researchrepository.ucd.ie · Web viewNovel ecosystems: challenges and opportunities for the Anthropocene. Marcus J. Collier (corresponding author) and Catherine Devitt. UCD School

Novel ecosystems: challenges and opportunities for the Anthropocene

Marcus J. Collier (corresponding author) and Catherine Devitt

UCD School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Richview,

Belfield, Dublin 4. IRELAND

+ 353 1 7162718 / [email protected]

Abstract

Novel ecosystems are ecological assemblages that have emerged in the landscapes of the

Anthropocene, where an ecological abiotic or biotic threshold has been passed and can no longer be

restored to a previous state. In such landscapes, novelty is attributed to unanticipated rapid

anthropogenic environmental change, and deliberate land use practices, and can be characterised by

the arrival over time of differing species assemblages and extent. While little has been explored in

the literature with respect to the policy implications of novel ecosystems, calls have been made for a

better understanding of the barriers to adopting novel ecosystems within mainstream policy. This

review reports on a qualitative literature analysis carried out in order to identify the challenges and

opportunities for transposing novel ecosystem theory into mainstream policy. Though published

debate is still emerging, eleven policy challenges broadly conforming to three themes were

identified. Within these themes three opportunity areas were identified, revealing that more

focussed discussion is required on the wider policy implications of novel ecosystems beyond the

stated concerns about lowering standards in ecological conservation. The analysis also shows that

there exists a greater understanding of the challenges to transposing novel ecosystems in policy, as

opposed to the possible opportunities under current policy timeframes. While a resilience

framework has been put forward to offer an outline for policy makers, mechanisms for

incorporating novel ecosystem theory into policy and decision making is some distance off.

Keywords: Novel ecosystems, policy-making, resilience

Anthropocene Review (2016) DOI: 10.1177/2053019616662053 1

1. Introduction

Novel ecosystems refer to the ecological assemblages that have emerged in anthropogenic

landscapes. These are classified as non-historical, non-analogous systems that have moved beyond

an abiotic or biotic threshold whereby they can no longer be restored to their previous state (Hallett

et al., 2013). They are therefore deemed ‘novel’, though Murcia et al. (2014) warn that the theory is

not yet a substantive replacement for conservation or restoration targets and practices. The drivers

of novelty are attributable to, for example, unforeseen anthropogenic environmental change,

planned and unplanned land conversion, and/or the arrival of new species, either deliberately or

accidental (Hobbs et al., 2006; Bridgewater et al., 2011; Hobbs et al., 2013). In essence, novel

ecosystems are the “inadvertent consequences of deliberate human actions” (Perring et al., 2013:

3), yet the longevity of these same systems is not dependent on human management (Hobbs et al.,

2013; Hallett et al., 2013). The role of human-agency as a driver of ecological change is also

important in our understanding. While some estimates put the extent of novel ecosystems on the

planet at close to 40% (Ellis et al., 2010; Perring et al., 2013), they remain a contentious issue,

regarded by some as potential reservoirs for ecosystem services (Perring et al., 2013; Chapin III et

al., 2006), whereas for others, a threat to native species populations as well as wider restoration

goals to return ecosystems to a prior historical state (Murcia et al., 2014). Part of this contention

may relate to the expanding conceptual application of the term, in parallel to difficulties in reaching

consensus on its definition and criteria for the identification of novelty (Hobbs et al., 2013; Morse et

al., 2014).

Social-ecological implications

Because of their close association with anthropogenic drivers of rapid change, novel ecosystems

usually form part of interlinked socio-ecological systems, potentially providing a range of

ecosystem services, though a list of cultural ecosystem services has hitherto gone unrecorded

(Collier, 2014). As speculated by Hallett et al. (2013), novel ecosystems may prove to be as

valuable as historical ecosystems, and perhaps may be exemplars of social-ecological resilience

(Collier, 2015). The current approach of managers of ecological systems is to determine how best to

stabilize trajectories of change which push ecosystems across thresholds (Hobbs et al., 2009) and to

subsequently determine how best to ensure legally required or socially desirable ecological

assemblages. While an ideal starting point would be to reduce the extent and influence of

anthropogenic change, including mitigation against climate change (Zedler et al., 2012), the

limitations of restricted conservation funds and the risks associated with climate change places

greater pressure on managers and policy makers to determine how and where intervention in highly

modified ecosystems should take place (Moyle, 2014; Hulvey et al., 2013; Trueman et al., 2014). Anthropocene Review (2016) DOI: 10.1177/2053019616662053 2

While Murcia et al. (2014) argue that it is unbeneficial to conflate socio-economic and cultural

limitations with ecological thresholds, societal interactions with the natural world are shaped by a

range of values that come together to shape decision-making processes and preferred ecosystem

trajectories (Suding, 2011). This relationship of influence, therefore, makes it difficult to separate

ecological thresholds and the management of novel ecosystems from the social, cultural and

institutional contexts which determine them (Chapin III et al., 2013). This also points towards our

lack of knowledge of ecosystems, novel or not.

In addition to on-going debates on the social and ecological implications of novel ecosystems, it is

becoming more and more essential for ecosystem managers and policy decision makers to

understand the ramifications of novelty on species and ecosystems, especially as the pervasiveness

of human-induced environmental change become increasingly apparent and ecological thresholds

are passed (Perring et al., 2013; Jackson, 2013; Kueffer, 2013; Moyle, 2014). Even in the absence

of direct anthropogenic change, it is widely acknowledged that climate change, manifested through

changing temperatures and precipitation levels as well as range shifts, represents the biggest

potential threat to ecosystem change with significant impacts predicted for species ranges and

ecological threshold levels (Williams and Jackson, 2007; Harris et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2011;

Starzomski, 2013; Yamano et al., 2011; Grimm et al., 2013). Despite differences in agreement

concerning the role of climate change in the conceptual definition of novel ecosystems, changing

indirect anthropogenic external pressures will increase the likelihood that some systems will be

pushed beyond ecological thresholds, particularly those in designed and impacted systems (Morse

et al. 2014). The likelihood of reversibility and rehabilitation, such as those that drive restoration

ecology, may be more and more diminished as demands for an expanding human population and

natural resources grow and the impacts of indirect anthropogenic change become more apparent

(Hobbs et al., 2009; Belnap et al., 2012). This paper assesses an aspect of the emerging debates on

novel ecosystems. It takes as its starting point the likelihood that in the Anthropocene novel

ecosystems will concurrently occupy and frustrate policy-making. Though the debate is emerging,

and the literature is scant with respect to rigorous assessment, it is nonetheless necessary to

ascertain whether novel ecosystems theory may be transposed into policy. This paper contends that

transposing novel ecosystems into policy discourses could provide opportunities in which the

concept can move from being predominantly a concern for the natural sciences, to being a wider

societal issue. This may provide the opportunity for greater dialogue on how novel ecosystems are

defined and categorised as well as an acknowledgement of the some of the benefits which novel

ecosystems present.

Utility of the novel ecosystems theory


A rapidly growing body of work is now emerging documenting the usefulness of taking a novel

ecosystem approach when restoration to a historical reference point is not feasible. To illustrate,

Doley and Audet (2013) provide the example of mining sites as post-disturbance heavily altered

landscapes, with little parallels to natural reference points. They argue that new ecosystems in these

post-industrial landscapes “can provide levels of stability and functionality acceptable to all

stakeholders and within feasible management regimes” (p.3). While a novel ecosystem may

manifest dominant sets of species that change community structure and function (Abelleira

Martínez et al., 2009), they may also replace lost functions, promote native species; offer new

ecosystem services that have either been previously unidentified or quantified; or potentially new

services hitherto unavailable (Lin and Petersen, 2013).

However, the wider adoption of novel ecosystem theory may require a crossing of social thresholds

(Marris, 2011), a cultural shift or letting go of deeply held binary discourses, offering a

transformative opportunity – as pointed out by Yung et al., “the concept of novel ecosystems could

reshape the way we think about conservation, our interactions with nature and the public dialogues

about ecosystem management” (2013: 247). Challenges for practitioners and policy makers may

include uncertainty and a lack of understanding on how novel ecosystems may react long-term, and

what the evolutionary and ecological implications may be (Belnap et al., 2012). Challenges may

also arise from the absence of, or uncertainty with respect to past analogue reference points, the

growing demand on certain ecosystem services, and different, perhaps conflicting societal values,

assumptions, and stakeholder goals (Seastedt et al., 2008; Stafford-Smith et al., 2009; Belnap et al.,

2012). Furthermore, part of this challenge also includes difficulties in reaching consensus on the

scientific definition of novel ecosystems and criteria for the identification of novelty (Hobbs et al.,

2013; Morse et al., 2014). In acknowledging these opportunities and challenges, appeals have been

made for more flexible management approaches to acknowledge the potential biodiversity and

ecosystem service value of individual novel ecosystems (Harris et al., 2006; Seastedt et al., 2008;

Hobbs et al., 2009; Bridgewater and Yung, 2013). Yet, these appeals exist in parallel to the

widespread consensus that caution is advised in management approaches (Perring et al., 2013;

Hallett et al., 2013). Nevertheless, embracing novel ecosystem theory will mean that multiple paths

and choice of management goals may emerge; creating a range of possible practical and policy

opportunities for social and ecological transformation (Hulvey et al., 2013). The manner in which

these opportunities and challenges are managed in policy will have ramifications for the extent in

which the possible opportunities and benefits of novel ecosystems can be realised in the

Anthropocene (Bridgewater and Yung, 2013).


As the understanding and awareness of novel ecosystems increases, as well as emerging work

documenting the usefulness of taking a novel ecosystem approach when restoration to a historical

reference point is not possible (Doley and Audet, 2013), and perhaps because of its apparent

positive metaphorical message, there may be calls for novel ecosystem theory to be incorporated

not only into practice, but also policy frameworks. It has already been argued that novel landscapes

have potentially high values for educating designers and planners (Dooling, 2015). As is argued by

Hobbs et al. “Rather than posing a threat to existing practice, expanding the options available

provides a more robust and comprehensive toolkit for intervening in rapidly changing landscapes”

(2014: 557). So, while novel ecosystems are a recent arrival in the academic literature, there are

emerging discourses on utility of the concept, the nature of these ecosystems and their management.

There are on-going discussions on how to define and clarify some of the challenges that novel

ecosystem theory presents, especially the policy context of novel ecosystems (Bridgewater and

Yung, 2013). However, there appears to be little practical examination of transposing of novel

ecosystems into policy-making. This is despite a growing recognition in some areas that existing

policy frameworks may no longer be sufficient to respond to the kinds of rapid environmental

changes that can result in the creation of novel ecosystems in the first place. For many species, such

as migratory fauna, conservation efforts currently implemented through ecological reserves, as

dictated by policy, will be inefficient to ensure long-term protection (Waltert et al., 2011). Similar

contentions have been directed at places such as the Arctic, where the on-going risk associated with

climate and cultural change calls for more innovative policy responses (Chapin III et al., 2006).

Fears, however, have been raised that acknowledging novel ecosystem theory may lower the bar for

ecosystem conservation (Hobbs et al., 2011; Perring et al., 2013; Perring et al., 2014) and allow a

business as usual approach in society whereby environmentally harmful human behaviour and

related environmental degradation is ignored (Murcia et al., 2014). However, these concerns exist

alongside calls for a better understanding of the barriers to adapting to novel ecosystems in

environmental law and policy (Graham et al., 2014).

2. Method

Large scale reviews can be beneficial in helping researchers and decision makers keep up to date

with research and discussion on certain topics in ‘real time’, and to spot emerging issues that may

need investigation (Moher et al., 2009). Initially, the intention was to carry out a systematic review

in order to identify the challenges and opportunities to transpose novel ecosystems into policy,

following a call that more systematic reviews be conducted in conservation and environmental

management planning (Pullin and Stewart, 2006). Comprehensive systematic reviews have proven

useful in establishing the biodiversity and conservation opportunities when planning for, and


management of, offshore wind farms (Ashley et al., 2013), urban greening and green infrastructure

(Bowler et al., 2010), climate change adaptation (Berrang-Ford et al., 2011), semi-natural,

anthropogenic landscape features (Davies and Pullin, 2007; Collier, 2013). In the case of novel

ecosystems, a broad and conclusive systematic review was made difficult due to the lack of

empirical research assessing the description and extent of novel ecosystems, the ecological form

and socio-ecological impacts evaluations on the effectiveness of management systems in achieving

desired goals, and importantly, wider discussions on the policy implications. Therefore, a literature

analysis on the limited literature, currently available and accessible, pertaining to the topic of novel

ecosystems was carried out. Using Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar, this review

sought all available papers and book chapters which refer to novel ecosystems and their policy

implications. As ‘novel ecosystems’ is of recent origin conceptually, earlier descriptions were also

included in the search. These included: ‘new ecologies’, ‘ecological novelty’, ‘novel landscapes’

and ‘no-analog systems’. A snowball method was also used - this involved assessing the reference

lists of publications to identify further publications of significance. This literature survey was

carried out between June 2014 and February 2015 using key word searches as well as contacting

key contributors to the literature for literature sources, book chapter information, and grey literature

sources. While some time has passed between the survey, there has not been a substantial increase

in output concerning novel ecosystems in that time. Figure 1 presents the literature search process.

Figure 1: Diagram outlining how the final literature sample was reached.


The sample of 139 publications was later refined by using the search terms ‘policy’ and ‘policies’.

39 publications were identified that specifically addressed policy

implications.

23 publications were excluded – these comprised duplicates, unpublished material and speculative literature.

Using the key search terms listed, 162 publications were identified.

The final literature sample was analysed thematically using a qualitative approach. This first

involved the development of descriptive codes and later, analytical categories that formed the basis

for a framework that helped conceptually describe the policy ramifications arising from adopting

novel ecosystem theory.

Results

From examining the low volume of specific research, much of the available and relevant literature

contained papers drawn from experiential reflection, rather than empirical or experimental research.

This was to be expected due to the relative originality of this specific concept (though discussions

on ‘synthetic vegetation’ and ‘recombinant ecology’ have been going for several decades). Tables 1

and 2 were generated in order to illustrate the complexity (the challenges and opportunities) of

transposing novel ecosystem theory into mainstream policy-making.


Table 1: Eleven core challenges for policy in incorporating novel ecosystem theory.

Challenges for policy Explanation Citations and case-study examples where applicable1. Undefined and/or

conflicting timeframesThe ecological context and rate of change of novel ecosystems may lie outside of traditional policy timeframes and expectations.

Bridgewater et al., (2011)Former mine sites (Doley and Audet, 2013).Arctic regions (Chapin III et al. (2013).

2. Understanding ecological thresholds

Difficulties in determining ecological thresholds given the complexity and rate of change, external and internal forcing and other environmental stressors.

Coastal regions (Lyytimäki & Hildén, 2007).

3. Understanding ecological assemblages

Risks associated with unknown ecological assemblages and transitions in novel ecosystems. Novel ecosystems may respond to manipulation in unanticipated ways.

Tockner et al., 2011; Belnap et al. (2012); Bridgewater and Yung (2013); Moyle (2014); Lin and Petersen (2013); (Morse et al., 2014).Old fields and land abandonment (Cramer and Hobbs, 2007).Riverine systems in Mediterranean climate regions (Moyle, 2014).

4. Complex relationships with invasive and colonising species

The risks associated with invasive species raises challenges for conservation policy, with respect to species control, rates of spread, intensity of management and so on.

Walther et al. (2009); Larson et al. (2013); (Morse et al., 2014); Tassin and Kull (2015)

5. Environmental change Under changing environmental conditions, policy and its related environmental legal contexts require more flexible, dynamic and adaptive approaches to novel ecosystem management.

Suding, 2011; Zedler et al. (2012); Bridgewater and Yung (2013); Tassin and Kull (2015)

6. Policy trade-offs Novel ecosystems will require ecological and social trade-offs, mainstreaming novel ecosystem theory into policy means accepting particular, perhaps counterintuitive management options and implications.

Morse et al., 2014.Land abandonment (Perring et al., 2012).Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, United States (Caves et al. (2013).Galapagos Islands (Trueman et al., 2014).Riverine systems in Mediterranean climate regions (Moyle, 2014).

7. Societal perspective Traditional policy perspectives tend to regard nature as stable and static with policy objectives oriented towards the preservation of historical conditions and compositions.

Hobbs et al., (2011); Seastedt et al., 2008;Zedler et al. (2012); Bridgewater et al. (2011); Bridgewater and Yung (2013)


8. Societal expectations Societal and stakeholder expectations form a strong driver of policy direction, and conflicts may arise when policy directions differ from societal expectations.

Seastedt et al., 2008; Hobbs et al., 2011; Belnap et al., 2012; Perring et al., 2012; Marris et al., 2013; Morse, 2014

Post-industrial peatland (Collier and Scott, 2009).Drylands (Stafford-Smith et al., 2009).Shale Bings, Central Scotland (Harvie and Hobbs, 2013)

9. Management and intensity

Challenges in determining intervention, management intensity and strategies.

Hulvey et al. (2013); (Morse et al., 2014).Shale Bings, Central Scotland (Harvie and Hobbs, 2013).Coal mines in Central Queensland (Erskine and Fletcher, 2013).Riverine systems in Mediterranean climate regions (Moyle, 2014).

10. Management and communication

Management actions will be experimental and this will create challenges for communicating outcomes to policy and for how policy makers can use scientific knowledge effectively.

Moyle (2014); Bridgewater and Yung (2013); Seastedt et al. (2008)Riverine systems in Mediterranean climate regions (Moyle, 2014).

11. Early rejection and misapprehension of the theory

The problem framing of novel ecosystems may prevent more sufficient mainstreaming of the concept as well as dictate (and perhaps limit), management approaches, research and policy.

Kueffer (2013); Hobbs et al. (2013); Robbins and Moore (2013)


Table 1 illustrates how traditional policy frameworks, social values and assumptions of a presumed

nature state, and the various uncertainties related to novel ecosystems combine to present challenges

to adopting the concept into policy domains. This is a similar issue to many past and present

societal challenges such as the debates that surrounded genetically modified crops and

Nanotechnology. Accepting the notion of ecosystems in dynamic flux presents a challenge to the

widely held view of recovering to an historical reference point in order to achieving ecosystem

conservation policy. Further, gaps in understanding transitions and the passing of thresholds into

novel ecosystems also presents challenges for decision makers in policy, and subsequently

emphasises the need for, firstly, the prioritisation of empirical based research into ecosystem

changes and trajectories (Lin and Petersen, 2013; Morse et al., 2014), and secondly, greater

communication between scientists and policy makers on the ecological and socio-economic

outcomes, particularly concerning the opportunities, arising from novel ecosystems.

Table 2: Three opportunities for the policy adoption of novel ecosystem theory.

Opportunities Explanation Citations and case-study examples where applicable

1. Ecosystem services

Novel ecosystems can have ecosystem service value, including cultural, heritage and amenity value and opportunities for social adaptation to global environmental challenges, enabling a transformation to potentially advantageous ecosystem conditions and assemblages.

Seastedt et al. (2008); Kowarik (2011); Perring et al. (2013); Harvie and Hobbs (2013); Lin and Petersen (2013); Hallet et al., (2013); Collier (2014); Marris et al. (2013); Tassin and Kull (2015)Arctic regions ((Chapin et al., 2006).Field stone wall boundaries (Collier, 2013).Sri Lanka's novel ecosystems (Pethiyagoda, (2012).Hawaiian novel forests (Mascaro et al., 2012).Former mine sites (Doley and Audet, 2013).Artificial waterways (Harvolk et al., (2014).Uruguayan grasslands (Six et al., 2014).

2. Complementarity Novel ecosystems can complement traditional restoration efforts, particularly in landscapes where restoration is technically feasible but socially difficult

Perring et al., 2013

3. Collaborative approaches and societal implications

Acknowledging novel ecosystems presents opportunities for dialogue and collaboration between different sets of knowledge

Seastedt et al. (2008); (Suding, 2011); Belnap et al., (2012); Moyle (2014); (Hulvey et al., 2013; Morse et al., 2014)Societal implications (Collier, 2014)


holders and perspectives from policy- makers, scientists, managers and practitioners.

This is by no means an exhaustive listing of opportunities, but the three presented in table 2 are the

principal ideas that emerged from the limited literature available. The ability to understand

opportunities is reduced by the rate in which empirical research can take place, the changing and

uncertain nature of novel ecosystems, the timescales that are required to determine ecological

novelty, and whether or not research activities and policy frameworks can move from being

reductionist in focus to adopting a more integrative, holistic socio-ecological approach. Incomplete

or misinformed information arising from research may also actually exacerbate tensions at the

macro policy level (Larson et al., 2012).

Discussion

This short review is an analysis of the limited available literature carried out to identify the key

challenges and opportunities to transposing novel ecosystem theory into normative policy.

However, this review has revealed that despite an expanding literature on the managerial and

practitioner implications of novel ecosystems, there is less focus on considering the ramifications

for policy. Similar discussions emerged in the early research related to ecosystem services but the

research was further stimulated by the need to identify the implications of the ecosystem service

approach. Where present in the literature pertaining to novel ecosystems, reference to policy

implications is more circumspect and lacking closer investigation on the specific policy

implications, challenges or otherwise, arising from novel ecosystems. This is in line with views

made elsewhere concerning the lack of attention attributed to novel ecosystems in the policy context

(Bridgewater, 2011), and the need for more research into policy barriers (Graham et al., 2014).

Gaps in the literature may also be attributed to on-going debates concerning the prevalence and

definition of novel ecosystems, and the implications of these debates on empirical research

(Robbins, 2013; Murcia et al., 2014; Morse, 2014). While evidence from restoration ecology

suggests that practitioners and scientists often fail to explore the impacts for policy arising from

restoration work (Aronson et al., 2010). It is reasonable to hypothesise that this same contention can

be directed at the novel ecosystems theory.

Given the above limitations, this review has nonetheless identified eleven policy challenges. These

challenges broadly fall into three themes. First there is the theme of ecological complexities:

understanding timeframes, thresholds, assemblages and colonising stressors, combined under

continuing environmental change and anthropogenic forcing. This is paralleled by the second theme

of societal responses: values and perspectives, expectations and policy implications. A third theme


looks at management responses: intensity, communications and misapprehension. The growing

body of empirical work shows that novel ecosystems can exhibit, compliment and perhaps augment

ecological function and ecosystem services, offering opportunities to policy objectives concerned

with maintaining biodiversity and positive human-ecological interactions. This expanding body of

evidence highlights the need for new policy instruments that can recognise the potential value of

some novel ecological assemblages (Tassin and Kull, 2015). Opportunity for policy transformation

lies in the potential for greater dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders, practitioners, the

wider public, and policy makers. Though this will also bring to the surface some of the challenges

previously outlined, especially in managing expectations, and communication between scientists

and policy makers.

Debates concerning criteria for assessing what constitutes ecological novelty present further

challenges (Morse et al., 2014). This area of contention has implications for how such ecosystems

are identified, and resulting management, planning and policy implications. Prevailing social and

political assumptions and the problem framing of novel ecosystems may prevent more sufficient

adoption of the concept as well as dictate (and perhaps limit), research goals, management and

policy approaches taken (Kueffer, 2013; Hobbs et al., 2013; Robbins and Moore, 2013). In response

to these challenges, the need for policies and environmental legal frameworks to improve adaptive

capacity and allow for a more dynamic approach to ecosystem management and biodiversity

conservation has been highlighted (Zedler et al., 2012; Bridgewater and Yung, 2013). In the

Anthropocene, where we see human-induced ecological novelty manifested throughout the globe,

obstacles to the adoption of novel ecosystem theory such as policy resistance to change, lack of

technical knowledge and awareness of change drivers and their resulting ecological and social

outcomes, and limited budgets within policy arenas will all need to be addressed (Bridgewater and

Yung, 2013). In addressing some of the challenges identified, greater collaboration and dialogue

between scientists, practitioners and policy decision-makers is required. This will require consensus

at the practitioner level in how novel ecosystems and their related drivers are defined and managed,

for example, to protect specific species and maintain biodiversity, to improve or preserve ecosystem

services or functions, or to manage for novelty with respect to composition and possible ecosystem

services (Hulvey et al., 2013; Morse et al., 2014), as well as dialogue at the macro, policy level in

acknowledging the existence and extent of ecological novelty.

While concerns pertaining to a ‘business-as-usual approach’ and a ‘lowering of the bar’ in

ecological conservation cannot be ignored; there is growing obligation to develop new policies that

will address how we develop human activities especially in climate-vulnerable regions, such as, for

example, the Arctic (Bridgewater et al., 2011, (Chapin III et al., 2013), Zedler et al., 2012). Seasted


et al. (2008) argue that a road-map of the specific wants and needs of policy makers is now

required. This road map may help orient research activities which can be used to inform appropriate

dialogue and policy directions in novel ecosystem research (Wuelser et al., 2012; Kueffer and

Hirsch Hadorn, 2008). Theoretically, resilience approaches have been advocated as a framework for

enabling proactive policy structures to respond to novel ecosystems (Hobbs et al., 2010; Belnap et

al., 2012, Chapin III et al., 2013). These approaches recognise that such ecosystems often exist in

complex socio-ecological systems that require policy approaches that recognise such inter-linkages

and are sufficiently adaptable to take a place-based, site specific approach.

Failure to rationally discuss the policy implications of novel ecosystems will likely result in

misapprehension and misunderstanding; leading to a likely misrepresentation of the theory. Novel

ecosystems offer an avenue for deriving wider utility (ecological and social) from severely

impacted landscapes. This review has revealed some opportunities that are heretofore unexamined

and un-quantified. With the debate on the veracity of the Anthropocene reaching a climax, it is

perhaps an opportune time to stimulate research into the complexities of this issue and to begin to

quantify novel ecosystems and their societal implications.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this review was provided by Enterprise Ireland (reference number CS/2013/775). The

authors would like to thank sincerely the editors and reviewers for their helpful comments.


References

Abelleira Martínez OJ, Rodríguez MA, Rosario I, et al. (2009) Structure and species composition of novel forests dominated by an introduced species in northcentral Puerto Rico. New Forests 39: 1-18.

Aronson J, Blignaut JN, Milton SJ, et al. (2010) Are socioeconomic benefits of restoration adequately quantified? A meta-analysis of recent papers (2000 - 2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 other scientific journals. Restoration Ecology 18: 143-154.

Ashley MC, Mangi SC and Rodwell LD. (2013) The potential of offshore windfarms to act as marine protected areas – A systematic review of current evidence. Marine Policy 45: 301-309.

Belnap J, Ludwig JA, Wilcox BP, et al. (2012) Introduced and invasive species in novel rangeland ecosystems: friends or foes? Rangeland Ecology & Management 65: 569-578.

Berrang-Ford L, Ford JD and Paterson J. (2011) Are we adapting to climate change? Global Environmental Change 21: 25-33.

Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali L, Knight TM, et al. (2010) Urban greening to cool towns and cities: a systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning 97: 147-155.

Bridgewater P, Higgs ES, Hobbs RJ, et al. (2011) Engaging with novel ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9: 423.

Bridgewater P and Yung L. (2013) The Policy Context: building laws and rules that embrace novelty. In: Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES and Hall CM (eds) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 272-283.

Caves JK, Bodner GS, Simms K, et al. (2013) Integrating collaboration, adaptive management, and scenario-planning: experiences at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. Ecology and Society 18: 43-62

Chapin FS, Hoel M, Carpenter SR, et al. (2006) Building resilience and adaptation to manage Arctic change. Ambio 35: 198-202.

Chapin III FS, Lovecraft AL, Zavaleta ES, et al. (2006) Policy strategies to address sustainability of Alaskan boreal forests in response to a directionally changing climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103: 16637-16643.

Chapin III FS, Robards MD, Johnstone JF, et al. (2013) Case study: novel socio-ecological systems in the north: potential pathways towards ecological and societal resilience. In: Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES and Hall CM (eds) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 334-349.

Chen IC, Hill JK, Ohlemüller R, et al. (2011) Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333: 1024-1026.

Collier MJ. (2013) Field boundary stone walls as exemplars of 'novel' ecosystems. Landscape Research 38: 141-150.

Collier MJ. (2014) Novel ecosystems and the emergence of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 9: 166-169.


Collier MJ. (2015) Novel ecosystems and social-ecological resilience. Landscape Ecology 30: 1363-1369.

Collier MJ and Scott M. (2009) Conflicting rationalities, knowledge and values in scarred landscapes. Journal of Rural Studies 25: 267-277.

Cramer, VA, Hobbs, RJ (2007) Old Fields: Dynamics and Restoration of Abandoned Landscapes. Island Press, Washington, p. 352.

Davies Z and Pullin A. (2007) Are hedgerows effective corridors between fragments of woodland habitat? An evidence-based approach. Landscape Ecology 22: 333-351.

Doley D and Audet P. (2013) Adopting novel ecosystems as suitable rehabilitation alternatives for former mine sites. Ecological Processes 2: 1-11.

Dooling SE. (2015) Novel landscapes: challenges and opportunities for educating future ecological designers and restoration practitioners. Ecological Restoration 33: 96-110.

Ellis EC, Klein Goldewijk K, Siebert S, et al. (2010) Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19: 589-606.

Erskine, P and Fletcher, A (2013) Novel ecosystems created by coal mines in central Queensland's Bowen Basin. Ecological Processes 2, 33.

Graham NAJ, Cinner JE, Norström AV, et al. (2014) Coral reefs as novel ecosystems: embracing new futures. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 7: 9-14.

Grimm NB, Chapin FS, Bierwagen B, et al. (2013) The impacts of climate change on ecosystem structure and function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 474-482.

Hallett LM, Standish RJ, Hulvey KB, et al. (2013) Towards a Conceptual Framework for Novel Ecosystems. In: Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES and Hall CM (eds) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 16-28.

Harris JA, Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, et al. (2006) Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restoration Ecology 14: 170-176.

Harvie B and Hobbs R. (2013) Case Study: Shale Bings in Central Scotland: from ugly blots on the landscape to cultural and biological heritage. In: R. Hobbs EHaCMH (ed) Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New Eco-logical World Order. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 286-290.

Harvolk, S, Symmank, L, Sundermeier, et al (2015) Human impact on plant biodiversity in functional floodplains of heavily modified rivers - a comparative study along German Federal Waterways. Ecological Engineering 84, 463-475

Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, et al. (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15: 1-7.

Hobbs RJ, Higgs E and Harris JA. (2009) Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 599-605.

Hobbs, RJ, Hallett, LM, Ehrlich, PR, Mooney, HA (2011) Intervention Ecology: applying ecological science in the twenty-first century. BioScience 61, 442-450.


Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES and Hall CM. (2013) Defining Novel Ecosystems. In: Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES and Hall CM (eds) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 58-60.

Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES, Hall CM, et al. (2014) Managing the whole landscape: historical, hybrid and novel ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 557-564.

Hulvey KB, Standish RJ, Hallett LM, et al. (2013) Incorporating Novel Ecosystems into Management Frameworks. In: Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES and Hall CM (eds) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 157-171.

Jackson ST. (2013) Perspective: Ecological Novelty is not New. In: Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES and Hall CM (eds) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 61-65.

Kowarik, I (2011) Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environmental Pollution 159, 1974-1983.

Kueffer C. (2013) Integrating Natural and Social Sciences for Understanding and Managing Plant Invasions. In: Larrue S (ed) Biodiversity and Society in the Pacific Islands. Marseille / Canberra: Presses Universitaires de Provence / ANU ePress.

Kueffer C and Hirsch Hadorn G. (2008) How to achieve effectiveness in problem-orineted landscape research: the example of research on biotic invasions. Living Reviews in Landscape Research 2: 2-49.

Larson BM, Kueffer C and the ZiF Working Group on Ecological Novelty. (2013) Managing invasive species amidst high uncertainty and novelty. Trends Ecol Evol 28: 255-256.

Lin BB and Petersen B. (2013) Resilience, regime shifts, and guided transition under climate change: examining the practical difficulties of managing continually changing systems. Ecology and Society 18: 28-38.

Lyytimäki, J, Hildén, M. (2007) Thresholds of sustainability: policy challenges of regime shifts in coastal areas. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 3, 61-69.

Marris E. (2011) Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, New York: Bloomsbury.

Marris E, Mascaro J and Ellis EC. (2013) Perspective: Is Everything a Novel Ecosystem? If so, do we need the Concept? In: Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES and Hall CM (eds) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 345-349.

Mascaro, J, Hughes, RF and Schnitzer, SA (2012) Novel forests maintain ecosystem processes after the decline of native tree species. Ecological Monographs 82, 221-238.

Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery 8, 336-341.

Morse NB, Pellissier PA, Cianciola EN, et al. (2014) Novel ecosystems in the Anthropocene: a revision of the novel ecosystem concept for pragmatic applications. Ecology and Society 19: 12-22


Moyle PB. (2014) Novel aquatic ecosystems: the new reality for streams in California and other Mediterranean Climate regions. River Research and Applications 30: 1335-1344.

Murcia C, Aronson J, Kattan GH, et al. (2014) A critique of the 'novel ecosystem' concept. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29: 548-533.

Perring MP, Standish RJ and Hobbs RJ. (2013) Incorporating novelty and novel ecosystems into restoration planning and practice in the 21st century. Ecological Processes 2: 18-26.

Perring MP, Standish RJ, Hulvey KB, et al. (2012) The Ridgefield Multiple Ecosystem Services Experiment: can restoration of former agricultural land achieve multiple outcomes? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 163: 14-27.

Perring, MP, Audet, P, Lamb, D. (2014) Novel ecosystems in ecological restoration and rehabilitation: Innovative planning or lowering the bar? Ecological Processes 3, 8.

Pethiyagoda, R (2012) Biodiversity conservation in Sri Lanka's novel ecosystems. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences) 41, 1-10.

Pullin AS and Stewart GB. (2006) Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 20: 1647-1656.

Robbins P and Moore SA. (2013) Ecological anxiety disorder: diagnosing the politics of the Anthropocene. Cultural Geographies 20: 3-19.

Seastedt TR, Hobbs RJ and Suding KN. (2008) Management of novel ecosystems: are novel approaches required? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 547-553.

Six, LJ, Bakker, JD and Bilby, RE (2014) Vegetation dynamics in a novel ecosystem: agroforestry effects on grassland vegetation in Uruguay. Ecosphere 5(6):74

Stafford-Smith DM, Abel N, Walker B, et al. (2009) Drylands: coping with uncertainty, thresholds, and changes in state. In: III FSC, Kofinas GP and Folke C (eds) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. New York: Springer, 171-195.

Starzomski BM. (2013) Novel Ecosystems and Climate Change. In: Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES and Hall CM (eds) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 88-101.

Suding KN. (2011) Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 42: 465-487.

Tassin J and Kull CA. (2015) Facing the broader dimensions of biological invasions. Land Use Policy 42: 165-169.

Tockner K, Pusch M, Gessner J, et al. (2011) Domesticated ecosystems and novel communities: challenges for the management of large rivers. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 11: 167-174.

Trueman M, Standish RJ and Hobbs RJ. (2014) Identifying management options for modified vegetation: application of the novel ecosystems framework to a case study in the Galapagos Islands. Biological Conservation 172: 37-48.


Waltert M, Bobo KS, Kaupa S, et al. (2011) Assessing conservation values: biodiversity and endemicity in tropical land use systems. PLoS ONE 6: e16238.

Walther GR, Roques A, Hulme PE, et al. (2009) Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 24: 686-693.

Williams JW and Jackson ST. (2007) Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 475-482.

Wuelser G, Pohl C and Hirsch Hadorn G. (2012) Structuring complexity for tailoring research contributions to sustainable development: a framework. Sustainability Science 7: 81-93.

Yamano H, Sugihara K and Nomura K. (2011) Rapid poleward range expansion of tropical reef corals in response to rising sea surface temperatures. Geophysical Research Letters 38: L04601.

Yung L, Schwarze S, Carr W, et al. (2013) Engaging the Public in Novel Ecosystems. In: Hobbs R, Higgs E and Hall CM (eds) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Zedler JB, Doherty JM and Miller NA. (2012) Shifting restoration policy to address landscape change, novel ecosystems, and monitoring. Ecology and Society 17: 36-50.


Documents

researchrepository.ucd.ie · Web viewNovel ecosystems: challenges and opportunities for the Anthropocene. Marcus J. Collier (corresponding author) and Catherine Devitt. UCD School