While researching listed threatened species to write up an information sheet for a ENVS3039 practical, I found out that Singapore (my native country) actually has a mention on the IUCN Red List of Top 100 most threatened species in the world (Baillie & Butcher, 2012): the Singapore Freshwater Crab (Johora singaporensis) is a small freshwater crab which can only be found in 2 small areas in Singapore, a stream in Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and a drainage canal in Bukit Batok. Coincidentally, I have lived adjacent to those areas for more than a decade and visited them frequently but have remained ignorant until a chance Internet search in a foreign land.

Singapore Freshwater Crab (Photo by Choy Heng Wah)

The problems with biodiversity conservation

The rate of biodiversity loss is not slowing despite commitments (increases in protected areas etc.) by world leaders through the 2002 Convention of Biological Diversity to achieve a significant reduction (Butchart, et al., 2010). Biodiversity hotspots (areas especially biodiversity-rich and threatened by human activities) have a higher 1995 population density of 73 people/ km² than the world as a whole (Cincotta, Wisnewski, & Engelman, 2000). Urbanization causes the most lasting loss of biodiversity conservation (McKinney, 2002). All these problems point to the rise in human population as the root cause of biodiversity loss and the failure of governmental action to stem the losses. People are now much more likely to be knowledgeable about ecosystems across the world from documentaries and to be interested in helping biodiversity conservation but become biased and devalue the biodiversity significance of “ordinary” landscapes (Hanski, 2005).

The solution

Combining all of the above, a solution to the root of the problem is instilling of local biodiversity consciousness into current elementary education. I remember my biology lessons in secondary school being about Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos, genetic bottlenecks and the African cheetah and so on. All these broad concepts can just as easily be described using local species instead of using biology to teach history (Feinsinger, Margutti, & Oviedo, 1997). Using local ecology to teach concepts in biology and ecology can bring a sense of connection for students as well as building an awareness of place, the local ecology and how we fit into the ecosystem, something which was naturally instilled in primitive tribes from dependence on the natural environment (Kawagley & Barnhardt, 1998). Using cookie-cutter textbooks and rote teaching can be efficient but only serves to further alienate humans from the natural environment. Gruenewald (2003) gives a good overview of the history and concepts of “place-conscious education”.

Young student field trip to Niwot Ridge (Photo by C.A. Cass (CU Boulder))

The reasons

I believe this solution would attack the problem at its root (humanely), judging from the research from the book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008), which states that people usually choose the default option in the absence of a specific instruction and so modifying our early education has a far greater chance to adjust people’s mindsets.

It can solve the problems shown above by increasing local biodiversity knowledge in the local populace and binds the local people more tightly to a sense of place, increasing political activism (Gruenewald, 2003); understand that even ordinary landscapes are important sources of biodiversity (Hanski, 2005) and helping people acknowledge the existence of ecological limits and refute the assumption that unlimited growth in the global economy is possible and desirable (Gruenewald, 2003). An increased human population is unavoidable but perhaps education can reduce the rate of growth and make people better neighbours with native biodiversity.

Further thoughts

Prominent scientist Dame Jane Goodall recently wrote an article for Inside Story titled “The humility of local consciousness” (Goodall, 2013) and there is an increasing push towards local consciousness from aspects such as sourcing local produce to biodynamic farming. What do you think about increasing local consciousness in biology teaching? Is it relevant in your opinion?

Junyan Tan (Junior) – B.Eng/B.Sci

Works Cited

1. Baillie, J. E., & Butcher, E. R. (2012). Priceless or Worthless? The world’s most threatened species . London: Zoological Society of London, United Kingdom.
2. Butchart, S. H., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Strien, A. v., Scharlemann, J. P., Almond, R. E., et al. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, 328(5982), 1164-1168.
3. Cincotta, R. P., Wisnewski, J., & Engelman, R. (2000). Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature, 404, 990 – 992.
4. Feinsinger, P., Margutti, L., & Oviedo, R. D. (1997, March 1). School yards and nature trails: ecology education outside the university. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 12(3), 115-120.
5. Goodall, J. (2013, February 13). The humility of local consciousness. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from Inside Story: http://inside.org.au/the-humility-of-local-consciousness/
6. Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of Place: A Multidisciplinary Framework for Place-Conscious Education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 619–654.
7. Hanski, I. (2005). Landscape fragmentation, biodiversity loss and the societal response. EMBO Reports, 388 – 392.
8. Kawagley, A. O., & Barnhardt, R. (1998). Education Indigenous to Place: Western Science Meets Native Reality. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from Alaska Univ., Fairbanks. Alaska Native Knowledge Network.: http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/EIP.html
9. McKinney, M. L. (2002). Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation. BioScience, 52(10), 883-890.
10. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. London: Yale University Press.

Think tree hollow simulation Maturetree and the Species-Area Curve – models have been used extensively in our attempts to unravel the complexity of nature, allowing us to better understand ecosystem processes.  Models enable us to simulate these processes by illustrating scientific research, which make them a useful tool to aid decision making in conservation. Recently in Nature, Purves et al. (2013) justifies the need to take modelling in the field of ecology to the next level by building General Ecosystem Models (GEMs).

The comment made in Nature (Purves et al. 2013) can be accessed here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7432/full/493295a.html

GEMs are analogous to circulation models in climate science and simulate the broad-scale structure and function in ecosystems – the largest scale in the definition of ‘biodiversity’. In other words, fundamental ecosystem processes that drive the distribution and abundance of organisms such as feeding, reproduction, migration and death would be encoded in a GEM, defining the ‘rules at play’ in entire ecosystems.

Parrotfish chomping off a coral.

Ultimately, GEMs will provide a common framework for different types of ecosystems on multiple scales. With GEMs, ecologists could effectively model population changes, assess overall ecosystem health and resilience, and even explore how any ecosystem may respond to pressures such as climate change and habitat fragmentation over time.

Need to know which/how many trees we can remove/how often we can remove them from a temperate forest such that the system recovers and maintains its resilience in the long term? With GEMs, we will have an answer given what we already know about our ecosystems.

Is it possible to compute such complex systems?

The authors acknowledge the challenges in GEM-building – starting from convincing ecologists that they can and should be built. Yet, the task does not seem impossible with positive outcomes from a prototype. In GEMs, organisms are grouped into ‘cohorts’ based on their function in the system.

A tropical ecosystem has too many species and it would take a very long time to describe all of them. By grouping organisms that are similar enough based on their functions, we could model ecosystems based on these groups.

Coral reefs are extremely diverse ecosystems. An integrated tool for modelling marine ecosystems incorporating biophysical, economic and social factors, Atlantis, has been developed by CSIRO.

GEM potential

“Throughout the history of ecology, most researchers have resisted abstraction because ecological complexity is so obvious in nature … But comprehensive species-specific data will always be in short supply (at least 80% of the millions of species of Earth are undescribed), so a better understanding of ecosystems demands a broad-brush approach.”

With a large proportion of species undescribed, and probably even going extinct without us knowing, perhaps the function and resilience of entire ecosystems should take priority in conservation. To know how and what to conserve we have to understand the system first, and by attempting to build GEMs we can also identify areas in need of more research to allocate funds effectively.

In this article, Stirzaker et al. (2010) explains the concept of a requisite simplicity in understanding complex systems: where conceptual clarity and scientific rigour is retained while discarding some detail. This is different from being simplistic, which leads to error.

GEMs could provide a requisite simplicity in biodiversity conservation, especially because it delivers integrated information that is useful at an implementation level. Not forgetting socio-economic-political factors, GEMs will definitely not be the only guide in decision-making. With an urgent need to respond to biodiversity in decline, ecologically sound GEMs could enable ecologists to identify solutions and predict ecosystem responses in a timely and cost-effective manner.

Although the construction of actual GEMs may seem far-fetched, I feel that the rationales behind GEM-building are very logical, and it will be interesting to see more developments like this in the field.

Cheers,
Isis Lim / BSc
(The photos in this post were taken by me)

Dear friends,

I am writing this piece with an aim to share a different perspective of biodiversity conservation in Vietnam. Biodiversity conservation in Australia appears to me very advanced; and public awareness of conservation is extensive. Vietnam is a developing country, yet there are still many poor farmers. Promoting biodiversity conservation in a context where farmers and their families struggling to search for food in daily lives seems quite an awkward thing to do. The conflict between biodiversity conservation and hunger & poverty reduction is challenging.

I came across this paper and thought of sharing with you some information that I found encouraging ‘Combining biodiversity conservation with poverty alleviation – a case study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam’ (Tran Triet, 2010. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management.).

The case study provides an interesting Story of Change for farmers’ livelihoods in a wetland protected area of 2,890 hectares in Phu My commune, Kien Luong District, Kien Giang province, southern Vietnam. This wetland ecosystem supports the last remnant of Lepironia grassland in the Mekong Delta. The wetland was threatened by economic push e.g. booming price in shrimp aquaculture amongst other pressures.

Facilitated by Vietnamese academics and international supporters, farmers have changed their over-harvesting practice of Lepironia grassland. Sustainable use of Lepironia promoted whilst providing income from products made from Lepironia. On average, mat making can earn 30,000 VND/day i.e. A$1.4/day. A handbag making can earn 50,000 VND/day i.e. A$2.3/day. The area witnesses more Sarus crane counts e.g. 45  in 2005, 41 in 2006, and 131 in 2007.

Turning from previously an area threatened to shift to shrimp-farm to now included in the newly established Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve approved by UNESCO in 2007 is a good news from conservation perspective isn’t it. There still are issues and challenges to be facing. The case study identifies lessons learned as well as sustainability.

I thank you very much for reading. Image credited from google source.

“Biodiversity provides a large number of goods and services that sustain our lives. Protecting biodiversity is in our self-interest. Biological resources are the pillars upon which we build civilizations. Nature’s products support such diverse industries as agriculture, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, horticulture, construction and waste treatment. […]” (Convention on Biological Diversity 2010)

Who considers this to be a conclusive statement? Well, I don’t. It is an example of the media’s simplified way of reporting on the importance of biodiversity that I suppose leaves most people uncertain about why exactly biodiversity is meaningful. Let me try and shed some light on the issue.

Nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services and biological resources are not the same thing, but often treated as such. It is quite obvious that certain ecosystem services such as the provisioning with biological resources (such as food, pharmaceuticals etc.) are essential to our lives. But why do ecosystems need to be diverse in terms of species and genes to provide their services?

This is not clear in the first place as biodiversity doesn’t necessarily enhance productivity: just consider industrialized agricultural and silvicultural production systems as opposed to natural systems. Furthermore, ecosystem services such as erosion control, oxygen production, water purification and the like depend on a system’s physical properties rather than its actual diversity (less diverse systems might get the job done as well).

So, what does biodiversity actually do?

• It sustains ecosystem function

There is evidence of beneficial effects of biodiversity on ecosystem resilience—the capability of and ecosystem to respond to disturbances. However, uncertainty remains about how much biodiversity is needed to sustain ecosystem functions as they depend on functional groups rather than on individual species or genes (the diversity-stability debate).

• It sustains evolutionary potential

You might call it resilience on a larger scale. It is the ability of ecosystems to adapt to a changing environment. The more diversity there is, the more likely there are varieties of genes and species able to cope with changing conditions, ensuring the ecosystem’s functionality and the provision of vital ecosystem services in the long run. Similarly, agriculture depends on a certain gene pool (including wild types) for purposive crossbreeding in view of changing environmental conditions.

The bottom line: Biodiversity sustains what ecosystems provide

Scientific evidence of correlations between diversity and ecosystem functions is not irrefutable (yet). BUT business as usual given the high human-induced pressure on biodiversity is risky. We are continually popping rivets on spaceship earth, only knowing about the importance of what we lose when it is lost. While natural resources grow again if depleted to some extent, a lost gene, species or ecosystem that has been evolving for millions of years will be lost forever.

As a precaution, we have to take care of what there is. Not only because it is, or may prove, useful. I think that ultimately, utilitarian arguments (including much of the ecosystem services concept) are not enough to justify why biodiversity conservation is important. They suggest that we can still pay later if we fail to act now. Rather than portraying the diversity of life as a mere resource to be exploited, we have to promote awareness of everyone’s responsibility to help preserve an asset that is precious beyond economical value.

Excursus: Is biodiversity all we need to care about in nature conservation?

• Some habitats naturally contain relatively few species but are nonetheless endangered (such as for example certain peatlands, tundra and desert habitats). Focusing on “biodiversity hotspots” alone is therefore not sufficient.
• Heavily modified habitats can potentially be more diverse than natural habitats as disturbances create niches for pioneer species and and/or exotic species (example: traditional cultural landscapes). In these cases, there is a trade-off between naturalness and biodiversity, so biodiversity may or may not be the principal conservation objective.

Field trip to a natural temperate grassland north of Canberra (22/02/2013) – a habitat under anthropogenic pressure.

Constantin Harrer, exchange student from ETH Zürich, environmental sciences BSc

Further reading:

• Thomson and Starzomski (2007): What does biodiversity actually do? A review for managers and policy makers
• McCann (2000): The diversity-stability debate
• Opinion: Biodiversity Impacts Humanity
• The rivet poppers
• Ecosystem Functioning and Stability
• Just like the dinosaurs

…the evidence from changes in extent, composition and quality of vegetation communities, and from case studies on selected species, points towards continuing decreases in population sizes, geographic ranges and genetic diversity, and increasing risks of population collapses in substantial proportions of most groups of plants, animals and other forms of life across much of Australia (Australia State of the Environment , 2011).

The above conclusion wasn’t by a conservation organisation wanting to shock, or an academic researcher trying to secure funding for their research. The above conclusion headlines the Australian Government’s latest State of Environment Report. And this conclusion is not an isolated one. The Living Planet Index indicates that biodiversity loss is a global phenomenon (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Living Planet Index indicating trends in populations for terrestrial, freshwater and marine species from 1970 to 2000.

Why should the loss of biodiversity concern us?

It’s a reasonable question. Why, in a world with poverty, disease, war and inequality should the decline of biodiversity be a priority to redress?

The answer is that biodiversity enriches our lives in many ways, provides essential ecosystem services that support life and we are obligated to future generations – and other species – to pass on biodiversity in an equal or better state than the state in which it was presented to us.

Part of the problem with “biodiversity” is that it is such an all-encompassing concept (the variety of life) that it is difficult to pin-down or quantify in a way that is readily understandable.

One way the value of biodiversity is illustrated is with a metric that motivates many people and policy-makers: dollars. In their synthesis report, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity estimate that:

• conserving forests avoids greenhouse gas emissions worth US$3.7 trillion,
• 30 million people globally are relient on the products of coral reef ecosystems and
• urban trees of Canberra reduce energy costs and sequester carbon worth $20-70 million (research undertaken by Assoc. Prof. Cris Brack at the Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University).

Of course, it is simplistic to calculate the value of biodiversity using utilitarian criteria alone. There are aesthetic, recreational, educational and ethical reasons to conserve biodiversity. These are just harder to articulate and quantify.

What can we do about biodiversity loss?

So, if we agree that biodiversity is valuable and important, then how do we mitigate its decline? There are many known reasons for biodiversity loss. If solutions to these causes of decline were easy then biodiversity loss wouldn’t be an ongoing issue. One thing that is common to many biodiversity issues is that they involve conflict with stakeholders seeking other outcomes – often economic.

Finding a pathway through these challenges is what this course and blog is about. In this blog, university students enrolled in a third-year undergraduate and post-graduate course called “Biodiversity Conservation” will share their experiences and perspectives based on what they have read, who they have heard and, importantly, what they have seen with their own eyes.

I hand this blog over to our next generation of biodiversity managers.

Dr Philip Gibbons
Fenner School of Environment and Society
The Australian National University