Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumStability in Ecosystems: Asynchrony of Species Is More Important Than Diversity
Whether an animal or plant community remains stable despite external impacts does not depend on biological diversity alone: asynchrony across the species is also a crucial factor. The more asynchronous the species in an ecosystem fluctuate in their abundances, the less likely it becomes unstable. As a result, diversity takes second place in terms of the factors to be considered in the context of ecosystem stability. A team of scientists spearheaded by the TU Munich and TU Darmstadt have published these findings in the journal Nature Communications.
The long-term functioning of ecosystems depends on the stability of their species communities, as these ensure the functioning of the entire system. However, land use causes a reduction of the number of species in many ecosystems. Accordingly, when it comes to conserving species diversity and providing sustainable protection for natural resources, the stability of such animal and plant communities is the main goal of nature conservation and ecosystem management. In principle, higher species diversity and greater asynchrony can increase the stability of the species community. But if land use is intensified or changed, which of these factors - species diversity or asynchrony - is more important?
http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2016021223380028.html
postulater
(5,075 posts)2naSalit
(86,647 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)If so, then it seems that we would be doing it wrong in some respects.
sue4e3
(731 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Panarchys focus is on management of regional ecosystems, defined in terms of catchments, but it deals with the impact of lower, smaller, faster changing scale levels, as well as the larger, slower supra-regional and global levels. Its goal is to develop the simplest conceptual framework necessary to describe the twin dynamics of change and stability across both disciplines and scale levels.
The development of the panarchy framework evolved out of experiences where expert attempts to manage regional ecosystems often resulted in considerable degradation of those ecosystems (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). Regional management efforts are generally linear in nature, targeting the maintenance of certain variables forest growth rates, river clarity, fish harvest rates, etc.
It was noted that focusing on managing a single variable, usually one of economic interest, generally resulted in other variables in the system changing, sometimes abruptly, and eventually degrading the entire ecosystem. It was also noted that the changes triggered by attempting to sustain a particular variable were changes that occurred so slowly (over decades or more), that they often went unnoticed until they in turn triggered an abrupt change (e.g. the forest became infested, the river became polluted, or the fish stock collapsed).
http://www.sustainablescale.org/ConceptualFramework/UnderstandingScale/MeasuringScale/Panarchy.aspx