Putting natural in its place : A new definition for New Zealand's natural character

The Nature of Natural: Defining natural character for the New Zealand context

Froude, V,A., Rennie, H,G & Bornman, J,F. (2010) The nature of natural: Defining natural character for the New Zealand context. New Zealand Journal of Ecology,34(3),332-341

 

Since the 1970's, New Zealand has had policies to protect its remaining natural character of its coastal, riparian and other fresh water environments. Although there has been a long-standing statutory policy in place for protecting natural character, there has been no authoritative definition of what natural really is. As a result, there have been no methods developed to measure natural character and its changes. Having a definition of natural character is also important for a plethora of purposes such as: using as part of conservation criteria and providing guidance for inventories and resource management. This forum paper aimed to find that much needed definition relevant to our unique New Zealand context. This was achieved through a literature review of natural character and related concepts from a spread of disciplines such as conservation biology, landscape planning and philosophy.



What most would consider to be an untouched natural landscape of podocarp forest
http://www.nzpcn.org.nz/c/content/L-Matheson-01a.jpg

 

A set of criteria were set up to find up the most suitable definition. These were:

 

·         Definition will apply to a wide scale of environments from untouched to modified

·         Human structures and activities should be included

·         New Zealand's unique naturalness will be considered

·         Covers all ecosystem types

·         Can be easily measured for monitoring purposes

·         Allows for the use of reference markers to which change can be measured

 

A total of nine suitable definitions from all natural definition contenders were narrowed down by the judges based on their match to the set criteria. A selection of highlights follows...................

 

Interpretation One: Natural character is naturalness that is a part of nature

This contender sees natural as being completely void of human interference. Natural character is derived from physical or biological elements, patterns or processes of nature that are indigenous to that specific environment.

 

 

Interpretation Two: Naturalness includes humans and their activities

The 'new ecology' approach. This interpretation sees humans as part of the complex and changeable biophysical systems. This concept stems from many indigenous cultures that see humans and nature as being intertwined.

 

Interpretation Three: Naturalness as a contrast to 'artifactuality'

This one is quite simple. The level of naturalness depends on how far removed it is from human-made objects established for specific functions.

 

Interpretation Four: Naturalness as historical independence from human ecosystems

Areas where there has been none-very little human modification would be considered natural. This contender therefore excludes restored areas as natural, so not the best contender.

 

Interpretation Five: Naturalness is where ecosystem processes occur without human intervention

This interpretation is another failed contender. Its definition disregards past influences and focuses on present and future human intervention.

 

Interpretation Six: Naturalness that includes ecologically harmonious human influence or interactions

This interpretation is the peacemaker between human and environmental naturalness. A possible winner as it includes ecological restoration as natural, but would need to be careful around how much human impact was OK.



Results of restoration at Mimimoto Lagoon
http://ecan.govt.nz/advice/biodiversity/restoration-trail/pages/mimimoto-lagoon.aspx

Interpretation Seven: Naturalness only includes humans if they are in a closed system

This interpretation would only work if New Zealander's were totally dependent on that ecosystem and would maybe have worked pre-European arrival (although in saying that, Maori were in a relatively closed-ecosystem and look at the damage that followed).

 

Interpretation Eight: Naturalness as a possession of features and properties found in an ideal ecosystem

 

A good idea, but what is ideal? Another forum would need to be carried out to define that too.

 

Interpretation Nine: Naturalness as a similarity of biotic structure, composition and physical/ecological process compared with historical benchmarks

This interpretation uses these criteria as representation of good ecological character. Areas that are most natural will have retained their biotic structure, composition and physical/ecological processes to levels that were similar to a determined pre-human benchmark. A bright contender for the final interpretation, although it fails to distinguish between naturalness of preserved verse restored ecosystems.

 

After a hard decision-making process, many interpretations had to be let down. It was interpretations 8 and 9 that met all the natural criteria, but didn't meet the human element criteria. This was best addressed by interpretation 3.

 

The winning definition:

 

The natural character of a site at any scale is the degree to which it is part of nature (particularly indigenous nature), free from effects of human activities and artefacts, exhibits the environmental factors chosen for reference conditions and exhibits ecological and physical process comparable with reference conditions.

 

A footnote to go with this choice is that human perceptions of natural character of a site will be a product of its biophysical attributes and will depend on personal / cultural context.

 

Discussion group reception:

 

There was a general consensus that the judging panel for selecting a definition for natural did well. Although the definition was complex it was recognised that the description had to fit a complex environment. The selection process was very thorough and covered all aspects of natural from all contexts. The group felt this was  crucial for the definition as it covers a very broad scope of disciplines; being able to define one definition that suits fits to all of those disciplines will create a controls for policy making. There were concerns around the inclusion of human perception of natural in the definition. Some felt that including this as a side note may allow lawyers to ease their way out of environmental breaches in court. Others suggested that this wouldn’t be a problem because it wasn’t quantifiable but still needed to be considered, especially for cases such as parks and reserves.

The hot topic in the room was in relation to interpretations that classified humans as being natural.  We can justify our actions by saying they are natural but without having morals we could drive the natural resources we rely on to extinction. Some agreed with Lovelock (2000) and see us as being part of nature. We are just another species, but we are the only species that are aware of our effects on the environment and have morals. Therefore, we are natural BUT what we do to the environment is often not natural, or is detrimental to natural.

The group was interested to see if the definition had been used in recent years to help with quantifying natural. Although the definition has been used to back up some current literature on defining natural, It has yet to be used in a more practical sense.

 

Questions:

Q. Should human perception be removed from the definition?

Q. Are humans natural? Or are we a component of nature?

 

 

References:

Froude, V,A., Rennie, H,G & Bornman, J,F. (2010) The nature of natural: Defining natural character for the New Zealand context. New Zealand Journal of Ecology,34(3),332-341

Lovelock, J. (2000) Gaia- a new look at life on earth, 4th edition, Oxford University press, 148

 

Are conservation biologists working too hard?

Are conservation biologists working too hard?

Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz, Lian Pin Koh, Richard B. Primack 2013. Biological Conservation

This paper focused on the workload of conservation biologist via amount of Manuscript and Review submission to the magazine Biological Conservation. The authors took into account the date and time of submission along with the respective country of the author. So are Conservation Biologists working too hard? The following are a highlights/quotes.

“In general, our results suggest that conservation biologists work extensively on weekends and at night, that the trend for working on weekends is increasing over time, and that these patterns have strong geographical structure. These habits could have negative impacts on the quality of the work as well as on the life-work balance of conservation scientists. Universities and other scientific organizations should allocate more time during regular work hours for scientists to complete their research duties, including the submission and review of manuscripts.”

“Scientists from different countries may have developed varied work habits to cope with these increasing workloads. Citizens of one country might be perceived to be more diligent than those of another, and this perception can give rise to national stereotypes.

"These perceptions, however, are largely anecdotal and subjective; as far as we know, there have been few studies comparing the work habits of scientists from different countries”

“Authors were in fact submitting less than a third as many papers on an average weekend day as on an average weekday.”



"Within the study period there was a gradual increase of ca. 5% per year in the rate of manuscripts submitted on weekends."

"We found that, overall, scientists involved in Biological Conservation’s editorial peer-review process do a substantial amount of work on the weekends (11–12% of total submissions) and on weekdays after working hours (16% of the overall manuscript submissions; Fig. 1)."

"Two authors from Belgium told us that, ‘‘I work only exceptionally on weekends,’’ and ‘‘weekends are reserved for family and household activities’’; authors from China and India reported that, ‘‘most scientists work seven days a week,’’ (China) and ‘‘I do real work (any thinking or writing) on weekends since my weekdays are taken up by administration and some teaching’’ (India). Additional factors, which need to be evaluated, are the desire to be in an air-conditioned office and need to work on weekends when internet connections are more available."



"Mexican scientists also are particularly active at night, reflecting their status as the country with the highest average work hours.


In summary, this study has shown that conservation biologists, and presumably other scientists as well, carry out a considerable portion of their work activities on weekends and evenings, that the tendency of working on weekends is increasing over time, and that overtime working habits have very distinct geographical patterns.

Why are scientists so active? Is it that their country requires it or is it for personal gain?

What other factors can play into the workload of scientists? Things such as family, administration and lecturing were mentioned—they also mention that, “There is a potential for this overtime to have a negative effect on the quality of the work done by the scientists as well as on the balance between work demands and family and personal life.”

Some Questions to consider

How has the workload affected you so far?



Could these be similar patterns to student workload/time management?



Access to internet and journals seems to play a role here how does it play a role in your workload?

Points/Comments Raised During Discussion Group

• Employers want you to work, but you also put the work on yourself
• No longer restricted to certain time frames
• Can do things whenever you would like to do them

• Pay
• Don’t get paid for lunch
• Don’t get paid for overtime
• Paid in salary, just work and do your job

• Pressure from peers/employer
• You are invested in your work, so you continue to worry about it
• Work fast to keep efficiency

• What is work?
• Work with your mind/dreams/in a shower/we work all the time

• Work patterns don’t change very much from student to postgrad
• Change very little/gradually
• Or it just gets worse
• There is more work but you get to adapt to it because you have to do it
• Over-commitment
• We are intellectually curious
• Cannot finish one project and go on to the next one, go off on tangents
• Some can multitask some can’t 

• Need to cut yourself off
• Need to take a break so you don’t get stale

• Lots of work/life balance when you become a supervisor
• Don’t want to let anyone down
• If it is your own project you put it at the end of the list since it only deals with you

• Naps?
• What are the benefits of naps?
• Should you get paid to sleep?
• Live in your office?
• If you live at work you might not be as productive

• Endorphins
• Work that is not stressful is good
• Work that is stressful is also good

• Some peoples brains are good with taking a break in the middle of a project others need to finish before going to bed

• Expectations
• We set expectations so we need to meet those expectations
• Forces us to keep raising the bar?
• Not giving a response so people try to figure it out on their own

• How to do this study a better way?
• Take Deadlines into account?
• Survey/anonymous 
• Some kind of monitoring on a personal scale

On the hope for biodiversity-friendly tropical landscapes

Melo, F.P.; Arroyo-Rodríguez, V.; Fahrig, L.; Martínez-Ramos, M.; Tabarelli, M. 2013, Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

 

Loss of biodiversity, forest fragmentation and habitat degradation are common features in tropical biotas, primarily as a result of human activity. In the past, conservation efforts have been based on preserving large intact areas of pristine rainforest, however this is becoming increasingly challenging (Melo et al., 2013). The management of human-modified-landscapes (HML) has been identified as an opportunity to conserve biodiversity, whereby productive non-degradable agricultural landscapes coexist with natural tropical forest (Chazdon et al., 2009; Melo et al., 2013). Secondary (regenerating) forests, as a part of the HML model, have been suggested by some as a ‘Noah’s Ark' for biodiversity. As a result, the primary goal is a somewhat favourable situation for both economy and the conservation of biodiversity. 
 

This article was written for the purpose to provide a conceptual model, which examines four possible successional trajectories (natural, conservation, functional and degraded) and examines the fundamental forces affecting the dynamics of HML’s. For example, Melo et al. (2013) identified that there is no guarantee that forest transition (net loss to net gain) driven by urbanisation and land abandonment will ultimately lead to further forest regeneration. Whether or not secondary forests will support the original suite of taxa, or retain improvised fractions of biodiversity will be influenced by processes, such as anthropogenic disturbance in the surrounding landscape.

The actual potential for maintaining biodiversity in HML’s remains controversial and uncertain, considering the current land uses such as extensive logging and more commonly slash-and-burn agriculture. Within the last the last 50 years alone, the expansion of agriculture has occurred at the expense of mature and regenerating forests, with less than 30% of the original forest cover remaining in developing tropical countries. Furthermore, the potential for secondary forests to become a target for land clearance in the future was identified as problematic (Melo et al., 2013). However, Hawes et al. (2008) reported that small patches of regenerating forest are able to retain high levels of biodiversity of several taxa, while supporting valuable ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and a sustainable hydrological supply (Chazdon et al., 2009). Melo et al. (2013) concluded that whether or not these landscapes shift towards sustainable or unsustainable systems will largely depend on agricultural practices.

Discussion group reception

One of the key points raised by the EcoEvo group is that the authors took an optimistic approach on HML’s, which was interpreted as HML’s may be the best alternative conservation option. While conserving pristine forest is ideal, regenerating secondary forest is better than no forest at all. In developing tropical countries, economic growth and productivity are often prioritised above conservation values; therefore an integrated landscape approach seems the only way to move forward, while maintaining biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainability of rural livelihoods (Chazdon et al., 2009). As developing countries become more affluent, farming could possibly become intensified, resulting in higher productivity while allowing marginally productive areas to be valued as conservation remnants.  This approach would require inter-disciplinary co-operation and extensive management to ensure sustainability, in rapidly changing tropical landscapes (Chazdon et al., 2009). 

As acknowledged in the article, the context of the surrounding landscape is both important and influential. Secondary forests are likely to retain higher levels of biodiversity if surrounded by other forest remnants in contrast to agricultural land and unsustainable practices. As Melo et al. (2013) discussed in the article, landscape context is key;  therefore it will be important to creatively clear land, so that representatives from each ecosystem are maintained and biodiversity is retained in the long-term.

There may be lessons that tropical countries could learn from developed western societies such as New Zealand. It was mentioned that if the Canterbury plains resembled the HML’s in the tropics, it would be a vast improvement of the current landscape.  In New Zealand, a large proportion of the fertile land has been cleared for agriculture, and remnant patches of native forest are few and far between. However, some areas such as along rivers, steep slopes and gullies are not generally productive, and are now being valued for their restoration potential. It seems that rarity is valued. In temperate countries large efforts are being made to restore the landscape, while conservation is often traded-off for productivity in tropical landscapes. 

Questions

Is landscape restoration possible for abandoned and degraded farmland on such a large scale?

How important are conceptual models for identifying conservation priorities and are there limitations to their practicality and relevance?

Could channelling limited resources into conserving secondary forest achieve better outcomes than using them solely to conserve primary rainforest?

References

Chazdon, R.L.; Harvey, C.A.; Komar, O.; Griffith, D.M.; Ferguson, B.G.; Martínez-Ramos, M.; Morales, H.; Nigh, R.; Soto-Pinto, L.; Van Breugel, M.; Philpott, S.M. 2009. Beyond Reserves: A Research Agenda for Conserving Biodiversity in Human-modified Tropical Landscapes. Biotropica 41: 142-153.

Hawes, J.; Barlow, J.; Gardner, T.A.; Peres, C.A. 2008. The value of forest strips for understorey birds in an Amazonian plantation landscape. Biological Conservation 141: 2262-2278.

Melo, F.P.; Arroyo-Rodríguez, V.; Fahrig, L.; Martínez-Ramos, M.; Tabarelli, M. 2013. On the hope for biodiversity-friendly tropical landscapes. Trends in ecology & evolution.

Demystifying the Cowboy Through His Song: How Cowboy Poetry and Music Create a Common Language Between Multiple-Use Conserservationists and Foerever-Wild Preservationists to Meet the Goals of Sustainable Agriculture

Ladd, K.Y., and R. Brain. 2013. Demystifying the Cowboy Through His Song: How Cowboy Poetry and Music Create a Common Language Between Multiple-Use Conservationists and Forever-Wild Preservationists to Meet the Goals of Sustainable Agriculture. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37:659-671 doi: 10.1080/21683565.2013.763886.

There exists a common misconception in life that farmers, ranchers, cowboys and the like are self-proclaimed ‘conquerors of the land’. The reality however is that the vast majority have a deep respect for their land and are interested not just in economic profitability, but also environmental stewardship. This misconception may have arisen from the apparent negative views towards outside interference from governments and conservationists. While each group have their own best interests in mind, they seldom appreciate the efforts and ideals of farmers and therefore fail in attempts to communicate their ideas effectively.

Conservation groups often battle with the agricultural sector; one side arguing for the creation and preservation of natural biodiversity and the other striving to make a living while providing food for many (including, one can assume, many of the conservationists themselves). Many of these opposing groups however would experience long-term success in their respective missions if they worked together rather than apart in situations when they share common goals. Bridging the two sides however requires a common language. This article centres on one such language that has arisen in a surprising place: cowboy poetry and music.

As it is such a fundamental element in their lives, the majority of cowboy poems tell of a connection to the beauty of the land and the animals that share the land with them. These works help to create a sense of place and meaning that creates sustainable ideals that are more complex than those derived from economic means. This is because the art and music come from and address human values including cultural practices, social interactions and human feelings which greatly influence individuals, social groups and institutions. Art has also been shown as important medium for communicating scientific information; finding bridges between the scientific community and the general public is arguably equally as important as any other separate community groups (Curtis, Reid, & Ballard, 2012).

Organized cowboy music festivals occur right across the USA having originated in Elko, Nevada in1985. At these festivals, traditions are passed on, ideas are shared and community spirits blossom. Trough the proclaiming of environmental values and traditions at these festivals, the shared goals of the multiple-use conservationists and the forever-wild preservationists are highlighted and can begin to coalesce. A key factor in the effectiveness of this medium in providing outreach beyond the farming community is that it is both entertaining and morally and intellectually supportive. Non-ranchers and environmentalists alike have a place where they can appreciate and support farmers and their actions, providing the framework towards realising and achieving common goals. Those who attend these festivals find others who value sustainability as well as new ways to practice sustainability conveniently. This both increases the likelihood of them continuing these behaviours as well as making them more likely to shape and pass on these attitudes and behaviours to future generations. This driving force in community spirit at these events helps forge bonds between different groups; by interacting on this level, they can better understand each other’s viewpoints in an environment that promotes expression and individuality. Perhaps the best way to put it, as the authors say, is ‘in short, art builds a bridge between different lifestyles’.

Discussion group reception

One of the more novel aspects of this paper is the fact that it explores the use of creative outlets in approaching social challenges. Communication is science is a large aspect of what we do; effective communication can be the difference between the ‘right’ ideas being taken-up by people and suffering negative backlash from people when there is a communication breakdown. 

As we saw in the above paper, encouraging people and groups to adopt creative outlets for important aspects of their lives can greatly facilitate understanding between different social groups. What I was most interested in was discussing how we may apply the concepts from this article in a more local sense.

The misconceptions raised in the article are also widespread in New Zealand, as are the many cases of negative reactions towards external interferences in farmer’s livelihoods. Check out some of the links below for examples:

Farmers fear protection rule a land-grab

Farmers fear loss of control of their land

Ex-mayor warns of Coromandel policy backlash

Farmers happy to allow SNA surveys on land

Council backs away from SNA extentions

In New Zealand, we do not have cowboy festivals at anything near the scales seen overseas. Here instead our farming community congregates annually at A&P shows, which sadly are more tuned into promoting agriculture and it’s service industries rather than of encouraging the encouraging the creative expression of individuals. If we were to attempt to introduce change into such a farming institution as the A&P show, we must proceed with the ‘the end of the wedge’.

Finding ways to encourage expression and communication between farming groups and conservationists and other communities was a reoccurring theme of the group discussion.  The need for effective communication and education to raise awareness and support for collaborative action and behaviour change is becoming more important in the context of global environmental issues, including biodiversity loss (Curtis et al., 2012). One such application involved the Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust, a non-profit organisation that promotes conservation and sustainability on the Peninsula through working closely with landowners, agencies and other community groups. The Trust has the potential for creating a platform for farmers to come along and share their particular views and insights about what it is like to live their lives. These events could be used to give positive feedbacks to farmers about the good work that they do, letting them know that we want to work with them to achieve common conservation goals.

The role of Lincoln University in all of this was also mentioned. Just like with encouraging the communication between different community groups, so too could we encourage communication between different research departments. This would benefit everyone, including ourselves, as there are many cases of different groups working on the same topic from different angles(e.g. shelter belts), with little or no communication on matters. Lincoln University has a very large influence on the farming community, and the numerous community education days are a good opportunity to communicate the values of conservation to the general farming public.

Action points from the meeting:

1. Enquire into exactly what the university means by ‘best practices’ on its model dairy farms; in particular, enquiring is it uses environmental sustainability as a measure of success

2. Invite farmers and other professionals from the agricultural sector to speak at the Eco-pathways seminars so as to gain an appreciation for what they do

3. Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust: Focus on Farms Art, Music and Poetry events

Questions:

What are the most important ideas that we want to put across to the agricultural community in regards to ecology and/or sustainability?

How might we convey conservation ideals to those that do not identify with not only science, but art and poetry as well?

Curtis, D. J., Reid, N., & Ballard, G. (2012). Communicating Ecology Through Art: What Scientists Think. Ecology and Society, 17(2 C7 - 3).

Animal Personalities: Consequences for ecology and evolution

Max Wolf & Franz Weissing, 2012, Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Behavioural studies have traditionally focused on variation at a population or species level. Until recently, individual level variation was largely overlooked. Although it was accepted that individuals could adopt alternative behavioural strategies, any further variability was considered noise (Smith & Blumstein 2008).  In the past decade the idea of "animal personalities" has gained momentum. Animal personalities are defined as differences in behavioural tendencies which are constant over time and correlated across different contexts (Wolf & Weissing 2012). This is distinct from the concept of behavioural strategy  because while strategies usually only apply in a singular context, personalities are multifaceted and occur across multiple contexts (Smith & Blumstein 2008). Examples of personality traits include exploration tendency, boldness, docility, activity, aggressiveness, impulsivity and fearfulness (Smith & Blumstein 2008; Wolf & Weissing 2012)

While many studies have examined the occurrence, form and cause of personality differences. Surprisingly, very few studies have examined the consequences of personalities. This review article was written for the purpose of filling this gap in the knowledge. Specifically, the authors sought to assess whether personality differences could have implications for large scale ecological and evolutionary processes.

Wolf & Weissing (2012) address this issue by examining 14 potential implications of animal personality differences. These proposed implications were diverse, ranging from effects on spatial distribution to speciation. One of the better supported implications was that animal personality traits (such as exploration and boldness) affect dispersal tendency. Such an assertion is supported observation that individuals which portray appropriate 'behavioural syndromes' tend to be more frequent during the early stages of invasion (Carere & Gherardi 2013). 

 At the end of the day, these 14 consequences boil down to four key assertions (Wolf & Weissing 2012).

1. Personality differences enhance biodiversity 
2. Personality traits are linked to species distribution
3. Personalities lead to structured variation which could have evolutionary consequences
4. Personality differences lead to the emergence of other forms of individual variation including differences in life history, physiology, neurology and disease.

Discussion Group Reception

The first point raised by the EcoEvo discussion group was the confusing distinction between personality and behavioural strategy. By definition, personalities have consistency between different contexts while behavioural strategies tend to address a single situation. Unfortunately, this was not clearly articulated within the article. The authors use the term ‘animal personality’ interchangeably with ‘behavioural difference’ which creates ambiguity. To make things even more confusing, some of their chosen examples appear to more closely fit the definition of behavioural strategy e.g. labour division in meercats. While such critique of terminology may seem finicky, we believed this inconsistency made it hard to discern the overall message of the article.

The paper was also criticised on the grounds that many of its conclusions lacked firm evidence. The authors of this paper did acknowledge this limitation, however, they did not believe it invalidated any of their arguments. This was not a view held by many at the discussion group. We felt that some of the claims of the article were too far-reaching. This was particularly evident when dealing with the implications at an evolutionary timescale such as speciation, rate of evolution etc.

Following critique of the paper, the discussion turned to focus on how animal personalities could be integrated into conservation and management practices. We identified three main areas that we felt could benefit from examination of individual personalities; control, translocation and captive breeding.

•    Control:  Personality differences leading to variation in bait shyness or disease transmission could be significant when planning control operations to eradicate possums. Réale et al. (2000) showed that individual variation in boldness was associated with willingness to enter baited traps in Big Horned Sheep, perhaps a similar phenomenon is occurs in possums? This would be significant from a control perspective because control techniques tend to target the ‘average’ behaviour of a population. If, for example, 'shyness' was a unusually prevalent within a population, the effectiveness of control
may be compromised.

•    Translocation: Certain personalities may be better suited to reintroduction and translocation e.g.  individuals that are predation savvy (e.g. Black Stilts) or more likely to breed in harsh conditions (e.g. Kakapo) may have greater success. In accordance with this idea, Bremmer-Harrison et al. (2004) found that Swift Foxes whom were judged to be bold in captivity were were less likely to survive more than six months after reintroduction than their non-bold counterparts.

•    Captive Breeding: We suggested that certain personality types may lend themselves more readily to captive breeding programmes. Many studies have actually examined this link between reproductive success and personality. Fearfulness has been correlated with reduced reproductive success in captive cheetahs (Wielebnowski 1999) and boldness has been associated with increased breeding success in female black rhinos (Carlstead 1999)

All and all, we felt that study of animal personality would likely improve management of wild and captive populations. However, we were unsure whether these improvements would be significant enough to justify the required investment of resources.

Questions

Is the concept of ascribing personalities to animals inherently anthropomorphic?

Is there a meaningful distinction between ‘personality’ and ‘behavioural strategy’?

Should we be more selective about what we define as animal personality? a.k.a. Can an insect really have a personality?

Is investigation of personality differences a worthwhile investment from a management perspective (particularly for NZ)? If so, how could personalities be quantified in a standardised manner?


References

Bremner-Harrison, S., Prodohl, P.A. & Elwood, R.W. (2004) Behavioural trait assessment as a release criterion: boldness predicts early death in a reintroduction programme of captive-bred swift fox (Vulpesvelox). Animal Conservation, 7, 313-320.

Carlstead, K., Mellen, J., Kleiman, D.G. (1999) Black rhinoceros (Dicerosbicornis) in U.S. zoos: Individual behaviour profiles and their relationship to breeding success. Zoo Biology, 18, 17-34.

Carere, C., Gherardi, F. (2013) Animal personalities matter for biological invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28, 5-6.

Réale, D., Gallant, B.Y., Leblanc, M. & Festa-Bianchet, M. (2000). Consistency of tempera-
ment in bighorn ewes and correlates with behaviour and life history. Animal Behaviour, 60, 589-597.

Smith, B.R. & Blumstein, D.T. (2008) Fitness consequences of personality: a meta-analysis. Behavioural Ecology, 19, 448-455.

Wielebnowski, N.C. (1999) Behavioural differences as predictors of breeding status in captive cheetahs. Zoo Biology, 18, 335-349.

Wolf, W. & Weissing, F.J. (2012) Animal personalities: consequences for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27, 452–461.

What conservationists need to know about farming

 

Farming is the basis of our civilization. Though the world’s population is increasing largely and is expected to rise from the present 7 billion people to 9 billion by the year 2050 (UNPD, 2011) thus the demand for farm products increases accordingly. The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that the demand for food will rise 70 percent worldwide between year 2005 and 2050 (FAO, 2009). The great challenge for our civilization is that, although we are dependent on farming, at the same time farming is the most nature damaging sector of human activity to the planet. This is because farms are not closed systems but affect the surrounding environment. Biodiversity and wildlife are often the trade-off for farming. Tackling these issues requires conservationists to explore the many consequences that decisions about agriculture have beyond the farm. While it is important to consider conservation values on farmland, consideration also needs to be given to; what sorts of species are found where, the abundance of each species, agricultural yields, and the relative proportions of intact habitat and high- and low-yielding farming. There is a pressing need to measure how biodiversity varies with farm yield but also to consider other ecosystem services. We need to develop methods for how best to limit the cost of farming across a group of benefits important to society. Also it is important to identify likely “winners” based on data and not ideology when it comes to agricultural methods.  Land-sharing, land-sparing, push-pull, breeding and genetic modification techniques must be considered and evaluated. Further governmental regulation and land-use planning should likewise be considered, but with the market and consumer power in mind.

We discussed the advantages and disadvantages of land-sharing versus land-sparing. A member of the group shared experience of land-sharing not always being the best solution for enhancing ecological processes.  The group agreed that the most sustainable agricultural method in a given situation will be context and scale dependent. With the article’s example of nearly no research existing on chicken farming’s effect on the environment due to required cropland etc., a question on biodiversity was raised; could organic chicken farming be more harmful for the biodiversity than the conventional mass-production? Also discussed was the possibility of offering credit for farming biodiversity in order to motivate farmers to enhance biodiversity on their farms, since some farmers do care and listen to the public reactions of environmental impacts. It was suggested that increased diversity of farming within a landscape will increase biodiversity, though with that comment a discussion arose about agriculture responding to the market and that it is nearly impossible to put a price on biodiversity value. In addition, the issues of the general public only caring about conserving the cute animals and the pictures landscape was brought up with the question of; how can we make biodiversity valuable to the public?

Is the trade-off for biodiversity measurable? Is the bottom-line for a trade-off, between biodiversity and economic wealth? If so, where does that leave conservationists and the science of ecology?  

References

Balmford, Andrew et al., 2012, what conservationists need to know about farming, Proceedings of The Royal Society Journal, Biological Science.

FAO, 2009, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, State of food insecurity in the world 2009, Rome, Italy.

UNPD, 2011, United Nations Population Division, World population prospects: the 2010 revision. New York, United States.

 

Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Complementary approaches for ecosystem management?

Schneiders et al. (2012)

According to the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2003), ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits humans obtain from ecological systems. They can be classified as providing services, such as food; regulating services, like control of diseases; cultural services, as recreational; and supporting services, such as nutrient cycling. Many surveys are currently being conducted on ES, particularly addressing their economic valuation. These studies are contributing to the evaluation of strategies for alternative uses of land and, most importantly, may aid in demonstrating and justifying the urge for conserving biological diversity (Schneiders et al., 2012).

Furthermore, many researchers have stated that the quality and sustainability of ES could be directly influenced by, or strongly correlated with, the level of biodiversity of an ecosystem (MA, 2003, Cardinale et al., 2012, Schneiders et al., 2012). However, for many ES, the evidence for the effects that biodiversity has on them is mixed or insufficient. In addition, how biodiversity per se contributes to the ES is even less well defined (Cardinale et al., 2012).

This week’s paper aimed to resolve the much-discussed question ´Are biodiversity conservation, with the aim of preserving biodiversity, and ES, with the goal of sustaining human well-being, mutually beneficial or are trade-offs always inevitable?´. In order to address this aim, the authors:

• Analyzed the relations between biodiversity, ES and land use intensity for the region of Flanders through a comparison of their estimated values (generated by expert opinion) in grid maps (4km x 4 km). The researchers found a negative relationship between biodiversity and ES values and land use intensity values. 
• Described the relationships between biodiversity and land use intensity, for the long term future. Here, the authors discussed the importance of establishing a ´safe minimum standard of conservation´ (SMS) that is the ´lowest´ biodiversity level accepted by society. This SMS will help evaluating whether an ecosystem is healthy or not and if the use of ES are being sustainable.
• Applied ecosystem management in order to relate the current and the future target scheme. The researchers recommended different approaches of EM according to the characteristics of the areas: for zones with high levels of biodiversity, they recommended a biodiversity based approach; for zones with multifunctional uses and a good state as a future perspective, an ecosystem service approach was suggested; and for built-up zones and areas with intensive agricultural used, their advice was a technological service based approach. The authors suggested that by using this division of ecosystem management the joint achievement of biodiversity and ES goals would be easier. 

The discussion started with the statement that considering the main objective of ES is human well-being, conservation focusing on ES would focus mainly on species that make those kinds of services possible. Then, the group recognized the risk of this type of conservation for we only know few species and even less about their functions and the ES they are involved with. Therefore, it was stated that conservation efforts should focus on preserving as much as possible (the precautionary principle), except in those ecosystems where a specific ES is needed. 

Later, the discussion moved into ES being a buzzword. In the past, it helped to gather people from different disciplines together to talk about conserving biodiversity. Sadly, now ES is mainly being used as a tool for valuing how much money society can get from nature. The group recognized that the lack of environmental education and an emotional connection with nature would have predisposed societies to having an ‘I-only-care-about-having-money’ attitude. This lack of attachment to nature could be one of the causes that makes new generations insensitive to what happens around them and in their environment because they only care about getting the maximum profit from it. 

As for the paper itself, the group claimed that even though the findings obtained by the papers were not novel and they did not actually measure ES nor present any solution, the method of grid maps used was a good contribution for a spatial analysis and could be helpful in determining what type of management is appropriate according to the features of an area. The group also questioned the used of ´experts opinion´ in establishing the values for land use type (Appendix A of the paper).

Questions:

1. How can ecologists help current and future generations consider the importance of biodiversity and actually care about nature? A member of the group proposed including some ecology courses in the curricula. Will this be enough to change students´mentality?  
2. Considering that we cannot conserve all species, should conservation programs focus on species that provide ES? Will this actually help the conservation of the ecosystem and its functions? What about the other species?

 References:

1. Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G.M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D.A., Kinzig, A.P., Daily, G.C., Loreau, M., Grace, J.B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D.S., & Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59–67. doi:10.1038/nature11148
2. MA. (2003). Millenium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being - a framework for assessment. Washington, U.S.A.: Island Press.
3. Schneiders, A., van Daele, T., van Landuyt, W., & van Reeth, W. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: complementary approaches for ecosystem management?. Ecological Indicators, 21(SI), 123-133. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.021