optimization approach of such complex systems as the resource use of an ecosystem
is still not accessible.
Even if biomass, productivity and species diversity of the local assembly are
connected, the world records of these properties represent different regions (continents), different evolutionary histories and species pools. This fact indicates more or
less independent underlying optimization processes.
We still do not know much about the effects of changes in species composition,
biomass and/or productivity on the amount of single and limiting resources and on
changing compositions of resources and their feedback. Thus, the theory delineated
here can only be an intermediate step of the discussion about the improvement of
processes behind the assembly.
At the moment, it reflects plausibility and is a simple working model to fuel
discussion.
If optimization of the resource use is a general driver of the biomass/structure,
productivity and diversity in ecosystems it is possible that different aspects in human
communities and history including the relationship between human population
growth, culture and land use might be at least partly comparable (cf. Axinn and
Yabiku 2001; Bongaarts 1996; Jolly and Torrey 1993; Boserup 1981).
Despite diverse cultural performances of abstinence the global exploitation and
use of energy and material is continuously growing until today (Krausmann et al.
2009). It seems to be difficult to protect whole biomes against exploitation of
resources and increasing resource use by humans if the population is still growing.
If in a worst case scenario it will not be possible to limit the overall resource use what
could be the solution for the ecosystems?
There are many ideas about solutions, and many positive examples are put
forward. The use of ecosystems by humans does not necessarily have negative
impacts on the biomass, productivity and/or species diversity, although such influences most likely will alter at least one of these properties.
Nature conservation and landscape management can protect landscapes, parts of
ecosystems and species directly. An uncountable number of organic ingredients in
nature such as proteins that might be used for health and food would be protected
indirectly. In nature conservation areas all over the world certain activities are
restricted. Thus, not only the quantity of the global resource use matters, but also
the quality of the management at regional scales, e.g., the use of social and technical
solutions in fisheries to reduce bycatch or to arrange spatial partitioning of the use
intensity. In many cases species are threatened with extinction not because of the
resource use but because of dissipation of resources (bycatch, pollution, many
others, cf. IUCN Red List on the internet).
It is clearly both, expensive and uneffective to produce und use material for
human’s life such as plastic or medicine and to pollute other ecosystems with these
substances without any idea of recycling the resources that have gone. Thus, we
support the hypothesis that resources could be used more effectively and with a longterm perspective if the exploitation of ecosystems and species would be modified,
channeled and reduced in a cultivated manner and with a much smaller output of
waste and production of endangerment for species.
98
C. Hobohm and S. E. Vanderplank
is still not accessible.
Even if biomass, productivity and species diversity of the local assembly are
connected, the world records of these properties represent different regions (continents), different evolutionary histories and species pools. This fact indicates more or
less independent underlying optimization processes.
We still do not know much about the effects of changes in species composition,
biomass and/or productivity on the amount of single and limiting resources and on
changing compositions of resources and their feedback. Thus, the theory delineated
here can only be an intermediate step of the discussion about the improvement of
processes behind the assembly.
At the moment, it reflects plausibility and is a simple working model to fuel
discussion.
If optimization of the resource use is a general driver of the biomass/structure,
productivity and diversity in ecosystems it is possible that different aspects in human
communities and history including the relationship between human population
growth, culture and land use might be at least partly comparable (cf. Axinn and
Yabiku 2001; Bongaarts 1996; Jolly and Torrey 1993; Boserup 1981).
Despite diverse cultural performances of abstinence the global exploitation and
use of energy and material is continuously growing until today (Krausmann et al.
2009). It seems to be difficult to protect whole biomes against exploitation of
resources and increasing resource use by humans if the population is still growing.
If in a worst case scenario it will not be possible to limit the overall resource use what
could be the solution for the ecosystems?
There are many ideas about solutions, and many positive examples are put
forward. The use of ecosystems by humans does not necessarily have negative
impacts on the biomass, productivity and/or species diversity, although such influences most likely will alter at least one of these properties.
Nature conservation and landscape management can protect landscapes, parts of
ecosystems and species directly. An uncountable number of organic ingredients in
nature such as proteins that might be used for health and food would be protected
indirectly. In nature conservation areas all over the world certain activities are
restricted. Thus, not only the quantity of the global resource use matters, but also
the quality of the management at regional scales, e.g., the use of social and technical
solutions in fisheries to reduce bycatch or to arrange spatial partitioning of the use
intensity. In many cases species are threatened with extinction not because of the
resource use but because of dissipation of resources (bycatch, pollution, many
others, cf. IUCN Red List on the internet).
It is clearly both, expensive and uneffective to produce und use material for
human’s life such as plastic or medicine and to pollute other ecosystems with these
substances without any idea of recycling the resources that have gone. Thus, we
support the hypothesis that resources could be used more effectively and with a longterm perspective if the exploitation of ecosystems and species would be modified,
channeled and reduced in a cultivated manner and with a much smaller output of
waste and production of endangerment for species.
98
C. Hobohm and S. E. Vanderplank