Coral reef ecosystem services in the Anthropocene

Coral reefs underpin a range of ecosystem goods and services that contribute to the well‐being of millions of people. However, tropical coral reefs in the Anthropocene are likely to be functionally different from reefs in the past. In this perspective piece, we ask, what does the Anthropocene mean for the provision of ecosystem services from coral reefs? First, we provide examples of the provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services underpinned by coral reef ecosystems. We conclude that coral reef ecosystem service research has lagged behind multidisciplinary advances in broader ecosystem services science, such as an explicit recognition that interactions between social and ecological systems underpin ecosystem services. Second, drawing on tools from functional ecology, we outline how these social–ecological relationships can be incorporated into a mechanistic understanding of service provision and how this might be used to anticipate future changes in coral reef ecosystem services. Finally, we explore the emergence of novel reef ecosystem services, for example from tropicalized coastlines, or through changing technological connections to coral reefs. Indeed, when services are conceived as coming from social–ecological system dynamics, novelty in services can emerge from elements of the interactions between people and the ecosystem. This synthesis of the coral reef ecosystem services literature suggests the field is poorly prepared to understand the changing service provision anticipated in the Anthropocene. A new research agenda is needed that better connects reef functional ecology to ecosystem service provision. This research agenda should embrace more holistic approaches to ecosystem service research, recognizing them as co‐produced by ecosystems and society. Importantly, the likelihood of novel ecosystem service configurations requires further conceptualization and empirical assessment. As with current ecosystem services, the loss or gain of services will not affect all people equally and must be understood in the context in which they occur. With the uncertainty surrounding the future of coral reefs in the Anthropocene, research exploring how the benefits to people change will be of great importance

Guiding coral reef futures in the Anthropocene

Anthropogenic changes to the Earth now rival those caused by the forces of nature and have shepherded us into a new planetary epoch – the Anthropocene. Such changes include profound and often unexpected alterations to coral reef ecosystems and the services they provide to human societies. Ensuring that reefs and their services endure during the Anthropocene will require that key drivers of coral reef change – fishing, water quality, and anthropogenic climate change – stay within acceptable levels or “safe operating spaces”. The capacity to remain within these safe boundaries hinges on understanding the local, but also the increasingly global and cross-scale, socioeconomic causes of these human drivers of change. Consequently, local and regional management efforts that are successful in the short term may ultimately fail if current decision making and institution-building around coral reef systems remains fragmented, poorly coordinated, and unable to keep pace with the escalating speed of social, technological, and ecological change

Local human impacts disrupt relationships between benthic reef assemblages and environmental predictors

Human activities are changing ecosystems at an unprecedented rate, yet large-scale studies into how local human impacts alter natural systems and interact with other aspects of global change are still lacking. Here we provide empirical evidence that local human impacts fundamentally alter relationships between ecological communities and environmental drivers. Using tropical coral reefs as a study system, we investigated the influence of contrasting levels of local human impact using a spatially extensive dataset spanning 62 outer reefs around inhabited Pacific islands. We tested how local human impacts (low versus high determined using a threshold of 25 people km−2 reef) affected benthic community (i) structure, and (ii) relationships with environmental predictors using pre-defined models and model selection tools. Data on reef depth, benthic assemblages, and herbivorous fish communities were collected from field surveys. Additional data on thermal stress, storm exposure, and market gravity (a function of human population size and reef accessibility) were extracted from public repositories. Findings revealed that reefs subject to high local human impact were characterised by relatively more turf algae (>10% higher mean absolute coverage) and lower live coral cover (9% less mean absolute coverage) than reefs subject to low local human impact, but had similar macroalgal cover and coral morphological composition. Models based on spatio-physical predictors were significantly more accurate in explaining the variation of benthic assemblages at sites with low (mean adjusted-R2 = 0.35) rather than high local human impact, where relationships became much weaker (mean adjusted-R2 = 0.10). Model selection procedures also identified a distinct shift in the relative importance of different herbivorous fish functional groups in explaining benthic communities depending on the local human impact level. These results demonstrate that local human impacts alter natural systems and indicate that projecting climate change impacts may be particularly challenging at reefs close to higher human populations, where dependency and pressure on ecosystem services are highest

Parsing human and biophysical drivers of coral reef regimes

Coral reefs worldwide face unprecedented cumulative anthropogenic effects of interacting local human pressures, global climate change and distal social processes. Reefs are also bound by the natural biophysical environment within which they exist. In this context, a key challenge for effective management is understanding how anthropogenic and biophysical conditions interact to drive distinct coral reef configurations. Here, we use machine learning to conduct explanatory predictions on reef ecosystems defined by both fish and benthic communities. Drawing on the most spatially extensive dataset available across the Hawaiian archipelago-20 anthropogenic and biophysical predictors over 620 survey sites-we model the occurrence of four distinct reef regimes and provide a novel approach to quantify the relative influence of human and environmental variables in shaping reef ecosystems. Our findings highlight the nuances of what underpins different coral reef regimes, the overwhelming importance of biophysical predictors and how a reef's natural setting may either expand or narrow the opportunity space for management interventions. The methods developed through this study can help inform reef practitioners and hold promises for replication across a broad range of ecosystems. © 2019 The Author(s

Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society : knowledge for sustainable stewardship of social-ecological systems

CITATION: Norstrom, A. V., et al. 2017. Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society : knowledge for sustainable stewardship of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(1):47, doi:10.5751/ES-09010-220147.The original publication is available at https://www.ecologyandsociety.orgNo abstract availablehttps://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss1/art47/Publisher's versio

Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science

CITATION: Folke, C., et al. 2016. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 21(3):41, doi:10.5751/ES-08748-210341.The original publication is available at https://www.ecologyandsociety.orgHumanity has emerged as a major force in the operation of the biosphere. The focus is shifting from the environment as externality to the biosphere as precondition for social justice, economic development, and sustainability. In this article, we exemplify the intertwined nature of social-ecological systems and emphasize that they operate within, and as embedded parts of the biosphere and as such coevolve with and depend on it. We regard social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems and use a social-ecological resilience approach as a lens to address and understand their dynamics. We raise the challenge of stewardship of development in concert with the biosphere for people in diverse contexts and places as critical for long-term sustainability and dignity in human relations. Biosphere stewardship is essential, in the globalized world of interactions with the Earth system, to sustain and enhance our life-supporting environment for human well-being and future human development on Earth, hence, the need to reconnect development to the biosphere foundation and the need for a biosphere-based sustainability science.https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss3/art41/Publisher's versio

Coral reefs as novel ecosystems:embracing new futures

The composition and functions of many ecosystems are changing, giving rise to the concept of novel ecosystems. Although some coral reefs are becoming non-coral systems, others are becoming novel coral-dominated ecosystems driven principally by differential species responses to climate change and other drivers, but also due to species range shifts at higher latitudes, and in some cases introduced species. Returning many coral reefs to pristine baselines is unrealistic, whereas embracing novel futures enables more pragmatic approaches to maintaining or re-building the dominance of corals. Coral reefs are changing in unprecedented ways, providing the impetus to improve our understanding of reef compositions that may dominate in the future, explore new management approaches, assess changes in ecosystem services, and investigate how human societies can adapt and respond to novel futures

Knowledge co-production in the Helge a catchment : a comparative analysis

Addressing sustainability challenges in landscape management requires processes for co-producing usable knowledge together with those who will use that knowledge. Participatory futures methods are powerful tools for attaining such knowledge. The applications of such methods are diverse and understanding the intricacies of the knowledge co-production process is important to further develop these research practices. To improve participatory futures methods and contribute to systematic and critical reflections on methodology, we present a comparative analysis of four research projects that applied participatory futures methods in the same study area. Conducted between 2011 and 2020, these projects aimed to co-produce knowledge about the future provision of ecosystem services in the Helge a catchment area in southern Sweden. For structuring the post-hoc, self-reflexive analysis, we developed a framework dividing the knowledge co-production process into three dimensions: settings, synthesis and diffusion. We based the analysis on documentation from the projects, a two-step questionnaire to each research team, a workshop with co-authors and interviews with key participants. The comparison highlights steps in project decision-making, explicit and implicit assumptions in our respective approaches and how these assumptions informed process design in the projects. Our detailed description of the four knowledge co-production processes points to the importance of flexibility in research design, but also the necessity for researchers and other participants to adapt as the process unfolds

Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research

Research practice, funding agencies and global science organizations suggest that research aimed at addressing sustainability challenges is most effective when 'co-produced' by academics and non-academics. Co-production promises to address the complex nature of contemporary sustainability challenges better than more traditional scientific approaches. But definitions of knowledge co-production are diverse and often contradictory. We propose a set of four general principles that underlie high-quality knowledge co-production for sustainability research. Using these principles, we offer practical guidance on how to engage in meaningful co-productive practices, and how to evaluate their quality and success.A.V.N. received support by the Swedish Research Council Formas (grant number 2017-01326) and the GRAID programme at SRC. M.F.L. received support by the foundation BalticSea2020 and the Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre. S.W. received support by the Swedish Research Council Formas (mobility starting grant 2017-01631). H.Ö. received support from the Walton Family Foundation (grants 2017-693 and 2018-1371), The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (grants 2017-66205 and 2019-68336), and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (grants GBMF5668.01 and GBMF5668.02). R.B. received support from the South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI) of the Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation of South Africa (grant 98766); the GRAID programme at SRC; and the Swedish Research Council (grant 621-2014-5137). M.-F.L. received support by the Swiss Academy of Sciences (SCNAT) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). B.M.C. received support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements