Reconciliation ecology

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
bluebirds in areas where natural tree cavities are scarce due to short-rotation forestry.[1]

Reconciliation ecology is the branch of

win-win
" situation for both human use and native biodiversity. The science is based in the ecological foundation of human land-use trends and species-area relationships. It has many benefits beyond protection of biodiversity, and there are numerous examples of it around the globe. Aspects of reconciliation ecology can already be found in management legislation, but there are challenges in both public acceptance and ecological success of reconciliation attempts.

Theoretical basis

Human land use trends

Main article: List of environmental issues

Traditional conservation is based on "reservation and restoration"; reservation meaning setting pristine lands aside for the sole purpose of maintaining biodiversity, and restoration meaning returning human impacted ecosystems to their natural state. However, reconciliation ecologists argue that there is too great a proportion of land already impacted by humans for these techniques to succeed.

While it is difficult to measure exactly how much land has been transformed by human use, estimates range from 39 to 50%. This includes

species compositions of many landscapes that they do not dominate directly by introducing new species or harvesting native species. This new assemblage of species has been compared to previous mass extinctions and speciation events caused by formation of land bridges and colliding of continents.[7]

Species-area relationships

The species-area relationship for a contiguous habitat

The need for reconciliation ecology was derived from patterns of species distribution and diversity. The most relevant of these patterns is the

species-area curve which states that a larger geographic area will contain higher species diversity. This relationship has been supported by so large a body of research that some scholars consider it to be an ecological law.[8]

There are two main reasons for the relationship between number of species and area, both of which can be used as an argument for conservation of larger areas. The habitat heterogeneity hypothesis claims that a larger geographic area will have a greater variety of habitat types, and therefore more species adapted to each unique habitat type. Setting aside a small area will not encompass enough habitat variety to contain a large variety of species.

MacArthur and Wilson.[10]
Large areas have large populations, which are less likely to go extinct through stochastic processes. The theory assumes that speciation rates are constant with area, and a lower extinction rate coupled with higher speciation leads to more species.

The species-area relationship has often been applied to conservation, often quantitatively. The simplest and most commonly used formula was first published by Frank W. Preston.[11] The number of species present in a given area increases in relationship to that area with the relationship S = cAz where S is the number of species, A is the area, and c and z are constants which vary with the system under study. This equation has frequently been used for designing reserve size and placement (see SLOSS debate).[12] The most common version of the equation used in reserve design is the formula for inter-island diversity, which has a z-value between 0.25 and 0.55,[13] meaning protecting 5% of the available habitat will preserve 40% of the species present. However, inter-provincial species area relationships have z-values closer to 1, meaning protecting 5% of habitat will only protect 5% of species diversity.[2]

Taken together, proponents of reconciliation ecology see the species-area relationship and human domination of a large percentage of the earth's area as a sign that we will not be able to set aside enough land to protect all of life's biodiversity. There can be negative effects of setting land aside because it means the remaining land is used more intensely.[4] For example, less land is required for crop production when high levels of inorganic fertilizer is applied, but these chemicals will affect nearby land set aside for natural ecosystems. The direct benefits of land transformation for the growing world population often make it ethically difficult to justify the tradeoff between biodiversity and human use.[14] Reconciled ecosystems are ones in which humans dominate, but natural biodiversity is encouraged to persist within the human landscape. Ideally, this creates a more sustainable socio-ecological system and does not necessitate a trade off between biodiversity and human use.

Beyond natural history

The life history of the great grey shrike is better understood as a result of focused natural history and reconciliation ecology.

How can understanding of species' natural history aid their effective conservation in human-dominated ecosystems? Humans often conduct activities that allow for the incorporation of other species, whether as a by-product or as a result of a focus on nature.

wildfires prevented its return after timbering.[15][16]
Thus, applying focused natural history in human-dominated landscapes can contribute to conservation efforts.

The emerging concept of

ecosystem services (coined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005) changed the way ecologists perceived so-called "ordinary species" : as abundant species represent the bulk of biomass and biological processes, even if they don't appear directly threatened their conservation constitutes as a major concern for maintaining these services on which rely both human societies and rarer species.[17] Reconciliation ecology then proposes to take care of such species and to maintain (or restore) ecological processes in human-dominated ecosystems, hence creating ecological corridors and preserving a good functioning of biological cycles.[17]

Benefits

Reconciliation ecologists believe increasing biodiversity within human dominated landscapes will help to save global biodiversity. This is sometimes preferable to traditional conservation because it does not impair human use of the landscape and therefore may be more acceptable to stakeholders.[2] However, not only will it encourage biodiversity in the areas where it takes place, but many scholars cite other benefits of including biodiversity in human landscapes on both global conservation activities and human well-being.

Habitat connectivity benefits

Increasing wildlife habitat in human-dominated systems not only increases in situ biodiversity, it also aids in conservation of surrounding protected areas by increasing connectivity between habitat patches.[18][19] This may be especially important in agricultural systems where buffers, live fences, and other small habitat areas can serve as stops between major preserves.[20] This concept forms the basis of the subdiscipline countryside biogeography[14] which studies the potential of the matrix between preserves to provide habitat for species moving from preserve to preserve.

Educational benefits

Placing importance on native ecosystems and biodiversity within human landscapes increases human exposure to natural areas,[21] which has been shown to increase appreciation of nature. Studies have shown that students who participate in outdoor education programs show a greater understanding of their environment, greater willingness to act in order to save the environment, and even a greater enthusiasm for school and learning.[22][23] Green spaces have also been shown connect urban dwellers of all ages with nature, even when dominated by invasive species.[24] Reconnecting people with nature is especially important for conservation because there is a tendency for people to use the biodiversity present in the landscape they grew up in as a point of comparison for future trends (see Shifting baseline).[25]

Psychological benefits

The results of reconciliation ecology can also improve human well-being. E. O. Wilson has hypothesized that humans have an innate desire to be close to nature (see Biophilia),[26] and numerous studies have linked natural settings to decreased stress and faster recovery during hospital stays.[27]

Examples

Many examples of native plants and animals taking advantage of human dominated landscapes have been unintentional, but may be enhanced as part of reconciliation ecology. Others are intentional redesigns of human landscapes to better accommodate native biodiversity. These have been going on for many hundreds of years including examples within agricultural systems, urban and suburban systems, marine systems, and even industrial areas.

Historical examples

While Rosenzweig formalized the concept, humans have been encouraging biodiversity within human landscapes for millennia. In the Trebon Biosphere Reserve of the

storks, which nest on roofs or in church towers that replace the trees they would naturally nest in.[2] There are records of humans maintaining plants in pleasure gardens as early as ancient Mesopotamia, with an especially strong tradition of incorporating gardens into the architecture of human landscapes in China.[28]

Agricultural systems

Agroforestry in Burkina Faso allows sorghum crop to be grown under native tree species, preserving biodiversity.

Agroforestry provides many examples of reconciliation ecology at work. In tropical agroforestry systems, crops such as coffee or fruit trees are cultivated under a canopy of shade trees, providing habitat for tropical forest species outside of protected areas.[29] For example, shade-grown coffee plantations typically have lower tree diversity than unmanaged forests, however they have much higher tree species diversity and richness than other agricultural methods.[30] Agriculture that mimics nature, encourages natural forest species along with the crops, and also takes pressure off nearby uncultivated forest areas where people are allowed to collect forest products.[29] The understory can also be managed with reconciliation ecology: allowing weeds to grow among crops (minimizing labor and preventing the invasion of noxious weed species) and leaving fallowlands alongside farmed areas can enhance understory plant richness with associated benefits for native insects and birds compared to other agricultural practices.[31]

The

ecosystem services.[32][34]

There are many grazing practices that also encourage native biodiversity. In Rosenzweig's book he uses the example of a rancher in Arizona who intentionally deepened his cattle ponds in order to save a population of threatened leopard frogs (Rana chiricahuensis), with no detriment to the use of those tanks for cattle,[2] and a similar situation has occurred with the vulnerable California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in the Central Valley of California. Research has shown that without cattle grazing, many of the remaining vernal pools would dry too early for the salamanders to complete their life cycle under global climate change predictions.[35] In Central America, a large percentage of pastureland is fenced using live trees which are not only low maintenance for the farmer, but also provide habitat for birds, bats, and invertebrates which cannot persist in open pastureland.[36] Another example from Rosenzweig involves encouraging loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) to populate pastureland by placing perches around the pasture.[2] These are all simple, low-cost ways to encourage biodiversity without negatively impacting the human uses of the landscape.

Urban systems

Green roofs can help maintain species diversity in urban landscapes.

Urban ecology can be included under the umbrella of reconciliation ecology and it tackles biodiversity in cities, the most extreme of human-dominated landscapes. Cities occupy less than 3% of global surface area, but are responsible for a majority of carbon emissions, residential water use, and wood use.[37] Cities also have unique climatic conditions such as the urban heat island effect, which can greatly affect biodiversity.[38] There is a growing trend among city managers to take biodiversity into account when planning city development, especially in rapidly growing cities. Cities often have surprisingly high plant biodiversity due to their normally high degree of habitat heterogeneity and high numbers of gardens and green spaces cultivated to include a large variety of species.[38] However, these species are often not native, and a large part of the total urban biodiversity is usually made up of exotic species.[39]

Because cities are so highly impacted by human activities, restoration to the pristine state is not possible, however there are modifications that can be made to increase habitat without negatively impacting human needs. In urban rivers, addition of large woods and floating islands to provide habitat, modifications to walls and other structures to mimic natural banks, and buffer areas to reduce pollutants can all increase biodiversity without reducing the flood control and water supply services.[40] Urban green spaces can be re-designed to encourage natural ecosystems rather than manicured lawns, as is seen in the National Wildlife Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat program.[41] Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), which were once endangered by pesticide use, are frequently seen nesting in tall urban buildings throughout North America, feeding chiefly on the introduced rock dove.[42] The steep walls of buildings mimic the cliffs peregrines naturally nest in and the rock doves replace the native prey species that were driven out of urban areas.

Industrial systems

Further information: industrial ecology

In Florida, the

Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) uses warm water discharged from power plants as a refuge when the temperature of the Gulf of Mexico drops.[43] These warm areas replace the warm springs that manatees once naturally used in the winter. These springs have been drained or cut off from open water by human uses. American crocodiles (Crocodylus acutus) have a similar habitat in the cooling canals of the Turkey Point power plant, where an estimated 10% of the total North American population of the species lives.[2]

Wastewater treatment systems have shown potential for reconciliation ecology on numerous occasions. Man-made wetlands designed to remove nitrogen before runoff from agriculture enters the Everglades in Florida are used as breeding sites for a number of birds, including the endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana).[44] Stormwater treatment ponds can provide important breeding habitat for amphibians, especially where natural wetlands have been drained by human development.[45]

Ocean systems

Coral reefs have been intensively impacted by human use, including overfishing and mining of the reef itself. One reconciliation approach to this problem is building artificial reefs that not only provide valuable habitat for aquatic species, but also protect nearby islands from storms when the natural structure has been mined away.[46] Even structures as simple as scrap metal and automobiles can be used as habitat, providing added benefits of freeing space in landfills.[47]

Legislation

Governmental intervention can aid in encouraging private landowners to create habitat or otherwise increase biodiversity on their land. The United States'

US Fish and Wildlife Service has instituted safe harbor agreements whereby the landowner engages in restoration on their land to encourage endangered species, and the government agrees not to place further regulation on their activities should they want to reverse the restoration at a later date.[48] This practice has already led to an increase in aplomado falcons (Falco femoralis) in Texas and red-cockaded woodpeckers
(Picoides borealis) in the Southeastern US.

Another example is the

US Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP was originally put in place to protect soil from erosion, but also has major implications for conservation of biodiversity. In the program, landowners take their land out of agricultural production and plant trees, shrubs, and other permanent, erosion controlling vegetation. Unintended, but ecologically significant consequences of this were the reduction of runoff, improved water quality, creation of wildlife habitat, and possible carbon sequestration.[49]

Challenges

While reconciliation ecology attempts to modify the human world to encourage biodiversity without negatively impacting human use, there are many challenges in obtaining broad acceptance of the idea. For example, the addition of forest corridors to urban river systems, which improves water quality and enhances critical habitat structure for aquatic invertebrates and fish may be seen as 'wasting' valuable real estate.

predators such as coyotes and wolves, which are often based more on perceived risk than actual risk of loss or injury resulting from the animal.[51]
Even with cooperation of the human element of the equation, reconciliation ecology can not help every species. Some animals, such as several species of
waterfowl, show strong avoidance behaviors toward humans and any form of human disturbance.[52] No matter how nice an urban park is built, the proximity of humans will scare away some birds. Other species must maintain large territories, and barriers that abound in human habitats, such as roads, will stop them from coexisting with humans.[53]
These animals will require undisturbed land set aside for them.

There is hence a double social challenge for reconciliation ecology : making people's perception of biodiversity evolve, and then changing relating norms and policies so as to better consider biodiversity as a positive component in our habitat.[17]

See also

References

  1. ^ Twedt, D.J.; Henne-Kerr, J.L. (2001). "Artificial cavities enhance breeding bird densities in managed cottonwood forests". Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29: 680–687.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h Rosenzweig, Michael (2003). Win-win Ecology, How the Earth's species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  3. doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.494
    .
  4. ^
    S2CID 13402981
    .
  5. ^ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.
  6. hdl:1813/60830
    .
  7. PMID 11344292
    .
  8. S2CID 85035860
    .
  9. doi:10.1017/s0030605303000371
    .
  10. ^ MacArthur, R. H. and E. O. Wilson (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.
  11. JSTOR 1931793
    .
  12. doi:10.5751/ES-01206-090211
    .
  13. ^ Rosenzweig, Michael (1995). Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.
  14. ^ a b Daily, Gretchen (1997). Countryside biogeography and the provision of ecosystem services.in Forum on Biodiversity. National Research Council: National Academy Press.
  15. ^
    S2CID 84963679
    .
  16. S2CID 86569217
    .
  17. ^
    doi:10.4000/ethnoecologie.1979
    .
  18. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.013
    .
  19. hdl:10535/6338
    .
  20. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
    .
  21. S2CID 11639153
    .
  22. doi:10.1080/00958969809599124
    .
  23. ^ Dillon, J.; M. Rickinson, K. Teamey; M. Morris; M. Y. Choi; D. Sanders; P. Benefield (2006). "The value of outdoor learning: evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere". School Science Review. 87: 107–111.
  24. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.004
    .
  25. PMID 21237093
    .
  26. ISBN 9780674074422
    .
  27. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
    .
  28. S2CID 6969964
    .
  29. ^
    PMID 18359125
    .
  30. S2CID 24576519
    .
  31. S2CID 40203494
    .
  32. ^
    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01491.x
    .
  33. ^
    S2CID 10728423
    .
  34. ^
    PMID 18536244
    .
  35. S2CID 53353829
    .
  36. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.06.011
    .
  37. ISBN 9780393321937
    .
  38. ^
    S2CID 28918378
    .
  39. S2CID 33209126
    .
  40. ^
    doi:10.1079/pavsnnr20094073
    .
  41. ^ Tufts, C. and P. Loewer (1995). Gardening for wildlife. Emmaus, USA: Rodale Press.
  42. ^ Cade, T; D. Bird (1990). "Peregrine falcons, Falco peregrinus, nesting in an urban environment: a review". Canadian Field-Naturalist. 104: 209–218.
  43. S2CID 62841264
    .
  44. JSTOR 1521381
    .
  45. S2CID 205658008
    .
  46. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0755(199901/02)9:1<5::aid-aqc330>3.0.co;2-u
    .
  47. ^ Brock, R. E; J. E. Norris (1989). "An analysis of four artificial reef designs in tropical waters". Bulletin of Marine Science. 44: 934–941.
  48. S2CID 16747044
    .
  49. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07010132.x
    .
  50. doi:10.1016/S0264-2751(01)00029-4
    .
  51. S2CID 22206366
    .
  52. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00002-1
    .
  53. S2CID 7464037
    .

External links
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reconciliation_ecology&oldid=1193591970"