Wednesday, May 20, 2015

I'll take 'things that have nothing to do with my research' for $400


I guess I do have a couple papers with the word fire in their titles?
And to Burns and Trauma's credit, this is a nicely formatted email and the reasons to publish with them are pretty convincing :-)

Monday, May 11, 2015

Is there a limit to how many species can the earth hold?

Counting species (bird lists, plant guides) is as old as ecology itself. And yet surprisingly, there are still different opinions on how many species the planet holds, and even, whether there are limits on how many species it can have. If the number of species has ecological limits, the assumptions ecologists often make – that species pools are limited and knowable, dynamics can reach equilibrium, competition should usually be important – would be stronger. Things would be more predictable. 

But is the production of diversity self-limited? There isn’t consensus but two recent articles in the American Naturalist (continuing a debate at the American Society of Naturalists meeting) provide some excellent debate of this question.

The debate is whether the majority of variation in continental-scale species richness is regulated by diversity-dependent feedbacks. In these papers, Dan Rabosky and Allen Hurlburt argue that species richness has ecological limits, while Luke Harmon and Susan Harrison take the contrary position, that species richness is dynamic. First, to define some terms: here, species richness is being considered at the largest spatial scale (e.g. terrestrial plants at the continental scale) so that dispersal limitation should be comparatively unimportant (because diversity changes are mostly driven by in situ speciation).

The crux of the Rabosky & Hurlburt argument is established in the Ecological Limits Hypothesis (ELH), which states that species richness will reach a dynamic (i.e. stochastic) equilibrium, where equilibrium richness reflects density dependence in speciation and/or extinction rates. Speciation and extinction rates are ultimately limited by total resource availability for the continent. Therefore variance in richness through time and between places should be driven these ecological limits, and richness should be predictable.
From Rabosky & Hurlburt 2015 - the Ecological Limit Hypothesis.
The evidence presented for the ELH comes from phylogenies and macroevolutionary models, the fossil record, and macroecological observations. First, there are well known patterns between species richness and energy, productivity, or habitat area, and these span multiple regions and groups of species (e.g. Jetz and Fine 2012). Further, Rabosky & Hurlburt argue that geological records suggest that changes in diversity are not unbounded or exponential, but instead rise and fall, correcting toward some equilibrium. Molecular phylogenies are often evaluated by looking at speciation rates over time, and the authors suggest that these frequently show declines, where speciation declines during adaptive radiations. One prediction that arises from the ELH is that perturbations will be followed by particular responses: “negative perturbations—mass extinctions, in particular—should lead to diversity recoveries. Second, positive perturbations—increases in the resource base available to a biota—predict increases in species richness to stable but greater equilibrial levels”.

The rebuttal article from Harmon & Harrison takes a strong and contrasting view, although it focuses mostly on poking holes into Rabosky & Hurlburt’s arguments, rather than laying out a competing hypothesis. If Rabosky & Hurlburt focused on evidence over huge evolutionary scales and spatial expanses, the Harmon & Harrison response has a particular interest in the temporal and spatial scales of interest to community ecologists (local, present day) and how these seem to disagree with Rabosky & Hurlburt's hypothesis.

First, Harmon & Harrison argue that that the macroevolutionary evidence (molecular phylogenies, fossil data) is not nearly so convincing as Rabosky & Hurlburt suggest. There are important limits to its utility resulting from issues of ambiguity in interpretation and methodological limitations. In addition, for most of the patterns Rabosky & Hurlburt highlight, there are other papers concluding that the pattern was not present in their data. With reference to the lack of relationship between clade age and diversity: “A common interpretation of these results is that a lack of a relationship between age and diversity is evidence for ecological limits.... However… this pattern is far from ubiquitous in real data and is compatible with other explanations”. They also take issue with the tendency for hand-wave-y interpretations of patterns in such data, and emphasize the need for better statistical analyses and consideration of alternate models. Fossil data has obvious limitations as well (hence the field of taphonomy), including the fact that fossils are rarely classified to the species-level, which means they do not represent species richness, but rather lineage richness.

But Harmon & Harrison's real disagreement is based on their view that ecological evidence from local communities does not at all suggest ecological limits. Energy-richness correlations, although common, may have alternative explanations: the tropics may have higher diversification rates for other reasons, or niche conservation means that more species niches suited to the tropics, confounding energy-diversity relationships. Further, local communities do not regularly show a positive energy-diversity relationship. In particular, Harmon & Harrison suggest that the logic from the ELH, if followed, predicts that if species richness is ultimately tied to the availability of energy, then competition should necessarily be very important in most ecological communities. They cite a stat from the invasion of California flora in which alpha diversity has risen by more than 1000 invasive species, with only 28 native extinctions (as of 2002), suggesting that local (or even regional) communities are not full. 

To this, Rabosky & Hurlburt rejoins that invasion is about dispersal changes, and not resources. Further, they believe that large evolutionary scales are most useful as evidence for the ELH, since they are most likely to show zero sum game, rather than temporary dynamics, and since confounding factors should become minimized.

The debate left me feeling a little unsatisfied (since expecting the authors solve the problem is a bit unreasonable), in part because the authors are really arguing from different scales and approaches. And both sides are clearly right in some cases (and in others, perhaps, clearly overreaching). And of course, proving whether or not there is an ecological limit on diversity is a rather difficult thing. When Harmon and Harrison argue that the ELH, which assumes that richness approaches some equilibrium value but varies about it in a stochastic fashion, isn’t parsimonious, they’re wrong – ecological processes are innately stochastic and it hardly seem un-parsimonious to assume as much. But they’re right that this view makes testing and model fitting very difficult since having high replication and good quality data is necessary (to capture accurately a distribution, rather than single value). Given the variety of issues with data representing diversification over evolutionary time, and frequently an inability to capture extinction rates with evolutionary data, having quality, replicated tests of the ELH is difficult.

On the other hand, at local scales over ecological time, observations may be less relevant. It’s not clear how to reconcile statements about saturation (or lack thereof) of local communities with richness at continental scales. Rabosky & Hurlburt suggest that local assemblages can be dynamic in diversity as long as there is a zero sum across all communities and through time. But a connection between continental scales and local scales is innate, and understanding how diversity relates over multiple spatial scales is an area of ecological research we need to continue to develop.

Given there are no easy tests of this sort of question (though bacterial microcosm provide some interesting results), we have been forced to draw conclusions based on weak tests and weak evidence. But ecologists do this because this is a truly important question, with huge implications across ecology and evolution. Ecological and evolutionary models make assumptions that implicitly or explicitly about carrying capacity, about determinants of rates of speciation and extinction, about invasion, about why global diversity changes, and these need to be confirmed. Further, if there is a strong ecological feedback of diversity, one of the most important implications is that major perturbations such as extinctions should be followed by major recoveries. In the Anthropocene, that’s an important implication. 

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

To fence or not to fence, that is the question*


The stereotypical view of African drylands is often of a parade of elephants marching steadily across endless expanse of savannah grassland –free to roam. Another staple image, especially of African savannah documentaries, is the massive wildebeest migration where thousands of individual animals moving as an aggregation navigating the hazards of the landscape.

Majestic African animal migrations. Main image: "Wildebeest-during-Great-Migration" by Bjørn Christian Tørrissen - Own work by uploader, http://bjornfree.com/galleries.html. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons. Inset: By Amoghavarsha amoghavarsha.com (Own work) CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

In both of these examples, animals are moving with purpose for food and water, because this is how an animal survives in a place where rainfall and vegetation are seasonably variable. These migrations are vital to the survival of many dryland species. But even at smaller scales, and much less dramatically than a massive migration, animals need to move through a landscape to access food, water and mates.

Yet, as human populations spread their influence by altering ecosystems, they increasingly come in contact with wildlife, and often compete with them for space, water and agricultural crops. To reduce these human-wildlife conflicts, people often erect fences to exclude species and steer them elsewhere. Farmers and ranchers, concerned with their livelihood, need to exclude grazers from crops and predators from domesticated animal herds.

Example of a dryland fence barrier. From: Photo by William I. Boarman, USGS, From press release: USGS Report Finds Too Few Studies Assess the Success of Desert Tortoise Recovery Actions, Aug. 10, 2006. http://online.wr.usgs.gov/ocw/g_agassizii/barrier_fence.jpg

While fencing might offer some protection to human interests, fences can also have broad long-term consequences for animal populations. However, it is also increasingly appreciated that fencing can be used as a conservation measure to protect animals from these conflicts and from illegal hunting. In a thoughtful paper on dryland fencing policy, Durant and colleagues argue that current fencing policies are often based on limited information, with an under appreciation of the large-scale, long-term consequences of fencing nature.

Durant and colleagues argue that fencing can result in multiple costs and benefits. They cite an important example –fencing to protect lions. Fences constructed as a lion conservation tool may result in higher lion population sizes –which seems to valid fencing as a conservation tool; but yet analyses showed that when carrying capacities are accounted for, fences may not provide better protection, and further may not be worth the economic and ecological costs.

Lions of the Masai Mara –do they benefit from fences? Photo by Benh LIEU SONG (Own work) CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons    
 The authors recommend that fencing policy needs to driven by evidence, and not a reaction to human-wildlife conflict alone. The critical factors that they suggest are: 1) Economic sustainability of erecting and maintaining fences, and that the benefits justify the costs; 2) The permeability of the barrier, because not all species will equally perceive the fence as a hard edge, and so a fence may not be a well justified as a universal management tool; 3) Using fencing within a landscape context –fences may complicate how animals deal with natural features, such as cutting off a natural river crossing; 4) Connectivity is critical for both the maintenance of genetic variability within populations and allowing animals to access variable and ephemeral resources; 5) Ensuring that fences do not interfere with or reduce the delivery of ecosystem services; and finally 6) Safeguarding the wellbeing of human communities, especially marginalized and vulnerable groups that might depend on resources from natural areas.

By creating international policy and regulations based on these six criteria, Durant and colleagues argue that sensible fencing policy can be developed, which ensures that fences are used to maximally benefit humans, animals and natural processes.

 *Note -this post was originally written for the Applied Ecologist's Blog.