Managing the whole landscape: historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems

Abstract

As the rate and extent of environmental change increases, traditional perspectives on ecosystem management and restoration are being juxtaposed with approaches that focus on the altered settings now being encountered or anticipated. We suggest that a combination of traditional and emerging frameworks is necessary to achieve the multiple goals of ecosystem management, including biodiversity conservation and provision of other ecosystem services such as food and fiber production, recreation, and spiritual enrichment.An effective approach entails a move away from partitioning the environment into dichotomous categories (eg natural/unnatural, production/conservation, intact/degraded). Instead, landscapes are increasingly characterized by a complex mosaic of ecosystems or "patches" in varying states of modification, each of which delivers various combinations of services and presents assorted management challenges and opportunities. These patches interact and affect broader-scale processes (such as water flows and animal migrations), necessitating the urgent development of a conservation and restoration strategy that recognizes these rapid spatial changes.Here, we focus on an emerging framework that differentiates patches according to the degree of change from a historical state (resulting from altered abiotic factors and biotic compositions), the likely extent to which such changes are reversible, and the effect of altered patches on other patches within the landscape (WebPanel 1). This framework, derived from recent research on novel ecosystems (Hobbs et al. 2009, helps to identify the relative values of ecosystems in different conditions and the management options available in each case. As seen from a landscape perspective, this framework provides a comprehensive approach to decision making and management, including much-needed prioritization of resource allocations.n Managing the whole landscape Recent analyses have highlighted the need for management and restoration efforts to go beyond site-focused interventions and to consider landscape and regional scales (Mentz et al. 2013). Ecosystem managers increas- REVIEWS REVIEWS REVIEWSManaging the whole landscape: historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems The reality confronting ecosystem managers today is one of heterogeneous, rapidly transforming landscapes, particularly in the areas more affected by urban and agricultural development. A landscape management framework that incorporates all systems, across the spectrum of degrees of alteration, provides a fuller set of options for how and when to intervene, uses limited resources more effectively, and increases the chances of achieving management goals. That many ecosystems have departed so substantially from their historical trajectory that they defy conventional restoration is not in dispute. Acknowledging novel ecosystems need not constitute a threat to existing policy and management approaches. Rather, the development of an integrated approach to management interventions can provide options that are in tune with ...

Energy flow and functional compensation in Great Basin small mammals under natural and anthropogenic environmental change

“…Many of today's ecosystems have departed from their historical trajectories (31). Such novel ecosystems pose a challenge for conservation and management.…”

Non-native species in urban environments: patterns, processes, impacts and challenges

“…; and (2) are radically different approaches needed for managing problematic species (whether native or non-native) in humandominated ecosystems, compared to natural or agricultural settings? Such questions clearly need to be framed with reference to concepts and narratives that are being debated in the growing literature on the ''Anthropocene biosphere'' (Ellis 2015;Williams et al 2015), novel ecosystems (Hobbs et al 2014), social-ecological systems , human-wildlife conflicts (Dickman 2010), urban green infrastructure (Tzoulas et al 2007), urban planning and design (Ahern 2013), and ecosystem services/disservices (von Dohren and Haase 2015).…”

Fit-for-Purpose Institutions? An Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation in the Agricultural Landscape of the Tasmanian Midlands, Australia

“…Collaboration sits at the heart of overcoming the issues associated with property rights and the multiple objectives of a multi--functional landscape. This is especially the case when designing novel ecosystems given the value--laden questions involved, and the potential need to shift fundamental assumptions (Hobbs et al, 2014). The convergence of social and ecological challenges can lead to productive value conflicts, creating the right conditions for reform (Holland & Fleming, 2003).…”

“…Given the Midlands is highly modified, the classical approach of conserving intact ecosystems and restoring modified ecosystems may not be practical or even desirable (Hobbs et al, 2014). While codification of threatened species and vegetation types in legislation is an essential part of the conservation toolbox, allowing this listing to drive non--regulatory approaches is a risky strategy, particularly as climate envelopes shift and novel and hybrid ecosystems become a real prospect in the near future (Starzomski, 2013).…”

“…While codification of threatened species and vegetation types in legislation is an essential part of the conservation toolbox, allowing this listing to drive non--regulatory approaches is a risky strategy, particularly as climate envelopes shift and novel and hybrid ecosystems become a real prospect in the near future (Starzomski, 2013). The existence of important but unlisted lowland native grasslands suggests the Midlands is already an area where novel ecosystems bearing little resemblance to historical assemblages are highly possible and even desirable given the intensity of climate and land use as drivers of change (Hobbs et al, 2014). The focus on conserving species and communities as defined in regulation is therefore misplaced.…”