Effects of interactions between anthropogenic stressors and recurring perturbations on ecosystem resilience and collapse

Insights into declines in ecosystem resilience and their causes and effects can inform preemptive action to avoid ecosystem collapse and loss of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being. Empirical studies of ecosystem collapse are rare and hampered by ecosystem complexity, nonlinear and lagged responses, and interactions across scales. We investigated how an anthropogenic stressor could diminish ecosystem resilience to a recurring perturbation by altering a critical ecosystem driver. We studied groundwater-dependent, peat-accumulating, fire-prone wetlands known as upland swamps in southeastern Australia. We hypothesized that underground mining (stressor) reduces resilience of these wetlands to landscape fires (perturbation) by diminishing groundwater, a key ecosystem driver. We monitored soil moisture as an indicator of ecosystem resilience during and after underground mining. After landscape fire, we compared responses of multiple state variables representing ecosystem structure, composition, and function in swamps within the mining footprint with unmined reference swamps. Soil moisture declined without recovery in swamps with mine subsidence (i.e., undermined), but was maintained in reference swamps over 8 years (effect size 1.8). Relative to burned reference swamps, burned undermined swamps showed greater loss of peat via substrate combustion; reduced cover, height, and biomass of regenerating vegetation; reduced postfire plant species richness and abundance; altered plant species composition; increased mortality rates of woody plants; reduced postfire seedling recruitment; and extirpation of a hydrophilic animal. Undermined swamps therefore showed strong symptoms of postfire ecosystem collapse, whereas reference swamps regenerated vigorously. We found that an anthropogenic stressor diminished the resilience of an ecosystem to recurring perturbations, predisposing it to collapse. Avoidance of ecosystem collapse hinges on early diagnosis of mechanisms and preventative risk reduction. It may be possible to delay or ameliorate symptoms of collapse or to restore resilience, but the latter appears unlikely in our study system due to fundamental alteration of a critical ecosystem driver. Efectos de las interacciones entre los estresantes antropogénicos y las perturbaciones recurrentes sobre la resiliencia y el colapso de los ecosistemas     

Meta-analysis of the effects of upstream land cover on stream recovery

Unpredictable or variable ecosystem recovery from disturbance presents a challenge to conservation, particularly as the scale of human disturbance continues to increase. Theory suggests land-cover and disturbance characteristics affect recovery, but individual studies of disturbance and recovery frequently struggle to uncover generalizable patterns because of high levels of site-specific variation. To understand how land-cover, disturbance type, and disturbance duration influence ecosystem recovery, we used studies documenting recovery of 50 streams to perform a global meta-analysis of stream recovery from disturbances that affect water quality (e.g., oil spill, fire, wastewater). We extracted upstream natural and urban land-cover percentages for each site and performed model selection and averaging to identify influences on recovery completeness. Most streams improved following the end of a disturbance (median 240% of disturbed condition) but did not recover fully to baseline predisturbance condition within the studied period (median study period 2 years; median recovery 60% of baseline). Scale of disturbance in time and space did not predict recovery, but sites with higher percentages of upstream natural land cover had less complete recovery relative to sites with more urban or agricultural cover, possibly due to higher baseline conditions in these streams. Our findings suggest impacts to systems with low anthropogenic stress may be more irreversible than impacts to already modified systems. We call for more long-term evaluations of ecosystem response to disturbance and the inclusion of regional references and predisturbance reference conditions for comparison. A more thorough understanding of the role of the surrounding landscape in shaping stream response to disturbance can help managers calibrate expectations for recovery and prioritize protection.     

Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation

Developments in CRISPR-based gene-editing technologies have generated a growing number of proposals to edit genes in wildlife to meet conservation goals. As these proposals have attracted greater attention, controversies have emerged among scientists and stakeholder groups over potential consequences and ethical implications of gene editing. Responsible governance cannot occur without consulting broader publics, yet little effort has been made to systematically assess public understandings and beliefs in relation to this new area of applied genetic engineering. We analyzed data from a survey of U.S. adults (n = 1600), collected by YouGov, and that examined respondents’ concerns about gene editing in animal and plant wildlife and how those concerns are shaped by cultural dispositions toward science and beliefs about the appropriateness of intervening in nature at the genetic level. On average, respondents perceived more risk than benefit in using these tools. Over 70% agreed that gene editing in wildlife could be “easily used for the wrong purposes.” When evaluating the moral acceptability of gene editing in wildlife, respondents evaluated applications to improve survival in endangered wildlife as more morally acceptable than applications to decrease abundance in a population or eliminate a population. Belief in the authority of scientific knowledge was positively related to favorable views of the benefits, risks, and moral acceptability of editing genes in wildlife. The belief that editing genes in wildlife inappropriately intervenes in nature predicted relatively more concern about risks and moral acceptability and skepticism about benefits. Given high levels of concern and skepticism about gene editing in wildlife for conservation among the U.S. public, a take-it-slow approach to making decisions about when or whether to use these tools is advisable. Early opinions, including those uncovered in this study, are likely to be provisional. Thus, consulting the public should be an ongoing process.     

The importance of considering multiple interacting species for conservation of species at risk

Conservation of species at risk of extinction is complex and multifaceted. However, mitigation strategies are typically narrow in scope, an artifact of conservation research that is often limited to a single species or stressor. Knowledge of an entire community of strongly interacting species would greatly enhance the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of conservation decisions. We investigated how camera trapping and spatial count models, an extension of spatial-recapture models for unmarked populations, can accomplish this through a case study of threatened boreal woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Population declines in caribou are precipitous and well documented, but recovery strategies focus heavily on control of wolves (Canis lupus) and pay less attention to other known predators and apparent competitors. Obtaining necessary data on multispecies densities has been difficult. We used spatial count models to concurrently estimate densities of caribou, their predators (wolf, black bear [Ursus americanus], and coyote [Canis latrans]), and alternative prey (moose [Alces alces] and white-tailed deer [Odocoileus virginianus]) from a camera-trap array in a highly disturbed landscape within northern Alberta's Oil Sands Region. Median densities were 0.22 caribous (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] = 0.08–0.65), 0.77 wolves (95% BCI = 0.26–2.67), 2.39 moose (95% BCI = 0.56–7.00), 2.64 coyotes (95% BCI = 0.45–6.68), and 3.63 black bears (95% BCI = 1.25–8.52) per 100 km². (The white-tailed deer model did not converge.) Although wolf densities were higher than densities recommended for caribou conservation, we suggest the markedly higher black bear and coyote densities may be of greater concern, especially if government wolf control further releases these species. Caribou conservation with a singular focus on wolf control may leave caribou vulnerable to other predators. We recommend a broader focus on the interacting species within a community when conserving species.     

Black swans,cognition, and the power of learning from failure

Failure carries undeniable stigma and is difficult to confront for individuals, teams, and organizations. Disciplines such as commercial and military aviation, medicine, and business have long histories of grappling with it, beginning with the recognition that failure is inevitable in every human endeavor. Although conservation may arguably be more complex, conservation professionals can draw on the research and experience of these other disciplines to institutionalize activities and attitudes that foster learning from failure, whether they are minor setbacks or major disasters. Understanding the role of individual cognitive biases, team psychological safety, and organizational willingness to support critical self‐examination all contribute to creating a cultural shift in conservation to one that is open to the learning opportunity that failure provides. This new approach to managing failure is a necessary next step in the evolution of conservation effectiveness.     

Conservation and the 4 Rs,which are rescue,rehabilitation, release,and research

Vertebrate animals can be injured or threatened with injury through human activities, thus warranting their “rescue.” Details of wildlife rescue, rehabilitation, release, and associated research (our 4 Rs) are often recorded in large databases, resulting in a wealth of available information. This information has huge research potential and can contribute to understanding of animal biology, anthropogenic impacts on wildlife, and species conservation. However, such databases have been little used, few studies have evaluated factors influencing success of rehabilitation and/or release, recommended actions to conserve threatened species have rarely arisen, and direct benefits for species conservation are yet to be demonstrated. We therefore recommend that additional research be based on data from rescue, rehabilitation, and release of animals that is broader in scope than previous research and would have community support.     

Linkages between measures of biodiversity and community resilience in Pacific Island agroforests

Designing agroecosystems that are compatible with the conservation of biodiversity is a top conservation priority. However, the social variables that drive native biodiversity conservation in these systems are poorly understood. We devised a new approach to identify social–ecological linkages that affect conservation outcomes in agroecosystems and in social‐ecological systems more broadly. We focused on coastal agroforests in Fiji, which, like agroforests across other small Pacific Islands, are critical to food security, contain much of the country's remaining lowland forests, and have rapidly declining levels of native biodiversity. We tested the relationships among social variables and native tree species richness in agroforests with structural equation models. The models were built with data from ecological and social surveys in 100 agroforests and associated households. The agroforests hosted 95 native tree species of which almost one‐third were endemic. Fifty‐eight percent of farms had at least one species considered threatened at the national or international level. The best‐fit structural equation model (R² = 47.8%) showed that social variables important for community resilience—local ecological knowledge, social network connectivity, and livelihood diversity—had direct and indirect positive effects on native tree species richness. Cash‐crop intensification, a driver of biodiversity loss elsewhere, did not negatively affect native tree richness within parcels. Joining efforts to build community resilience, specifically by increasing livelihood diversity, local ecological knowledge, and social network connectivity, may help conservation agencies conserve the rapidly declining biodiversity in the region.     

An experimental test of alternative population augmentation scenarios

Human land use is fragmenting habitats worldwide and inhibiting dispersal among previously connected populations of organisms, often leading to inbreeding depression and reduced evolutionary potential in the face of rapid environmental change. To combat this augmentation of isolated populations with immigrants is sometimes used to facilitate demographic and genetic rescue. Augmentation with immigrants that are genetically and adaptively similar to the target population effectively increases population fitness, but if immigrants are very genetically or adaptively divergent, augmentation can lead to outbreeding depression. Despite well‐cited guidelines for the best practice selection of immigrant sources, often only highly divergent populations remain, and experimental tests of these riskier augmentation scenarios are essentially nonexistent. We conducted a mesocosm experiment with Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata) to test the multigenerational demographic and genetic effects of augmenting 2 target populations with 3 types of divergent immigrants. We found no evidence of demographic rescue, but we did observe genetic rescue in one population. Divergent immigrant treatments tended to maintain greater genetic diversity, abundance, and hybrid fitness than controls that received immigrants from the source used to seed the mesocosms. In the second population, divergent immigrants had a slightly negative effect in one treatment, and the benefits of augmentation were less apparent overall, likely because this population started with higher genetic diversity and a lower reproductive rate that limited genetic admixture. Our results add to a growing consensus that gene flow can increase population fitness even when immigrants are more highly divergent and may help reduce uncertainty about the use of augmentation in conservation.     

Conservation practitioners’ understanding of how to manage evolutionary processes

Both academics and practitioners consider a lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory to be a general barrier to effectively managing genetic diversity. However, it is challenging to judge practitioners’ level of understanding and how this influences their management decisions. Knowledge built through experience may be difficult for practitioners to articulate, but could nonetheless result in appropriate management strategies. To date, researchers have assessed only the explicit (formal) knowledge practitioners have of evolutionary concepts. To explore practitioners’ understanding of evolutionary concepts, it is necessary to consider how they might apply explicit and implicit knowledge to their management decisions. Using an online survey, we asked Australian practitioners to respond to 2 common management scenarios in which there is strong evidence that managing genetic diversity can improve outcomes: managing small, isolated populations and sourcing seeds for restoration projects. In describing their approach to these scenarios, practitioners demonstrated a stronger understanding of the effective management of genetic diversity than the definitions of the relevant concepts. However, their management of genetic diversity within small populations was closer to best practice than for restoration projects. Moreover, the risks practitioners described in implementing best practice management were more likely to affect their approach to restoration than translocation projects. These findings provide evidence that strategies to build the capacity of practitioners to manage genetic diversity should focus on realistic management scenarios. Given that practitioners recognize the importance of adapting their practices and the strong evidence for the benefits of actively managing genetic diversity, there is hope that better engagement by evolutionary biologists with practitioners could facilitate significant shifts toward evolutionarily enlightened management.     

Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence

Sustaining wildlife populations, which provide both ecosystem services and disservices, represents a worldwide conservation challenge. The ecosystem services and Ostrom's social–ecological systems frameworks have been adopted across natural and social sciences to characterize benefits from nature. Despite their generalizability, individually they do not include explicit tools for addressing the sustainable management of many wildlife populations. For instance, Ostrom's framework does not specifically address competing perspectives on wildlife, whereas the ecosystem services framework provides a limited representation of the social and governance context wherein such competing perspectives are embedded. We developed a unified social–ecological framework of ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS) that advances both frameworks by explicitly acknowledging the importance of competing wildlife perspectives embedded in the social and governance contexts. The SEEDS framework emulates the hierarchical structure of Ostrom's social–ecological systems, but adds subsystems reflecting heterogeneous stakeholder views and experiences of wildlife-based services and disservices. To facilitate operationalizing SEEDS and further broader analyses across human–wildlife systems, we devised a list of variables to describe SEEDS subsystems, such as types and level of services and disservices, cost and benefit sharing, and social participation of stakeholders. Steps to implement SEEDS involve engaging local communities and stakeholders to define the subsystems, analyze interactions and outcomes, and identify leverage points and actions to remedy unwanted outcomes. These steps connect SEEDS with other existing approaches in social–ecological research and can guide analyses across systems or within individual systems to provide new insights and management options for sustainable human–wildlife coexistence.