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

Abstract

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.

Novel resources: opportunities for and risks to species conservation

“…Although in this paper we focus on how species use novel resources, we recognize that not all species will use a novel resource. Species-specific traits, including behavioral plasticity and adaptive capacity (Ortega et al 2014;Kennedy et al 2018), will influence whether and how a species uses novel resources.…”

COVID-19 Changed Human-Nature Interactions across Green Space Types: Evidence of Change in Multiple Types of Activities from the West Bank, Palestine

“…Gardening activities proved an important affordable supplemental food source, alleviating the fresh food supply crisis particularly in rural areas [24,26]. Depending on their configuration, gardens can also provide appropriate and important habitat and food resources for different taxonomic groups including birds [27,28], mammals [29] and insects [30,31].…”

Operationalising the concept of ecosystem collapse for conservation practice

“…Whether or not this is deemed acceptable will depend upon the specific management goals for the ecosystem in question, and the relative value accorded to different management outcomes, such as conservation of native species versus recovery of ecosystem function or provision of ecosystem services (Barnosky et al, 2017). It is clear that novel ecosystems can sometimes be of significant value for biodiversity conservation, such as urban gardens and grasslands with non-native species (Kennedy et al, 2018). They can also make a positive contribution to conservation at the landscape scale (Hobbs et al, 2014).…”