23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Ecosystem recovery from anthropogenic disturbances, either without human intervention or assisted by ecological restoration, is increasingly occurring worldwide. As ecosystems progress through recovery, it is important to estimate any resulting deficit in biodiversity and functions. Here we use data from 3,035 sampling plots worldwide, to quantify the interim reduction of biodiversity and functions occurring during the recovery process (that is, the ‘recovery debt'). Compared with reference levels, recovering ecosystems run annual deficits of 46–51% for organism abundance, 27–33% for species diversity, 32–42% for carbon cycling and 31–41% for nitrogen cycling. Our results are consistent across biomes but not across degrading factors. Our results suggest that recovering and restored ecosystems have less abundance, diversity and cycling of carbon and nitrogen than ‘undisturbed' ecosystems, and that even if complete recovery is reached, an interim recovery debt will accumulate. Under such circumstances, increasing the quantity of less-functional ecosystems through ecological restoration and offsetting are inadequate alternatives to ecosystem protection.

          Abstract

          Recovery of damaged ecosystems can vary in time and extent. Here, Moreno-Mateos and colleagues perform a meta-analysis to describe and quantify what they call recovery debt, an interim reduction in biodiversity, populations, and biogeochemical function of ecosystems during the recovery process.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes.

          The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape. Copyright © 2014, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis.

            Ecological restoration is widely used to reverse the environmental degradation caused by human activities. However, the effectiveness of restoration actions in increasing provision of both biodiversity and ecosystem services has not been evaluated systematically. A meta-analysis of 89 restoration assessments in a wide range of ecosystem types across the globe indicates that ecological restoration increased provision of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 44 and 25%, respectively. However, values of both remained lower in restored versus intact reference ecosystems. Increases in biodiversity and ecosystem service measures after restoration were positively correlated. Results indicate that restoration actions focused on enhancing biodiversity should support increased provision of ecosystem services, particularly in tropical terrestrial biomes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Domesticated nature: shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare.

              Like all species, humans have exercised their impulse to perpetuate and propagate themselves. In doing so, we have domesticated landscapes and ecosystems in ways that enhance our food supplies, reduce exposure to predators and natural dangers, and promote commerce. On average, the net benefits to humankind of domesticated nature have been positive. We have, of course, made mistakes, causing unforeseen changes in ecosystem attributes, while leaving few, if any, truly wild places on Earth. Going into the future, scientists can help humanity to domesticate nature more wisely by quantifying the tradeoffs among ecosystem services, such as how increasing the provision of one service may decrease ecosystem resilience and the provision of other services.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nat Commun
                Nat Commun
                Nature Communications
                Nature Publishing Group
                2041-1723
                20 January 2017
                2017
                : 8
                : 14163
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Basque Center for Climate Change–BC3 , Edif. Sede 1, 1°, Parque Tecnológico UPV, Barrio Sarriena s/n, 48940 Leioa, Spain
                [2 ]IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science , 48008 Bilbao, Spain
                [3 ]Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas , 28008 Madrid, Spain
                [4 ]Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming , Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA
                [5 ]Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Illinois University , DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA
                [6 ]Institute for the Study of the Environment, Sustainability and Energy, Northern Illinois University , DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA
                [7 ]Missouri Botanical Garden , St. Louis, Missouri 63110, USA
                [8 ]Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (UMR 5175, Campus CNRS) , 34293 Montpellier, France
                [9 ]School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol , Bristol BS8 2PS, UK
                [10 ]Baltic Sea Centre, Stockholm University , 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
                [11 ]Natura y Ecosistemas Mexicanos A.C. , Mexico DF 01000, Mexico
                [12 ]Centre for Biodiversity Theory and Modeling, Station D'Ecologie Experimentale du CNRS , 09200 Moulis, France
                [13 ]Centre INRA de Dijon , 21000 Dijon, France
                [14 ]Departamento de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad de Alcalá , 28871 Alcalá de Henares, Spain
                Author notes
                Article
                ncomms14163
                10.1038/ncomms14163
                5263871
                28106039
                53fe2a04-389e-41cc-9644-327ae865ca35
                Copyright © 2017, The Author(s)

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 18 March 2016
                : 02 December 2016
                Categories
                Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article