Tag: rewilding

Posted on

Trinity’s Wildflower Meadow: A Success Story

by Aoife Robertson

The wildflower meadow outside the front gates of Trinity College Dublin.

In February 2020, a Trinity Green Campus poll was held amongst Trinity College Dublin (TCD) staff and students to convert the lawns of Front Gate into a wildflower meadow. Of the 13,850 people who voted, 12,496 voted in favour, a 90% majority. This was the largest number of participants that Trinity Green Campus had ever had, likely due to the extensive communications regarding the campaign, with features being included on local, national, and international news channels. The project has been deemed a success with support from both the public and TCD community and it continues to flourish outside the historic Front Gate of TCD. The TCD wildflower meadow is one of many similar “rewilding” projects that are currently being undertaken to increase biodiversity in urban and rural spaces but why are they such a popular rewilding choice? And how can we ensure their success?

Oliver Goldsmith among the ‘wildflowers’ at Trinity College Dublin. Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill

Let’s take it that any project, ecological or otherwise, can be deemed successful if it has fulfilled the goals that it set out to achieve. The majority of rewilding and restoration projects aim to introduce species to an ecosystem as a way of restoring ecosystem functions and re-establishing natural processes that existed previously. In the case of wildflower meadows, the species being introduced are herbaceous plants and the ecosystem functions that they aim to restore usually relate to pollination or biodiversity, although this is not always the case. Even the broadest generalisation of the aims of wildflower meadows lacks clarity on the type of ecosystem functions that are expected to be restored. This is due to the aims of any restoration effort being dependent on the social and cultural views of the people carrying out or interacting with the project. Therefore, each individual wildflower meadow project must define the unique aims pertaining to it before a decision can be made on its success.

The two most documented spatial differences are between North America and Europe. In North America, the landscapes that were present before European colonisers have long been idolised and perpetuated as the “perfect wilderness,” with many attempts being made to conserve and restore these ecosystem types. As such, projects which aim to restore pre-colonisation landscapes are often deemed to be successful and are well received by the public. Large wildflower meadows that are re-planted in areas that previously were inhabited by similar species and vegetative communities are also deemed successful and serve as a reminder of the great prairies and grasslands of 1500’s North America. However, when urban wildflower meadows are planted many North Americans question whether it is truly restoration, since there were no previous wildflower meadows present here which can be said to be restored. Therefore, if the aim of this example is to be an act of restoration or rewilding the project is unable to be successful.

Contrasting to this, European rewilding does not explicitly try to recreate a single period, owing to the long established agricultural and industrial disturbance that has been occurring in the area since ~7000 B.C.. Therefore, the matter of projects emulating an exact period does not cause the same obstacles to success that are seen in North America. Instead, a range of dates are replicated, from Pleistocene to pre-industrial. There is a much lesser demand for projects on the large scales seen in North America, with the reintroduction of large carnivores causing public outcry. When concerning wildflower meadows, small pockets of pre-existing meadows or similar habitats are still naturally established in Europe, such as hedgerows and agricultural wildflower meadows. Thus, it is easier for people to view wildflower meadows projects as restoration.

Education also plays a key role in the success of wildflower meadows. Some studies have shown that the public perceives nature as consisting of trees and forested areas, and so projects that remove trees, even for positive environmental reasons, are perceived negatively. Other studies, however, have shown contrasting results, recording preferences towards annuals over larger trees or fruit plants. Interestingly, this same study also recorded that 54% of participants did not know what wildflowers were. This indicates that asking the public whether they prefer wildflowers over trees may not give accurate data as the responders are much more familiar with one subject over the other. Where images were shown, participants revealed a preference for wildflower meadows over images of herbaceous and formal bedding styles. The degree to which they preferred wildflower meadows over other bedding styles increased with an increase of plant species richness. This is a positive sign for those who wish to use wildflower meadows to restore pollinator and biodiversity functions, as it suggests that there should be public support of the projects if the public are adequately informed on wildflower meadows.

The TCD wildflower meadow project had clear goals, aiming to demonstrate that grass lawns were not the only option for planting in a formal setting. By prioritising the goal of informing the public on the project aims, TCD reduced arguments that may have otherwise arisen over the success of the project. Notably, before the project began, the idea was put to a vote by the staff and students at the college. As mentioned previously, the poll was hugely successful likely due to the amount of publicity it received. In order to combat any doubt surrounding the use of non-native species, information was provided about the reasoning for including non-native species and why they would be beneficial to the project, for example, the increased pollination potential of the site and the aesthetic benefits of the species chosen. The clear communication regarding the project appears to have ensured the wildflower meadows success. The public support for a wildflower project in the heart of the capital city centre could also in part be due to the site being in Europe. Alternatively, the public support could be due to the project being planted shortly before the Covid-19 pandemic, which has been hypothesised to have increased public appreciation for green spaces. Many of the questions posed remain unanswered due to the modernity of the topic and rapidly shifting public opinions. As developments occur, both academically and publicly, more light will be shed on the success of wildflower meadows and how projects can be best implemented. However, for now, debates on the topic should be encouraged and the public should be involved in the conversation. Wildflower meadows have a huge potential to educate people about their environment and can be implemented on many scales, being made suitable to whichever environment is present. The people managing these projects should consider the ecological and social environment within which they work and make efforts to adapt to the unique environment in which they may find themselves. There is plentiful research into the social dynamics of rewilding and restoration projects and so it can be concluded that the issue lies with project managers and a potential lack of consideration of the social factors at hand.

Aoife is a final year Environmental Sciences student at Trinity College Dublin who recently completed her undergraduate thesis with Dr Piggott and Dr Penk. She is interested in urban rewilding and quantitative ecology and hopes to work in these areas in the future.

Posted on

Wild and free: red deer grazing for conservation

Annabel Smith and Jana Eccard give an account of the Editor’s Choice paper of the June 2019 issue of the Journal of Applied Ecology: Grazing by wild red deer: Management options for the conservation of semi‐natural open habitats by Friederike Riesch and colleagues.

This post was originally published on The Applied Ecologists blog, where it is also available in German. The header photo was taken by Marcus Meißner.

It is widely accepted that semi-natural grasslands in Europe require active management to maintain biodiversity. Without management, woody shrubs typically replace grasslands and many plant species that have persisted for thousands of years will be lost from the area. This fact underlies ‘conservation grazing’ guidelines for managing livestock in semi-natural habitats, such as those embedded into EU agri-environment projects.

But is there a better way than livestock to manage biomass for conservation?

Continue reading “Wild and free: red deer grazing for conservation”
Posted on

Rewilding

wolf

Rewilding is the mass restoration of ecosystems by reintroducing (often long) lost animal and plant species which are then left to develop without human interference. It’s a topic explored by journalist George Monbiot in his latest book, Feral [1]. Monbiot captures the controversy surrounding rewilding with typical understatement, “Reintroducing elephants to Europe would first require a certain amount of public persuasion.” And “The clamour for the lion’s reintroduction to Britain, has, so far, been muted.” So why should we do it? He argues, and I agree, that people would value a biologically rich world over the desolate sheep-scapes that are common to the UK and Ireland. We live in a shadow world where we can see evidence of species that once surrounded us. One of the more striking examples of this shadow world are the putative elephant-resistant adaptations seen in Temperate trees. So, over and above the ecosystem services that would be realised and the potential financial gains resulting from such an endeavour, the primary motivation here is to nurture the existence value we draw from biodiversity.

The wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone is a great example of a successful reintroduction whose effect was felt throughout the trophic web. The wolves created zones of fear, areas where their prey no longer dared to venture which allowed vegetation to reestablish. This, in turn, gave habitat for animals like beavers to occupy. This in turn had a massive knock-on effect on the entire ecosystem and the other habitats of the park, all of which illustrates the profound influence predatory megafauna can have and the disastrous and unrectifiable trophic cascade which can occur where they are excluded.

Naturally, there are some serious obstacles to advancing this goal. It’s not a simple matter of dumping a pride of lions into the woods and hoping for the best. There will have to be some priming of the area if we want the animals to flourish. The Irish countryside isn’t as well suited to wolf packs as Yellowstone. This is especially the case if Pleistocene rewilding is taken seriously. Monbiot explains, “People who call themselves Pleistocene rewilders seek to recapitulate the prehuman fauna of the Americas.” This could be achieved through DeExtinction of long-lost species or by reintroducing proxies which would serve the function of the missing animals or plants. In the US where there are extensive wildlife areas that we Europeans could only dream about, reintroducing long disappeared animals or proxies doesn’t seem quite so ridiculous. For us, with so little unmodified habitat it almost seems like a non-argument when we don’t even have mundane megafauna or any land on which to put them. To take one example, the African species of cheetah could fill in for the American species (Miracinonyx), preying on the fleet-footed pronghorn, whose speed is another instance of an adaptation to a long-lost predator. But the issue here is the time that has elapsed since these species went extinct. Perhaps the ecosystem has changed too much for the species, proxy or not, to settle back in. Modern day North America is a very different place to the one of 12,000 years ago.

There is ample opportunity and, more importantly, land, to proceed with rewilding plans outside of traditional protected areas. Agricultural property is being abandoned all over Europe and North America as people move to cities. Rather than keep it fallow, why not restore the landscape to something of value?

This would represent an excellent opportunity for scientists and policy makers to engage with the public and highlight the benefits of rewilding or at least get it into the public consciousness. Of course there will be detractors, but the arguments for could be framed in such a way as to convince most reasonable people that wolves won’t be stalking their estates. I think rewilding is an exciting way to develop conservation; it is dynamic which is in contrast to the passive, ‘protect what we’ve got’ ethos, common to conservancy. It also brings some much needed positivity, opposed to the negative, guilt-laden, reactionary aspect of much of nature conservation.

Authors:  Adam Kane: kanead[at]tcd.ie, @P1zPalu

John Kirwan, @JohnDKirwan

References

1. Monbiot, G., Feral: searching for enchantment on the frontiers of rewilding. Allen Lane, London, 2013.

Image Source: Wikicommons

Posted on

The Flora of the Future

Flora of the future

It’s the year 2050. Several billion more humans occupy the world, and species translocations are by now the norm to mitigate against increased urban sprawl, climatic instability and a sea level now a third of a metre higher. In spite of unprecedented demands on the natural environment, governments have slowly developed capacity for conservation of wilderness and semi-natural habitat. Beyond this even, with the vast majority of the human race by now living in cities and the continued trend of rural land abandonment; restoration ecology has come to the fore at entire landscape and regional scales. The concept of ‘rewilding’ is debated openly amongst politicians and the public – no longer the mere theoretical exercise of academics. The monetary value of ecosystem services is also by now a very real and tangible concept within economic circles, embedded within highly developed metrics such as green-GDP.  Despite such positive developments, however, problematic legacies of the past remain. Intensification of agriculture has been unrelenting globally, notwithstanding inroads into adoption of agroecosystem approaches. A transition to truly renewable energy sources is still incomplete and of utmost urgency. One of the most critical questions of all most likely still looms – have we yet done enough to put a cap in the peak of this, the sixth great mass-extinction of life on the planet?

And so, it is within this future and none-the-less challenging world we find the modern ecologist and biodiversity practitioner at work.

What kind of new and useful technologies may exist to help tackle such problems and challenges of the not so distant future? It is interesting to deliberate on one low-tech tool in particular (the so-called bread and butter of biodiversity), which has been with us already for centuries – and that is the humble species checklist. Specifically we take a look at the Flora – and although coverage here is rather phyto-centric, it should be easy to draw equivalents to all forms of taxa, without (too) much stretch of the imagination.

So what is a Flora in the traditional sense, why is this changing, and how will the Flora of the Future look and function? To briefly tackle these first two questions, a Flora is primarily a list of plant biodiversity (either with or without diagnostic characters and keys) within a specified geographic range, be it local, national or at larger scales. Outside of this basic function there are the ‘added-extras’, which may include notes on distribution, ecology, synonymy, conservation status and even ethnobotanical use. Often the assemblage of national-level Floras has proven quite a mammoth task; logistically challenging, fraught with funding difficulties, and above all time-consuming – with efforts spanning over several decades for particularly biodiverse countries. This is all very well, and such traditional Floras have and will continue to serve as invaluable tools. In this modern age, however, change is called for to tackle some common short-comings of the Flora.  A considerable amount of valuable information collected by taxonomists and other experts in the production process is typically lost, never making its way into the public realm – and when such publications can easily run to over 20 volumes, it is clear to see the major constraints involved. Another key drawback is the sheer speed at which redundancy can occur. Even before the final volume of a Flora is published, taxa (species/genera/families) covered within the first volumes may have long been ripe for new taxonomic treatment.

The revolution in how biological information is collected, stored and disseminated is already greatly influencing the Flora. One of the most recently initiated national-level projects is the Flora of Nepal project, for which advances in biodiversity informatics have permeated the entire process from preparation to publication. Although the Flora of Nepal will still be published in printed format, a (if not the) main focus will be an E-Flora freely accessible online, which will also greatly expand the availability of information assembled by experts. A simple yet very significant feature will be the ease of portability of numerous volumes to the field in digital format.  Though perhaps most critically, the Flora of Nepal will be maintained and updated to reflect new findings – creating for the first time, in essence, an evolving Flora.

Before we really begin to speculate on the form and function of our Flora of the Future, we must first take a look to the current cutting edge of biodiversity informatics. In what must be one of the most significant advances in decades, the cooperative development of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) by many governments and organisations has promoted and facilitated the “mobilization, access, discovery and use of information about the occurrence of organisms”. This centralized repository of earth’s biodiversity is fast set to reach one billion indexed records within a few years from now, fed from diverse sources ranging from individuals to national biodiversity data centres. It is difficult to envisage how the Flora of the Future could in any plausible way side-step such a global network. Whereas floras have traditionally featured a top-down, expert driven synthesis – the Flora of the Future will also no doubt integrate the emergent trend of bottom-up assembly of knowledge – a good example of which is currently purveyed by the Encyclopaedia of Life.

Let’s get back now to our future ecologists and biodiversity practitioners, and take a little look in as they go about conducting their fieldwork. No matter what habitat or location they study in worldwide, they will each possess a small handheld device connected to the Flora of the Future. Automation of species identification by means of this device will have removed a large bottleneck in their work – leaving ecologists to focus on actual ecology. No longer will they be bound to a particular geographic territory due to limited floristic familiarity –  we will witness a complete opening of boundaries, and greater migration of ‘western’ ecologists to the frontline of areas of global biodiversity importance.

But just how exactly could such a device work? A potential basis could feature a combination of machine-learning morphometrics and DNA barcoding  – two presently very promising tools. For the former, development of algorithms for auto-identification of plant species is already well underway (see for example the Leafsnap mobile app). These function much like facial recognition technology, and through input of a digital scan/photo can pinpoint unique morphological characteristics required for successful classification. A key aspect of machine learning is removal of subjectivity by conversion of shapes into numerical descriptions – no need for argument any longer on just how ‘subglobose’ a feature is; the ball is already in motion towards a predictive and integrative taxonomy. Upon scanning a specimen in the field, an image will be broken down into key morphometric characteristics, and referenced against a large central database within the Flora of the Future. The Flora will prioritize this procedure by first referencing against species known to occur within a certain radius from where the user currently stands (a useful feature in itself!). The ecologist, on the spot, may learn that the specimen has a confirmed match, and proceed to download key local statistics of importance. On the other hand, this specimen may in fact represent an extension of the species known distributional range. The finding, however, of no known match in the database could spell discovery of a new species, whereas a positive match with notably low morphometric agreement may indicate new subspecific taxa or otherwise interesting findings (for which DNA barcoding could be employed for further verification in both cases).

Regardless of outcome, the above three scenarios will have allowed for a real-time and in situ solution to identification of species. The exact significance of this process will not only lie in the freeing up of both ecologists’ and taxonomists’ resources, but in the real-time flagging of new discoveries. As it stands, it is expected that discovery of remaining undescribed plant species will be an incredibly inefficient process (given that 50% of the world’s plant species have been discovered by only 2% of plant collectors), despite the vast number of these thought to exist. A recent study examining the exact inefficiency of the production chain from collection to publication uncovered that “on average, more than two decades pass between the first collection of samples of a new species and the publication of the species’ description in scientific literature”. In other words, a specimen of a new species has physically passed through the hands of many people before the simple ‘discovery’ (perhaps after many, many years in a herbarium) that it is something new to science. In this sense, an important function of the Flora of the Future will be instant recognition (perhaps even while standing in the field!) of a new discovery as just that – which can drastically reduce this presently overblown timeframe and waste of resources.

Getting back to the future for now, we see our biodiversity practitioners and ecologists as key players in the advancement of ecological as well as taxonomic discovery, with a highly efficient yet passive ability for discovery embedded within the commonplace tools they use, as they go about their work.  With an entirely streamlined approach to field research, and identification no longer a daunting prospect in the study and documentation of biodiversity, we will eventually see the peak of mass extinction pass, looking back behind us. The challenges of tomorrow are no doubt great, and a renewed vigour for the taxonomic process will be critical for progress on these fronts. The Flora of the Future will for the first time sew a seamless line between ecologists and taxonomy; the essential currency of biodiversity.

Author

Paul Egan: eganp5[at]tcd.ie

Photo Credit

Paul Egan