The succession which commences with a barren
shoal in an estuary is called primary succession. The
secondary succession occurs after the damage of an original ecosystem. Succession does not incorporate regular
disruptions such as seasonal changes or very long-term
processes.
Succession is rarely predictable at the level of species
composition but is sometimes predictable at the level of
functional groups of species. The principle of ecological
succession can guide ecological restoration.
Bibliography
Begon, M., Harper, J. L., and Townsend, C. R., 1996. Ecology,
3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Karel Prach, K., and Walker, L. R., 2011. Four opportunities
for studies of ecological succession. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26, 119–123.
Odum, E. P., 1983. Basic Ecology: Fundamentals of Ecology.
London: Molt-Saunders.
Walker, L. R., and del Moral, R., 2003. Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
Kalle Matso
NERRS Science Collaborative, Department of Natural
Resources and the Environment, University of New
Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
Synonyms
Ecosystem approach to management; Integrated natural
resource management
Definition
Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is an integrated
approach to management that considers the entire ecosystem, including humans. The goal of ecosystem-based
management is to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive, and resilient condition so that it can provide the
services humans want and need. Ecosystem-based management differs from current approaches that usually
focus on a single species, sector, activity, or concern; it
considers the cumulative impacts of different sectors
(COMPASS, 2005).
History
Until the last few decades, the predominant way to
approach managing sections of the Earth was to focus narrowly on particular aspects of an ecosystem (e.g., managing a forest for production of lumber or for the protection
of a particular animal species). The seeds of a new way of
looking at ecosystem management can be found as early
as the 1950s, in the writings of Aldo Leopold among
others (Arkema et al., 2006). During the late 1960s, scientists and policy scholars in the United States began to
connect the traditional and narrower approach to management with a noticeable downturn in the health of both individual species and other measures of ecosystem health.
These critics hoped that the passage of laws such as the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 would influence management to be more holistic and to take into
account a greater number of factors than the single-species
approach (Layzer, 2012). This new approach began to be
characterized as the “ecosystem approach” (Slocombe,
1998), and the 1970s saw two high-profile efforts to begin
to manage systems with this broader paradigm, in the
Great Lakes and in the Chesapeake Bay (Slocombe,
1998; Layzer, 2012), though most authors tend to point
to the Great Lakes example, which resulted in the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 – as the most
comprehensive and seminal effort in the early history
of EBM.
In the 1980s, two new high-profile issues erupted,
both of which brought more public and scientific focus
to the issue of an ecosystem approach to management.
The first issue involved disputes about how to manage
the grizzly bear habitat in the Greater Yellowstone
region; the second involved the campaign to protect the
northern spotted owl in the forests of the Pacific Northwest (Layzer, 2012). These two issues were notable for
several reasons: (1) they were highly contentious and
well-publicized issues that garnered a lot of attention in
the national media; (2) both issues explicitly acknowledged that narrow management strategies were doomed
to failure; and (3) both issues – especially in the case of
the Pacific Northwest – also acknowledged that the interests of humans had to be considered as part of the management approach.
In the 1990s, EBM began to be invoked as a best practice strategy by many professionals and management
agencies in the United States (e.g., US Forest Service,
EPA, etc.) as well as across the globe. Although the term
lost favor among land managers by the new millennium –
due to pushback from those who equated an ecosystem
focus with a left-leaning environmentalist movement –
the ideas behind EBM remain strong among natural
resource managers (Layzer, 2012).
The marine/estuarine focus on EBM began in the late
1990s and became solidified after both the Pew Oceans
Commission (2003) and the US Commission on Ocean
Policy (2004) explicitly called for EBM in addressing
issues related to marine and estuarine waters. In 2006,
commissioners from both efforts joined to create the US
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, releasing a report that
focused on EBM as critical to achieving many of the
objectives (Arkema et al., 2006). In contrast with land
resource managers, marine resource managers use the
term “EBM” explicitly while admitting that the term is
ambiguous (Arkema et al., 2006); many also note that
the ideas are extremely difficult to actually put into practice (e.g., Boesch, 2006; Ruckelshaus et al., 2008), and
actual cases of EBM occurring are rare and, arguably,
Utopian.
232
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
shoal in an estuary is called primary succession. The
secondary succession occurs after the damage of an original ecosystem. Succession does not incorporate regular
disruptions such as seasonal changes or very long-term
processes.
Succession is rarely predictable at the level of species
composition but is sometimes predictable at the level of
functional groups of species. The principle of ecological
succession can guide ecological restoration.
Bibliography
Begon, M., Harper, J. L., and Townsend, C. R., 1996. Ecology,
3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Karel Prach, K., and Walker, L. R., 2011. Four opportunities
for studies of ecological succession. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26, 119–123.
Odum, E. P., 1983. Basic Ecology: Fundamentals of Ecology.
London: Molt-Saunders.
Walker, L. R., and del Moral, R., 2003. Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
Kalle Matso
NERRS Science Collaborative, Department of Natural
Resources and the Environment, University of New
Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
Synonyms
Ecosystem approach to management; Integrated natural
resource management
Definition
Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is an integrated
approach to management that considers the entire ecosystem, including humans. The goal of ecosystem-based
management is to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive, and resilient condition so that it can provide the
services humans want and need. Ecosystem-based management differs from current approaches that usually
focus on a single species, sector, activity, or concern; it
considers the cumulative impacts of different sectors
(COMPASS, 2005).
History
Until the last few decades, the predominant way to
approach managing sections of the Earth was to focus narrowly on particular aspects of an ecosystem (e.g., managing a forest for production of lumber or for the protection
of a particular animal species). The seeds of a new way of
looking at ecosystem management can be found as early
as the 1950s, in the writings of Aldo Leopold among
others (Arkema et al., 2006). During the late 1960s, scientists and policy scholars in the United States began to
connect the traditional and narrower approach to management with a noticeable downturn in the health of both individual species and other measures of ecosystem health.
These critics hoped that the passage of laws such as the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 would influence management to be more holistic and to take into
account a greater number of factors than the single-species
approach (Layzer, 2012). This new approach began to be
characterized as the “ecosystem approach” (Slocombe,
1998), and the 1970s saw two high-profile efforts to begin
to manage systems with this broader paradigm, in the
Great Lakes and in the Chesapeake Bay (Slocombe,
1998; Layzer, 2012), though most authors tend to point
to the Great Lakes example, which resulted in the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 – as the most
comprehensive and seminal effort in the early history
of EBM.
In the 1980s, two new high-profile issues erupted,
both of which brought more public and scientific focus
to the issue of an ecosystem approach to management.
The first issue involved disputes about how to manage
the grizzly bear habitat in the Greater Yellowstone
region; the second involved the campaign to protect the
northern spotted owl in the forests of the Pacific Northwest (Layzer, 2012). These two issues were notable for
several reasons: (1) they were highly contentious and
well-publicized issues that garnered a lot of attention in
the national media; (2) both issues explicitly acknowledged that narrow management strategies were doomed
to failure; and (3) both issues – especially in the case of
the Pacific Northwest – also acknowledged that the interests of humans had to be considered as part of the management approach.
In the 1990s, EBM began to be invoked as a best practice strategy by many professionals and management
agencies in the United States (e.g., US Forest Service,
EPA, etc.) as well as across the globe. Although the term
lost favor among land managers by the new millennium –
due to pushback from those who equated an ecosystem
focus with a left-leaning environmentalist movement –
the ideas behind EBM remain strong among natural
resource managers (Layzer, 2012).
The marine/estuarine focus on EBM began in the late
1990s and became solidified after both the Pew Oceans
Commission (2003) and the US Commission on Ocean
Policy (2004) explicitly called for EBM in addressing
issues related to marine and estuarine waters. In 2006,
commissioners from both efforts joined to create the US
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, releasing a report that
focused on EBM as critical to achieving many of the
objectives (Arkema et al., 2006). In contrast with land
resource managers, marine resource managers use the
term “EBM” explicitly while admitting that the term is
ambiguous (Arkema et al., 2006); many also note that
the ideas are extremely difficult to actually put into practice (e.g., Boesch, 2006; Ruckelshaus et al., 2008), and
actual cases of EBM occurring are rare and, arguably,
Utopian.
232
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT