Next generation restoration metrics: Using soil eDNA bacterial community data to measure trajectories towards rehabilitation targets

Liddicoat, Craig; Krauss, Siegfried L.; Bissett, Andrew; Borrett, Ryan; Ducki, Luisa C.; Peddle, Shawn D.; Bullock, Paul; Dobrowolski, Mark P.; Grigg, A. H.; Tibbett, Mark; Breed, Martin F.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114748

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using eDNA from soil, sediment, water, or air sample inventories, we can complement existing species monitoring efforts through the identification of thousands of species at once, including plants, animals, and microbes (Stat et al 2019;Lin et al 2021;Nørgaard et al 2021). Use of eDNA can greatly complement traditional species monitoring by enabling greater taxonomic resolution (Deiner et al 2017;Ruppert et al 2019), the detection of species which tend to avoid the presence of humans (Yonezawa et al 2020;Mas-Carrió et al 2021), or organisms such as bacteria and fungi which can be difficult to monitor using traditional observations (Frøslev et al 2019;Liddicoat et al 2022). Comparisons of eDNA with observational methods have also indicated their potential to help capture additional elements of ecologically relevant information, such as the functional diversity of various groups of species (Aglieri et al, 2021;Donald et al 2021;Sigsgaard et al 2021), particularly with regards to identifying ecological indicators (Yan et al 2018;Blattner et al 2021;Seymour et al 2021).…”

Section: Future Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing ecological indices for urban environments using species distribution models

Simons

CALDWELL

et al. 2022

Urban Ecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an increasingly urbanized world, there is a need to study urban areas as their own class of ecosystems as well as assess the impacts of anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity. However, collecting a sufficient number of species observations to estimate patterns of biodiversity in a city can be costly. Here we investigated the use of community science-based data on species occurrences, combined with species distribution models (SDMs), built using MaxEnt and remotely-sensed measures of the environment, to predict the distribution of a number of species across the urban environment of Los Angeles. By selecting species with the most accurate SDMs, and then summarizing these by class, we were able to produce two species richness models (SRMs) to predict biodiversity patterns for species in the class Aves and Magnoliopsida and how they respond to a variety of natural and anthropogenic environmental gradients.We found that species considered native to Los Angeles tend to have significantly more accurate SDMs than their non-native counterparts. For all species considered in this study we found environmental variables describing anthropogenic activities, such as housing density and alterations to land cover, tend to be more influential than natural factors, such as terrain and proximity to freshwater, in shaping SDMs. Using a random forest model we found our SRMs could account for approximately 54% and 62% of the predicted variation in species richness for species in the classes Aves and Magnoliopsida respectively. Using community science-based species occurrences, SRMs can be used to model patterns of urban biodiversity and assess the roles of environmental factors in shaping them.

show abstract

Section: Future Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing ecological indices for urban environments using species distribution models

Simons

CALDWELL

et al. 2022

Urban Ecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Betadisper in vegan was used to test homogeneity of group dispersions. The trajectory of soil microbiota differences across the revegetation chronosequence was visualized using boxplots of pairwise Bray–Curtis similarities to reference data for each quadrat from each sampling year and soil sampling depth combination (Liddicoat et al 2021). A Kruskal–Wallis test and a post hoc Dunn test using FSA v0.8.30 was then applied to determine significant differences between the similarity values across revegetation years (Ogle 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does revegetation cause soil microbiota recovery? Evidence from revisiting a revegetation chronosequence 6 years after initial sampling

Lem

Liddicoat

Bissett

et al. 2022

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global biodiversity and land degradation crises have brought about an urgent need and great demand for restoration actions. However, restoration outcomes are often less than ideal, indicating a need for improved restoration practices. Soil microbiota are extremely diverse and functionally important and should be further considered in restoration. However, despite their importance, there remains a gap in understanding of how soil microbiota respond following native plant revegetation. Several studies have used cross-sectional study designs of restoration chronosequences to infer that revegetation causes the recovery of soil microbiota, but it is near-impossible to determine cause and effect relationships with cross-sectional study designs. Here we used high-throughput amplicon sequencing of the bacterial 16s rRNA gene from soil samples collected at two timepoints, 6 years apart, at a revegetation chronosequence in South Australia. Our results show some indications of recovery but not the additional recovery in bacterial community composition toward the reference sites as expected after this 6-year period-a result that appears at odds to the expected patterns of revegetation causing recovery of soil microbiota. Spatially dependent factors (e.g. soil chemistry), biotic and abiotic barriers, seasonal differences in sampling, and variability among the ecological reference sites could each help explain this apparent lack of additional microbial recovery. More detailed longitudinal and/or experimental manipulation work is required to further examine the cause-effect relationships. Our study contributes important new information and highlights knowledge gaps in how soil microbiota respond to revegetation, and we urge caution when attempting to infer causation from cross-sectional chronosequence studies.

show abstract

“…In addition to integrating genomic sequencing technology into the EBS ecological and biodiversity assessment approaches, the same techniques can be used through the mining cycle to monitor the impact of the operations and their legacy sites on agroecosystems, forests, and freshwater habitats, thereby informing any future restoration processes (e.g. Liddicoat et al 2022;Peddle et al 2022). In sites that are seriously degraded prior to mining, the post-mining landscape could actually have a trajectory towards a strongly net-nature-positive outcome and there are good examples where post-mining or quarrying landscapes have been engineered to be beneficial to the environment (Mineral Products Association 2021).…”

Section: Site Specific Detailed Biodiversity Auditmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cradle-to-cradle mining: a future concept for inherently reconstructive mine systems?

Herrington¹,

Tibbett²

2022

Proceedings of the International Conference on Mine Closure

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mining creates vast quantities of waste and is inherently damaging to land. These two issues have been among the most intractable in resolving sustainable mine closure. Here we propose a new ambitious concept for future mining practice, where land use and material waste are recognised as part of a mine's assets not its legacy. The challenge is firstly to build a closed-circuit mining system where all excavated materials are exploited as a resource. These uses may be quite disconnected from the primary mined ore where other industrial, agriculture or urban uses may be found, along with more conventional uses for the encapsulation of toxic wastes and the reconstructed and sustainable post-mining landscape. The 'cradle-to-cradle' concept should lead to a post-mining landscape that has equal or greater ecosystem services to the pre-mining landscape. This approach demands more detailed knowledge of the mineralised system from the earliest exploration stage, outlining the nature of the entire orebody and enclosing rock mass that will allow a more complete planning of mineral recovery and handling of discarded material, accommodating any plans for future secondary recovery operations. This knowledge also directly informs the planned reconstruction and remediation strategy. Post-mining landscapes will need to have reconstructed ecosystem services that are designed to be 'net-nature-positive' while delivering outcomes that are beneficial for all stakeholders. Consequently, closure planning needs the collaborative involvement of all stakeholders from the start (socially embedded rather than socially engaged) which can then help deliver an inherently reconstructive cradle-to-cradle approach to the operation transferring the site back from the mining company to government or a third party for its future use.

show abstract

Next generation restoration metrics: Using soil eDNA bacterial community data to measure trajectories towards rehabilitation targets

Cited by 22 publications

References 42 publications

Constructing ecological indices for urban environments using species distribution models

Constructing ecological indices for urban environments using species distribution models

Does revegetation cause soil microbiota recovery? Evidence from revisiting a revegetation chronosequence 6 years after initial sampling

Cradle-to-cradle mining: a future concept for inherently reconstructive mine systems?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About