Implications of Current Ecological Thinking for Biodiversity Conservation: a Review of the Salient Issues

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Given escalating concern worldwide about the loss of biodiversity, and given biodiversity's centrality to quality of life, it is imperative that current ecological knowledge fully informs societal decision making. Over the past two decades, ecological science has undergone many significant shifts in emphasis and perspective, which have important implications for how we manage ecosystems and species. In particular, a shift has occurred from the equilibrium paradigm to one that recognizes the dynamic, nonequilibrium nature of ecosystems. Revised thinking about the spatial and temporal dynamics of ecological systems has important implications for management. Thus, it is of growing concern to ecologists and others that these recent developments have not been translated into information useful to managers and policy makers. Many conservation policies and plans are still based on equilibrium assumptions. A fundamental difficulty with integrating current ecological thinking into biodiversity policy and management planning is that field observations have yet to provide compelling evidence for many of the relationships suggested by non-equilibrium ecology. Yet despite this scientific uncertainty, management and policy decisions must still be made. This paper was motivated by the need for considered scientific debate on the significance of current ideas in theoretical ecology for biodiversity conservation. This paper aims to provide a platform for such discussion by presenting a critical synthesis of recent ecological literature that (1) identifies core issues in ecological theory, and (2) explores the implications of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation.

Ecological History vs. Social Expectations: Managing Aquatic Ecosystems

“…The prevailing static focus of aquatic ecosystem management requires little or no understanding of ecological processes (Wallington et al 2005). In contrast, managing for environmental change requires extensive knowledge of ecological processes and the functional response of species.…”

“…At the same time, the scientific view of the behavior of ecosystems, and the landscapes in which they are embedded, is shifting from an equilibrium perspective to one that recognizes dynamics and non-equilibrium conditions over time (Wallington et al 2005). The latter perspective views successional processes as much less deterministic than does the former (Pahl-Worstl 1995).…”

“…Scale considerations are paramount to understanding cumulative effects. The problem is exacerbated when temporal and spatial variability interact in ways that are complex and not well understood (Wallington et al 2005).…”

Phylogenetic relatedness as a tool in restoration ecology: a meta-analysis

“…The unprecedented level of native habitat perturbation and the concomitant loss of biodiversity demand that ecologists fill the gap between restoration science and practice [1,2]. This means that ecological restoration will be a key process for the conservation of biodiversity, which can benefit from the fast-growing body of knowledge acquired among disciplines such as community ecology or evolutionary ecology.…”

Inconsistent outcomes of heterogeneity-based management underscore importance of matching evaluation to conservation objectives

“…Essential to the assessment of conservation programs are appropriate monitoring and understanding of the ecological drivers of landscape heterogeneity (Eyre et al, 2011, Wallington et al, 2005. Heterogeneity results from variation in the extent, frequency, and intensity of abiotic and biotic processes, including disturbance (Fraterrigo andRusak, 2008, Pickett andWhite, 1985).…”