What is Novel About Novel Ecosystems: Managing Change in an Ever-Changing World

Truitt, Amy Michelle; Granek, Elise F.; Duveneck, Matthew J.; Goldsmith, Kaitlin A.; Jordan, Meredith P.; Yazzie, Kimberly Crystal

doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0465-5

Cited by 60 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…, , ; Truitt et al. ). The management of these novel ecosystems should aim to maintain genetic and species diversity, and to promote healthy ecosystem function and services (Seastedt et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of novel forest ecosystems in the conservation of wood‐inhabiting fungi in boreal broadleaved forests

Juutilainen

Mönkkönen

Kotiranta

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing human impact on the earth's biosphere is inflicting changes at all spatial scales. As well as deterioration and fragmentation of natural biological systems, these changes also led to other, unprecedented effects and emergence of novel habitats. In boreal zone, intensive forest management has negatively impacted a multitude of deadwood‐associated species. This is especially alarming given the important role wood‐inhabiting fungi have in the natural decay processes. In the boreal zone, natural broad‐leaved‐dominated, herb‐rich forests are threatened habitats which have high wood‐inhabiting fungal species richness. Fungal diversity in other broadleaved forest habitat types is poorly known. Traditional wood pastures and man‐made afforested fields are novel habitats that could potentially be important for wood‐inhabiting fungi. This study compares species richness and fungal community composition across the aforementioned habitat types, based on data collected for wood‐inhabiting fungi occupying all deadwood diameter fractions. Corticioid and polyporoid fungi were surveyed from 67 130 deadwood particles in four natural herb‐rich forests, four birch‐dominated wood pastures, and four birch‐dominated afforested field sites in central Finland. As predicted, natural herb‐rich forests were the most species‐rich habitat. However, afforested fields also had considerably higher overall species richness than wood pastures. Many rare or rarely collected species were detected in each forest type. Finally, fungal community composition showed some divergence not only among the different habitat types, but also among deadwood diameter fractions. Synthesis and applications: In order to maintain biodiversity at both local and regional scales, conserving threatened natural habitat types and managing traditional landscapes is essential. Man‐made secondary woody habitats could provide the necessary resources and serve as surrogate habitats for many broadleaved deadwood‐associated species, and thus complement the existing conservation network of natural forests.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of novel forest ecosystems in the conservation of wood‐inhabiting fungi in boreal broadleaved forests

Juutilainen

Mönkkönen

Kotiranta

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the natural environment, the utility of area of habitat lost or damaged as a common metric can be queried on the grounds that some habitats are richer or rarer than others, although the use of priority habitats defined according to the UK BAP provided a direct relevance to current policy. Ultimately, the emergence of novel ecosystems composed of species assemblage that have no present-day analogue also challenges a conventional conservation approach [81].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Risk Assessment to Inform Adaptation Priorities for the Natural Environment: Observations from the First UK Climate Change Risk Assessment

Brown

2015

Climate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk assessment can potentially provide an objective framework to synthesise and prioritise climate change risks to inform adaptation policy. However, there are significant challenges in the application of comparative risk assessment procedures to climate change, particularly for the natural environment. These challenges are evaluated with particular reference to the first statutory Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) and evidence review procedures used to guide policy for the UK government. More progress was achieved on risk identification, screening and prioritisation compared to risk quantification. This was due to the inherent complexity and interdependence of ecological risks and their interaction with socio-economic drivers as well as a climate change. Robust strategies to manage risk were identified as those that coordinate organisational resources to enhance ecosystem resilience, and to accommodate inevitable change, rather than to meet specific species or habitats targets. The assessment also highlighted subjective and contextual components of risk appraisal including ethical issues regarding the level of human intervention in the natural environment and the proposed outcomes of any intervention. This suggests that goals for risk assessment need to be more clearly explicated and assumptions on tolerable risk declared as a primer for further dialogue on expectations for managed outcomes. Ecosystem-based adaptation may mean that traditional habitats and species conservation goals and existing regulatory frameworks no longer provide the best guide for long-term risk management thereby challenging the viability of some existing practices.

show abstract

“…However, the value of these novel ecosystems for conservation elicits varied responses from ecologists, practitioners, policy makers, and the public, and thus, selection of appropriate strategies for managing them is challenging (Hagerman and Satterfield , Truitt et al. ). Some argue that managing novel ecosystems is counterproductive and gives undue attention to systems perceived as having no value, thus pulling focus and resources away from high‐value conservation assets (see recent debate: Murcia et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do novel ecosystems provide habitat value for wildlife? Revisiting the physiognomy vs. floristics debate

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although novel ecosystems are increasing globally, their utility for biodiversity conservation is poorly understood. Native fauna are predicted to use novel ecosystems when those ecosystems provide structure and resources similar to the native habitat. We modified existing terminology on wildlife functional groups to develop a conceptual model that illustrates fundamental differences in how native wildlife respond to novel ecosystems: novel ecosystem avoiders, novel ecosystem utilizers, and novel ecosystem flourishers. We postulate that species membership in these functional groups is related to the relative importance habitat physiognomy and floristics play in habitat selection cues. An excellent opportunity to test this conceptual model exists with birds in historic and novel ecosystems. A long‐standing, equivocal literature investigating relative contribution of physiognomy vs. floristics to avian abundance and community diversity in native ecosystems exists. Using data from grassland and woodland biomes in western North America (Oregon, USA) and Western Australia, respectively, we evaluated use of habitats by indigenous bird species in relation to physiognomy and floristics. Our two case studies represent two extremes on the novelty spectrum: (1) urban gardens in the metropolitan region of Perth, Western Australia, which are designed ecosystems that vary in the percentage of native plantings; and (2) the Zumwalt Prairie in northeastern Oregon where native grassland plants still dominate the ecosystem but non‐native plants are present and available for use as breeding sites. Using an information‐theoretic perspective, we asked whether habitat use based on occurrence (Perth gardens) or breeding success (Oregon grassland) was best explained by physiognomy, floristics, or both. Using these two case studies, our evidence shows that species or guilds within a community will not respond equally to novelty as predicted. We found strong evidence for only one taxon showing sensitivity to floristics and two to physiognomy. All taxa considered were either grouped as novel ecosystem avoiders or utilizers; no flourishers were identified. These results suggest novel ecosystems providing appropriate physiognomy can provision suitable habitat for some taxa.

show abstract

What is Novel About Novel Ecosystems: Managing Change in an Ever-Changing World

Cited by 60 publications

References 64 publications

The role of novel forest ecosystems in the conservation of wood‐inhabiting fungi in boreal broadleaved forests

The role of novel forest ecosystems in the conservation of wood‐inhabiting fungi in boreal broadleaved forests

Comparative Risk Assessment to Inform Adaptation Priorities for the Natural Environment: Observations from the First UK Climate Change Risk Assessment

Do novel ecosystems provide habitat value for wildlife? Revisiting the physiognomy vs. floristics debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About