Spatial cost–benefit analysis of blue restoration and factors driving net benefits globally

Marine coastal ecosystems, commonly referred to as blue ecosystems, provide valuable services to society but are under increasing threat worldwide due to a variety of drivers, including eutrophication, development, land-use change, land reclamation, and climate change. Ecological restoration is sometimes necessary to facilitate recovery in coastal ecosystems. Blue restoration (i.e., in marine coastal systems) is a developing field, and projects to date have been small scale and expensive, leading to the perception that restoration may not be economically viable. We conducted a global cost–benefit analysis to determine the net benefits of restoring coral reef, mangrove, saltmarsh, and seagrass ecosystems, where the benefit is defined as the monetary value of ecosystem services. We estimated costs from published restoration case studies and used an adjusted-value-transfer method to assign benefit values to these case studies. Benefit values were estimated as the monetary value provided by ecosystem services of the restored habitats. Benefits outweighed costs (i.e., there were positive net benefits) for restoration of all blue ecosystems. Mean benefit:cost ratios for ecosystem restoration were eight to 10 times higher than prior studies of coral reef and seagrass restoration, most likely due to the more recent lower cost estimates we used. Among ecosystems, saltmarsh had the greatest net benefits followed by mangrove; coral reef and seagrass ecosystems had lower net benefits. In general, restoration in nations with middle incomes had higher (eight times higher in coral reefs and 40 times higher in mangroves) net benefits than those with high incomes. Within an ecosystem type, net benefit varied with restoration technique (coral reef and saltmarsh), ecosystem service produced (mangrove and saltmarsh), and project duration (seagrass). These results challenge the perceptions of the low economic viability of blue restoration and should encourage further targeted investment in this field.     

Biological invasions: recommendations for U.S. policy and management.

The Ecological Society of America has evaluated current U.S. national policies and practices on biological invasions in light of current scientific knowledge. Invasions by harmful nonnative species are increasing in number and area affected; the damages to ecosystems, economic activity, and human welfare are accumulating. Without improved strategies based on recent scientific advances and increased investments to counter invasions, harm from invasive species is likely to accelerate. Federal leadership, with the cooperation of state and local governments, is required to increase the effectiveness of prevention of invasions, detect and respond quickly to new potentially harmful invasions, control and slow the spread of existing invasions, and provide a national center to ensure that these efforts are coordinated and cost effective. Specifically, the Ecological Society of America recommends that the federal government take the following six actions: (1) Use new information and practices to better manage commercial and other pathways to reduce the transport and release of potentially harmful species; (2) Adopt more quantitative procedures for risk analysis and apply them to every species proposed for importation into the country; (3) Use new cost-effective diagnostic technologies to increase active surveillance and sharing of information about invasive species so that responses to new invasions can be more rapid and effective; (4) Create new legal authority and provide emergency funding to support rapid responses to emerging invasions; (5) Provide funding and incentives for cost-effective programs to slow the spread of existing invasive species in order to protect still uninvaded ecosystems, social and industrial infrastructure, and human welfare; and (6) Establish a National Center for Invasive Species Management (under the existing National Invasive Species Council) to coordinate and lead improvements in federal, state, and international policies on invasive species. Recent scientific and technical advances provide a sound basis for more cost-effective national responses to invasive species. Greater investments in improved technology and management practices would be more than repaid by reduced damages from current and future invasive species. The Ecological Society of America is committed to assist all levels of government and provide scientific advice to improve all aspects of invasive-species management.     

Patterns of houses and habitat loss from 1937 to 1999 in northern Wisconsin, USA.

Rural America is witnessing widespread housing development, which is to the detriment of the environment. It has been suggested to cluster houses so that their disturbance zones overlap and thus cause less habitat loss than is the case for dispersed development. Clustering houses makes intuitive sense, but few empirical studies have quantified the spatial pattern of houses in real landscapes, assessed changes in their patterns over time, and quantified the resulting habitat loss. We addressed three basic questions: (1) What are the spatial patterns of houses and how do they change over time; (2) How much habitat is lost due to houses, and how is this affected by spatial pattern of houses; and (3) What type of habitat is most affected by housing development. We mapped 27 419 houses from aerial photos for five time periods in 17 townships in northern Wisconsin and calculated the terrestrial land area remaining after buffering each house using 100- and 500-m disturbance zones. The number of houses increased by 353% between 1937 and 1999. Ripley's K test showed that houses were significantly clustered at all time periods and at all scales. Due to the clustering, the rate at which habitat was lost (176% and 55% for 100- and 500-m buffers, respectively) was substantially lower than housing growth rates, and most land area was undisturbed (95% and 61% for 100-m and 500-m buffers, respectively). Houses were strongly clustered within 100 m of lakes. Habitat loss was lowest in wetlands but reached up to 60% in deciduous forests. Our results are encouraging in that clustered development is common in northern Wisconsin, and habitat loss is thus limited. However, the concentration of development along lakeshores causes concern, because these may be critical habitats for many species. Conservation goals can only be met if policies promote clustered development and simultaneously steer development away from sensitive ecosystems.     

Growth rates in a wild primate population: ecological influences and maternal effects

Growth rate is a life-history trait often linked to various fitness components, including survival, age of first reproduction, and fecundity. Here we present an analysis of growth-rate variability in a wild population of savannah baboons (Papio cynocephalus). We found that relative juvenile size was a stable individual trait during the juvenile period: individuals generally remained consistently large-for-age or small-for-age throughout development. Resource availability, which varied greatly in the study population (between completely wild-foraging and partially food-enhanced social groups), had major effects on growth. Sexual maturity was accelerated for animals in the food-enhanced foraging condition, and the extent and ontogeny of sexual dimorphism differed with resource availability. Maternal characteristics also had significant effects on growth. Under both foraging conditions, females of high dominance rank and multiparous females had relatively large-for-age juveniles. Large relative juvenile size predicted earlier age of sexual maturation for both males and females in the wild-feeding condition. This confirmed that maternal effects were pervasive and contributed to differences among individuals in fitness components.Communicated by J. Setchell     

Diversionary displays of paternal stickleback

Summary In Crystal Lake, British Columbia, male threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) perform a diversionary display that deters cannibalistic conspecifics from entering their territories and destroying their nests or consuming offspring. In this population, the display consists of males swimming directly out of their territories and rooting aggressively in the substratum, mimicking stickleback feeding on nests of others, or digging for nesting materials. The display is elicited solely by conspecifics, and usually by benthic foraging groups of 2–300 individuals. It usually is elicited when groups are approaching the territory directly. Otherwise the male typically joins the group or remains still in his territory until the group leaves. This observation suggests that males are capable of discriminating conditions under which the display is most likely to be successful. The display is absent in a population in Garden Bay Lake, British Columbia, in which benthic foraging groups are absent. In Crystal Lake the males themselves do not risk predation by the groups, and the tendency of males to perform the display does not change with reproductive condition. Comparison with diversionary displays performed in two additional allopatric populations suggests that diversionary displays in this species incorporate elements of other behavioral sequences displaced to the display, and that variation in the structure of the display exists among populations.