MINI‐REVIEW: Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments

Abstract

Summary1. Current views of anthropogenic environments emphasize the extreme novelty of urban and industrial ecosystems. Proponents of reconciliation ecology argue that we need to use such habitats to conserve biodiversity, given the inadequacy of natural reserve systems. 2. Some of the harshest anthropogenic ecosystems may be able to support indigenous biodiversity due to their structural or functional resemblance to natural ecosystems, habitats, or microsites that may be present in the region but not part of the historic ecosystem on a particular site. Here we review recent work that evaluates similarities between urban and industrial ecosystems and natural analogues, and explore the potential for these in reconciliation ecology. 3. We find that artificial habitats represent a gradient of ecological novelty which may be independent of the degree of human influence. While hard-surfaced habitats such as walls and quarries are the most investigated artificial analogues (of natural rock pavements and cliffs), there are many other examples spanning a range of habitats in both terrestrial and marine settings. Analogous ecosystems may be present in the region but limits to dispersal can prevent appropriate species from reaching urban or industrial sites, and small differences in abiotic conditions can sometimes prevent colonization by native biota in otherwise similar artificial habitats. We suggest that a search for habitat analogues represents an important principle to guide reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial lands. In constrast, analogous ecosystems may also support pest species that exploit the similarities between anthropogenic habitats and their ancestral habitats. 4. Synthesis and applications. Identifying analogous habitats and ecosystems could enhance biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services in anthropogenic environments. Abiotic and biotic differences between artificial analogues and natural systems can be frequently overcome by ecological engineering to make the environment more suitable for native biodiversity, and ⁄ or assisted dispersal to allow suitable native organisms to reach appropriate sites within artificial ecosystems. Altering some habitats to become less analogous may help reduce impacts of pest species in urban and industrial areas.

Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure

“…It has been argued that it may be difficult to recreate habitats that previously existed in urban areas and, thus, effort should be made to provide habitat for native species that may be more analogous to urban environments (Lundholm and Richardson, 2010). However, these case studies demonstrate that these ideas do not have to be mutually exclusive and regional context can be incorporated into local and regional UGI policy and planning.…”

Classification and Characterization of Landscapes in the Territory of Adilabad District, Telangana, Deccan Region, India

“…Industrialization is one of the key factors involved in destruction of habitats and biodiversity loss. Ecological comparisons between industrial environments and natural areas emphasize their differences [43].…”

“…Ecological comparisons between urban environments and natural areas emphasize their differences [43]. …”

“…Human modified ecosystems are considered to be ecologically novel in that climatic conditions, soils, toxins, hydrology, productivity, species composition, and interactions [45] differ from conditions prevailing prior to human alterations [43]. The physical, OALib Journal Figure 3.…”

Ecological design of multifunctional open channels for flood control and conservation planning

“…Key essential natural community and ecosystem patterns, 24 processes, and concepts, which are not considered in conventional flood control channel design, 25 include: naturalized flow regimes (Poff et al, 1994), flood-pulse (Junk et al, 1989), 26 geomorphically effective stream power (Larsen et al, 2006a), channel meander (Hickin, 1974), 27 floodplain age Hooke et al, 1990), bedload transport (Kondolf, 1997), 28 vegetation dynamics (Amaros & Wade, 1996), patch dynamics and minimum dynamic area 29 (Greco, 2013;Pickett & Thompson, 1978;Wu & Loucks, 1995), minimum dynamic area for 30 channel meander using setback levees (Larsen et al, 2006b); river continuum (Vannote et al, 31 1980), large woody debris recruitment (Latterell & Naiman, 2007), large river ecology (Johnson 32 et al, 1995), and riparian landscape ecology (Malanson, 1993). It is critically important that in 33 future planning these riverine-riparian landscape patterns, processes, and concepts are considered 34 and integrated into a multifunctional flood control open channel design process such that 35 ecological values are maintained or enhanced for ecological conservation. 36 Systematic conservation planning is a land planning and design process for integrating 37 and sustaining natural ecosystems within cultural landscapes (Margules & Pressey, 2000).…”