This question addresses:
Many impacts of humans on ecosystems (both harmful and beneficial) are slow to become apparent. This may transfer the costs associated with current ecosystem changes to future generations. For example, the use of groundwater supplies can exceed the recharge capacity for some time before costs of extraction begin to increase significantly. In general, people manage ecosystems in such ways that short-term benefits are increased, while long-term costs go unnoticed or are ignored.
Different ecosystem services tend to change over different time scales, making it difficult for managers to fully evaluate trade-offs. For example, supporting services (such as soil formation and plant growth) and regulating services (such as water and disease regulation) tend to change over much longer time scales than provisioning services do. As a consequence, impacts on more slowly changing services are often overlooked.
The degree of inertia of different drivers of ecosystem change differs considerably. The speed at which a driver reacts strongly influences how quickly related ecosystem problems can be solved once they are identified. For some drivers, such as the overharvest of particular species, lag times are rather short and the impact of the driver can quickly be reduced or stopped. Nutrient loading and, especially, climate change have much longer lag times and the effects of these drivers cannot be reduced for years or decades. The extinction of species due to habitat loss also has a significant lag time. Even if habitat loss were to end today, it would take hundreds of years for species numbers to reach a new, lower, equilibrium in response to the habitat change that took place in the last centuries.
For some species this process can be rapid, but for others, like trees, it may take centuries. Consequently, reducing the rate of habitat loss might only have a small impact on extinction rates over the next half century, but lead to significant benefits in the long term. Time lags between habitat reduction and extinction provide an opportunity for humans to restore habitats and rescue species from extinction. More...
Most changes in ecosystems and their services are gradual and incremental, making them, at least in principle, detectable and predictable. However, many examples exist of non-linear and sometimes abrupt changes in ecosystems. A change may be gradual until a particular pressure on the ecosystem reaches a threshold, at which point rapid shifts to a new state occur. Some non-linear changes can be very large and have substantial impacts on human well-being. Capabilities for predicting non-linear changes are improving, but in most cases science can not yet predict the exact thresholds.
Ecosystem are resilient to disturbances until a certain threshold, meaning that they are able to withstand them or to recover from them. Changes in ecosystems caused by humans may reduce this resilience and increase the likelihood of abrupt changes in the system, with important consequences for human well-being.
The species of an ecosystem belong to different functional groups. Within each group, species may contribute in similar ways to ecosystem processes and services but respond differently to environmental fluctuations. This diversity in responding enables ecosystems to adjust to changing environments and to maintain processes and services. The loss of biodiversity that is now taking place thus tends to reduce the resilience of ecosystems.
Threshold changes in ecosystems are not uncommon, but are becoming much more likely as human-induced pressures on ecosystems are growing. For example, as human populations become more mobile, more and more species are being introduced into new habitats. This increases the likelihood of harmful pests to emerge.
Once an ecosystem has undergone a non-linear change, recovery to the original state is generally slow, costly, and sometimes even impossible. For example, the recovery of over-exploited fisheries after collapse and closure is quite variable. The cod fishery in Newfoundland has been closed for nearly 13 years, but there have been few signs of a recovery (see Figure 3.4). However, the North Sea herring fishery recovered after a four-year closure after a collapse due to overharvest in the late 1970s. More...
This summary is free and ad-free, as is all of our content. You can help us remain free and independant as well as to develop new ways to communicate science by becoming a Patron!