Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

08.00hs - 08.45hs - Can we Menage for Resilience

653 views

Published on

Katharine Suding

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

08.00hs - 08.45hs - Can we Menage for Resilience

  1. 1. The rise of restoration ecology: a relatively new science, a major global role Katharine Suding University of Colorado USA
  2. 2. Bonn Challenge: restore 150 million hectares worldwide by 2020
  3. 3. New York Declaration: 350m hectares under restoration by 2030
  4. 4. The 20 x 20 initiative: to bring 20 million hectares of degraded land into restoration by 2020. “This is a challenge that we face with determination and effort, and we are certain that our efforts will bring effective results in order for us to achieve our international goals” -- Minister Sarney Filho, Brazil
  5. 5. “With more countries building synergies between global restoration commitments and initiatives, we can capture these win-win opportunities: wins for biodiversity, wins for carbon, wins for people, wins for the economy, wins for women, and wins for our planet.” --Inger Andersen, Director General IUCN
  6. 6. This is exciting… …and scary
  7. 7. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Publications/year Year 1987 Bradshaw: “an acid test” of ecological understanding Ecology, keyword “restoration” ISI, Web of Knowledge Where are we in the science of restoration? Can we deliver? EcosystemFunction Ecosystem Structure
  8. 8. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Publications/year Year 2009 Special issue, SCIENCE: The rise of restoration ecology Where are we in the science of restoration? Can we deliver? Ecology, keyword “restoration” ISI, Web of Knowledge 1987 Bradshaw: “an acid test” of ecological understanding “Our planet’s future may depend on the maturation of the young discipline of ecological restoration” --SCIENCE editors, 2009
  9. 9. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Publications/year Year Where are we in the science of restoration? Can we deliver? Ecology, keyword “restoration” ISI, Web of Knowledge 2017 SER meeting, Brazil 2009 Special issue, SCIENCE: The rise of restoration ecology 1987 Bradshaw: “an acid test” of ecological understanding
  10. 10. A systematic evaluation of restoration: • 89 Studies • Range of ecosystem types • Global coverage • Cited over 1,000 times
  11. 11. Restoration increased biodiversity by 44%, but values remained lower than reference conditions -14% vs. degraded vs. reference +44% Rey Benayas et al 2009
  12. 12. Restoration increased biodiversity by 44%, but values remained lower than reference conditions -14% vs. degraded vs. reference +44%
  13. 13. What do we mean by restoring biodiversity? How risky is our enterprise? How do we benchmark our success? How does science guide policy and expectations? 1 2 3 4
  14. 14. What do we mean by restoring biodiversity? 1
  15. 15. Time since disturbance Speciesdiversity +44% -14% How should restoration affect diversity? degraded restored reference We often assume a increasing trajectory
  16. 16. Time since disturbance Speciesdiversity Biodiversity could change in many ways in a “successful” restoration +44% -14% Classic successional work. restoreddegraded reference
  17. 17. +44% degraded restored reference -14% When we say diversity, do we really mean diversity? Plant growth and survival Total abundance Behavior (% vigilance) Microbial biomass … OTHER MEASURES INCLUDED IN BIODIVERSITY RESPONSE Species richness Evenness Shannon-Weiner BIODIVERSITY INDICES 49% N=89studies Rey Benayas et al 2009 51%
  18. 18. One suggestion: Compositional similarity Laughlin et al 2017 • Multivariate technique • Based on the same datasets as diversity calculations
  19. 19. One suggestion: Compositional similarity Laughlin et al 2017 degraded restoration reference • Rey Benayas et al (2009): 0/89 studies • More recent metanalysis(Crouzeilles et al 2016): 13/221 • Multivariate technique • Based on the same datasets as diversity calculations
  20. 20. How risky is our enterprise? 2
  21. 21. Restoration increased biodiversity by 44% but values remained lower than reference conditions -14% vs. degraded vs. reference +44% Rey Benayas et al 2009
  22. 22. Restoration is a bit of a gamble -14% vs. degraded vs. reference +44% Rey Benayas et al 2009 -70% +1000% -77% +27%
  23. 23. Why such high variable outcomes? A. Our Metrics: Outcomes would be less variable if we would standardized metrics. B. Our techniques: We are failing too often, need to improve technological aspects of our practice [might indicate success in innovation too] C. Our context: There are some places where restoration is far more challenging than others [we should focus on where it is easiest] D. Our ecology: Ecological recovery is expected to be stochastic, with transient dynamics and priority effects [don’t expect otherwise]
  24. 24. Laughlin et al 2017 Ecological processes with more complex controls should show greater variability Morepredictable More variable  BIOMASS RICHNESS COMPOSITION
  25. 25. Site Year Despite identical: site preparation seed species mixes planting techniques planting timing Stuble et al 2017Species composition Ecological dynamics are expected to be stochastic in disturbed systems as they assemble
  26. 26. How do we benchmark our success? 3
  27. 27. Degraded Restoration Reference 89STUDIES (ReyBenayasetal2009)
  28. 28. Degraded Restoration Reference 89STUDIES (ReyBenayasetal2009) Degraded Restoration Reference 269STUDIES (Crouzeillesetal2016,onlyForest) 7% 70% 23% N=62
  29. 29. Why so few studies?Degraded Restoration Reference A. We are doing it this way, but not publishing our work. B. We should do it this way, and are not listening to advice. C. There are many ways to benchmark success D. All of the above.
  30. 30. The crisis of shifting baselines Changing Climate
  31. 31. The crisis of shifting baselines Changing Climate + Invasion of non-native species
  32. 32. The crisis of shifting baselines Changing Climate + Invasion of non-native species + Changing land use + Changing disturbance regimes…
  33. 33. Nitrogen inputs StipaRestoration InvadedNative Reference benchmarks at low levels of nitrogen pollution, but we losing these at high N Nitrogen inputs StipaRestoration InvadedNative Larios et al 2017
  34. 34. As rates of environmental change increase, different types of benchmarks are needed Nitrogen inputs Let recover Change benchmark Actively restore StipaRestoration InvadedNative Different functional mix of natives Different genotypes Different set of species
  35. 35. One suggestion: triggers and trajectories Areas with rapid change might be the places to set goals re: process and innovate
  36. 36. How does our science guide policy and expectations? 4
  37. 37. How do our goals, principles, best practices, standards, reflect our science? “Since it arose from political negotiations, the precise scientific definition is lacking” -- L. Montanarella, EU Commission
  38. 38. How do our goals, principles, best practices, standards, reflect our science? International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration, SER 2016Suding et al, 2015, Science
  39. 39. -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2ResponseRatio Plantdiversityinrestored/reference Five Star Standard > 80% diversity of reference Crouzeilles et al 2016 As a science, are we ready to set such expectations? Study comparisons, ordered by response ratio
  40. 40. What do we mean by restoring biodiversity? How do we benchmark our success? How risky is our enterprise? How does science guide policy and expectations? 1 2 3 4
  41. 41. What do we mean by restoring biodiversity? How do we benchmark our success? How risky is our enterprise? How does science guide policy and expectations? 1 2 3 4
  42. 42. Thank you!

×