No abstract

ABSTRACT. Approaches to natural resource management are often based on a presumed ability to predict probabilistic responses to management and external drivers such as climate. They also tend to assume that the manager is outside the system being managed. However, where the objectives include long-term sustainability, linked social-ecological systems (SESs) behave as complex adaptive systems, with the managers as integral components of the system. Moreover, uncertainties are large and it may be difficult to reduce them as fast as the system changes. Sustainability involves maintaining the functionality of a system when it is perturbed, or maintaining the elements needed to renew or reorganize if a large perturbation radically alters structure and function. The ability to do this is termed "resilience." This paper presents an evolving approach to analyzing resilience in SESs, as a basis for managing resilience. We propose a framework with four steps, involving close involvement of SES stakeholders. It begins with a stakeholder-led development of a conceptual model of the system, including its historical profile (how it got to be what it is) and preliminary assessments of the drivers of the supply of key ecosystem goods and services.Step 2 deals with identifying the range of unpredictable and uncontrollable drivers, stakeholder visions for the future, and contrasting possible future policies, weaving these three factors into a limited set of future scenarios.Step 3 uses the outputs from steps 1 and 2 to explore the SES for resilience in an iterative way. It generally includes the development of simple models of the system's dynamics for exploring attributes that affect resilience.Step 4 is a stakeholder evaluation of the process and outcomes in terms of policy and management implications. This approach to resilience analysis is illustrated using two stylized examples.

ABSTRACT. We investigated vegetation responses in terms of canopy, ground-layer diversity, and ecological species groups using two restoration treatments at two degraded oak barren and savanna sites in central Wisconsin, USA. The two restoration models tested were (1) process-only, which reintroduced fire in the form of prescribed burning, and (2) structural manipulation, which used prescribed burning following selective timber removal. Both methods have been widely promoted, debated, and investigated in the fire-prone ecosystems of western North America, but they have not been studied in midwestern ecosystems. Vegetation was monitored in permanent quadrats prior to and following treatment applications. All treatment responses were compared against trends at control sites. We used diversity, canopy, and cover estimates within ecological groups between pre-and post-treatment periods as our response. Effect size was calculated, and the statistical significance of effects was determined using one-factor analysis of variance. Following treatments, canopy levels were restored to prior savanna levels with structural manipulation, but failed to respond to process-only approaches. Likewise, multiple positive responses were detected in the ground layer with structural manipulation, but few with process-only treatments. Despite initial responses, ground-layer restoration appears to be constrained by the dominance of Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica). Many savanna forbs, legumes, and C 4 graminoids were missing. We presume that 70 yr of fire suppression and associated succession to oak woodlands were largely responsible for sedge conversion and the loss of savanna species. Despite observed limitations, structural manipulation treatments appeared to be more effective than process-only approaches. Sites with holdover savanna species that have not been dominated by sedge should be targeted for immediate restoration before further losses occur. Further investigation of sedge mat thresholds and long-term restoration dynamics is required.

Abstract•

Many ecosystems can experience regime shifts: surprising, large and persistent changes in the function and structure of ecosystems. Assessing whether continued global change will lead to further regime shifts, or has the potential to trigger cascading regime shifts has been a central question in global change policy. Addressing this issue has, however, been hampered by the focus of regime shift research on specific cases and types of regime shifts. To systematically assess the global risk of regime shifts we conducted a comparative analysis of 25 generic types of regime shifts across marine, terrestrial and polar systems; identifying their drivers, and impacts on ecosystem services. Our results show that the drivers of regime shifts are diverse and co-occur strongly, which suggests that continued global change can be expected to synchronously increase the risk of multiple regime shifts. Furthermore, many regime shift drivers are related to climate change and food production, whose links to the continued expansion of human activities makes them difficult to limit. Because many regime shifts can amplify the drivers of other regime shifts, continued global change can also be expected to increase the risk of cascading regime shifts. Nevertheless, the variety of scales at which regime shift drivers operate provides opportunities for reducing the risk of many types of regime shifts by addressing local or regional drivers, even in the absence of rapid reduction of global drivers.

This paper presents the Regime Shifts Database (RSDB), a new online, open-access database that uses a novel consistent framework to systematically analyze regime shifts based on their impacts, key drivers, underlying feedbacks, and management options. The database currently contains 27 generic types of regime shifts, and over 300 specific case studies of a variety of regime shifts. These regime shifts occur across diverse types of systems and are driven by many different types of processes. Besides impacting provisioning and regulating services, our work shows that regime shifts substantially impact cultural and aesthetic ecosystem services. We found that social-ecological feedbacks are difficult to characterize and more work is needed to develop new tools and approaches to better understand social-ecological regime shifts. We hope that the database will stimulate further research on regime shifts and make available information that can be used in management, planning and assessment.

Scenario analysis has emerged as a key tool to analyze complex and uncertain future socio-ecological developments. However, current global scenarios (narratives of how the world may develop) have neglected biological invasions, a major threat to biodiversity and the economy. We used a novel participatory process to develop a diverse set of global biological invasion scenarios spanning a wide breadth of plausible global futures through 2050. We adapted the widely used “two axes” scenario analysis approach to develop four families of four scenarios each, resulting in 16 scenarios that were later clustered into four contrasting sets of futures. Our analysis highlighted that socio-economic developments and changes in sustainability policies and lifestyle have the potential to shape biological invasions, in addition to well-known ecological drivers, such as climate and human land use change. Our scenarios align fairly well with the recently developed shared socio-economic pathways, but the factors that drive differences in biological invasions are underrepresented there. Including these factors in global scenarios and models is essential to adequately consider biological invasions in global environmental assessments, and obtain a more integrative picture of future socio-ecological developments.

The benefits and risks of any particular GM crop depend on the interactions of its ecological functions and natural history with the agroecosystem and ecosystems within which it is embedded. These evolutionary and ecological factors must be considered when assessing GM crops. We argue that the assessment of GM crops should be broadened to include alternative agricultural practices, ecosystem management, and agricultural policy. Such an assessment would be facilitated by a clearer understanding of the indirect costs of agriculture and the ecological services that support it. The benefits of GM crops should be compared to those of other means of agricultural intensification such as organic farming, integrated pest management, and agricultural policy reform. A gradual and cautious approach to the use of GM crops that relies on a truly comprehensive risk assessment could allow people to reap substantial benefits from GM crops while mitigating their serious risks.