|
Top Story The Role of Individual Species for the Stability of Ecosystems + In the Field with... Ute Jacob: Reflecting on COP16 + Collaboration Transdisciplinary CREATE Project Enters Stage 2 + HIFMB inside Postdoc Perspectives + Editorial View from Northwest #22 + Selected Publications + Fun Fact
|
|
|
|
|
The Role of Individual Species for the Stability of Ecosystems
|
|
|
Natural ecosystems have a surprising capacity to absorb environmental change as different species maintain functional intactness. Greater biodiversity thus fosters greater functional stability. However, current unprecedented environmental change and the decline of biodiversity are threatening this ecological stability. A new study explores whether ecological stability arises naturally from the community as a whole, or is linked to species that increase (or decrease) stability under disturbance. The framework developed aims to improve our understanding of the contribution of individual species to ecosystem stability in the face of environmental change.
As natural and anthropogenic disturbances - such as climate change, habitat loss and pollution - cause massive reorganisations within local communities, a critical question arises: what makes an ecosystem resilient to change? The frequency and intensity of these disturbances are expected to increase, challenging ecosystems in unprecedented ways and complicating our efforts to predict and mitigate their impacts. Understanding the contributions of individual species to the stability and functioning of communities is now fundamental to managing and conserving biodiversity in a rapidly changing world.
|
|
|
» The role of individual species in maintaining stability is highly context dependent, with different species stabilising community properties in response to different disturbances. In particular, rare species can play a critical role by compensating for the decline of more vulnerable, dominant species. «
|
|
|
Charlotte Kunze
Community Ecologist
|
|
|
Here we present a framework for partitioning species contributions to stability in disturbed communities based on absolute changes in species biomass and relative changes in species proportions following disturbance. Before analysing empirical data, we first outline expected results within this framework and test its applicability using simulated data. We argue that species can stabilise in two ways: By being tolerant to the disturbance, showing an increase in biomass while most species suffer from the disturbance, or by showing a smaller decrease, thus being less vulnerable than the other species (Fig. 1, Sector I and II). Using simulated data with full knowledge of the identity of the stabilising species, we showed that these cases can indeed be separated by comparing species-specific responses in disturbed (treatment) and undisturbed (control) conditions in absolute and relative terms.
|
|
|
Secondly, we applied this framework to empirical data from a large-scale freshwater zooplankton experiment in different lakes and seasons, where a natural community is subjected to a temporally constrained pulse disturbance (treatment) and compared to an undisturbed control. We found that the contributions of individual species to ecosystem stability were complex and highly context dependent. In other words, no single species consistently stabilised community dynamics across all scenarios, highlighting the nuanced roles of species in different conditions.
Interestingly, rare species played a key role in maintaining stability. Although they make up a small proportion of the total biomass, rare species play an essential role by compensating for the decline of more vulnerable, dominant species. These less common species stabilise ecosystems through their unique characteristics and adaptive capacity, which can strengthen ecosystem resilience to environmental change. Our findings highlight the importance of protecting more species than those considered critical, given the enhanced value of biodiversity in maintaining ecosystem function and stability in the face of global change.
|
|
_____________________________________________________
Kunze C, Bahlburg D, Urrutia-Cordero P, Striebel M, Kelpsiene E, Langenheder S, Donohue I, Hillebrand H. (2024). Partitioning Species Contributions to Ecological Stability in Disturbed Communities. Ecological Monographs e1636.
doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1636
|
|
Ute Jacob: Reflecting on COP16
|
|
|
Reflecting on the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Cali, Colombia, the message is clear: we know enough about what we need to do. The time to move commitments forward is now, placing a fair and inclusive leadership at the centre of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, to foster collaboration and to build bridges, and to remain optimistic in these challenging times to truly make “peace with nature”.
|
|
|
A lot of voices criticized the outcomes of COP16, it was supposed to be the implementation COP and expectations were high, and some of the expectations were not met. Let’s keep in mind that multilateral negotiations are not straightforward, they take long days and nights, fuelled by national expectations to finally agree on a common language.
What COP16 in Cali will be remembered as, is for being “La COP de la gente” foremost for recognizing the work and role of indigenous peoples and local communities, Afrodescendent communities and campesinos as guardians and protectors of biodiversity. And for Cali being a wonderful host, with a vibrant Green Zone located at the river boulevard and across different places in the city, thereby providing space for the participation of civil society, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and everyone interested in conservation of biodiversity. This truly made it a COP for the people.
In Cali the ocean won, agreement was reached after eight years of negotiations on ‘ecologically or biologically significant marine areas’ (EBSAs). This decision implements a framework for identifying and updating marine areas crucial for the health of the ocean, based on scientific criteria, which will inform science-based measures to conserve, restore and manage marine ecosystems to achieve the 30x30 target.
|
|
Transdisciplinary CREATE Project Enters Stage 2
|
|
The second phase of the CREATE project is launched this December. Silke Laakmann (HIFMB, AWI) and Jochen Hinkel (Humboldt University) are co-coordinating this 3-years BMBF-funded project as one of the seven sustainMare research mission projects of the German Marine Research Alliance.
As manifold human interventions in coastal marine ecosystems - such as shipping, wind turbine construction, fishing, nutrient input, and tourism - intensify, conflicts are increasingly arising between marine resource users and nature conservation objectives. In this societal context, CREATE-2, involving 11 institutes and universities, is developing solution-oriented knowledge for better marine protection, the resolution of conflicts of interest, and the efficient marine monitoring necessary to achieve conservation goals. In particular, CREATE-2 pursues
- the co-creation and transfer of non-invasive monitoring strategies to monitor the marine environment,
- the assessment of the biodiversity and connectivity of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the context of multiple uses, and
- the co-creation of socially acceptable marine conservation measures and MPAs, associated governance structures and marine education measures.
CREATE-2 addresses these goals through a transdisciplinary approach in which concrete products are co-developed together with relevant stakeholders in three real-world laboratories in the North and Baltic Seas.
|
|
My name is Joseane Marques, and I joined HIFMB in 2024 as part of the HIPP Cohort exploring “Ecosystem Re-assembly Under Climate Change”. I am an ecophysiologist interested in how coral reef organisms (corals, symbiont-bearing foraminifera, and calcifying algae) respond to anthropogenic stressors.
Working with the research groups of Iliana Baums and Peter Schupp, I plan to investigate potential phenotypic markers of heat stress in corals and examine how the physiological state of key reef species influences coral recruitment through the release of stress metabolites.
When choosing HIFMB, I was particularly drawn to the HIPP idea, which offers an interdisciplinary environment and independence to develop my research. This was exactly what I was looking for after my experiences working in a Marine Monitoring Program in Brazil and completing a postdoc in Israel. The flexibility of the HIPP position has been invaluable, though I’m navigating new challenges, such as limited access to lab facilities. However, this role has allowed me the time to expand my understanding of ecological concepts and tools for coral reef research.
Although I miss tropical vibes, adjusting to life in Germany has been smooth, thanks to the warm welcome from the HIFMB community—a vibrant group of talented individuals. In particular, the Marine Conservation group provides incredible support with an amazing and skilled team.
I look forward to sharing exciting research outcomes with all of you in the coming years.
|
|
The famous ivory tower inhabited by isolated, nerdy scientists unaware of their societal surrounding potentially never existed in its imagined form. Rooted in a biblical metaphor, it achieved broader usage (at least in Europe) when student protests initiated the reformation of universities in the 50s and 60s. While I would argue that many prominent scientists made their voices heard before that, the situation nowadays is almost reverse to the imagination: the ivory tower must actually be a very empty place in these days given the role science (and scientists) play in current public debates about, e.g., climate, economy, pandemics, sustainability, you name it. No talkshow comes without a science expert, dialogue formats and transdisciplinarity are an expected central feature of projects, and societal relevance is the alpha and omega statement of most papers or applications in the environmental sciences.
Science’s involvement in discussing the grand challenges of humanity can only be applauded, of course, but I am not sure that the people outside of the ivory tower were (are) ready for this exodus. Science skepticism is on the rise, major western countries elect(ed) governments that actively disregard or bluntly negate science, and scientists have become personal targets of aggression. It seems that advice is less welcome when it inconveniently affects everyday live. Protecting far away whales is fine and we can be highly sympathetic with the fate of coral reefs elsewhere. But don’t suggest to eat less meat, fly less, buy less, discard less, wash your hands, get vaccinated and shop regionally. Of course, the immediate suspect is scientific communication failure, focusing on the restrictions and not the gains, and I am the first to agree that top-down communication styles are a major part of the problem.
But this myopic focus on the sender of the information neglects the receiver’s positioning. Scientists quite unanimously indicate that transformation for sustainability is a must, either we change actively or we will be changed by the physical, chemical and biological consequences of human actions. But whales and corals don’t vote. In many democratic countries, we see clear majorities against this transformation – often based on populist statements outside of the factual domain or on some vaguely promised technofixes. Not to mention those non-democratic countries where a vote for transformation is not even an option.
There are fantastic examples for how transformation can work, they all have elements in common such as participation, engagement, and involvement. They are also often small scale local to regional approaches. The worry I have based on the current political climate is that many negate the process already before participation and engagement can take place. It seems like the ivory tower, if you think of it as a place of intellectual isolation, is attracting new inhabitants with the big difference that their findings lack a scientific foundation.
Sincerely, Helmut Hillebrand
Director – Professor of Pelagic Ecology
helmut.hillebrand@hifmb.de
|
|
RESEARCH
Selected Recent Publications
Campos AO, Latorre S. (2024). Reconversion or Exclusion? The Effects of Blue Economy Policies on Semi-industrial and Artisanal Fishing in Puntarenas, Costa Rica. Latin American Perspectives.
doi.org/10.1177/0094582X241285386
Hine A, Brinkhoff T, Bolta AP, Peters K, Sammler KG, Tietje K. (2024). Sedimentary relations: cultures of access and the matter of shallow seabed coring. Cultural geographies.
doi.org/10.1177/14744740241293105
Vohsen SA, Gruber-Vodicka HR, Herrera S, Dubilier N, Fisher CR, Baums IB. (2024). Discovery of deep-sea coral symbionts from a novel clade of marine bacteria with severely reduced genomes. Nature Communicatios.
doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53855-5
Eren AM, Banfield JF. (2024). Modern microbiology: Embracing complexity through integration across scales. Cell.
doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2024.08.028
Veseli I, Demers MA, Cooper ZS, […], Eren AM, Moran MA, Braakman, R. (2024). Digital Microbe: a genome-informed data integration framework for team science on emerging model organisms. Scientific Data.
doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03778-z
Ohnesorge A, John U, Kuczynski L, Neuhaus S, Beng KC, Krock B, Laakmann S. (2024). Roaming the Seas—Assessing Marine Invertebrate Biodiversity Along Salinity Gradients With Zooplankton and eDNA Metabarcoding. Environmental DNA. doi.org/10.1002/edn3.70037
+ more on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=uCoLTyAAAAAJ&hl=en
|
|
Would you rather have a one-minute conversation with your past self or your future self?
|
|
|
|
|
|
