Urgent need for conservation and restoration measures to improve landscape connectivity.
The practice of ecological restoration is a primary option for increasing levels of biodiversity by modifying human-altered ecosystems. The scientific discipline of restoration ecology provides conceptual guidance and tests of restoration strategies, with the ultimate goal of predictive landscape restoration. I construct a conceptual model for restoration of biodiversity, based on site-level (e.g., biotic and abiotic) conditions, landscape (e.g, interpatch connectivity and patch geometry), and historical factors (e.g., species arrival order and land-use legacies). I then ask how well restoration ecology has addressed the various components of this model. During the past decade, restoration research has focused largely on how the restoration of site-level factors promotes species diversity-primarily of plants. Relatively little attention has been paid to how landscape or historical factors interplay with restoration, how restoration influences functional and genetic components of biodiversity, or how a suite of less-studied taxa might be restored. I suggest that the high level of variation seen in restoration outcomes might be explained, at least in part, by the contingencies placed on site-level restoration by landscape and historical factors and then present a number of avenues for future research to address these often ignored linkages in the biodiversity restoration model. Such work will require carefully conducted restoration experiments set across multiple sites and many years. It is my hope that by considering how space and time influence restoration, we might move restoration ecology in a direction of stronger prediction, conducted across landscapes, thus providing feasible restoration strategies that work at scales over which biodiversity conservation occurs.
Summary1. Ecological restoration is a global priority that holds great potential for benefiting natural ecosystems, but restoration outcomes are notoriously unpredictable. Resolving this unpredictability represents a major, but critical challenge to the science of restoration ecology. 2. In an effort to move restoration ecology toward a more predictive science, we consider the key issue of variability. Typically, restoration outcomes vary relative to goals (i.e. reference or desired future conditions) and with respect to the outcomes of other restoration efforts. The field of restoration ecology has largely considered only this first type of variation, often focusing on an oversimplified success vs. failure dichotomy. The causes of variation, particularly among restoration efforts, remain poorly understood for most systems. 3. Variation associated with restoration outcomes is a consequence of how, where and when restoration is conducted; variation is also influenced by how the outcome of restoration is measured. We propose that variation should decrease with the number of factors constraining restoration and increase with the specificity of the goal. When factors (e.g. harsh environmental conditions, limited species reintroductions) preclude most species, little variation will exist among restorations, particularly when goals are associated with metrics such as physical structure, where species may be broadly interchangeable. Conversely, when few constraints to species membership exist, substantial variation may result and this will be most pronounced when restoration is assessed by metrics such as taxonomic composition. 4. Synthesis and applications. The variability we observe during restoration results from both restoration context (how, where and when restoration is conducted) and how we evaluate restoration outcomes. To advance the predictive capacity of restoration, we outline a research agenda that considers metrics of restoration outcomes, the drivers of variation among existing restoration efforts, experiments to quantify and understand variation in restoration outcomes, and the development of models to organise, interpret and forecast restoration outcomes.
Biodiversity is declining in many local communities while also becoming increasingly homogenized across space. Experiments show that local plant species loss reduces ecosystem functioning and services, but the role of spatial homogenization of community composition and the potential interaction between diversity at different scales in maintaining ecosystem functioning remains unclear, especially when many functions are considered (ecosystem multifunctionality). We present an analysis of eight ecosystem functions measured in 65 grasslands worldwide. We find that more diverse grasslands-those with both species-rich local communities (α-diversity) and large compositional differences among localities (β-diversity)-had higher levels of multifunctionality. Moreover, α- and β-diversity synergistically affected multifunctionality, with higher levels of diversity at one scale amplifying the contribution to ecological functions at the other scale. The identity of species influencing ecosystem functioning differed among functions and across local communities, explaining why more diverse grasslands maintained greater functionality when more functions and localities were considered. These results were robust to variation in environmental drivers. Our findings reveal that plant diversity, at both local and landscape scales, contributes to the maintenance of multiple ecosystem services provided by grasslands. Preserving ecosystem functioning therefore requires conservation of biodiversity both within and among ecological communities.
Exotic species dominate many communities; however the functional significance of species' biogeographic origin remains highly contentious. This debate is fuelled in part by the lack of globally replicated, systematic data assessing the relationship between species provenance, function and response to perturbations. We examined the abundance of native and exotic plant species at 64 grasslands in 13 countries, and at a subset of the sites we experimentally tested native and exotic species responses to two fundamental drivers of invasion, mineral nutrient supplies and vertebrate herbivory. Exotic species are six times more likely to dominate communities than native species. Furthermore, while experimental nutrient addition increases the cover and richness of exotic species, nutrients decrease native diversity and cover. Native and exotic species also differ in their response to vertebrate consumer exclusion. These results suggest that species origin has functional significance, and that eutrophication will lead to increased exotic dominance in grasslands.
For a half century, habitat configuration – the arrangement of habitat patches within a landscape – has been central to theories of landscape ecology, population dynamics, and community assembly, in addition to conservation strategies. A recent hypothesis advanced by Fahrig (2013) would, if supported, greatly diminish the relevance of habitat configuration as a predictor of diversity. The Habitat Amount Hypothesis posits that the sample area effect overrides patch size and patch isolation effects of habitat fragmentation on species richness. It predicts that the amount of habitat in a local landscape, regardless of configuration, is the main landscape‐level determinant of species richness. If habitat amount is indeed the major, landscape‐level driver of species richness, the slopes of the species–area relationship (SAR) for otherwise similar fragmented and unfragmented landscapes should be indistinguishable. We tested the Habitat Amount Hypothesis with data from two replicated and controlled habitat fragmentation experiments that disentangle the effects of habitat amount and configuration. One experiment provided time‐series data on plant species richness and the other on micro‐arthropod species richness. We found that, relative to less fragmented habitats, the SARs for fragmented habitats have significantly higher slopes and that the magnitude of the difference in slopes increased over time. Relatively more species were lost in smaller areas when fragments were more isolated. In both experiments, the proportion of species lost due to increased habitat fragmentation was nearly identical to the proportion lost due to reduced habitat amount. Our results provide a direct and experimentally derived refutation of the Habitat Amount Hypothesis, supporting the long‐held view that in addition to area, patch isolation and configuration are important determinants of species richness. Differences in species richness between fragmented and non‐fragmented habitats increase over time, demonstrating that long‐term studies are needed to understand the effects of fragmentation, above and beyond the amount of habitat lost.
A conceptual model of movement ecology has recently been advanced to explain all movement by considering the interaction of four elements: internal state, motion capacity, navigation capacities, and external factors. We modified this framework to generate predictions for species richness dynamics of fragmented plant communities and tested them in experimental landscapes across a 7-year time series. We found that two external factors, dispersal vectors and habitat features, affected species colonization and recolonization in habitat fragments and their effects varied and depended on motion capacity. Bird-dispersed species richness showed connectivity effects that reached an asymptote over time, but no edge effects, whereas wind-dispersed species richness showed steadily accumulating edge and connectivity effects, with no indication of an asymptote. Unassisted species also showed increasing differences caused by connectivity over time, whereas edges had no effect. Our limited use of proxies for movement ecology (e.g., dispersal mode as a proxy for motion capacity) resulted in moderate predictive power for communities and, in some cases, highlighted the importance of a more complete understanding of movement ecology for predicting how landscape conservation actions affect plant community dynamics.corridors ͉ dispersal ͉ diversity ͉ life-history traits ͉ species richness T he pervasive negative effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity and reduced opportunities to preserve large landscapes have led to widespread use of corridors, thin strips of habitat that connect otherwise isolated habitat patches in fragmented landscapes. Successful corridor function is based on the assumption that movement of organisms increases among connected patches, increasing colonization and gene flow, with a net benefit for biodiversity.Yet not all species respond to corridors in the same way, and there is a growing need for frameworks that allow corridor effectiveness to be predicted across species (1, 2). Life-history theory (3) may present such a framework by providing insight into tradeoffs that constrain movement abilities, but the broad scope and generality of life-history theory may fail to capture all dynamics of movement. An alternative theoretical foundation focused explicitly on movement has recently been proposed (4). This framework aims to provide a unified theory of movement that links basic aspects of life history and behavior (internal state, motion capacity, navigation capacity) with environmental variables (external factors). The movement ecology framework was conceived to explain movement of individuals. Here, we attempt to apply aspects of this framework to predict the dynamics of communities. In particular, we track the outcomes of colonization and persistence in rapidly changing plant communities in experimentally fragmented landscapes, linking proxies of plant motion capacity (i.e., dispersal modes) with external, experimentally controlled landscape features. Admittedly, our approach overlaps incompletely wit...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.