* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download overview - Santa Fe Institute
Survey
Document related concepts
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Fire ecology wikipedia , lookup
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
River ecosystem wikipedia , lookup
Human impact on the nitrogen cycle wikipedia , lookup
Ecosystem-based management wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Farmer-managed natural regeneration wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
1 ROBUSTNESS IN RANGELAND MANAGEMENT: AN APPLICATION OF RESILIENCE ANALYSIS IN MANAGED ECOSYSTEMS BRIAN WALKER OVERVIEW This is a short overview of three papers presented on the theme of robustness in rangelands: 1. Carpenter, SC, Walker, BH, Anderies, M and Abel, N. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? ECOSYSTEMS 4: 765-781. 2. Walker BH and Janssen MA. 2002. Rangelands, pastoralists and governments: interlinked systems of people and nature. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London. B (2002) 357, 719-725. 3. Anderies JM, Janssen MA and Walker BH. 2002. Grazing management, resilience and the dynamics of a fire driven rangeland. Ecosystems 5:23-44. The last two papers are concerned only with rangelands. The first is a general paper on resilience, that includes rangelands, and describes what resilience is and how it applies in two detailed examples - lakes and rangelands. It emphasizes the need to consider resilience of what to what. The Walker and Janssen (2002) paper considers the rangeland ecosystem and the managers as a complex adaptive system. It explores the outcomes of management and policy strategies using an agent based model and an optimisation approach using a genetic algorithm. Finally, the paper by Anderies et al (2002) provides a detailed account of a model of resilience dynamics in the grassland component of a savanna rangeland. What follows are some of the insights that emerge from the three papers plus some general observations arising from work on resilience. Multiple states in ecosystems are common. Scheffer et al (2002) and Folke et al (2002) describe examples from a wide range of ecosystem types. Work in progress on thresholds in social and ecological systems, as part of a joint activity between the SFI Robustness Project and Resilience Alliance, has so far identified over 60 examples in the literature. They encompass natural and managed ecosystems from the tundra to the tropics, including terrestrial, freshwater and marine systems. Regime shifts can be both endogenous and externally induced. Here we are interested in those shifts where management, ususally aimed at maximising profit or efficiency of resource use, leads unwittingly to changes in the positions of the stable and unstable equilibria of the system, reducing the distance between them and increasing the likelihood that some external disturbance will “flip” the system into an alternate, less desirable, state. 2 The paper by Anderies et al (2002) addresses the interactive dynamics of three variables that change at different speeds under the combined effects of fire and grazing - the leafy shoots of grasses (fast dynamics), the roots/crown of grasses (slower) and the shrubs (slowest). The two grass variables can exist in two domains; one with high levels of both and one in which both are virtually absent. The distance between the unstable saddle point that separates them and the high stable equilibrium is a measure of the resilience of the system to variations in grazing pressure. With increasing amounts of shrubs this distance declines, making the system more and more vulnerable to variations in grazing pressure induced, for example, through variations in rainfall. Managing for resilience amounts to managing threshold positions. Where sufficient is known about the system to model it adequately, such models can be used to guide management. In the absence of full understanding we look to the use of general principles, aiming to increase those attributes of ecosystems that enhance resilience, eg the response diversity of species, spatial heterogeneity (eg Peterson 2002), ecological and social ‘memory’. Walker et al (2002) offer a diagrammatic representation of the dynamics of a managed rangeland system in terms of two dominant variables – a biophysical one (woody vegetation, or shrubs) and a socio-economic one (debt:income ratio) (Fig 1). The threshold position on the woody gradient is influenced by a number of factors, including the proportion of perennial:annual species, and biophysical resilience can be increased through fostering perennial species. The social threshold (some level of the debt:income ratio) can be increased through increasing the diversity of income streams, especially offfarm income. This approach to managing thresholds was used by Fernandez et al (2002) to explain and suggest solutions to a range of examples of system degradation. debt : income ratio (i) B A (ii) D C B A D C woody vegetation B (iii) D A C 3 Fig 1. (Fig 4. from Walker et al 2002). Hypothesized trajectories of a 2-variable system through time. The dotted lines indicate thresholds along the two gradients of woody vegetation and debt:income. In iii) changes in attributes of the biophysical and social systems have resulted in changes in the positions of the thresholds, increasing the resilience of the desired configuration (A). Resilience vs robustness. Resilience developed as a notion of the domain of attraction of a particular state – the ball and cusp metaphor of a basin around an equilibrium. Few if any systems are ever in equilibrium, but centripetal dynamics around a shifting equilibrium state keep the system within a configuration of states. Examination of a variety of systems (eg Gunderson and Holling 2002) extended the threshold concept to the notion that the system learns from disturbances, and self-organises. Only by periodically being subjected to the range of disturbances under which it developed does the system maintain the attributes that enable it to respond to and recover from such disturbances. An ecosystem in which fire is completely eliminated eventually loses the species that are adapted to withstanding fire. A rangeland that is never subjected to heavy grazing soon loses the grass species that are able to withstand such grazing, through possession of (for example) attributes like large root:shoot ratios, anti-herbivore chemical defence and fibrous, tough leaves. These same attributes make the species less competitive (for light, water and nutrients) against fast-growing species that channel all their photosynthetic production into growth of new leaves. In accordance with all of the above, resilience is defined as: - The amount of change a system can undergo and still retain the same controls on function and structure (still be within the same basin of attraction) - The degree to which the system is capable of self-organization - The degree to which the system expresses capacity for learning and adaptation Resilience and robustness (as described in Erica Jen’s excellent answer to “Stable or robust? What’s the difference?”) share many features, especially persistence in the face of various perturbations. The two terms seem to be much the same if judged on the basis of the 17 definitions of robustness on the SFI Robustness website. If there’s a difference it might be that, in the use of the term robustness, there is often a connotation of robust policies – ie a policy that will enable the system being used to persist under a variety of external conditions and assumptions without resulting in a change in system state or configuration. “Resilience” is usually applied to the system itself, not policies for its management. A resilient system is forgiving in the face of management interventions and will have a wider range of policies that are robust than will a non-resilient system. Perhaps the two terms are the same! References Fernandez RJ, Archer ERM, Ash AJH, Dowlatabadi H, Hiernaux PHY, Reynolds JF, Vogel CH, Walker BH and Wiegand T. 2002. Degradation and recovery in socioecological systems: A view from the household/farm level. Ch 17, Pp 297 – 323 IN 4 Reynolds JF, Stafford Smith M (Eds.) Global Desertification: Do Humans Cause Deserts?, Dahlem University Press, Berlin. Folke C, Carpenter SC, Elmqvist T, Gunderson LH, Holling CS, and Walker BH. 2002. Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO 31:437 – 440 Peterson, G.D. 2002. Contagious disturbance, ecological memory, and the emergence of landscape pattern. Ecosystems 5(4):329-338. Scheffer, M, Carpenter, SC, Foley, J, Folke, C and Walker BH. 2001. Catastrophic Shifts in Ecosystems. NATURE, 413: 591-596. Walker B, Carpenter S, Anderies A, Abel N, Cumming C, Janssen M, Lebel L, Norberg J, Peterson G D, and Pritchard R. 2002. Resilience management in social-ecological systems: A working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6(1): 14. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14