Climate Change and Ecosystem Management

This article addresses the implications of rapid and uncertain ecological change, and global climate change in particular, for reserve oriented and restoration oriented ecosystem management. I argue for the following conclusions: (1) rapid and uncertain ecological change undermines traditional justifications for reserve oriented and restoration oriented ecosystem management strategies; (2) it requires rethinking ecosystem management goals, not just developing novel strategies (such as assisted colonization) to accomplish traditional goals; (3) species preservation ought to be deemphasized as an ecosystem management goal; (4) reserve oriented ecosystem management remains well justified, but the goals for it must be revised. Notes 1 That there is such a large range of possible outcomes even within one scenario indicates the level of uncertainty involved. One source of uncertainty is incomplete information, such as a lack of data (for example, regarding emissions levels and the state of ecological systems) and an incomplete understanding of the workings of the relevant systems (for example, feedback processes and potential tipping points). Another source of uncertainty is the contingencies involved. How much GHG emissions there are, and future total GHG levels in the atmosphere depends, in part, on policies and practices that have yet to be determined, as well as on the feasibility of certain technologies that do not currently exist. 2 Baillie et al. (Citation2004) calculates the historical rate of extinction as 0.1–1 E/MSY. 3 Center for International Earth Science Information Network [CIESIN] (2010). In addition 41% of marine systems have medium to high human impacts (Halpern et al., Citation2008). See, also, Ellis and Ramankutty (Citation2008). 4 Clare Palmer (Citation2011) discusses the difficulties with determining 'normal rates' of ecological change, since, from a geological perspective, comparatively large and abrupt ecological changes are not altogether abnormal (that is, they regularly occur given a long enough time scale). Allen Thompson (Citation2011) argues that the high level of climatic stability over the last 10,000–12,000 years is, in fact, what is abnormal from a geological perspective. 5 See Root and Schneider (Citation2006) and Barnosky (Citation2009). The interactions between species populations, and their evolved dependencies, often have an effect of holding some species assemblages together under changing conditions. However, even on the low emissions scenario, the rate and magnitude of global climate change will overwhelm these 'adhesive' features. This is particularly so in places, such as North America, in which the composition of modern species communities are relatively geologically recent (for example, 8000 years), so that species are not highly co-evolved (Hunter et al., Citation1988). 7 That conservation biologists feel compelled to advocate intentional establishment of non-native populations, given the field's very strong tradition of prioritizing native species over non-native species, indicates both the depth of the ecosystem management dilemma and the extent to which global climate change brings traditional conservation biology values, goals, and strategies into tension with each other. 6 See Camacho et al. (Citation2010), Donlan et al. (Citation2005), Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (Citation2008), Marris (Citation2008, Citation2009), Minteer and Collins (Citation2010), Morelle (Citation2010), Richardson et al. (Citation2009), US Climate Change Science Program (Citation2008), Vitt et al. (Citation2010). It is also evident in the increasingly vigorous discourse regarding prioritization of native species (Davis et al., Citation2011; Hulme, Pysek, & Duncan, Citation2011; Thompson & Davis, Citation2011a, Citation2011b; van Kleunen, Dawson, and Dostal et al., 2011). 8 The discussion in this section is restricted to whether species preservation should be the goal of ecosystem management within less human developed systems. It also does not address whether species preservation should be the goal of non-ecosystem management conservation activities—ex-situ (or captivity) preservation, seed banking and reconciliation ecology. 9 For a more detailed, and expansive presentation of the case against assisted colonization than appears here, see Sandler (Citation2010, Citation2012b). 10 Exceptions to this are possible. For example, a species might be quite ecologically flexible, but an island species that cannot migrate for that reason. 11 Even if greenhouse gas emissions stabilize (or are reduced), it does not follow that the rate of climatic and ecological change will dramatically and immediately slow (Gillett et al., 2011), particularly given the ways in which the effects of global climate change are back loaded and the prevalence of climatic tipping points and feedbacks. 12 Several decision models have been proposed for determining when assisted colonization is an appropriate conservation strategy and they each include the condition that there be sufficient evidence that the translocated species will not become ecologically problematic in the recipient site (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., Citation2008; Richardson et al., Citation2009). 13 For a more complete discussion of why exceptional cases are rare, as well as some potential disvalues associated with assisted colonization, see Sandler (Citation2010, Citation2012b). 14 For a discussion of highly manipulated and engineered systems, see Sandler (Citation2012b).