Paper choice for week 9: Carbon offsets (paper 5)

Here it is:

Galatowitsch, S. M. 2009. Carbon Offsets as Ecological Restorations. Restoration Ecology 17:563-570.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00587.x/full

Week 7 paper choice: Nadasdy chapter

In addition to the two core papers, we will read the Nadasdy chapter. Pdf is posted in bSpace. --Katie

Adaptive Co-Management and the Gospel of Resilience

Nadasdy, P. 2007. Adaptive Co-Management and the Gospel of Resilience. In Adaptive Co-Mangement: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level Governance, eds. D. Armitage, F. Berkes and N. Doubleday. Toronto, Ontario: University of British Columbia Press.

“If we are to take seriously one of the central insights of adaptive management – that social and environmental systems are intrinsically linked to one another – we must expand our analysis of socio-ecological systems to include not only the nature and workings of management institutions, but also the embeddedness of those institutions and indeed management itself, in the relations of capitalist production.”

Like the science and practice of ecological restoration, adaptive co-management is rooted in a particular set of social-ecological values. The rise of adaptive management and co-management followed the non-linear turn in ecosystem ecology, and is currently linked with the concept of resilience. But what sort of social and political values are adaptive co-management and resilience rooted in? Nadasdy addresses this question and following a long tradition in the social sciences argues that ecological arguments are never socially neutral and that environmental management is as much a question of politics as it is a question of ecological science. Ok, so what does that mean? It means that adaptive co-managers that fail to take the broader political economic context “within which environmental management takes place” render a "thorough analysis of socio-ecological systems impossible." Without understanding this context, environmental managers simply reproduce the social relations and values that they all agree are causing environmental degradation in the first place. Just look at the mostly formulaic drivel that Ecology and Society has published over the last 13 years and how these articles on complexity, sustainability, and resilience often serve to perpetuate the very problems they seek to rectify.

Third reading, Week 6: Beyond Reserves

For the third reading this Friday, please read:

Chazdon, RL; Harvey, CA; Komar, O; et al. Beyond Reserves: A Research Agenda for Conserving Biodiversity in Human-modified Tropical Landscapes BIOTROPICA, 41 (2): 142-153 MAR 2009

Also remember to take a look at the Wikipedia entry for restoration ecology.

Thanks, and see you on Friday, Katie

Beyond Reserves: A Research Agenda for Conserving Biodiversity in Human-modified Tropical Landscapes

Chazdon, RL; Harvey, CA; Komar, O; et al. Beyond Reserves: A Research Agenda for Conserving Biodiversity in Human-modified Tropical Landscapes BIOTROPICA, 41 (2): 142-153 MAR 2009
This paper is, in effect, a gap analysis on the state of the science of human-modified tropical landscapes. The authors use this analysis to develop a 12-topic research agenda across 3 major areas; biodiversity status and landscape ecology, interactions between people and their environment, and restoration ecology. I imagine that his paper has already been labeled a “must read” for many of you with experience in this field. For those of us that are new, this paper not only provides a very useful and accessible overview of “where things stand”, but its literature review makes the paper a worthy read on its own.
I thought there were 2 other interesting parts. First, the authors said that, “We lack a framework for assessing the costs and benefits of different objectives of habitat-based restoration. These costs and benefits need to be assessed on both economic and biological bases…” Where do social bases fit in here? Second, they conclude by suggesting that the research agenda they have proposed is best accomplished in an interdisciplinary framework—nothing revolutionary, but I wonder how frequently this is actually done in practice.

Third Reading for Week 5: Invasive species removal

This was an unusual week: we had seven critiques of one paper (Zaveleta et al), two critiques + 3 votes of another (Palmer et al) and then a 3-way tie (with four votes each) in voting. Will try to avoid this in the future (we need more people to vote!) but for this week, lets read the Zaveleta paper as it is clear that the topic interests many of you:

Zavaleta, ES; Hobbs, RJ; Mooney, HA. 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole ecosystem context. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 16 (8): 454-459.

If you already have read this, I would consider looking at the Cramer et al paper about restoring old fields (Whats new about old fields?; paper 8).  --Katie

Viewing Invasive Species Removal in a Whole-Ecosystem Context

Zavaleta, ES; Hobbs, RJ; Mooney, HA. 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 16 (8): 454-459.

The authors discuss the importance of considering the potential secondary effects of invasive species eradication efforts in ecosystems where multiple invaders interact or where exotics have eliminated native species and replaced their functional roles. These secondary effects are particularly likely when efforts are focused on non-island ecosystems. The paper goes on to describe a valuable conceptual framework for evaluating the risk of unintended secondary effects. Yet, something is missing—while the authors acknowledge that global change is altering systems, their framework does not include this temporal challenge. Instead, they focus on species interactions & current ecosystem functions. Adding climate change’s temporal impacts to this framework requires one not just to evaluate short-term secondary effects, but also to assess whether climate conditions will continue to support the ecosystem restoration being attempted. In other words, if one manages to eradicate an invasive without unintended consequences, is that ecosystem likely to be more resilient than it would have been had we not attempted the eradication at all? The authors note a dearth of data in existing literature on the long-term performance of ecosystems in which “successful” invasive extirpations have occurred—a major challenge for planners.

Photo Credit, Lori Oberhofer, National Park Service.

Week 4 votes are in -- we'll read Elmqvist paper on Response Diversity (Paper 8)

Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nystrom, G. Peterson, J. Bengtsson, B. Walker, and J. Norberg. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front Ecol Environ 1(9):488-494.

You might also be interested in looking at the work done by the Resilience Alliance, http://www.resalliance.org/ -- these authors are active in this project and the website contains a lot of related information.

We will also change the critique schedule a bit: critiques need to be in by 5pm Tuesday, voting will take palce until 5pm Wednesday, I will post the paper W evening. Thanks!

Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience

Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B., & Norberg, J. (2003). Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. The Ecological Society of America, 1(9), 488-493.

“Nature is not fragile... what is fragile are the ecosystems services on which humans depend” (Levin 1999)

Elmqvist et al. expand upon this quote through the concept of response diversity as a way of sustaining and enhancing desired ecosystem functions despite all the human influenced environmental stress ecosystems have had to challenge. Response diversity can be defined as the range of reactions to environmental change among species contributing to the same ecosystem function, critical to resilience, particularly during periods of ecosystem reorganization. While this concept is more recent to the field of ecological restoration, sciences such as neurology and oncology have a similar conceptual understanding of response. The paper also acknowledges that several local groups and societies worldwide have managed for diverse response for centuries. 

As a product of the Resilience Alliance the literature defines and provides examples within four varied ecosystems exhibiting response diversity; seed dispersers in tropical forest systems, plants in rangelands, freshwater detritivores and coral reef grazers. Through each of these examples, the inherently conforming nature of diversity with a large capacity and adaptability is obvious. 

The authors suggest that response diversity is very much a manageable and tangible method across all ecosystem scales. Used particularly within a restoration project, response diversity provides resilience at the species level which then affects the entire ecosystem strength.

Votes are in...We will read paper 8: Jackson and Hobbs (2009) as the third paper this week

Ecological Restoration in the Light of Ecological History

Stephen T. Jackson and Richard J. Hobbs (31 July 2009)
Science 325 (5940), 567. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1172977]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;325/5940/567.pdf

You might also be interested in browsing this issue in Science --  title of the special issue is "The Rise of Restoration Ecology"

Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history.

Jackson, S. T., & Hobbs, R. J. (2009). Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history. Science, 325(5940), 567-569.

This article turns on its head the centrality of the historical reference state to restoration goals. The authors engage the reader with the question of whether historical states will be appropriate given global change, as well as the question of what is 'undisturbed,' given indigenous management techniques. They point out that, far from providing a single reference state, the paleoecological record suggests that there may be many states that a particular ecosystem has shifted through in the last 20,000 years. The authors do also emphasize that paleoecology is still important and historical reference states are still useful; they simply suggest that they should not be taken as gospel. Overall, the thinking is fresh and stimulating, and this is a nice addition to the TREE novel ecosystems paper for generating thinking 'outside the box' on how to manage ecosystems into the future. Questions still remain as to how exactly to use historical/paleoecological information to inform decisions regarding 'natural' ecosystems which will be hard to maintain against changing climates or how to cope with managing novel ecosystems, but for a Science paper they manage to pack in a surprising amount of information and ideas.