cases of Alaska and the Northern Great Plains grasslands of North America to
explain how greater humidity brings with it increased the risk of forest fires,
showing how the levels of complexity are increasing. In the study of forest fires,
there is a complicated climate-fuel-fire relationship that determines the variability of wildfires (Willis and Birks 2006).
If ecological systems are dynamic at natural scale (i.e., long-term ecological
records >50 years), why is management often carried out within a static framework,
dealing with short-term changes (<50 years)? Various studies have shown that it is
not possible to manage the natural environment without considering the dynamics
beyond that 50-year timeline (Willis and Birks 2006; Willis and Bhagwat 2010). In
a synthesizing review in the Applied Ecology journal, Froyd and Willis (2008)
affirmed that the majority of publications in the conservation/applied ecological
literature still focus on very short timescales (i.e., years or decades). Willis and
Bhagwat commented: “Paleoecological records are replete with examples of biotic
responses to past climate change and human impact, but how can we use these
records in the conservation of current and future biodiversity?” (Willis and Bhagwat
2010: 759). The solution involves always considering the long-term perspective and
providing a test of “predictions and assumptions of ecological processes that are
directly relevant to management strategies necessary to retain biological diversity in
a changing climate” (Willis and Bhagwat 2010: 759).
5.1.3 Why Environmental Geohistory and Not Only
Environmental History?
The term ‘environmental history’ has been in use for years, despite other labels that
have received a certain media notoriety (Fontana 1992; Pèlachs 2006), although
some sectors of ecology have begun to take it into account more recently (Whittaker
et al. 2005). Therefore, we share the view of the temporal dynamic described by
Dietl and Flessa (2011), who understand historical ecology in a broader sense,
based on two perspectives: one limited to relatively recent time intervals (i.e., the
Pleistocene) and another that concentrates on ecological dynamics (e.g., changes in
species distribution and abundance). They conclude the following: “(1) the temporal scope of conservation paleobiology also extends to the pre-Pleistocene record;
and (2) conservation paleobiology, in addition to ecological dynamics, concentrates
on evolutionary dynamics (e.g., adaptive responses of species to changing climates
or ecological interactions)” (Dietl and Flessa 2011: 31). Our concept of environmental geohistory also considers the spatial variable as a key factor. The temporal
dynamic, combined with the spatial variable, constitutes geohistory: time (dynamics) is as important a variable as is space (scale). Froyd and Willis (2008)
remind us that time and space are concepts that do not always go hand in hand with
paleoecology. Environmental geohistory only exists if both variables are treated at
the same time, but not if they are considered separately. As Dietl and Flessa (2011:
112
A. Pèlachs et al.
explain how greater humidity brings with it increased the risk of forest fires,
showing how the levels of complexity are increasing. In the study of forest fires,
there is a complicated climate-fuel-fire relationship that determines the variability of wildfires (Willis and Birks 2006).
If ecological systems are dynamic at natural scale (i.e., long-term ecological
records >50 years), why is management often carried out within a static framework,
dealing with short-term changes (<50 years)? Various studies have shown that it is
not possible to manage the natural environment without considering the dynamics
beyond that 50-year timeline (Willis and Birks 2006; Willis and Bhagwat 2010). In
a synthesizing review in the Applied Ecology journal, Froyd and Willis (2008)
affirmed that the majority of publications in the conservation/applied ecological
literature still focus on very short timescales (i.e., years or decades). Willis and
Bhagwat commented: “Paleoecological records are replete with examples of biotic
responses to past climate change and human impact, but how can we use these
records in the conservation of current and future biodiversity?” (Willis and Bhagwat
2010: 759). The solution involves always considering the long-term perspective and
providing a test of “predictions and assumptions of ecological processes that are
directly relevant to management strategies necessary to retain biological diversity in
a changing climate” (Willis and Bhagwat 2010: 759).
5.1.3 Why Environmental Geohistory and Not Only
Environmental History?
The term ‘environmental history’ has been in use for years, despite other labels that
have received a certain media notoriety (Fontana 1992; Pèlachs 2006), although
some sectors of ecology have begun to take it into account more recently (Whittaker
et al. 2005). Therefore, we share the view of the temporal dynamic described by
Dietl and Flessa (2011), who understand historical ecology in a broader sense,
based on two perspectives: one limited to relatively recent time intervals (i.e., the
Pleistocene) and another that concentrates on ecological dynamics (e.g., changes in
species distribution and abundance). They conclude the following: “(1) the temporal scope of conservation paleobiology also extends to the pre-Pleistocene record;
and (2) conservation paleobiology, in addition to ecological dynamics, concentrates
on evolutionary dynamics (e.g., adaptive responses of species to changing climates
or ecological interactions)” (Dietl and Flessa 2011: 31). Our concept of environmental geohistory also considers the spatial variable as a key factor. The temporal
dynamic, combined with the spatial variable, constitutes geohistory: time (dynamics) is as important a variable as is space (scale). Froyd and Willis (2008)
remind us that time and space are concepts that do not always go hand in hand with
paleoecology. Environmental geohistory only exists if both variables are treated at
the same time, but not if they are considered separately. As Dietl and Flessa (2011:
112
A. Pèlachs et al.