Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Ecologists at the Crossroads: the Opening Plenary Session

2015; Ecological Society of America; Volume: 96; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1890/0012-9623-96.4.688

2327-6096

Sharon Kingsland, James P. Collins,

Species Distribution and Climate Change

The opening plenary session at ESA's Centennial celebration in Baltimore was titled “From Learning Life is Connected to Learning to Live in a Connected—and Crowded—World: Ecology Across the Centuries.” It raised provocative questions about whether we could rise to the environmental challenges that face us in our increasingly crowded world. The session was organized by James P. Collins and Carol Brewer and combined ideas suggested by Collins, Steward Pickett, and Alan Berkowitz. A running theme of the session was the role that ecologists might assume as leaders in meeting the challenges before us: could we get ahead of these challenges and grapple with the complexity and rapidity of the changes already occurring, or will we find ourselves simply chronicling those changes as they unfold? The goal of the plenary session was to open the Centennial by engaging the ecological community in a conversation about what a successful environmental agenda would look like in the next 5, 10, 50, or 100 years. Panelists and plenary attendees also were asked to consider who needed to be part of the funding picture in the future, what our environmental past—recent and deep time—could tell us about our future, and who needed to be included in the “ecology” conversation. The speakers at the session approached this problem in strikingly different ways. Discussion afterward included not just direct questions from individuals in the audience, but consideration of some of the most popular or thought-provoking questions sent from the audience through electronic media. James P. Collins (Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural History and the Environment, Arizona State University) introduced the session with his talk on “Ecology in a Changing World.” He reminded us that ecology's basic message is that “all life is connected.” Whereas cell biology teaches that all organisms are made of cells, genetics teaches that organisms pass information from one generation to the next, and evolution teaches that all species arise from pre-existing species, ecology's main lesson has been the interconnectedness of all parts of nature, living and nonliving. As we march into the 21st century, we see how true that ecological tenet is, even at the global scale. The challenge ahead is to understand these connections better, while learning how to use that knowledge in the service of planetary stewardship. The second theme of the session was “learning to live in a connected—and crowded—world.” How can we learn to cope with a projected population size of 8.5 billion people by 2030 and 11 billion by 2100? How will we act on ecological knowledge and learn to live with other organisms, as humans come increasingly to dominate our planet's ecological processes? Given that our actions have consequences for all forms of life, can we individually and collectively understand ecology well enough to use our knowledge wisely? A final theme, “ecology across the centuries,” was meant to pinpoint the opportunity in 2015 to acknowledge how the ESA has shaped ecological science over the last century, and to push forward the frontiers of the science that is so critical to sustaining our biosphere. This is a time to take stock of the future of ecology, its relevance to the future of the biosphere, and the role of humans as planetary stewards. David Tilman (Regents' Professor and McKnight Presidential Chair in Ecology, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota) spoke on “Solving Global Environmental Problems: Art or Science?” He began with a reflection on the different ways that scientists view landscapes as compared to other people. Ordinary people might see an agricultural landscape as something that is aesthetically pleasing, like a work of art, whereas scientists interpret the landscape as a source of data to be presented in graphs and other abstract forms. What they may miss is the human element. He reminded us that we humans have our own niche and ecological role, and that our need for such things as food, energy, and housing must be met. Neither policy nor science can ignore the needs of people. We should, however, consider those needs in their broadest context and not think simply in terms of immediate goals or benefits, but in terms of the far-reaching impacts of our actions. Tilman developed this idea by considering the use of corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel fuels as substitutes for fossil fuels, under the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions were lower for biofuels than for gasoline. The result of this emphasis on biofuels was to clear more land to grow corn for fuel in the U.S. But one consequence was to create shortages of food overseas, which meant that more land had to be cleared to grow food elsewhere. American cars were in fact taking food from the poor in other countries. We were shortsighted in ignoring the consequences for people around the world, and did not realize that, in the end, the impact of ethanol-produced greenhouse gases was much worse than gasoline. Tilman noted that 60% of the world's threatened vertebrate species were in four areas: Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. These areas will see not only population growth but an increase in the standard of living and shifts in diet toward more meat and calories as incomes rise. Because demand for food will likely exceed increases in agricultural yield, we can expect massive land clearing in order to supply food for these people. Any strategy designed to protect biodiversity cannot ignore the needs of these people. As Tilman concluded, it might be more important to push for rapid increases of agricultural productivity, if we wish to conserve biodiversity: this may be the key conservation strategy. Because people will use land for food if they need food, any realistic environmental solution must address the problem of meeting basic human needs. Thomas Lovejoy (University Professor, Environmental Science and Technology, George Mason University) spoke on the “Relevance of Environmental Science to a Skeptical Public.” He argued that if we are more modest in our expectations we can meet the needs of increased future populations, but we need to draw more on the social sciences to understand human behavior. Especially problematic is widespread resistance to the idea that there are limits to growth. What does it mean to talk about limits, and how might ecologists convey this idea to others? We also need to think proactively about areas such as the Amazon, which will have to be managed as a system, with a more integrated multinational approach to planning and management. Lovejoy drew attention to the upcoming November issue of National Geographic, which focuses on the Amazon region. Thinking about how to achieve sustainability in the light of climate change, Lovejoy invited us to consider what projected climate change targets really mean. Ecologists, he argued, have a responsibility to enter the discussion about where to halt climate change. Is a 2°C rise in temperature an acceptable target? Who decides on these targets and what are the ecological consequences of such changes? Musing on his impressions while exploring fields of fossilized stromatolites in northern Australia, he noted that these once-dominant ancient life forms had completely altered the earth's atmosphere by spewing out oxygen as a toxic byproduct of photosynthesis. In spewing our own toxic wastes into the air, we are having a similar effect. It behooves us to consider the impact of our actions on our own lives and future. Douglas Erwin (Curator of Paleozoic Invertebrates, Smithsonian Institution) explored the problem of “What Recent and Deep Time Tell Us about Our Future.” He reminded us that the fossil record is a highly biased sample of past extinctions and that many animals that were once abundant can be quite rare in fossil records. Given the large number of “missing” extinctions, we should be aware that the extinctions of the past were probably far worse than anything we could imagine, and that biodiversity crises have been ubiquitous throughout the Phanerozoic Era. The scale of our activity now is on the level of the five major mass extinctions of the past. Erwin cautioned that we do not really know what happens when an ecosystem collapses, especially what secondary and tertiary extinctions may occur as a result. While ecosystems can collapse on very rapid timescales, the effects of such collapses can be long lasting. We can place our actions in perspective by considering that it can take about 5 million years to recover from a collapse. Erwin argued that we need a much finer-grained understanding of what exactly causes extinction. He pointed out also that asking when a species becomes extinct may not be the right question, for we do not know when a species becomes extinct, we only know when it disappears from the fossil record. What we should be asking is “When does a species become rare?” Mass rarity would cause loss of ecosystem function and may be a more useful measure of the ecological impact of biotic crises than extinction. He concluded that we need to study the internal dynamics of mass extinctions and to develop new techniques to study the process of ecosystem collapse. Rush Holt (former U.S. Representative, New Jersey, and CEO of American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]) asked “Will It Be Research as Usual for Ecologists in the Coming 100 Years?” The short answer was “no.” Drawing on his 16 years of experience in the U.S. Congress, Holt observed that members of Congress were not as willing to talk about science as about other matters such as the economy, and were, moreover, not willing to educate themselves about science. He saw this reluctance as a reflection of American society as a whole, where there was a sharp distinction between the elite group of people who entered scientific fields and the rest of the public that remained woefully uneducated about science. He suggested that an organization such as AAAS, with its emphasis on education, literacy, and advocacy, and its multidisciplinary membership, had an important role to play in conveying science to the public. He noted pessimistically that the public and policy makers do not have much of a future orientation or an interest in providing support for science in the future. In some sectors, such as the Park Service and in conservation programs, there is a future orientation, but in other sectors, such as transportation and agriculture, there is still absence of future thinking. Especially in relation to climate change, it appears that policy makers are not forward-looking. Considering that scientists first took their concerns about climate change to the Johnson administration 50 years ago, the fact that we are still arguing about whether it is real or whether we can do anything about it, is not reassuring. Holt also thought that the public was far behind in its understanding of scientific arguments, and in particular had lost its belief in evidence-based argument. His view was that the scientific mentality that once pervaded American culture was no longer much in evidence. He associated this shift with the post-Sputnik (1957) efforts to educate more scientists, engineers, and mathematicians in the U.S. These efforts were highly successful, but they educated an elite cadre and left out the bulk of the population, which remained uneducated in science. Holt argued that Americans in general were too willing to tolerate ignorance of science. Such ignorance led to lack of trust in evidence-based thinking, that is, an unwillingness to ask questions that could be verified by empirical evidence. To remedy this problem we must teach science to all Americans. He ended with a plea to work with the AAAS to engage the public in science and promote science education. Margaret Palmer (Professor of Entomology, University of Maryland, and Director, National Socio-environmental Synthesis Center [SESYNC]) spoke about “Synthesis—Ecology's Relevance to Earth's Future.” Palmer started with a historical overview of the state of ecology in 1983, 1993, 2003, and today, looking especially at what topics were dominant and which papers were receiving the most citations. She noted that over this 30-year period the trend has been to blur the distinction between basic and applied research. Today we see a full spectrum of research being done, from very basic to very applied research. Looking at a few examples, notably climate change, invasive species, and restoration ecology, Palmer found clear signs that fundamental research was being extended, but that there was also interest in linking basic research to important applications. Even a field as seemingly “applied” as restoration ecology relied crucially on very basic research. Looking to the future, her advice was to keep this full spectrum, but to extend the extent to which we focus on the linkages between the fundamental and the applied. We must also find ways to promote scholarship that extends these linkages. As an example, she focused on the topic of “ecosystem services” where there are still many questions that need answers. What combinations of ecological structures and functions do we need to provide a “service”? How do we manipulate systems to create the services we want? In general, how would we operationalize the concept of ecosystem services? To answer such questions, she noted, natural scientists and social scientists must work together. SESYNC, the Center that she directs, is designed to help multidisciplinary groups solve problems of this kind. The general goal is to understand human behavior and link such understanding to ecological models. Palmer also encouraged us to practice what she calls “reflexive ecology,” by which she means a willingness to ask how one's research might fulfill the needs of another person or group, or be relevant elsewhere. Reflexive ecology is not a reference just to policy outcomes, but is more broadly oriented toward an outcome or application of some kind, perhaps an application in another area of scientific research. We should all be asking: Why does this research project need to be done? Where else is this knowledge needed and how does it fit into another context? She acknowledged the leadership that ESA had assumed over the years, with major initiatives such as the Sustainable Biosphere Initiative (1991), the “Visions Committee” action plan (2005), and most recently the Earth Stewardship initiative (2013). In building on this momentum, she advocated adopting a systems approach and also bringing the social sciences into the conversation. The general discussions ranged widely across the topics addressed by all the speakers. Many comments tackled the thorny “how” question. How do we ensure ecology's relevance for the future? How can we increase food production without creating more environmental problems? How do we deal with increasing human population size? How might we increase the diversity of our own Society, as a way to address problems of education? How do we change the ethos of growth? How do we make it rewarding to do “reflexive” ecology, which might entail working in multi-disciplinary groups? The take-home message was that the problems were highly challenging, but ecology could remain relevant and important in several ways: by keeping the needs of humans in view; by extending research across the full spectrum from basic to applied research, being ever mindful of the linkages; by remaining attuned to the need to educate and speak to the general public; by taking a leadership role in discussions while also partnering with other societies and disciplines; and finally by diversifying our own membership. Monica Turner in her role as ESA President in 2015–2016 is working toward expanding ESA's membership as the Society adapts to change (Turner 2015). The talks and discussions of the plenary session reinforced these visions for the Society as it begins its second century.