Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt

Ecosystem recovery from anthropogenic disturbances, either without human intervention or assisted by ecological restoration, is increasingly occurring worldwide. As ecosystems progress through recovery, it is important to estimate any resulting deficit in biodiversity and functions. Here we use data from 3,035 sampling plots worldwide, to quantify the interim reduction of biodiversity and functions occurring during the recovery process (that is, the 'recovery debt'). Compared with reference levels, recovering ecosystems run annual deficits of 46-51% for organism abundance, 27-33% for species diversity, 32-42% for carbon cycling and 31-41% for nitrogen cycling. Our results are consistent across biomes but not across degrading factors. Our results suggest that recovering and restored ecosystems have less abundance, diversity and cycling of carbon and nitrogen than 'undisturbed' ecosystems, and that even if complete recovery is reached, an interim recovery debt will accumulate. Under such circumstances, increasing the quantity of less-functional ecosystems through ecological restoration and offsetting are inadequate alternatives to ecosystem protection

Losses of ammonia and nitrate from agriculture and their effect on nitrogen recovery in the European Union and the United States between 1900 and 2050

Historical trends and levels of nitrogen (N) budgets and emissions to air and water in the European Union and the United States are markedly different. Agro-environmental policy approaches also differ, with emphasis on voluntary or incentive-based schemes in the United States versus a more regulatory approach in the European Union. This paper explores the implications of these differences for attaining long-term policy targets for air and water quality. Nutrient surplus problems were more severe in the European Union than in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s. The EU Nitrates and National Emission Ceilings directives contributed to decreases in fertilizer use, N surplus, and ammonia (NH3) emissions, whereas in the United States they stabilized, although NH3 emissions are still increasing. These differences were analyzed using statistical data for 1900-2005 and the global IMAGE model. IMAGE could reproduce NH3 emissions and soil N surpluses at different scales (European Union and United States, country and state) and N loads in the Rhine and Mississippi. The regulation-driven changes during the past 25 yr in the European Union have reduced public concerns and have brought agricultural N loads to the aquatic environment closer to US levels. Despite differences in agro-environmental policies and agricultural structure (more N-fixing soybean and more spatially separated feed and livestock production in the United States than in the European Union), current N use efficiency in US and EU crop production is similar. IMAGE projections for the IAASTD-baseline scenario indicate that N loading to the environment in 2050 will be similar to current levels. In the United States, environmental N loads will remain substantially smaller than in the European Union, whereas agricultural production in 2050 in the United States will increase by 30% relative to 2005, as compared with an increase of 8% in the European Union. However, in the United States, even rigorous mitigation with maximum recycling of manure N and a 25% reduction in fertilizer use will not achieve the policy target to halve the N export to the Gulf of Mexico

Restoration and repair of Earth's damaged ecosystems.

Given that few ecosystems on the Earth have been unaffected by humans, restoring them holds great promise for stemming the biodiversity crisis and ensuring ecosystem services are provided to humanity. Nonetheless, few studies have documented the recovery of ecosystems globally or the rates at which ecosystems recover. Even fewer have addressed the added benefit of actively restoring ecosystems versus allowing them to recover without human intervention following the cessation of a disturbance. Our meta-analysis of 400 studies worldwide that document recovery from large-scale disturbances, such as oil spills, agriculture and logging, suggests that though ecosystems are progressing towards recovery following disturbances, they rarely recover completely. This result reinforces conservation of intact ecosystems as a key strategy for protecting biodiversity. Recovery rates slowed down with time since the disturbance ended, suggesting that the final stages of recovery are the most challenging to achieve. Active restoration did not result in faster or more complete recovery than simply ending the disturbances ecosystems face. Our results on the added benefit of restoration must be interpreted cautiously, because few studies directly compared different restoration actions in the same location after the same disturbance. The lack of consistent value added of active restoration following disturbance suggests that passive recovery should be considered as a first option; if recovery is slow, then active restoration actions should be better tailored to overcome specific obstacles to recovery and achieve restoration goals. We call for a more strategic investment of limited restoration resources into innovative collaborative efforts between scientists, local communities and practitioners to develop restoration techniques that are ecologically, economically and socially viable

Restoration and repair of Earth's damaged ecosystems

International audienceGiven that few ecosystems on the Earth have been unaffected by humans, restoring them holds great promise for stemming the biodiversity crisis and ensuring ecosystem services are provided to humanity. Nonetheless, few studies have documented the recovery of ecosystems globally or the rates at which ecosystems recover. Even fewer have addressed the added benefit of actively restoring ecosystems versus allowing them to recover without human intervention following the cessation of a disturbance. Our meta-analysis of 400 studies worldwide that document recovery from large-scale disturbances, such as oil spills, agriculture and logging, suggests that though ecosystems are progressing towards recovery following disturbances, they rarely recover completely. This result reinforces conservation of intact ecosystems as a key strategy for protecting biodiversity. Recovery rates slowed down with time since the disturbance ended, suggesting that the final stages of recovery are the most challenging to achieve. Active restoration did not result in faster or more complete recovery than simply ending the disturbances ecosystems face. Our results on the added benefit of restoration must be interpreted cautiously, because few studies directly compared different restoration actions in the same location after the same disturbance. The lack of consistent value added of active restoration following disturbance suggests that passive recovery should be considered as a first option; if recovery is slow, then active restoration actions should be better tailored to overcome specific obstacles to recovery and achieve restoration goals. We call for a more strategic investment of limited restoration resources into innovative collaborative efforts between scientists, local communities and practitioners to develop restoration techniques that are ecologically, economically and socially viable

Data from: Restoration and repair of Earth's damaged ecosystems

Given that few ecosystems on Earth have been unaffected by humans, restoring them holds great promise for stemming the biodiversity crisis and ensuring ecosystem services are provided to humanity. Nonetheless, few studies have documented the recovery of ecosystems globally or the rates at which ecosystems recover. Even fewer have addressed the added benefit of actively restoring ecosystems versus allowing them to recover without human intervention following the cessation of a disturbance. Our meta analysis of 400 studies worldwide that document recovery from large-scale disturbances, such as oil spills, agriculture, and logging, suggests that though ecosystems are progressing towards recovery following disturbances, they rarely recover completely. This result reinforces conservation of intact ecosystems as a key strategy for protecting biodiversity. Recovery rates slowed down with time since the disturbance ended, suggesting that the final stages of recovery are the most challenging to achieve. Active restoration did not result in faster or more complete recovery than simply ending the disturbances ecosystems face. Our results on the added benefit of restoration must be interpreted cautiously, because few studies directly compared different restoration actions in the same location after the same disturbance. The lack of consistent value added of active restoration following disturbance suggests that passive recovery should be considered as a first option; if recovery is slow then active restoration actions should be better tailored to overcome specific obstacles to recovery and achieve restoration goals. We call for more strategic investment of limited restoration resources into innovative collaborative efforts between scientists, local communities, and practitioners to develop restoration techniques that are ecologically, economically, and socially viable

Electronic Supplementary Material from Restoration and repair of Earth's damaged ecosystems

Supplementary methods, tables, and figure

Climate change in the Baltic Sea:2021 fact sheet

Abstract Climate change effects on the Baltic Sea environment are manifold. It is for example expected that water temperature and sea level will rise, and sea ice cover will decrease. This will affect ecosystems and biota; for example, range shifts are expected for a number of marine species, benthic productivity will decrease, and breeding success of ringed seals will be reduced. The impacts will hence affect the overall ecosystem function and also extend to human uses of the sea; trawling will follow the fish towards southern areas, aquaculture will likely face a shift towards species diversification, and the value of most ecosystem services is expected to change — to name a few. This Climate Change Fact Sheet provides the latest scientific knowledge on how climate change is currently affecting the Baltic Sea and how it is expected to develop in the foreseeable future. It is aimed at guiding policy makers to take climate change into account, but also to the general public. Updated Baltic Sea Climate Change Fact Sheets are expected to be published approximately every seven years