017) are causing bearings to be questioned. Some suggest extending the 'big tent' of restoration ecology to include these concepts (Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016) whereas others suggest renaming restoration (Rohwer & Marris, 2016). Now, the misunderstanding of rewilding and its conflation with restoring ...
Rewilding is a developing concept in ecosystem stewardship that involves reorganizing and regenerating wildness in an ecologically degraded landscape, with present and future ecosystem function being of higher consideration than historical benchmark conditions. This approach differs from ecosystem restoration but the two concepts are often conflated because (a) they both rely on similar management actions (at least initially) and (b) it can be erroneously assumed that they both aim for similar states of wildness.
Rewilding and restoring both influence biodiversity, and common management actions such as species reintroductions (e.g. beavers or wolves) can be integral to a rewilding project. However, in contrast with restoration, rewilding has lower fidelity to taxonomic precedent and promotes taxonomic substitutions for extinct native species that once underpinned the delivery of key ecological functions.
We suggest the adaptive cycle as the appropriate conceptual framework in which to distinguish rewilding from ecosystem restoration. The focus of restoration ecology is to return an ecosystem to as close to its former state as is possible after a major disturbance, by directly reinstating it on the ‘foreloop’ of the adaptive cycle. In contrast, rewilding draws from the ‘backloop’ by promoting reorganization and redevelopment of the ecosystem under changing environmental conditions. If environmental conditions have changed so significantly that a regime shift is inevitable, then rewilding can facilitate the development of a novel ecosystem to sustain the provision of ecosystem services.
Synthesis and applications . Rewilding and restoring both have their places in biodiversity conservation. In each case, their respective merits should be weighed in relation to stakeholder priorities, prevailing and predicted environmental conditions, the level of biological organization targeted for management, and existing and future management capacity. We provide simple schematic decision‐pathways to assist in exploring whether an ecologically degraded landscape might be a candidate for restoration, active rewilding, or passive rewilding.
... Functional group: a collection of species that process ecological components in a similar way to provide a specific ecosystem service or function Trophic level: the position of an organism in the food chain Over-invasion: a competitive interaction between two invasive species where one suppresses the other Invasional meltdown: a mutualistic interaction between two invasive species in which either one (sensu lato) or both (sensu stricto) benefit from the interaction The novel ecosystem concept not only introduced a set of new concepts and terms to restoration ecology but also attracted much controversy (Murcia et al. 2014). In particular, criticisms have been made around vague and changing definitions (Truitt et al. 2015), disagreement over determining whether ecological thresholds have been crossed or a system is indeed stable and self-sustaining (Miller & Bestelmeyer 2016), and moreover our ethical duties and responsibilities toward such ecosystems (Lindenmayer et al. 2008). This controversy is particularly acute on islands, where their higher levels of biodiversity than on continents and their concomitant vulnerability suggest greater conservation efforts (Myers et al. 2000) and where it is often possible to eradicate introduced species and cross back over ecological thresholds (Simberloff 2001). ...
The rate of non-native species introductions continues to increase, with directionality from continents to islands. It is no longer single species but entire networks of coevolved and newly interacting continental species that are establishing on islands. The consequences of multispecies introductions on the population dynamics and interactions of native and introduced species will depend on the form of trophic limitation on island ecosystems. Freed from biotic constraints in their native range, species introduced to islands no longer experience top-down limitation, instead becoming limited by and disrupting bottom-up processes that dominate on resource-limited islands. This framing of the ecological and evolutionary relationships among introduced species with one another and their ecosystem has important consequences for conservation. Whereas on continents the focus of conservation is on restoring native apex species and top-down limitation, on islands the focus must instead be on removing introduced animal and plant species to restore bottom-up limitation.
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics Volume 50 is November 4, 2019. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
... These systems were called "hybrid" systems, indicating that they had undergone change but retained the potential for restoration. The various elements of this definition continue to be debated and modified by various commentators, with some suggesting that the distinction between hybrid and novel systems is not useful because relevant thresholds are often difficult to recognize (e.g., Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016). Still, it may be useful in management contexts to establish a categorical difference between systems that are candidates for restoration and those that are unlikely to be restored. ...
The novel ecosystem (NE) concept has been discussed in terrestrial restoration ecology over the last 15 years but has not yet found much traction in the marine context. Against a background of unprecedented environmental change, managers of natural marine resources have portfolios full of altered systems for which restoration to a previous historical baseline may be impractical for ecological, social or financial reasons. In these cases, the NE concept is useful for weighing options and emphasizes the risk of doing nothing by forcing questions regarding the value of novelty and how it can best be managed in the marine realm. Here, we explore how the concept fits marine ecosystems. We propose a scheme regarding how the NE concept could be used as a triage framework for use in marine environments within the context of a decision framework that explicitly considers changed ecosystems and whether restoration is the best or only option. We propose a conceptual diagram to show where marine NEs fit in the continuum of unaltered to shifted marine ecosystems. Overall, we suggest that the NE concept is of interest to marine ecologists and resource managers because it introduces a new vocabulary for considering marine systems that have been changed through human actions but have not shifted to an alternate stable state. Although it remains to be seen whether the concept of marine NEs leads to better conservation and restoration decisions, we posit that the concept may help inform management decisions in an era of unprecedented global marine change. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... Aronson et al. (2017) document the tension that exists relative to tolerance expressed for non-native species and a lack of science to inform management targets and goals (Murcia et al. 2014). One solution proposed is a decision tree for restoration action that integrates novel ecosystem components with modern restoration ecology perspectives (Miller and Bestelmeyer 2016) and incorporates a broader definition of restoration that: ...
The Bureau of Environmental Services initiated an effort in 2018 to audit and revise its 2008 Invasive Plants Strategy, a strategy that resulted in substantial changes to city policy, code, management of natural areas, developed parks, hybrid parks, other city properties, and streets. The strategy identified regional capacity for managing invasive plants
and made recommendations for implementation, including cost estimates and 10-year goals.
The city sought to review the 2008 Invasive Plants Strategy and develop Invasives 2.0, a new strategy that addresses key gaps, builds on lessons learned, updates best management practices based on emerging science and technology, and articulates
a cohesive, coordinated, collaborative effort across all of Portland’s city bureaus. Managing Portland’s green assets using an integrated multi-jurisdictional approach (both within city bureaus and with stakeholders in the region) for plants, animals, and microorganisms is a cornerstone of Invasives 2.0.
... Disturbance alters plant communities by removing existing vegetation or changing abiotic conditions, facilitating plant invasions [1,2]. After disturbance, some communities require intervention to alter the trajectory toward a desired state, although returning to the original plant community may not be possible [3,4]. The most common method to alter the trajectory of plant communities and remove undesired weeds is via herbicide application [5][6][7]. ...
Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) is one of the most problematic weeds in western United States rangelands and sagebrush steppe. It responds positively to different forms of disturbance, and its management has proven difficult. Herbicide or targeted grazing alone often fail to provide adequate long-term control. Integrating both may afford better control by providing multiple stressors to the weed. We assessed herbicide application, targeted sheep grazing and integrated herbicide and grazing on B. tectorum and the plant community in rangeland in southwestern Montana from 2015 until 2017. Herbicide treatments included spring-applied (May 2015 and 2016) glyphosate, fall-applied (October 2015) glyphosate, imazapic and rimsulfuron, and spring-applied glyphosate plus fall-applied imazapic. Targeted grazing, consisting of four sheep/0.01 ha for a day in 5 m × 20 m plots (all vegetation removed to the ground surface), occurred twice (May 2015 and 2016). While no treatments reduced B. tectorum biomass or seed production, grazing integrated with fall-applied imazapic or rimsulfuron reduced B. tectorum cover from approximately 26% to 14% in 2016 and from 33% to 16% in 2017, compared to ungrazed control plots, and by an even greater amount compared to these herbicides applied without grazing. By 2017, all treatments except spring-applied glyphosate increased total plant cover (excluding B. tectorum) by 8%–12% compared to the control plots, and forbs were generally responsible for this increase. Bromus tectorum management is difficult and our results point to a potential management paradox: Integrating grazing and fall-applied herbicide decreased B. tectorum cover but did not increase native grass cover, while some herbicides without grazing increased native grass cover, but failed to control B. tectorum. Additional research is necessary to determine grazing strategies that will complement herbicide control of B. tectorum while also stimulating native grass recovery, but this initial study demonstrates the potential of integrated management of B. tectorum compared to grazing or herbicide alone.
... Some common examples include cities (Aronson et al., 2016), old fields (Cramer et al., 2008), and wetlands invaded by exotic species (Gandy & Rehage, 2017). Novelty is the subject of a heated debate for conservation and ecological restoration practitioners (Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016;Murcia et al., 2014). ...
Questions
Sea level rise and saltwater intrusion are changing low‐lying coastal landscapes, converting agricultural land and other upland habitats to tidal marsh. Abandoned, saline agricultural fields are affected by a unique combination of environmental filters, those traditionally found in tidal marsh – salinity and flooding – alongside those of cultivated lands – high nutrient availability and a history of disturbance. We asked how species composition and functional trait composition in saline fields compares to traditional old fields and natural ecotones, and whether trends in succession can be detected in saline fields during the first years post‐abandonment.
Location
Chesapeake Bay (Mid‐Atlantic, USA).
Methods
We surveyed plant communities assembling in saline fields and compared taxonomic and functional trait diversity to those in old field and marsh‐forest ecotone communities. We also assessed changes in the saline fields after two and three years of abandonment to detect the direction of succession.
Results
Saline fields occupied an intermediate taxonomic and trait space between old fields and marsh ecotones. From old fields to saline fields to marsh, communities were less weedy, and more wetland, native, and perennial. Specific leaf area decreased across this transition, in concordance with expected changes in response to salinity. Over time, saline fields became less graminoid and less weedy, and more native, wetland, and woody.
Conclusions
We conclude that marsh migration into abandoned farmland is producing a novel assembly of plant communities. Intermediate functional traits in the saline fields reflect the novel environmental filters imposed by saltwater intrusion and the cultivation legacy. These patterns suggest that abandoned, saline agricultural fields may develop somewhat differently than natural marsh boundaries, with more shrub‐dominance and greater resilience to Phragmites australis invasion. Importantly, these results suggest that saline fields will provide a facilitating route for marsh migration.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... This comes at a time when the field of conservation science is going through a difficult and controversial stage of redefinition, with pragmatism challenging purism (Kareiva and Marvier, 2012). The pace of global change throws the definition of restoration ecology into question (Rohwer and Marris, 2016) and novel ecosystems are gaining acceptance as inevitable and irreversible stages in some ecological transitions (Miller and Bestelmeyer, 2016). There is a need for new directions for environmental management to move in -going back is no longer an option -and rewilding stands as a candidate concept to be evaluated for certain systems under certain conditions. ...
The concept of novel ecosystems has been discussed for over more than a decade to describe ecosystems that have an altered species composition and function, such that the community has crossed a threshold forbidding a return to its historical state. While spatial and temporal community compositional change has been well studied in biogeography, studies on novel ecosystems in a modern context are few and tend towards classifying novelty based on a static baseline. Given that the abiotic and biotic drivers of novelty are in a state of rapid change, and reaching levels unprecedented within the last hundred thousand to million years, defining such a threshold requires additional thought. Here, we discuss a biogeographical–macroecological perspective on novel ecosystems, exploring how such a threshold for novelty can be defined in an environment undergoing progressive global change and suggesting pathways through which the emergence and spread of novelty can be further explored, understood and managed.
This book provides a review of the multitude of conservation concepts, both from a scientific, philosophical, and social science perspective, asking how we want to shape our relationships with nature as humans, and providing guidance on which conservation approaches can help us to do this.
Nature conservation is a contested terrain and there is not only one idea about what constitutes conservation but many different ones, which sometimes are conflicting. Employing a conceptual and historical analysis, this book sorts and interprets the differing conservation concepts, with a special emphasis on narrative analysis as a means for describing human–nature relationships and for linking conservation science to practice and to society at large. Case studies illustrate the philosophical issues and help to analyse major controversies in conservation biology. While the main focus is on Western ideas of conservation, the book also touches upon non-Western, including indigenous, concepts. The approach taken in this book emphasises the often implicit strategic and societal dimensions of conservation concepts, including power relations. In finding a path through the multitude of concepts, the book showcases that it is necessary to maintain the plurality of approaches, in order to successfully address different situations and societal choices. Overall, this book highlights the very tension which conservation biology must withstand between science and society: between what is possible and what we want individually or as a society or even more what is desirable. Bringing some order into this multitude will support more efficient conservation and conservation biology.
Invasive species outreach has long leaned on problematic and oversimplified messaging that narrowly frames the issue as binary: good-native vs. evil-invasive. Contemporary invasive species educational programming in the United States, as illustrated in this article, draw on this same approach that, while attention grabbing, both reinforces xenophobic rhetoric and fails to adequately educate on the complicated ethical decision-making processes that go into invasive species management. In response to this gap, I identify educational strategies using storytelling and narrative, specifically comics creation, as a productive way of deepening student engagement with invasive species management and building literacy in ethical environmental decision-making. Using comics without proper framing, however, might still reproduce good/evil binaries, as I exemplify using the Oregon Sea Grant WISE Program’s Aquatic Invasions! A Menace to the West invasive species comics curriculum. I suggest that improving comics-based invasive species curricula should include an emphasis on process-based learning and reflective practice to model the iterative nature of environmental management and provoke critical thinking about invasive species representation.
Land use is central to addressing sustainability issues, including biodiversity conservation, climate change, food security, poverty alleviation, and sustainable energy. In this paper, we synthesize knowledge accumulated in land system science, the integrated study of terrestrial social-ecological systems, into 10 hard truths that have strong, general, empirical support. These facts help to explain the challenges of achieving sustainability in land use and thus also point toward solutions. The 10 facts are as follows: 1) Meanings and values of land are socially constructed and contested; 2) land systems exhibit complex behaviors with abrupt, hard-to-predict changes; 3) irreversible changes and path dependence are common features of land systems; 4) some land uses have a small footprint but very large impacts; 5) drivers and impacts of land-use change are globally interconnected and spill over to distant locations; 6) humanity lives on a used planet where all land provides benefits to societies; 7) land-use change usually entails trade-offs between different benefits—"win–wins" are thus rare; 8) land tenure and land-use claims are often unclear, overlapping, and contested; 9) the benefits and burdens from land are unequally distributed; and 10) land users have multiple, sometimes conflicting, ideas of what social and environmental justice entails. The facts have implications for governance, but do not provide fixed answers. Instead they constitute a set of core principles which can guide scientists, policy makers, and practitioners toward meeting sustainability challenges in land use.
Monday, May 15, 2006. Concord, Massachusetts. The dedication ceremony of Thoreau’s Path on Brister’s Hill.
Across the US Coastal Plain, native grasses and legumes may provide viable alternatives to monoculture pastures of introduced sod-forming grasses, which require recurring costly inputs. Some available cultivars of native grasses, mostly from neighboring regions, have potential to combine forage production for grazing livestock with enhanced habitat, especially for grassland birds. A few native legume species have potential to enhance ecosystem service provisioning of existing grass pastures. Such pastures with native grasses and legumes could complement restoration plantings to increase connectivity and scale of ecosystem function, however, coordination of pasture and restoration plantings would be needed to optimize benefits.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Experts are influential in how society intervenes and how evidence is used in biodiversity conservation, so how their preferences are (or are not) changing are factors in whether governance reform is successful. Research so far has suggested that experts are keeping the conservative in conservation, acknowledging the need to change biodiversity management in the face of a changing climate and other human drivers of biodiversity loss in theory, but resistant to changing in practice. This chapter explores the extent to which this is truly the case and what the implications for governance might be, drawing on a global survey of experts in biodiversity. Potential avenues for leveraging this information in governance reforms are discussed.
This is a pre-print of a manuscript submitted for review - it hasn't undergone the review process.
In the context of accelerating environmental change, there is an urgent need to identify ecosystem conservation, restoration, and management strategies likely to support biodiverse and adaptive ecosystems into the future. The field of historical ecology has generated a substantial body of recommendations for ecosystem management, yet these insights have never been synthesized. We reviewed >200 historical ecology studies and analyzed recommendations for ecosystem management emerging from the field. The majority of studies (∼90%) derived from North American and Europe, with forests being the focus of nearly half (48%) of all papers. Papers emphasized the need to protect and restore both habitat remnants and modified ecosystems in management, the value of ecosystems as cultural landscapes, and the importance of adopting a landscape-scale perspective for ecosystem management. Nearly one-quarter contained a recommendation that challenged status quo management, underscoring the value of a historical perspective in setting management goals, strategies, and targets. Fewer than 12% of papers contained recommendations that explicitly addressed ongoing or projected climate change, suggesting opportunities to integrate findings from historical ecology with other perspectives to create forward-looking management strategies that are rooted in place and past.
Ecological restoration as grounded in modern science is based on a systems perspective - it seeks to recover ecological systems characteristic of past or least-disturbed contemporary landscapes. This requires recovery of organisms along with the ecosystem features and dynamic processes that support them. Since self-sustainability is the goal, it also requires a landscape and environmental context that supports recovery of the system. As restoration becomes more widely practiced, so too are many specialized forms of environmental intervention, such as those associated with reducing the impacts of development, promoting recovery of endangered species, and achieving compensatory mitigation. These may be valuable and may also be informed by ecological science but they differ substantially from ecological restoration because they are not necessarily focused on recovery of a self-sustaining living system characteristic of past or least-disturbed landscapes. The US legal system has failed to make this distinction. Federal statutes do not explicitly define restoration and in fact do little to constrain or even guide this process; if this is not rectified, net ecological losses will continue to occur. Scientists and policy makers can add precision to the use and practice of ecological restoration and other, more specialized forms of restoration, to ensure a future that can support ecosystems and the people that depend on them.
Invasions by non-native species have caused many extinctions and greatly modified many ecosystems and are among the major anthropogenic global changes transforming the earth. Beginning in the mid-1980s, a dramatic burst of research in invasion biology has revealed a plethora of previously unrecognized impacts and laid bare the scope of the phenomenon. Similarly, research on various methods of managing invasions has expanded enormously, yielding incremental improvements in traditional methods and the advent of several new approaches, including the use of species-specific genetic and pheromonal methods. This research has advanced the field of restoration ecology, of which invasion management is a key component. Amidst this research progress, a group of critics has attempted to cast doubt on the extent of damaging impacts caused by non-native invasive species, the feasibility of counteracting them and restoring ecosystems, and the motives of scientists engaged in such endeavors. The criticisms are misguided but can potentially impede management of this pressing problem.
Ecosystem restoration was originally founded upon recovering ecosystems using wildlands as a reference state. More recently there has been interest in shifting to the restoration of ecosystem services – the benefits that natural systems can provide to humans. This shift is resulting in new restoration goals as well as new methodological approaches. The pace at which restoration goals and methods are changing is particularly fast for running-water ecosystems, which calls for a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic costs and benefits associated with such changes.
The reality confronting ecosystem managers today is one of heterogeneous, rapidly transforming landscapes,
particularly in the areas more affected by urban and agricultural development. A landscape management
framework that incorporates all systems, across the spectrum of degrees of alteration, provides a fuller set of
options for how and when to intervene, uses limited resources more effectively, and increases the chances of
achieving management goals. That many ecosystems have departed so substantially from their historical trajectory that they defy conventional restoration is not in dispute. Acknowledging novel ecosystems need not
constitute a threat to existing policy and management approaches. Rather, the development of an integrated
approach to management interventions can provide options that are in tune with the current reality of rapid
ecosystem change.
Responding to our critique of the novel ecosystem concept [1], Hobbs et al. [2] misrepresent our points of view, so we begin by clarifying our position. First, we do not deny the existence of anthropogenically transformed ecosystems; cities, pastures, agricultural fields, or open-pit mines are real and have accompanied humans for millennia. We agree: society must deal with these ecosystems in sensible and effective ways, as part of the much larger effort to transition toward sustainability, maintain biodiversity, and provide ecosystem services to humans and habitat to other species.
The synthesis of the contributions in this special issue about the tropical city of San Juan has resulted in five themes. First, the city is subject to multiple vulnerabilities, but socioeconomic factors and education level affect the perception of citizens to those vulnerabilities, even in the face of imminent threat. Second, in light of the social-ecological conditions of the city, how its citizens and institutions deal with knowledge to respond to vulnerabilities becomes critical to the adaptive capacity of the city. Third, the relationship between socioeconomic factors and green cover, which in 2002 covered 42% of the city, is not what has been reported for other temperate zone cities. In San Juan, neighborhoods with households of high socioeconomic level were not necessarily associated with greater green cover. However, in adjacent neighborhoods within the densely populated zones of the city, households of high socioeconomic level did preserve green cover better than households in lower socioeconomic-level neighborhoods. Fourth, tropical conditions such as climate may explain some of the unique aspects of the social-ecological system of San Juan. The most obvious is the exuberance of tropical biota in the city that not only forms novel species assemblages but also provides many ecological services, including food production for up to 60% of the members of particular neighborhoods. Ecosystem resilience is particularly high in aquatic and terrestrial ecological systems in San Juan. Fifth, it appears that the emergence of novel systems in the city represent adaptive responses to the social end ecological conditions in the city. We conclude that the study of a tropical city provides contrast to the prevailing literature on temperate and boreal cities and expands the suite of behaviors of urban social-ecological systems, thus advancing the dialogue on the functioning of cities in light of environmental change.
The 'novel ecosystem' concept has captured the attention of scientists, managers, and science journalists, and more recently of policymakers, before it has been subjected to the scrutiny and empirical validation inherent to science. Lack of rigorous scrutiny can lead to undesirable outcomes in ecosystem management, environmental law, and policy. Contrary to the contentions of its proponents, no explicit, irreversible ecological thresholds allow distinctions between 'novel ecosystems' and 'hybrid' or 'historic' ones. Further, there is no clear message as to what practitioners should do with a 'novel ecosystem'. In addition, ecosystems of many types are being conserved, or restored to trajectories within historical ranges of variation, despite severe degradation that could have led to their being pronounced 'novel'.
Globally, new combinations of introduced and native plant and animal species have changed rangelands into novel ecosystems. Whereas many rangeland stakeholders (people who use or have an interest in rangelands) view intentional species introductions to improve forage and control erosion as beneficial, others focus on unintended costs, such as increased fire risk, loss of rangeland biodiversity, and threats to conservation efforts, specifically in nature reserves and parks. These conflicting views challenge all rangeland stakeholders, especially those making decisions on how best to manage novel ecosystems. To formulate a conceptual framework for decision making, we examined a wide range of novel ecosystems, created by intentional and unintentional introductions of nonnative species and land-use—facilitated spread of native ones. This framework simply divides decision making into two types: 1) straightforward—certain, and 2) complex—uncertain. We argue that management decisions to retain novel ecosystems are certain when goods and services provided by the system far outweigh the costs of restoration, for example in the case of intensively managed Cenchrus pastures. Decisions to return novel ecosystems to natural systems are also certain when the value of the system is low and restoration is easy and inexpensive as in the case of biocontrol of Opuntia infestations. In contrast, decisions whether to retain or restore novel ecosystems become complex and uncertain in cases where benefits are low and costs of control are high as, for example, in the case of stopping the expansion of Prosopis and Juniperus into semiarid rangelands. Decisions to retain or restore novel ecosystems are also complex and uncertain when, for example, nonnative Eucalyptus trees expand along natural streams, negatively affecting biodiversity, but also providing timber and honey. When decision making is complex and uncertain, we suggest that rangeland managers utilize cost—benefit analyses and hold stakeholder workshops to resolve conflicts. Mundialmente, nuevas combinaciones de plantas introducidas e inducidas y especies de animales han cambiado los pastizales a nuevos ecosistemas. Mientras que muchos de los interesados en los pastizales (personas que usan o tienen interés en los pastizales) ven un beneficio en la introducción de especies para el mejoramiento de la producción de forraje y control de la erosión, otros se interesan en los costos no planeados tales como el aumento en el riesgo de fuego, pérdida de biodiversidad en los pastizales y amenazas en los esfuerzos de conservación especialmente en reservas naturales y parques. Estos puntos de vista conflictivos son retos para todos los interesados en los pastizales, especialmente para la toma de decisiones en cómo manejar mejor los ecosistemas nuevos. Para formular un modelo conceptual para toma de decisiones, examinamos un amplio rango de ecosistemas nuevos, creados de manera intencional y no intencional de especies no nativas y el uso de tierras que facilitan la expansión de especies nativas. Este modelo simplemente divide la toma de decisiones en dos tipos: 1) francamente—seguro y 2) complejo—no seguro. Discutimos que las decisiones de manejo para mantener ecosistemas nuevos son seguras cuando los bienes y servicios proporcionados por el sistema sobrepasan por mucho el costo de restauración, por ejemplo en el caso de las praderas intensivas de Cenchrus. Las decisiones para devolver ecosistemas nuevos a sistemas naturales son también seguras cuando el valor del sistema es bajo y la restauración es fácil y barata como en el caso del control biológico de las infestaciones de Opuntia. En contraste, las decisiones ya sea de mantener o recuperar ecosistemas nuevos se complican y son inciertas en casos donde los beneficios son bajos y los costos altos, por ejemplo en el caso de detener la expansión del Prosopis y Juniperus en los pastizales semiáridos. También las decisiones para mantener o renovar un ecosistema nuevo son difíciles e inciertas cuando por ejemplo, especies no nativas como el Eucalipto se extienden sobre arroyos naturales afectando negativamente la biodiversidad pero también proveyendo madera y miel. Cuando el proceso de toma de decisiones es complejo e incierto sugerimos que los manejadores de pastizales usen el análisis de costo beneficio y talleres entre los interesados para resolver conflictos.
AimAltered habitats may form entirely novel ecosystems that support new combinations of species. How indigenous species use invaded areas is, however, not well understood. Here, we investigate the value of Australian Acacia thickets as novel ecosystems in the Western Cape of South Africa by surveying bird assemblages within them. LocationWestern Cape Province of South Africa. Methods
Birds were surveyed quantitatively in a variety of Acacia thickets in the south-western Western Cape in three seasons to examine species richness, abundance and functional diversity. We also examined the extent to which avian diversity was related to differences in patch-level vegetation structure. ResultsSignificant variation was observed in assemblage richness, density and biomass across sites. Diversity increased with productivity, but declined with stem density and canopy cover. On average, Acacia thicket patches were used by c. 20 species (with a regional richness of 76 species), had a mean density of 7.78 birds ha−1 and a mean biomass of 0.224 kg ha−1. The most abundant feeding guilds were the mixed feeders and insectivores. Main conclusionAcacia thickets in the Western Cape support a large subset of the region's birds with the most abundant species being small mixed feeders. Compared with other habitat types, Acacia thickets support avian assemblages with species richness and density similar to some natural sites in the region, but lacking typical nectarivores. Extrapolation to the area transformed by invasive acacias in the Cape Floristic Region suggests that these novel ecosystems support c. 22 million individual birds or 621 tonnes of avian biomass.
Supplementary information to:
Non-natives: 141 scientists object
Full list of co-signatories to a Correspondence published in Nature 475, 36 (2011); doi: 10.1038/475036a.
Daniel Simberloff University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee,
USA.
dsimberloff@utk.edu
Jake Alexander Institute of Integrative Biology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Fred Allendorf University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.
James Aronson CEFE/CNRS, Montpellier, France.
Pedro M. Antunes Algoma University, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario,
Canada.
Sven Bacher University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Richard Bardgett Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Sandro Bertolino University of Turin, Grugliasco, Italy.
Melanie Bishop Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Tim M. Blackburn Zoological Society of London, London, UK.
April Blakeslee Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Dana Blumenthal USDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA.
Alejandro Bortolus Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET, Puerto
Madryn, Argentina.
Ralf Buckley Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia.
Yvonne Buckley CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and The University of
Queensland, ARC Centre of Excellence in Environmental Decisions, St
Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Jeb Byers The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Ragan M. Callaway University of Montana, Missoula, Montana,
USA.
Faith Campbell The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Karl Campbell Island Conservation, Santa Cruz, California, USA.
Marnie Campbell Central Queensland University, Queensland,
Australia.
James T. CarltonWilliams College — Mystic Seaport, Mystic,
Connecticut, USA.
Phillip Cassey University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia.
Jane Catford The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia.
Laura Celesti-Grapow Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
John Chapman Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State
University, Newport, Oregon, USA.
Paul Clark Natural History Museum, London, UK.
Andre Clewell Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida
USA.
João Canning Clode Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland USA
Andrew Chang Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Milan Chytrý Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Mick Clout University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Andrew Cohen Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions,
Richmond, California, USA.
Phil Cowan Landcare Research, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Robert H. Cowie University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Alycia W. Crall Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado,
USA.
Jeff Crooks Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve,
Imperial Beach, California, USA.
Marty Deveney South Australian Aquatic Sciences Centre,West
Beach, Australia.
Kingsley Dixon Kings Park and Botanic Garden,West Perth,
Australia.
Fred C. Dobbs Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA.
David Cameron Duffy University of Hawaii Manoa, Honolulu,
Hawaii, USA.
Richard Duncan Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand.
Paul R. Ehrlich Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Lucius Eldredge Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Neal Evenhuis Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Kurt D. Fausch Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado,
USA.
Heike Feldhaar University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Jennifer Firn Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia.
Amy Fowler Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Bella Galil National Institute of Oceanography, Haifa, Israel.
Emili Garcia-Berthou Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain.
Jonathan Geller Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Moss Landing,
California, USA.
Piero Genovesi Italian National Institute for Environmental
Protection and Research, Rome, Italy.
Esther Gerber CABI Europe, Delemont, Switzerland.
Francesca Gherardi Universita’ di Firenze, Firenze, Italy.
Stephan Gollasch Hamburg, Germany.
Doria Gordon University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Jim Graham Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Paul Gribben University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Blaine Griffen Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Edwin D. Grosholz University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Chad Hewitt Central Queensland University, Queensland, Australia.
José L. Hierro CONICET-Universidad Nacional de La Pampa, La
Pampa, Argentina.
Philip Hulme Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand.
Pat Hutchings Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia.
Vojtěch Jarošík Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jonathan M. Jeschke Technische Universität München, Freising-
Weihenstephan, Germany.
Chris Johnson University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Ladd Johnson Université Laval, Ville de Québec, Quebec, Canada.
Emma L. Johnston University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia.
Carl G. Jones Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Jersey, Channel
Islands, UK.
Reuben Keller University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Carolyn M. King University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Bart G. J. Knols Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands; K&S Consulting, Dodewaard, the Netherlands.
Johannes Kollmann Technische Universität München, Freising,
Germany.
Thomas Kompas The Australian National University, Canberra,
Australia.
Peter M. Kotanen University of Toronto at Mississauga, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada.
Ingo Kowarik Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ingolf Kühn Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Halle,
Germany.
Sabrina Kumschick Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA.
Brian Leung McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Andrew Liebhold USDA Forest Service, Morgantown, West Virginia,
USA.
Hugh MacIsaac University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Richard Mack Washington State University, Pullman, Washington,
USA.
Deborah G. McCullough Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, USA.
Robbie McDonald The Food and Environmental Research Agency,
Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, Stonehouse,
UK.
David M. Merritt United States Forest Service, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA.
Laura Meyerson University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island,
USA.
Dan Minchin Marine Organism Investigations, Killaloe, Ireland.
Harold A. Mooney Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Jeffrey T. Morisette United States Geological Survey, Fort Collins
Science Center, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Peter Moyle University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Heinz Müller-Schärer Université de Fribourg/Pérolles, Fribourg,
Switzerland.
Brad R. Murray University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Stefan Nehring Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Germany.
Wendy Nelson National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
Research, Wellington, New Zealand.
Wolfgang Nentwig University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Stephen J. Novak Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, USA.
Anna Occhipinti Universita di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Henn Ojaveer University of Tartu, Pärnu, Estonia.
Bruce Osborne University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Richard S. Ostfeld Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook,
New York, USA.
John Parker Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Judith Pederson Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
Jan Pergl Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Pruhonice,
Czech Republic.
Megan L. Phillips University of Technology Sydney, Sydney,
Australia.
Petr Pyšek Academy of Sciences, Průhonice, Czech Republic.
Marcel Rejmánek University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Anthony Ricciardi McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Carlo Ricotta University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, Italy.
David Richardson Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South Africa.
Gil Rilov National Institute of Oceanography, Haifa, Israel.
Euan Ritchie Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Peter A. Robertson Food and Environment Research Agency, York, UK.
Joe Roman University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Gregory Ruiz Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Hanno Schaefer Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
USA.
Britta Schaffelke Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville,
Australia.
Kristina A. Schierenbeck California State University, Chico,
California, USA.
Don C. Schmitz Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Evangelina Schwindt Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET,
Puerto Madryn, Argentina.
Jim Seeb University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
L. David Smith Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA.
Gideon F. Smith University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Thomas Stohlgren Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado,
USA.
David L. Strayer Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New
York, USA.
Donald Strong University of California, Davis, California,USA.
William J. Sutherland University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK.
Thomas Therriault Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British
Columbia, Canada.
Wilfried Thuiller Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France.
Mark Torchin Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa,
Panama.
Wim van der Putten Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Wageningen,
the Netherlands.
Montserrat Vilà Estación Biológica de Doñana, Sevilla, Spain.
Betsy Von Holle University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida,
USA.
Inger Wallentinus University of Gothenburg, Goteborg, Sweden.
David Wardle Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå,
Sweden.
Mark Williamson University of York, York, UK.
John Wilson Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South Africa.
Marten Winter Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Halle,
Germany.
Lorne M. Wolfe Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia,
USA.
Jeff Wright The University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia.
Marjorie Wonham Quest University, Squamish, British Columbia,
Canada.
Chela Zabin Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edgewater, Maryland, USA.
Simberloff, Daniel Alexander, Jake Allendorf, Fred Aronson, James Antunes, Pedro M. Bacher, Sven Bardgett, Richard Bertolino, Sandro Bishop, Melanie Blackburn, Tim M. Blakeslee, April Blumenthal, Dana Bortolus, Alejandro Buckley, Ralf Buckley, Yvonne Byers, Jeb Callaway, Ragan M. Campbell, Faith Campbell, Karl Campbell, Marnie Carlton, James T. Cassey, Phillip Catford, Jane Celesti-Grapow, Laura Chapman, John Clark, Paul Clewell, Andre Clode, Joao Canning Chang, Andrew Chytry, Milan Clout, Mick Cohen, Andrew Cowan, Phil Cowie, Robert H. Crall, Alycia W. Crooks, Jeff Deveney, Marty Dixon, Kingsley Dobbs, Fred C. Duffy, David Cameron Duncan, Richard Ehrlich, Paul R. Eldredge, Lucius Evenhuis, Neal Fausch, Kurt D. Feldhaar, Heike Firn, Jennifer Fowler, Amy Galil, Bella Garcia-Berthou, Emili Geller, Jonathan Genovesi, Piero Gerber, Esther Gherardi, Francesca Gollasch, Stephan Gordon, Doria Graham, Jim Gribben, Paul Griffen, Blaine Grosholz, Edwin D. Hewitt, Chad Hierro, Jose L. Hulme, Philip Hutchings, Pat Jarosik, Vojtech Jeschke, Jonathan M. Johnson, Chris Johnson, Ladd Johnston, Emma L. Jones, Carl G. Keller, Reuben King, Carolyn M. Knols, Bart G. J. Kollmann, Johannes Kompas, Thomas Kotanen, Peter M. Kowarik, Ingo Kuehn, Ingolf Kumschick, Sabrina Leung, Brian Liebhold, Andrew MacIsaac, Hugh Mack, Richard McCullough, Deborah G. McDonald, Robbie Merritt, David M. Meyerson, Laura Minchin, Dan Mooney, Harold A. Morisette, Jeffrey T. Moyle, Peter Heinz, Mueller-Schaerer Murray, Brad R. Nehring, Stefan Nelson, Wendy Nentwig, Wolfgang Novak, Stephen J. Occhipinti, Anna Ojaveer, Henn Osborne, Bruce Ostfeld, Richard S. Parker, John Pederson, Judith Pergl, Jan Phillips, Megan L. Pysek, Petr Rejmanek, Marcel Ricciardi, Anthony Ricotta, Carlo Richardson, David Rilov, Gil Ritchie, Euan Robertson, Peter A. Roman, Joe Ruiz, Gregory Schaefer, Hanno Schaffelke, Britta Schierenbeck, Kristina A. Schmitz, Don C. Schwindt, Evangelina Seeb, Jim Smith, L. David Smith, Gideon F. Stohlgren, Thomas Strayer, David L. Strong, Donald Sutherland, William J. Therriault, Thomas Thuiller, Wilfried Torchin, Mark van der Putten, Wim H. Vila, Montserrat Von Holle, Betsy Wallentinus, Inger Wardle, David Williamson, Mark Wilson, John Winter, Marten Wolfe, Lorne M. Wright, Jeff Wonham, Marjorie Zabin, Chela
How can environmental degradation be stopped? How can it be reversed? And how can the damage already done be repaired? The authors of this volume argue that a two-pronged approach is needed: reducing demand for ecosystem goods and services and better management of them, coupled with an increase in supply through environmental restoration. Restoring Natural Capital brings together economists and ecologists, theoreticians, practitioners, policy makers, and scientists from the developed and developing worlds to consider the costs and benefits of repairing ecosystem goods and services in natural and socioecological systems. It examines the business and practice of restoring natural capital, and seeks to establish common ground between economists and ecologists with respect to the restoration of degraded ecosystems and landscapes and the still broader task of restoring natural capital. The book focuses on developing strategies that can achieve the best outcomes in the shortest amount of time as it: ⢠considers conceptual and theoretical issues from both an economic and ecological perspective ⢠examines specific strategies to foster the restoration of natural capital and offers a synthesis and a vision of the way forward Nineteen case studies from around the world illustrate challenges and achievements in setting targets, refining approaches to finding and implementing restoration projects, and using restoration of natural capital as an economic opportunity. Throughout, contributors make the case that the restoration of natural capital requires close collaboration among scientists from across disciplines as well as local people, and when successfully executed represents a practical, realistic, and essential tool for achieving lasting sustainable development.
Recent reports on the state of the global environment provide evidence that humankind is inflicting great damage to the very ecosystems that support human livelihoods. The reports further predict that ecosystems will take centuries to recover from damages if they recover at all. Accordingly, there is despair that we are passing on a legacy of irreparable damage to future generations which is entirely inconsistent with principles of sustainability.
We tested the prediction of irreparable harm using a synthesis of recovery times compiled from 240 independent studies reported in the scientific literature. We provide startling evidence that most ecosystems globally can, given human will, recover from very major perturbations on timescales of decades to half-centuries.
Accordingly, we find much hope that humankind can transition to more sustainable use of ecosystems.
Land conversion, climate change and species invasions are contributing to the widespread emergence of novel ecosystems, which demand a shift in how we think about traditional approaches to conservation, restoration and environmental management. They are novel because they exist without historical precedents and are self-sustaining. Traditional approaches emphasizing native species and historical continuity are challenged by novel ecosystems that deliver critical ecosystems services or are simply immune to practical restorative efforts. Some fear that, by raising the issue of novel ecosystems, we are simply paving the way for a more laissez-faire attitude to conservation and restoration. Regardless of the range of views and perceptions about novel ecosystems, their existence is becoming ever more obvious and prevalent in today's rapidly changing world. In this first comprehensive volume to look at the ecological, social, cultural, ethical and policy dimensions of novel ecosystems, the authors argue these altered systems are overdue for careful analysis and that we need to figure out how to intervene in them responsibly. This book brings together researchers from a range of disciplines together with practitioners and policy makers to explore the questions surrounding novel ecosystems. It includes chapters on key concepts and methodologies for deciding when and how to intervene in systems, as well as a rich collection of case studies and perspective pieces. It will be a valuable resource for researchers, managers and policy makers interested in the question of how humanity manages and restores ecosystems in a rapidly changing world.
This chapter examines how the novel ecosystem concept is applied with reference to sites affected by alien plant invasions in different parts of the world. It summarizes what is known about the mechanisms and processes whereby plant invasions are known to generate impacts in invaded ecosystems. The chapter also explains how such drivers and impacts link with key facets of current discussions and debates around novel ecosystems. Finally, it discusses the usefulness of the novel ecosystems concept for understanding and managing plant invasions in the face of rapid global change. The concept of ecosystem resilience and associated thresholds has been suggested as a helpful framework for identifying the degree of ecosystem degradation.
This chapter defines novel ecosystems and presents a simplified view of this definition by illustrating the relationship between historical, hybrid and novel ecosystems, based on the degree of change from historical conditions and reversibility of that change. It offers a working definition that has endured many conversations and reflections. A novel ecosystem is a system of abiotic, biotic and social components that, by virtue of human influence, differ from those that prevailed historically, having a tendency to self-organize and manifest novel qualities without intensive human management. Novel ecosystems are distinguished from hybrid ecosystems by practical limitations (a combination of ecological, environmental and social thresholds) on the recovery of historical qualities.
Measuring ecosystem novelty seems to be a difficult but necessary challenge. In this chapter the degree of novelty or compositional differences in grasslands reestablishing in ex-arable lands is described. In order to describe degree of novelty in the Inland Pampa old fields, this chapter concentrates only on biotic axes; environmental axes could follow a similar treatment. The main objective of the analysis was to describe the degree of floristic and functional group novelty in old-field successional systems of the Inland Pampa. This comparison was made at community scale, using a historical database and a regional community census. Floristic composition differed between remnant grasslands and old-field communities. While old-field grasslands did not differ in ordination position between mid-successional and later stages, the positions of remnant grasslands on the ordination axes did not overlap at all. This contribution clearly shows that novelty assessment is dependent upon whether species or functional compositions are used.
This chapter discusses the role of restoration plant materials in novel ecosystems. The commonly held preservationist approach to restoration plant materials has locally adapted population as its centerpiece and is rooted in conservation biology tradition. The preservationist approach to restoration plant materials emphasizes taxonomic and genetic patterns and is predictably widely supported by biological disciplines that emphasize ‘patterns’, such as systematists and population biologists. The debate between the preservationist and interventionist approaches could be succinctly summarized as ecosystem ‘patterns versus processes’. Presenting the ecological, evolutionary and genetic, and practical issues related to preservationist approach for novel ecosystems, the chapter also discusses the objectives for plant materials for novel ecosystems. It finally talks about the development of plant materials for ecosystems, focusing on the topics of contemporary evolution and assisted evolution, augmenting genetic variation, artificial selection, and release and environmental evaluation.
The Miconia ecosystem is restricted to the humid highlands of two islands in the Galapagos archipelago and has been impacted by plant and animal invasions, grazing and fire since human colonization. This chapter applies the novel ecosystem decision framework to the Miconia-Cinchona ecosystem. Although the original goal of the project was to return the system to the historical state, the actual goal morphed into managing a novel ecosystem. This was done through adaptive management over a period of 20 years. Initially, management focus was to restore endemic Miconia shrublands for two reasons: (1) aesthetic preservation of treeless landscape, in particular, expanding the distribution of Miconia robinsoniana; and (2) the protection of dark-rumped petrel. Rather than the goal of restoration being to return to a pre-human state, there is now recognition that red quinine is part of the ecosystem.
This chapter provides a framework that helps managers, whether scientists or stewards, navigate the decisions that lead to new management approaches in hybrid and novel ecosystems. It first presents a decision-making flowchart that can be used as roadmap to navigate possible management actions. The chapter then explores the role of ecological and social barriers in creation and maintenance of hybrid and novel ecosystems. It argues that working to understand the historical structure and conditions in ecosystem is useful for planning current management strategy. Finally, the chapter highlights examples of challenging decision points which managers will likely face as they work to incorporate hybrid and novel ecosystems into strategies for restoration, conservation and management.
This chapter starts with stating three essential features of novel ecosystems that distinguish them from unaltered or hybrid systems: (1) difference in ecosystem composition, structure or function; (2) thresholds in these attributes that are currently irreversible; and (3) persistence or self-organization. It explores how the challenges of measuring differences and novelty are non-trivial and measurement approaches are a work in progress. The chapter also describes selected variables for measuring and understanding relative novelty of ecosystem states. Mesoecological and macroecological measures presented in this chapter represent jumping-off point for understanding drivers of novelty and metrics. It finally presents a discussion on identifying thresholds in ecosystem composition, structure and function.
Woody plant encroachment into grasslands is a global concern. Efforts to restore grasslands often assume that removal of woody plants benefits biodiversity but assumptions are rarely tested. In the Chihuahuan Desert of the Southwestern United States, we tested whether abundances of grassland specialist bird species would be greater in plant communities resulting from treatment with herbicides to remove encroaching shrubs compared with untreated shrub-dominated areas that represented pre-treatment conditions. In 2010, we surveyed breeding birds and vegetation at 16 treated–untreated pairs. In 2011, we expanded the survey effort to 21 treated–untreated pairs, seven unpaired treatment areas, and five reference grassland areas. Vegetation in treatment areas had higher perennial grass foliar and basal cover and lower shrub foliar cover compared with untreated areas. Several regionally declining grassland specialists exhibited higher occurrence and relative abundance in treated areas. A shrubland specialist, however, was associated with untreated areas and may be negatively impacted by shrub removal. Bird community composition differed between treated and untreated areas in both years. Our results indicate that shrub removal can have positive effects on grassland specialist bird species, but that a mosaic of treated and untreated areas might be most beneficial for regional biodiversity.
Recent research indicates increasing openness among conservation experts toward a set of previously controversial proposals for biodiversity protection. These include actions such as assisted migration, and the application of climate-change-informed triage principles for decision-making (e.g., forgoing attention to target species deemed no longer viable). Little is known however, about the levels of expert agreement across different conservation adaptation actions, or the preferences that may come to shape policy recommendations. In this paper, we report findings from a web-based survey of biodiversity experts that assessed: (1) perceived risks of climate change (and other drivers) to biodiversity, (2) relative importance of different conservation goals, (3) levels of agreement/disagreement with the potential necessity of unconventional-taboo actions and approaches including affective evaluations of these, (4) preferences regarding the most important adaptation action for biodiversity, and (5) perceived barriers and strategic considerations regarding implementing adaptation initiatives. We found widespread agreement with a set of previously contentious approaches and actions, including the need for frameworks for prioritization and decision-making that take expected losses and emerging novel ecosystems into consideration. Simultaneously, this survey found enduring preferences for conventional actions (such as protected areas) as the most important policy action, and negative affective responses toward more interventionist proposals. We argue that expert views are converging on agreement across a set of taboo components in ways that differ from earlier published positions, and that these views are tempered by preferences for existing conventional actions and discomfort toward interventionist options. We discuss these findings in the context of anticipating some of the likely contours of future conservation debates. Lastly, we underscore the critical need for interdisciplinary, comparative, place-based adaptation research.
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.
1. The restoration of disturbance-maintained ecosystems may require management to overcome ecological thresholds and re-establish feedbacks that perpetuate an alternative community. We use hardwood-dominated depression wetlands (locally known as oak domes) embedded in the fire-maintained longleaf pine–wiregrass Pinus palustris–Aristida stricta ecosystem as an example where concepts developed from alternative state theory are applied to practical restoration.
2. As extant communities were not available as reference sites, we based our restoration objectives on knowledge of vegetation dynamics, land-use history and historical data. We quantified a hardwood encroachment pattern beginning with the establishment of central nuclei during fire-free periods. Expansion of this core of hardwoods is positively reinforced by the accumulation of fuels that impede the spread of fire.
3. In order to examine the feasibility of re-establishing herbaceous communities, we selected 10 depression wetlands in 2000 and randomly assigned a hardwood removal treatment to half of them. During the transition period of fine fuel accumulation, we adapted the management regime as necessary for control of hardwood re-sprouts and to promote the development of a fire-maintained community.
4. After 5 years, hardwood removal communities had shifted toward herbaceous dominance, characterized by multi-layered, species-rich, native, wetland-specific ground flora. The rapid recovery of herbaceous species was probably possible because of initial seedling recruitment from a persistent wetland soil seed bank. This immediate recruitment of herbaceous vegetation produced fine fuels, allowing for the reintroduction of frequent prescribed fire and, thus, the re-establishment of the herbaceous community-fire feedback mechanism necessary to maintain the community state.
5. Synthesis and applications. Our findings confirm that it is possible to re-establish a rare alternative community state in a fire-maintained ecosystem. Establishment of a desired transition trajectory required decoupling ecological feedbacks that inhibit reintroduction of fire while facilitating positive feedbacks to promote fire. Our approach incorporating ecological thresholds and biotic legacies, such as a persistent seed bank, can serve as a model to inform restoration strategies for other disturbance-maintained ecosystems.
We use a frame-based simulation model to estimate future rate of advance of the arctic treeline in response to scenarios of transient changes in temperature, precipitation, and fire regime. The model is simple enough to capture both the short-term direct response of vegetation to climate and the longer-term interactions among vegetation, fire, and insects that are important features of dynamic vegetation models. We estimate a 150–250 yr time lag in forestation of Alaskan tundra following climatic warming and suggest that, with rapid warming under dry conditions, there would be significant development of boreal grassland-steppe, a novel ecosystem type that was common during the late Pleistocene and today occurs south of the boreal forest in continental regions. Together, the time lag and grassland development would delay the positive feedback of vegetation change to climatic warming, providing a window of opportunity to control fossil fuel emissions, the primary cause of this warming.
Eradications of invasive species often have striking positive effects on native biota. However, recent research has shown that species removal in isolation can also result in unexpected changes to other ecosystem components. These secondary effects will become more likely as numbers of interacting invaders increase in ecosystems, and as exotics in late stages of invasion eliminate native species and replace their functional roles. Food web and functional role frameworks can be used to identify ecological conditions that forecast the potential for unwanted secondary impacts. Integration of eradication into a holistic process of assessment and restoration will help safeguard against accidental, adverse effects on native ecosystems.
We explore the issues relevant to those types of ecosystems containing new combinations of species that arise through human action, environmental change, and the impacts of the deliberate and inadvertent introduction of species from other regions. Novel ecosystems (also termed ‘emerging ecosystems’) result when species occur in combinations and relative abundances that have not occurred previously within
a given biome. Key characteristics are novelty, in the form of new species combinations and the potential for changes in ecosystem functioning, and human agency, in that these ecosystems are the result of deliberate or inadvertent human action. As more of the Earth becomes transformed by human actions, novel ecosystems increase in importance, but are relatively little studied. Either the degradation or invasion of native or ‘wild’ ecosystems or the abandonment of intensively managed systems can result in the formation of these novel systems. Important considerations are whether these new systems are persistent and what values they may have. It is likely that it may be very difficult or costly to return such systems to their previous state, and hence consideration needs to be given to developing appropriate management goals and approaches.
In many forested ecosystems, the architecture and functional ecology of certain tree species define forest structure and their species-specific traits control ecosystem dynamics. Such foundation tree species are declining throughout the world due to introductions and outbreaks of pests and pathogens, selective removal of individual taxa, and over-harvesting. Through a series of case studies, we show that the loss of foundation tree species changes the local environment on which a variety of other species depend; how this disrupts fundamental ecosystem processes, including rates of decomposition, nutrient fluxes, carbon sequestration, and energy flow; and dramatically alters the dynamics of associated aquatic ecosystems. Forests in which dynamics are controlled by one or a few foundation species appear to be dominated by a small number of strong interactions and may be highly susceptible to alternating between stable states following even small perturbations. The ongoing decline of many foundation species provides a set of important, albeit unfortunate, opportunities to develop the research tools, models, and metrics needed to identify foundation species, anticipate the cascade of immediate, short- and long-term changes in ecosystem structure and function that will follow from their loss, and provide options for remedial conservation and management.
The field of ecological restoration is a rapidly growing discipline that encompasses a wide range of activities and brings together practitioners and theoreticians from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives, ranging from volunteer backyard restorationists to highly trained academic scientists and professional consultants. Ecological Restoration offers for the first time a unified vision of ecological restoration as a field of study, one that clearly states the disciplineâs precepts and emphasizes issues of importance to those involved at all levels. In a lively, personal fashion, the authors discuss scientific and practical aspects of the field as well as the human needs and values that motivate practitioners. The book: identifies fundamental concepts upon which restoration is based considers the principles of restoration practice explores the diverse values that are fulfilled with the restoration of ecosystems reviews the structure of restoration practice, including the various contexts for restoration work, the professional development of its practitioners, and the relationships of restoration with allied fields and activities A unique feature of the book is the inclusion of eight âvirtual field trips,â short photo essays of project sites around the world that illustrate various points made in the book and are âledâ by those who were intimately involved with the project described. Throughout, ecological restoration is conceived as a holistic endeavor, one that addresses issues of ecological degradation, biodiversity loss, and sustainability science simultaneously, and draws upon cultural resources and local skills and knowledge in restoration work.
Many ecosystems are rapidly being transformed into new, non-historical configurations owing to a variety of local and global changes. We discuss how new systems can arise in the face of primarily biotic change (extinction and/or invasion), primarily abiotic change (e.g. land use or climate change) and a combination of both. Some changes will result in hybrid systems retaining some original characteristics as well as novel elements, whereas larger changes will result in novel systems, which comprise different species, interactions and functions. We suggest that these novel systems will require significant revision of conservation and restoration norms and practices away from the traditional place-based focus on existing or historical assemblages.
The diversity of life Massachusetts Woodworth P (2013) Our once and future planet: restoring the world in the climate change century Maximizing the benefits of eradication: why invasive species removal should be viewed in a whole-ecosystem context
- Eo Wilson
Wilson EO (1992) The diversity of life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Woodworth P (2013) Our once and future planet: restoring the world in the
climate change century. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois
Zaveleta ES, Hobbs RJ, Mooney HA (2001) Maximizing the benefits of eradication: why invasive species removal should be viewed in a whole-ecosystem
context. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16:454–459
Guidelines for developing and managing ecological restoration projects. 2 nd edition Society for Ecological Restoration International Restoration practices have positive effects on breeding bird species of concern in the Chihuahuan Desert
- A Clewell
- J Rieger
- Munroe J Coffman
- Jm Bestelmeyer
- Bt Kelly
- Jf Wright
- Tf Schooley
Clewell A, Rieger J, Munroe J (2005) Guidelines for developing and managing
ecological restoration projects. 2 nd edition. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Tucson, Arizona. www.ser.org
Coffman JM, Bestelmeyer BT, Kelly JF, Wright TF, Schooley RL (2014)
Restoration practices have positive effects on breeding bird species of
concern in the Chihuahuan Desert. Restoration Ecology 22:336–344
Novel ecosystems " are a Trojan horse for conservation. http://ensia.com/voices/novel-ecosystems-are-a-trojanhorse-for-conservation
- D Simberloff
- C Murcia
- J Aronson
Simberloff D, Murcia C, Aronson J (2015) " Novel ecosystems " are a Trojan horse
for conservation. http://ensia.com/voices/novel-ecosystems-are-a-trojanhorse-for-conservation/ (accessed 6 Mar 2015).
Society for Ecological Restoration International [SERI] Science & Policy Working Group) (2004) The SER International primer on ecological restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration International Non-natives: 141 scientists object
SERI Science & Policy Working Group (Society for Ecological Restoration
International [SERI] Science & Policy Working Group) (2004) The SER
International primer on ecological restoration. Society for Ecological
Restoration International, Tucson, Arizona, www.ser.org
Simberloff D (2011) Non-natives: 141 scientists object. Nature 475:36
Introduced and invasive species in novel rangeland ecosystems: friends or foes? Rangeland Ecology and Management
- J Belnap
- Ja Ludwig
- Bp Wilcox
- Jl Betancourt
- Wrj Dean
- Bd Hoffman
- Sj Milton