1. Global Erosion of Ecosystem Services Corey J. A. Bradshaw1,2 1THE ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE, University of Adelaide, Australia 2South Australian Research & Development Institute
28. Nationally, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, DR CongoHansen et al. 2010 PNAS doi:10.1073/pnas.0912668107 Barson et al. 2000 Land Cover Change in Australia, Bur RurSci
42. 27 % of reef-building coralsthreatened with extinction
43. intact biological communities and functioning species interactions provide humanity with a host of ‘services’ that support or improve our quality of life
44.
45. ~ 75 % of all human crops require pollination by insects (mostly bees)
46. domestic honey bees declined in USA by 59 % since 1947 & in Europe by 25 % since 1985Potts et al. 2010 Trends EcolEvol25:345-353
59. provide > 10% of essential organic carbon to global oceans
60. occupy only 0.12% of world’s total land areaPolidoro et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10095
61. average trophic level has declined by 0.2 units (position in food web relative to autotrophs – primary producers such as phytoplankton) trophic unit varies from 1 (phytoplankton) to 4.6 (e.g., snappers) Paulyet al. 1998 Science 279:860 - 863
65. fish species within park recover after fisher exclusion from park (Kenyan coral reefs) McClanahan & Kaunda-Arara 2002 ConservBiol10:1187–1199
66. spiny lobster 11 ×more abundant & biomass 25× higher in no-take marine park following establishment; no change in partially protected park (New Zealand) Shears et al. 2006 BiolConserv 132:222-231
103. typhusincreased host habitat availability & displacement of humans to areas where inadequate sanitation and temporary high-density living promote disease Ohl & Tapsell 2000 Br Med J 321:1167-1168; Ivers & Ryan 2006 Curr Op Infect Dis19:408-414
104.
105. based on earlier theory (in 1980s)Soulé et al. 1988 ConservBiol2:75; Soulé & Crooks 1999 Nature 400:563
111. DATA Human health: World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease database Environment: - Environmental Combination Index (adapted from Yale Env Performance Index) - Proportional Environmental Impact rank (Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440) - natural habitat conversion proportion (Global Land Cover 2000 dataset) - air/water quality (Yale Environmental Performance Index) - NPK fertiliser use/area arable land (FAOSTAT database) - CO2 emissions (Climate Analysis Indicators tool) Control: - human population size (United Nations Common Database) - purchasing-power parity-adjusted GNI (World Resources Institute) - health expenditure (WHO Statistical Information System)
122. 10 % water quality infant mortality 3.4/1000 live births > 946,000 extra infant deaths/year§ 1.6 years life expectancy 10 % air quality 2.0 cancer deaths/100,000 > 132,900 extra cancer deaths/year§ 10 % pcCO2 emissions infant mortality 0.4/1000 live births > 11,700 extra infant deaths/year§ §assuming 21.2 births/1000 population & human population 6.5 billion
Russia has the most extensive forest cover, followed by Brazil, Canada and USAEstimated area of gross forest cover loss at the global scale is 1,011,000 km2, or 3.1 % of year 2000 forest area (0.6% per year from 2000 to 2005)Gross forest cover loss was highest in the boreal biome, with fire accounting for 60 % of that lossThe humid tropics had the second-highest gross forest cover loss, due mainly to broad-scale clearing for agriculture in Brazil, Indonesia and MalaysiaWhen expressed as proportion lost from the 2000 extent estimates, the humid tropics is the least disturbedThe Amazon interior is the largest remaining ‘intact’ forest, followed by the Congo basinThe dry tropics has the 3rd-highest gross forest cover loss, with Australia, Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay accounting for most of thisAlthough the temperate biome had the lowest forest cover (due mainly to forest clearances long, long ago), it had the 2nd-highest proportional gross forest cover lossNorth America has the greatest area of gross forest cover loss, followed by Asia and South AmericaNorth America alone accounts for ~ 30 % of global gross forest cover loss, and has the highest proportional gross forest cover loss at 5.1 %Brazil has the highest gross national forest cover loss of any nationIndonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo are next in line for tropical countriesUSA has the highest proportional global forest cover loss since 2000Despite previous estimates suggesting that Canada has had little forest loss, the new estimates place it second in terms of gross forest cover loss only to Brazil
The world’s oceans are under huge threat, with predictions of 70 % loss of coral reefs by 2050, decline in kelp forests, loss of seagrasses, over-fishing, pollution and a rapidly warming and acidifying physical environment. Given all these stressors, it is absolutely imperative we spend a good deal of time thinking about the right way to impose restrictions on damage to marine areas – the simplest way to do this is via marine protected areas (MPA).
Now, it’s not bulldozers razing our underwater forests – it’s our own filth. Yes, we do indeed have underwater forests, and they are possibly the most important set of species from a biodiversity perspective in temperate coastal waters around the world. I’m talking about kelp. Climate change poses a threat to these habitat-forming species that support a wealth of invertebrates and fish. In fact, kelp forests are analogous to coral reefs in the tropics for their role in supporting other biodiversity.Connell et al. 2008:The Adelaide coastline has experienced a fairly hefty loss of canopy-forming kelp (mainly species like Eckloniaradiata and Cystophora spp.) since urbanisation (up to 70 % !). Now, this might not seem too surprising – we humans have a horrible track record for damaging, exploiting or maltreating biodiversity – but it’s actually a little unexpected given that Adelaide is one of Australia’s smaller major cities, and certainly a tiny city from a global perspective. There hasn’t been any real kelp harvesting around Adelaide, or coastal overfishing that could lead to trophic cascades causing loss through herbivory. Connell and colleagues pretty much are able to isolate the main culprits: sedimentation and nutrient loading (eutrophication) from urban run-off.Second, one might expect this to be strange because other places around the world don’t have the same kind of response. The paper points out that in the coastal waters of South Australia, the normal situation is characterised by low nutrient concentrations in the water (what we term ‘oligotrophic’) compared to other places like New South Wales. Thus, when you add even a little bit extra to a system not used to it, these losses of canopy-forming kelp ensue. So understanding the underlying context of an ecosystem will tell you how much it can be stressed before all hell breaks loose.
It’s amazingly arrogant and anthropocentric to think of anything in ecosystems as ‘providing benefits to humanity’. After all, we’re just another species in a complex array of species within ecosystems – we just happen to be one of the numerically dominant ones, excel at ecosystem ‘engineering’ and as far as we know, are the only (semi-) sentient of the biologicals. Although the concept of ecosystem services is, I think, an essential abstraction to place emphasis on the importance of biodiversity conservation to the biodiversity ignorant, it does rub me a little the wrong way. It’s almost ascribing some sort of illogical religious perspective that the Earth was placed in its current form for our eventual benefit. We might be a fairly new species in geological time scales, but don’t think of ecosystems as mere provisions for our well-being.
The question of whether marine parks ‘work’ is, however, more complicated than it might first appear. When one asks this question, it is essential to define how the criteria for success are to be measured. Whether it’s biodiversity protection, fisheries production, recreational revenue, community acceptance/involvement or some combination of the above, your conclusion is likely to vary from place to place.
The question of whether marine parks ‘work’ is, however, more complicated than it might first appear. When one asks this question, it is essential to define how the criteria for success are to be measured. Whether it’s biodiversity protection, fisheries production, recreational revenue, community acceptance/involvement or some combination of the above, your conclusion is likely to vary from place to place.
Canada’s boreal zone has recently shifted from a C sink in the 1990s to a C source in 2001 as warmer temperatures reduced over-winter mortality of tree-killing insects, resulting in an increased frequency and severity of outbreaks and subsequent mass tree mortality insect disturbance was responsible for a greater loss of stored C than was fire from Canadian forests in the late 20th century [42], and the estimated annual C release due to the current mountain pine beetle outbreak in western Canada is 50 % more than rates attributable to fires during even the most severe fire years
1990-2000: nearly 100 000 people were killed and 320 million people were displaced by floods, with total reported economic damages exceeding US$1151 billion