Landscape Conservation--An Annotated Bibliography

This is a work in progress, listing relevant articles containing ideas on important concepts.

Concepts in Landscape Conservation--An Annotated Bibliography

Biological Integrity

Biological Integrity versus Biological Diversity as Policy Directives. Paul L. Angermeier and James R. Karr. BioScience 44:690-697 (November 1994). The Clean Water Act enunciates the explicit goal of protecting “chemical, physical, and biological integrity.” There is not a specific legislative mandate to protect biological diversity in the U.S, but such protection is a central goal of the Global Biodiversity Protocol endorsed by many nations. Resource policy would be more effective if based on biological integrity. Specific policy shifts include a reliance on preventive rather than reactive management and a focus on landscapes rather than populations. In 1987, the Office of Technology Assessment defined biological diversity to encompass ecosystems, species, genes, and their relative abundance. The focus on different organization levels—taxonomic, genetic, and ecological—is fundamental to the concept. Species diversity alone is not the measure of biodiversity. Elimination of old growth forest, declines in genetically distinct salmonid stocks, and the loss of chemically distinct populations from different portions of a species range represent significant losses of biodiversity, regardless of whether species become extinct.

Biological integrity refers to a system’s wholeness, including the presence of all appropriate elements and occurrence of all processes at appropriate rates. Integrity refers to conditions under little or no influence from human actions; a biota with a high integrity reflects natural evolutionary and biogeographic processes. Unlike diversity, integrity includes processes and evolutionary context. Adding exotic species or genes increases diversity but reduces integrity.

To assess changes in integrity, benchmarks need to be selected. Functional and evolutionary limits of the native biota provide objective bases for selecting appropriate integrity benchmarks. For example, when forest harvest rates exceed regeneration rates, integrity is reduced, resulting in loss of late-successional communities. When a river is dammed, integrity is reduced. Use of integrity avoids the pitfall of assuming that greater diversity or productivity is preferred.

The inadequacy of diversity as a policy directive is perhaps clearest where humans add elements such as transferred genes, exotic species, or agricultural landscapes to natural systems. Artificial elements reduce integrity and should be excluded from evaluations of biodiversity. They rarely perform life-support services as effectively as native elements and erode native diversity. We need to protect the processes and products of biogeography and evolution. These are the processes necessary to generate future diversity.

When ecological restoration is undertaken, efforts should employ natural ecological processes rather than technological fixes and should incorporate spatiotemporal scales large enough to maintain the full range of habitats necessary for the biota to persist under the expected disturbance regime.

The focus should be shifted from populations and species to landscapes. The organizational processes and ecological contexts that maintain populations operate at larger scales than the populations themselves. Safety net measures are needed to prevent important or unique ecosystems and landscapes from being destroyed.


Biological Diversity

ECOSYSTEM EARTH. Special Section. Sacha Vignieri and Julia Fahrenkamp-Uppenbrink. Science 356:258-259 (21 April 2017). Although it is well accepted that Earth consists of many different ecosystems, it is less well understood that Earth itself is an ecosystem, dependent on interacting species and consisting of finite resources. Ecosystem Earth is showing increasing signs of stress. Loss of biodiversity, environmental degradation, and conflict over resources suggest a state change is nearing, which could result in collapse of dominant species, development of alternative biological communities, or collapse of the entire system.

The Interaction of human population, food production and biodiversity protection. Eileen Crist, Camilo Mora, and Robert Engelman. Science 356:260-264 (21 April 2017). 10.1126/science.aal2011. Many approaches have been proposed to meet human food demand while also maintaining biodiversity. Generally, these involve intensification of food production rather than expansion, reducing food waste, and changes in diet. These approaches remain largely idealistic. Yet the scientific community is reticent to discuss global population size and increase. Slowing and reversing the size of the global population can be done within a framework of human rights. Protection of the Earth’s remaining species, genetic heritage, and natural ecosystems needs to be included as a constraining factor of human development.  Extending humanity’s carrying capacity has usurped resources from other species. To conserve biodiversity, we must protect large areas from fishing, road building, and intensified agriculture. Conserving natural ecosystems, species, healthy populations of biota, and robust ecological and evolutionary processes are needed to ensure a better future. Addressing the ecological services of the natural world (food, clean water, climate regulation, crop pollination, recreational space) is an ecumenical good and an inescapable responsibility.
                The intent of sustainable intensification is laudable, but it is flawed because it (1) accepts the current massive impact of food production as a roughly acceptable baseline for supporting humans and (2) it ignores that it is implausible that we can provide for an additional 2 to 4 billion people without escalating biodiversity destruction. Human rights policies to empower women would lower fertility rates. The fertility tide can be turned by making family planning, modern contraception, and cultural narratives about them a part of everyday life. Women must achieve equal standing with men. Therefore, education for girls and women must be ambitiously pursued.

 Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Ruth DeFries and Harini Nagendra. Science 356:265-270 (21 April 2017). 10.1126/science.aal1950. Ecosystems are self-regulating systems. As demand for resources increase, management decisions replace these self-regulating properties. The realization that ecosystems behave as complex systems, with humans as a component, has upended the notion that managers can predictably obtain resources by following simple formulas and exerting top-down control. Ecosystems are inherently dynamic and largely unpredictable complex systems; therefore, ecosystem management is a “wicked problem.” Examples of wicked problems are control of infectious disease, non-point source pollution, fire management at the urban-wildland interface, and conservation of biodiversity. These types of problems are inherently resistant to clear definitions and easy predefined solutions. Humans have increased wickedness by
(1) replacing or supplementing ecosystem functions such as with pesticides and fertilizers. This does not mimic the self-regulating properties of ecosystems.
(2) separating in space the production and consumption of resources. This means locations that experience the consequences of resource use are disassociated from those where demand originates, such as with timber harvest.
(3) concern about inequalities in access to ecosystem resources is becoming more common, particularly where subsistence communities that depend on local ecosystems are negatively affected by land acquisition.  
Approaches to wicked problems involve:
(1)    Multisector decision-making where decisions about single factors do not dominate the multiple services of an ecosystem; for example, national-level spatial planning and multilevel governance.
(2)    Decision-making across administrative boundaries which takes place in river basin commissions and large-scale corridor planning
(3)    Adaptive management which recognizes that the future is unknowable and predictions may have limited reliability. Key features are monitoring, reassessing initial plans, redefining goals on the basis of new evidence, social learning, and collaborations.
(4)    Incorporating natural capital and ecosystem services in markets through payments for ecosystem services, certification programs, and inclusive wealth accounting. The latter is incorporated into national accounting systems to complement standard accounting systems.
(5)    Balancing ideologies and political realities of diverse stakeholders by collaborative planning.

Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Christopher N. Johnson et al. Science 356:270-275 (21 April 2017). 10.1126/science.aam9317. A wave of extinctions has followed our species around the earth, reaching back 2 million years when our ancestors adopted the large carnivore niche. This resulted in the disappearance of sabretoothed cats and long-legged hyenas, and the reduction of elephants from 12 species to 2. Biodiversity losses can be halted and even reversed. At least 140 genera of mammals were lost over the last 100,000 years, a pace that far exceeds background rates. About 23% of the world’s turtle and tortoise species have disappeared over the past 300,000 years. Prehistoric occupation of the Pacific islands resulted in the loss of 1000 bird species. In New Zealand, 44 of 117 bird species were lost in the last 750 years. These losses are associated with human arrival and are best explained by the impacts of hunting. This is aided by anthropogenic fires which change habitat. Extrapolation of trends suggests that the rate of extinction is about to increase.
Species declines disrupt many interactions. For example, many woody plants produce large fruits and rely on large vertebrates for seed dispersal. Large seed size is positively correlated with wood density and hence high-carbon storage capacity. Loss of mutualistic partners can therefore lead to tropical forests dominated by fast-growing, small-seeded plants with lower carbon storage.
In most societies conservation is not mainstreamed into economic and social planning and human behavior. Conservation remains largely a discrete sector, which reacts as best it can to threats generated by other, more powerful sectors such as transport and agriculture. Conservation is left to do battle with downstream effects. Conservation needs to be embedded as a primary societal concern, along with prevention of slavery and child labor. Analyses that include values of ecosystem services along with market values of products generated after habitat conversion demonstrate large net economic benefits from biodiversity conservation.
New infrastructure development is a big threat to biodiversity. There are 334 new hydropower dams planned in the Amazon basin, and global road-building will add 25 million km of paved roads by mid-century.  Spatial planning should be used to optimize development versus conservation. In China, the Ecological Civilization plan prioritizes nationwide land use based on a national zoning of ecosystem function. Some areas are designated as protected and others with different levels of development intensity.

Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation. Elise Amel et al. Science 356:275-279 (21 April 2017). 10.1126/science.aal1931. Disruptions of Earth’s ecosystems are a human behavior problem. Despite widespread awareness and concern, many people continue to engage in behaviors that further environmental destruction. Some people increase their anti-environmental behavior as a way to soothe anxiety. Changing human behavior is hard, and environmental dangers do not arouse the kind of urgency that motivates individuals to act. Urban industrialized living compromises an individual’s sense of kinship with nonhuman nature. Feeling connected to nature leads to more ecologically responsible behavior. We are especially ill-suited to detect largely invisible and gradually worsening ecological problems such as climate change or species extinction. These problems feel psychologically distant. Humans are so disconnected from natural systems that they do not know what they do not know.
Humans have a psychological need for safety, security, and to see the world as a stable and just place. Dire environmental news creates a conflict with these needs. People turn to coping defenses such as denial or distraction, especially if they have little hope that action will make a difference.
The most influential need of all is social connection. Humans are very sensitive to social rejection. The mere thought of doing something different from what others do or approve of leads to intense discomfort, embarrassment, or shame. Humans behave according to the norms of their affinity groups—race, gender, economic status, geography, politics, religion. Thus, even as climate science data accumulate and consensus of grave risk grows, concern about climate change has decreased among conservatives.
This is reinforced because human brains privilege that which supports their preexisting world view. Any new information is processed through the filters of personal beliefs, first-hand experiences, and social identities. Ideas are dismissed or assimilated on the basis of a quick but biased heuristic of whether they line up with what is already perceived to be true. It is difficult to escape this bias.  
Environmentalism requires individuals to participate in public dialogue and activism in social collectives. This is contrary to the way most people behave. Most people gravitate toward private, individual behavior and avoid uncomfortable public advocacy and action.  It takes courage to question the dominant worldview that forms the bedrock of cultural norms. There is the risk of appearing biased, incompetent, rejected, or just facing others who disagree. People need to know that they are not alone in their beliefs. They need to know that their individual contribution will make a difference, and that solutions are possible.

Environmental filtering explains variation in plant diversity along resource gradients. Etienne Laliberte, Graham Benjamin L. Turner. Science 345:1602-1605 (26 September 2014). In an Australian site, diversity is determined by environmental filtering from the regional flora, driven by soil acidification during long-term pedogenesis. Soil pH explained local plant species richness. There is no need to invoke factors that might limit resource competition, such as local resource heterogeneity, resource partitioning, nutrient stoichiometry, or soil fertility. Increasing soil age was found to lead to an increase in plant species richness and a decrease in soil pH. Declining soil pH leads to greater local plant species richness and species pool sizes. Local plant species richness is greater with larger species pools. The site was a coastal dune area in Jurien Bay in southwestern Australia (S3015’ E1150’), adjacent to the Mount Lesueur area. Vegetation is a kwongan or open Banksia woodland. This is one of the most floristically diverse regions on Earth, enabling further understanding of the controls over plant diversity in species-rich ecosystems. A series of dune sequences dates back 2 million years to the Pleistocene.
Ecosystem function of biodiversity. Yvonne Baskin. BioScience 44:657-660 (November 1994). A workshop sought to pull together what we know about the impact of biodiversity on ecosystem functions. For one important process, net primary productivity, the evidence suggests that above a threshold number of species, increases in species diversity do not improve function. Most natural ecosystems can afford to lose some species without faltering in their production of plant material. Even species that are expendable may help ecosystems endure drought, disease, or global climate change. Therefore, biodiversity helps to hedge bets against uncertainty. Some plants will be drought-resistant enough to compensate for those that are drought-stricken. It could also be that adding more functional types—trees, epiphytes, legumes—will do more to increase productivity that simply adding more species. Even though there are 876 species of trees and shrubs in Asia, 158 in North America, and106 in Europe, productivity is the same. In tropical forests, productivity saturates at 10 to 40 species as long as structural complexity is maintained.
Identifying Extinction Threats. Thomas D. Sisk, Alan E. Launer, Kathy R. Switky, and Paul R. Ehrlich. BioScience 44:592-604 (October 1994). A new tool for analyzing anthropogenic threats to biodiversity is based on geographic patterns in species distributions, species habitat use, forest loss, and human demographic trends. Countries that support high levels of species endemism or diversity and that have a history of rapid forest destruction are identified. The rate at which habitats are being lost is probably more important for determining risks of extinction than the present commonness or rarity of the species living in them. We used two species databases, mammals and butterflies, a forest-loss database, and a human demography database. The human demography database is a surrogate for habitat loss other than forests—grassland plowing, overgrazing, wetland drainage, damming of streams, toxification of soils and waters, hunting, and introductions of exotic organisms. Key countries for the conservation of biodiversity globally are China, India, Columbia, Ecuador, Madagascar, and Philippines. Other countries of global concern are Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, and Costa Rica.
Understanding and Saving Big Predators. Matthew E. Gompper. Science 345:1460 (19 September 2014). 10.1126/science.1256065. Review of The Carnivore Way: Coexisting with and Conserving North America’s Predators. Cristina Eisenberg. Island Press, 2014. Studying large carnivores is one of the few realms in which one gains insights into the ecological importance of not just a species or a population but the actual individual animal. Because of its size, the presence of an individual carnivorous animal is important-through its land use, or shifts in its behavior, the individual animal can have a drastic effect on the community. The return of wolves can have drastic effects on the vegetation. Wary prey browse less in one place. Large predators increase biodiversity and create more resilient ecosystems. This book focuses on six species in the mountain west—grizzly, wolf, wolverine, lynx, jaguar, and cougar. The next frontier in carnivore conservation will be the Great Plains and eastern deciduous forests.

Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Rodolfo Dirzo et al. Science 345:401-406 (25 July 2014). Doi: 10.1126/science.1251817. Human impacts on animal biodiversity are an under-recognized form of global change. Both vertebrate and invertebrate populations are plummeting, with impacts cascading onto ecosystem functioning and human well-being. This human mass extinction is the sixth great extinction of earth history. Defaunation needs to be recognized at the same sense as deforestation. Defaunation can occur even in protected habitats.  About 16 to 33 percent of all vertebrates are threatened or endangered, and invertebrate declines are at least as severe. Butterfly and moth declines are in the range of 35 percent, with other invertebrates likely more. Vertebrate extinction, rare, and endangered species is focused on larger body sizes. Climate change is likely to soon compete with habitat loss as the most important driver of defaunation. Major impact categories:

·         Pollination. Pollinators are declining in abundance globally. Declines in bird pollinators in New Zealand has reduced seed production and population regeneration. Insect pollination is needed for 75 percent of the world’s food crops.

·         Seed dispersal through loss of flying foxes.

·         Litter respiration and decomposition through loss of seabirds

·         Carrion removal through loss of vultures.

·         Herbivory through loss of large mammals.

·         Trampling of seedlings through loss of mammals.

·         Pest control. Declines in small vertebrates affect herbivore abundance, plant damage, and plant biomass. Losses from arthropod pests increase without predators.

·         Nutrient cycling. Declines in mobile species that move nutrients long distances greatly affect patterns of nutrient distribution and cycling. Loss of dung beetles affects dung removal. Pleistocene extinctions are thought to have changed influx of phosphorus in the Amazon by 98%, with implications persisting today. P is a limiting nutrient. Carbon cycling is affected by loss of nematodes

·         Water quality. Global declines in amphibian populations increase algae and fine detritus biomass, reduce nitrogen uptake, and greatly reduce whole-stream respiration. Large animals stir up the water and prevent formation of anoxic zones.

·         Soil erosion through loss of prairie dogs.

·         Human health. Between 23 and 36% of all birds, mammals, and amphibians used for food or medicine are threatened with extinction. Loss of wild food sources with increase anemia in human populations.

·         Evolution. Changing body-size distribution will affect evolutionary patterns. Changes in pollinators will cause rapid evolution in plant mating systems and seed morphology.

Defaunation will combine to push us to global-scale tipping points. Immediate mitigation of animal overexploitation and land-use change are needed. Anthropocene defaunation is a characteristic of the planet’s sixth mass extinction and a driver of fundamental global transformations in ecosystem functioning.
Reversing Defaunation: Restoring Species in a Changing World. Philip J. Seddon et al. Science 345:406-412 (25 July 2014). Doi: 10.1126/science.1251818. Conservation translocations seek to restore populations outside their indigenous range or to introduce ecological replacements for extinct forms. There is a bias towards birds and mammals in this effort, and there was initially a very low success rate. It needs to be recognized that restoration to a completely natural state is unrealistic, especially given climate change.  Releases inside the indigenous range are reinforcements, such as the black stilt, or reintroductions, such as Hamilton’s frog. Outside the indigenous range, they are assisted colonizations, e.g., Tasmanian devil. Translocations with the objective of restoring ecosystem function are a component of rewilding (gray wolf). If an ecological function has been lost, such as dispersal of large-seeded plants by giant tortoises, a substitute species may make up for the extinct one (ecological replacement). In many cases, the appropriate ecological replacement would not be an endangered species. Ecological replacement is a departure from the single-species focus. Its most important application has been on islands where herbivory and seed dispersal functions can be restored by large frugivores. This has worked when Aldabra giant tortoises have been introduced to Mauritian offshore islands (Round Island) to replace an extinct tortoise. Seed dispersal has resumed, and seed germination has improved. Rewilding has been an abused term, but it needs to mean creating an area where predator-prey interactions are managed within landscapes shared by humans and wildlife.


Eating Ecosystems. Justin S. Brashares and Kaitlyn M. Gaynor. Science 356:136-137 (14 April 2017). 10.1126/science.aan0499. Hunting reshapes entire ecosystems and, in some cases, human societies. It changes food web interactions, enables disease transmission to humans, and funds militias. During the Pleistocene, hunting contributed to the extinction of more than 100 genera of large-bodied mammals, including giant bison, mammoth, tapir, and ground sloth. However, this pales in comparison with current ecosystem damage. Wildlife harvest presents a major threat to animal persistence throughout the tropics. Wild meat consumption is driven by food insecurity and limited access to alternative protein sources, and is also linked to poverty, livelihood opportunities, and market dynamics. For wealthier people, there is the cultural importance of hunting and preferences for wild meat.  The empty forests created are compromised ecosystems, with weakened food webs and impaired ecosystem functioning, altering populations of plants, competitors, prey, and predators. There will be long-term changes in hydrology, fire, nutrient cycling, pest and pollination dynamics, and carbon flux. These compromise the sustainability of agriculture.

Quantifying hunting-induced defaunation. Science 356:150 (14 April 2017). A large-scale meta-analysis of hunting trends and impacts across the tropics suggests that all hunting has worrying impacts. Sustainable subsistence hunting must be implemented soon to prevent further, rapid defaunation.


The impact of hunting on tropical mammal and bird populations. A. Benitez-Lopez et al. Science 356:180-183 (14 April 2017). 10.1126/science.aaj1891. A review of 176 studies indicates that bird and mammal abundances declined by 58% for birds and 83% for mammals in hunted areas. Indeed, the abundance of wildlife in natural ecosystems is more closely related to patterns of hunting than to factors such as forest type, habitat area, or habitat protection status. There is also evidence of size-differential mammal defaunation for frugivores, carnivores, herbivores, and insectivores. Protected areas help but even in these areas overhunting is occurring. Gazettement of protected areas must be accompanied with improved reserve management and law enforcement. Large vertebrates are depleted near settlements and roads. 

Genetic Engineering

Ready to Go to Market? Philip J. Regal. BioScience 44:706-708 (November 1994). Review of Perils Amidst the Promise: Ecological Risks of Transgenic Crops in a Global Market. Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon. Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, 1993. There are two accounts of scientific consensus in the genetic engineering narrative. In the M account, there is a desire to project the impression that there is a scientific consensus that genetic engineering is basically no different from conventional breeding and can present no new threats to the environment. In the E account, genetic engineering is not magic, and will not unexpectedly produce godzillas. In this account, most genetically engineered organisms will be ecologically safe because they have been built by introducing non-adaptation-enhancing traits into ecologically incompetent hosts. Yet in this second account, there will be risks when truly novel adaptiveness is engineered into competent hosts. The E account is why ecologists must be urgently consulted. So far, the regulatory programs of EPA and USDA seem to have discouraged the more reckless projects. However, as genetic engineering becomes more widespread, biological novelties will be scattered to the corners of the earth. This book is a good point of entry into biotechnology environmental issues.


Framing


Whose Conservation? Georgina M. Mace. Science 345:1558-1560 (26 September 2014). 10.1126/science.1254704. There have been four phases in the framing of conservation by conservation biologists. During the 1960s and 1970s, the ‘nature for itself’ frame prioritized wilderness and intact habitats. In the 1980s and 1990s, the ‘nature despite people’ frame focused on threats to species and on strategies to reverse losses. Ideas concerning minimum viable population sizes and sustainable harvesting levels stem from this period. During the 2000s, conservation moved away from species and toward ecosystems as a focus, with the goal of providing sustainable benefits in the form of ecosystem services. This is the ‘nature for people’ frame. Since 2010, this has modified to recognize the two-way, dynamic relationship between people and nature. This ‘people and nature’ thinking emphasizes the importance of cultural structures and institutions for developing sustainable and resilient interactions between human societies and the natural environment. The Nature Conservancy recently moved away from a focus on preservation toward exploiting opportunities for conservation outcomes that businesses will invest in for their own benefit. The problem with the more recent framings is that there are not good metrics, and an inability to put ecosystem values in economic terms will result in them being evaluated as having no value.

Tipping Points

On the Edge. Gabriel Popkin. Science 345:1552-1554 (26 September 2014). Ecologist Martin Scheffer was one of the first to recognize tipping points in lakes in the Netherlands. The lakes had two stable states and quickly shifted as a result of a small external nudge. A classic paper was published in 1993 in Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Today Scheffer tries to identify tipping points in tropical forests, global climate, and gut microbes. He is the chief networker for tipping point researchers. The Resilience Alliance is an eclectic confederation of scientists who study what makes some systems stable in the face of change. A 2001 Nature paper aimed to bring the concept of ecological tipping points into the mainstream and drew on studies of lakes, coral reefs, forests, deserts, and oceans. He conceived the South American Institute for Resilience and Sustainability Studies, now under construction in Uruguay.
Mapping Human Impacts on the Global Biosphere. Marc L. Imhoff. BioScience 44: 598 and front cover (October 1994). Attempts to identify areas of broad and intense perturbation of native habitats should be an integral part of any effort to identify priority areas for conservation. Maps were developed from high resolution data bases (1⁰ latitude by 1⁰ longitude on a global grid. A grid square was considered agriculture if 50 % or more was under cultivation.

Ecosystem Services

Pursuit of the common good. Partha Dasgupta and Veerabhadran Ramanathan. Science 345:1457-1458 (19 September 2014). 10.1126/science.1259406. The rise of market fundamentalism and the drive for growth in profits and gross domestic product have encouraged behavior that is at odds with the pursuit of the common good. Unsustainable consumption, population pressure, poverty, and environmental degradation are linked, but this is not appreciated by development economists or national governments who permit GDP growth to trump environmental protection. A Vatican workshop was convened to reflect on issues at the nexus of poverty, population, consumption, and environment. Economic growth discussions need to include natural capital inventories. This would provide an indication of true wealth. Anthropogenic climate change raises questions about the responsibilities we have to one another and to nature, since the majority of emissions are by 1 billion and the other 6 billion suffer the consequences. Access to energy by the poor is also needed, since much of the use of firewood, dung, and crop residues contributes to climate change.
Using ecological thresholds to evaluate the costs and benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity hotspot. Christina Banks-Leite et al. Science 345:1041-1045 (29 August 2014). 10.1126/science.1255768. People will benefit more from the ecological functions of biodiversity if these functions occur across the biome, not just inside protected areas. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) projects are being developed across the globe to reimburse private landowners. To do this, you must first estimate the minimum amount of habitat required to maintain biodiversity. If too much land is set aside, it is costly, but if too little is in play, then ecological gains are minor. We used the Atlantic Forest in the state of Sao Paulo for analysis. For the Atlantic Forest, data from a field study capturing animals suggests that the number is 28.5 percent forest cover. Communities above this threshold tend to be dominated by forest specialists, and communities below it by disturbance specialists. We assessed the ecological benefits and economic costs of paying landowners to set aside private land for restoration in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. An annual investment equivalent to 6.5% of what Brazil spends on agricultural subsidies would revert species composition and ecological functions across farmlands to levels found inside protected areas.

Land-Use Change

The Global Impact of Land-use Change. D.S. Ojima, K.A. Galvin and B.L. Turner II. BioScience 44:300-304 (May 1994). Agroecosystems most vulnerable to future climate are those that are near the limits of water nutrient availability and temperature constraints or that have pests or diseases controlled by climate. Land use modifies global changes because land use affects community composition, net carbon fluxes, water and energy fluxes, and biogenic trace gas exchange. Fragmentation often has far-reaching effects. Half of the land surface is cropland or pastures and half of the cultivated areas have been added in the last 100 years. This has contributed to increases in carbon dioxide. 
The Worldwide Extent of Land-use Change. R.A. Houghton. BioScience 44:305-313 (May 1994). In the last few decades the effects have become global rather than local, and contribute to climate through increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. This type of change affects all regions, whether or not the region contributed to the change. There is an element of choice in what one does with one’s land, but not in what happens to the earth’s climate. Only one-half of the area of tropical forest lost each year actually expands the area in productive agriculture. The other half replaces worn-out, abandoned lands. This is then abandoned after a few years. Making agriculture sustainable may be twice as effective in halting deforestation as is increasing yields.

Restoration

Living by the lessons of the planet. Jonathan Foley. Science 356:251-252 (21 April 2017). 10.1126/science.aal4863. The classic Malthusian view of population growth overlooked changes in technology, food production, and reproductive behavior that occur as nations develop. Nevertheless, as population grows to 11 billion by the end of the 21st century, the problems caused by population growth, increasing wealth, technological advancement, rapidly increasing natural resource exploitation, ongoing global environmental degradation, and increasing human vulnerability to environmental disasters are a major concern. The underlying dynamics described in The Limits to Growth (1972) have held up well. Our planet has fundamental limits imposed by physics and biology. Activities that go beyond these fundamental limits might last for a while but are not sustainable.
The concept of planetary boundaries considers the entire Earth system and asks whether human activities have pushed the planet’s environmental systems outside the realm of geologic experience during the Holocene epoch (last 10,000 years). This includes the climate, land resources, ecosystems and biodiversity, fresh water, ocean chemistry, atmospheric chemistry, and biogeochemical cycles. Of this list, humans have clearly pushed climate (increased greenhouse gases by 50% and acidified the ocean), land (converted 40% of the Earth’s surface to agriculture), biodiversity (much of it obliterated), and biogeochemical flows (fertilizers nitrogen and phosphorus have radically alternated natural cycles) past the experience of the Holocene. We have pushed on to a new epoch, the Anthropocene.

Ideas emerging in the emerging circular economy framework, such as the “natural step” and the “ecological footprint” are useful. Natural ecological systems do not consume resources faster than they are regenerated; they do not produce wastes faster than they are assimilated; and are highly diverse, making them resilient. These three ideas can help us reinvent our food, water, and energy systems.

A Global Strategy for Protecting Vulnerable Coastal Populations. Edward R. Barbier. Science 345:1250-1251 (12 September 2014). 10.1126/science.1254629. Low-lying coasts of developing countries face two types of vulnerability: (1) a lack of capacity to respond quickly and effectively to natural disasters and (2) declining protection for people and property as coastal habitats disappear. Improving the global emergency response is necessary to help affected areas recover more rapidly from extreme storm events. Reducing long-run vulnerability requires managing, protecting, and restoring protective coastal systems, including marsh, mangroves, seagrass beds, and barrier islands. If valuable coastal systems are retained intact, the exposure to coastal hazards can be reduced by half. Louisiana’s 2012 Coastal Master Plan will build between 1500 and 2070 km2 of new land, much of it restored marsh. Such long-term adaptation strategies are needed globally.

Coevolution of Agroecosystems and Weed Management. C.M. Ghersa et al. BioScience 44(2):85-94 (February 1994). Humans create the necessary habitats for both crops and weeds. Crop and weed species often share taxa; they can serve as gene pools for hybridization and introgression. Many weeds have recently evolved from diverse parentage under agricultural pressure. The native origin cannot be determined. The rapid gene flow among weeds and crops raises an important and practical issue with the imminent wide-scale release of engineered crop traits. Assessments of the risks associated with resistant and/or engineered genes must recognize the possibility that human interactions affect evolutionary processes in agroecosystems. Today’s weeds are more persistent than historical weed floras because they have demographic traits that have evolved and resistance to herbicides. The evolution of weeds may have produced changes in the way that weeds directly affect crop yields. Also, evolution may have created weeds that are more difficult to eradicate and control. Neither question has been addressed experimentally. Despite the enormous effort to control weeds, relative and absolute abundance of the weed flora increased steadily from 1900 to 1980. Replacing herbicides with cultural practices is not enough. To achieve healthy coevolution between agroecosystems and weed management requires the recognition by social institutions that this coevolution is a desirable process. The key in healthy coevolution is to find ways to minimize the use of energy and maximize the use of information when designing weed management strategies.
Repairing Ecosystems. William E. Stutz. Science 345:388 (25 July 2014). Review of Our Once and Future Planet: Restoring the World in the Climate Change Century. Paddy Woodworth. University of Chicago Press, 2013. The book focuses on restoration ecology, or the regeneration and repair of degraded ecosystems. There are country-wide efforts to remove invasive trees in South Africa, the transformation of ill-fated farmland to native bush in Western Australia, and the restoration of bog lands in Ireland. The biggest debate in this field is about whether we should seek to recover historical reference ecosystems or whether this is doomed by climate change. Instead, we must embrace novel ecosystems.












No comments: