Effective ecosystem monitoring requires a multi‐scaled approach

Abstract

Ecosystem monitoring is fundamental to our understanding of how ecosystem change is impacting our natural resources and is vital for developing evidence‐based policy and management. However, the different types of ecosystem monitoring, along with their recommended applications, are often poorly understood and contentious. Varying definitions and strict adherence to a specific monitoring type can inhibit effective ecosystem monitoring, leading to poor program development, implementation and outcomes. In an effort to develop a more consistent and clear understanding of ecosystem monitoring programs, we here review the main types of monitoring and recommend the widespread adoption of three classifications of monitoring, namely, targeted, surveillance and landscape monitoring. Landscape monitoring is conducted over large areas, provides spatial data, and enables questions relating to where and when ecosystem change is occurring to be addressed. Surveillance monitoring uses standardised field methods to inform on what is changing in our environments and the direction and magnitude of that change, whilst targeted monitoring is designed around testable hypotheses over defined areas and is the best approach for determining the causes of ecosystem change. The classification system is flexible and can incorporate different interests, objectives, targets and characteristics as well as different spatial scales and temporal frequencies, while also providing valuable structure and consistency across distinct ecosystem monitoring programs. To support our argument, we examine the ability of each monitoring type to inform on six key types of questions that are routinely posed for ecosystem monitoring programs, such as where and when change is occurring, what is the magnitude of change, and how can the change be managed? As we demonstrate, each type of ecosystem monitoring has its own strengths and weaknesses, which should be carefully considered relative to the desired results. Using this scheme, scientists and land managers can design programs best suited to their needs. Finally, we assert that for our most serious environmental challenges, it is essential that we include information from each of these monitoring scales to inform on all facets of ecosystem change, and this is best achieved through close collaboration between the scales. With a renewed understanding of the importance of each monitoring type, along with greater commitment to monitor cooperatively, we will be well placed to address some of our greatest environmental challenges.

Stocktaking the environmental coverage of a continental ecosystem observation network

“…Global environmental challenges have led to a demand for broadscale information on the distribution, status, and trajectory of biodiversity (Wessels et al 1998, Watson and Novelly 2004, Scholes et al 2008, Cleverly et al 2019. Ecosystem observation networks typically aim to collect standardized field data at regional to national scales on species composition, vegetation structure, and ecological function and may be focused on survey (e.g., vegetation plots sensu Michalcov a et al 2011, Bruelheide et al 2018) or monitoring (e.g., surveillance or status and trends sensu Larsen et al 2008, Eyre et al 2011, Miller and Mitchell 2014, Sparrow et al 2020a. Field surveys to establish ecosystem observation networks at national or continental scales, while attempting to cover complex ecological variation, can realistically only aim to sample a tiny fraction of the land (Michaelsen et al 1994).…”

Applying conservation reserve design strategies to define ecosystem monitoring priorities

“…We tested this methodology on TERN AusPlots, an Australian long-term monitoring network of ecosystem surveillance and monitoring sites distributed at a continental scale (sensu Eyre et al, 2011;Sparrow, Edwards et al, 2020), to select a subset of sites that optimise the complementarity and representativeness of the whole network. We applied both the minimum set and maximal coverage approaches to design a revisiting strategy for the collection of AusPlots.…”

“…Ecological monitoring programs are a prerequisite for successful environmental policy and decision making, and the development of effective management and conservation programs (Jeffers, 1989;Parr et al, 2003;Sparrow, Edwards et al, 2020).…”

“…Field-based sampling of terrestrial ecosystems at multi-scales has therefore been required to build comprehensive ecosystem observation networks (Sparrow, Edwards et al, 2020). As such, there are now several examples of extensive monitoring networks established at the continental scale, including the pan-European Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS), the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON; USA), the Global Ecosystems Monitoring (GEM) network across the tropics (Malhi et al, 2021), and the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN) in Australia (Cleverly et al, 2019).…”

Developing an environmental research platform in the Karoo at the Square Kilometre Array

“…Vegetation can be monitored by establishing and surveying permanent plots at SKA and on adjacent farmland at different scales across vegetation units, land types and landforms 60 , and ensuring data collection methods are constant through time 61 . This design will contribute to a landscapescale (sensu Sparrow et al 60 ) network of study plots across different climatic zones in South Africa and enhance continental and global comparisons 62 . Similar methodology was developed for surveillance of Australian rangelands as part of the Australian Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network.…”