A Conceptual Model on Relationship between Structure and Functions in Rangeland Ecosystems

Journal of Rangeland Science

مقاله 6، دوره 7، شماره 3، مهر 2017، صفحه 242-252   

نوع مقاله: Review and Short Length Article

نویسندگان

Amir Ahmadpour^* ؛ Gholam Ali Heshmati؛ Ramtin Joolaie

Gorgan University of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources

چکیده

One of the most important issues in structure-function relationship modeling is that each rangeland has numerous functions and each of them can provide the most benefits in a certain state of that ecosystem. In fact, relationship between structure and function can be varied in different states. After presentation of the Linear Structure-Function Model based on the Clementsian succession theory, another conceptual model was proposed to modify it based on more realistic State and Transition theory. While previous models mostly suppose one single function in their simulations, in this article, we suggest a conceptual model that summarizes the relationships between Ecosystem Structure and Multiple Functions (ESMF) in various states. The model can be useful for rangeland managers to get a rather correct understanding about multiple functions in rangelands. By this right understanding, the rangeland managers will be able to identify the best states for their ecosystems and try to reach to these states which can provide totally maximum benefits. This model shows that some functions in rangelands may conflict with or overlapped each other and some functions may not show a meaningful relationship with structure in ecosystems so that it is a very important task for managers to choose the states with the highest benefits and less conflict.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Ecological functions؛ Human well-being functions؛ ESMF model؛ Rangeland management

مراجع

Ahmadpour, A., 2016. A new approach in assessment of rangeland ecosystems based on ecological and economic view. Ph.D. thesis. Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. (In Persian).

Ahmadpour, A., Heshmati, G.A., Joulaie, R., 2016. Rangeland Condition Assessment Based on Economic Criteria. Jour. Landsc. Ecol., 9(2), 83-96. (In Persian).

Annila, A., Annila, E., 2008. Why did life emerge? Int. Jour. Astrobi., 7, 293-300.

Annila, A., Salthe, S., 2010. Physical foundations of evolutionary theory. Jour. Non-Equilib., Thermodyn., 35, 31-321.

Aoki, I., 2006. Min–max principle of entropy production with time in aquatic communities. Ecol. Complex. 3, 56–63.

Bestelmeyer, B.T., Brown, J.R. Havstad, K.M., Alexander, R., Chavez, G., Herrick, J.E., 2003. "Development and use of state-and transition models for rangelands." Jour. Range Manage., 56(2), 114-126.

Bodin, P., Wiman, B.L.B., 2007. The usefulness of stability concepts in forest management when coping with increasing climate uncertainties. Forest Ecol. Manage., 242, 541-552.

Bradshaw, A.D., 1984. Ecological principles and land reclamation practice. Landsc. Plan., 11, 35–48.

Briske, D.D., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Smiens, F.E., 2005. State-and-transition models, thresholds and rangeland health: a synthesis of ecological models and perspectives. Range Ecol. Manage., 58, 1-10.

Ciais, P.H., Reichstein, M., Viovy, N., Granier, A., Oge´e, J., Allard, V., Aubinet, M., Buchmann, N., Bernhofer, Chr., Carrara, A., Chevallier, F., De Noblet, N., Friend, A.D., Friedlingstein, P., Gru¨nwald, T., Heinesch, B., Keronen, P., Knohl, A., Krinner, G., Loustau, D., Manca, G., Matteucci, G., Miglietta, F., Ourcival, J.M., Papale, D., Pilegaard, K., Rambal, S., Seufert, G., Soussana, J.F., Sanz, M.J., Schulze, E.D., Vesala, T., Valentini, R., 2005. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature, 437, 529-533.

Clements, F.E., 1916. Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Inst., Washington Pub., 242, 1-512.

Cortina, J., Maestre, F.T., Vallejo, R., Baeza, M.J., Valdecantos, A.L., Pe´rez-Devesa, M., 2006. Ecosystem structure, function, and restoration success: Are they related? Jour. Natu. Cons., 14, 152-160.

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R.S., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-60.

Cziko, G., 2000. The Things We Do: Using the Lessons of Bernard and Darwin to Understand the What, How, and Why of Our Behavior. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. US. 290p.

Daily, G.C., Soderquist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P.R., Folke, C., Jannson, A., Jansson, B.O., Kautsky, N., Levin, S., Lubchenco, J., Maler, K.G., David, S., Starrett, D., Tilman, D., Walker, B., 2000. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science, 289, 395-396.

De Groot, R.S., 1992. Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Decision-Making. Wolters Noordhoff BV, Groningen, The Netherlands.

De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M., Boumans, R., 2002. A typology for the description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Economics, 41, 393-408.

DSEWPC, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities., 2011. ACRIS Landscape Function Update 2006-2010: Updated Information to That Provided in Rangelands 2008– Taking the Pulse. Commonwealth of Australia. 37p.

Farrell, E.P., Fu¨hrer, E., Ryan, D., Andersson, F., Hu¨ttl, R., Piussi, P., 2000. European forest ecosystems: building the future on the legacy of the past. Forest Ecol. Manage., 132, 5-20.

Francis, G.R., Magnuson, J.J., Regier, H.A., Talhelm, D.R., 1979. Rehabilitating Great Lakes Ecosystems. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Technical Report 37, Ann Arbor, MI., pp. 1–107.

Friedel, M.H., 1991. Range condition assessment and the concept of thresholds: a viewpoint. Jour. Range Manage., 44, 422-426.

Hobbs, R.J., Norton, D.A., 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol., 4(2), 93-110.

Hoelzer, G.A., Smith, E., Pepper, J.W., 2006. On the logical relationship between natural selection and self-organization. Jour. Evol. Biol., 19, 1785-1794.

Hooper, D.U., Chapin III, F.S., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Seta¨la¨, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J., Wardle, D.A., 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr., 75, 3-35.

Ives, A.R., Carpenter, S.R., 2007. Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science, 317(5834), 58-62.

Jaakkola, S., Sharma, V., Annila, A., 2008a. Cause of chirality consensus. Curr. Chem. Biol., 2, 53-58.

Jaakkola, S., El-Showk, S., Annila, A., 2008b. The driving force behind genomic diversity. Biophys. Chem., 134, 232-238.

Kaila, V.R.I., Annila, A., 2008. Natural selection for least action. Proc. R. Soc. A., 464, 3055-3070.

Karnani, M., Annila, A., 2009. Gaia again. Bio Systems., 95, 82-87.

Laycock, W.A., 1989. Secondary Succession and Range Condition Criteria: Introduction to the Problem. In: W.K. Lauenroth, and W.A. Laycock (eds), Secondary Succession and the Evaluation of Rangeland Condition. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.

Laycock, W.A., 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American rangelands: a Viewpoint. Jour. Range Manage., 44, 427-433.

Lockwood, J.L., Samuels, C.L., 2004. Assembly Models and the Practice of Restoration. In V.M., Temperton, R.J., Hobbs, T., Nuttle, S., Halle, (Eds.), Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology (pp. 34-54). Washington: Island Press.

Loreau, M., 2000. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos, 91, 3-17.

Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J.P., Hector, A., Hooper, D.U., Huston, M.A., Raffaelli, D., Schmid, B., Tilman, D.,Wardle, D.A., 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294, 804-808.

Meysman, F.J.R., Bruers, S., 2010. Ecosystem functioning and maximum entropy production: a quantitative test of hypotheses. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B., 365, 1405–1416.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis Report, 2005. Strengthening capacity to manage ecosystems sustainably for human wellbeing. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment offices, 219p.

Moghaddam, M., 2000. Range and range management. Tehran University. 470 pp. (In Persian).

Muller, C.H., 1940. Plant succession in the Larrea-Flourensia climax. Ecology, 21, 206-212.

Odum, E.P., 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science, 164, 262-270.

Ostfeld, R.S. LoGiudice, K., 2003. Community disassembly, biodiversity loss, and the erosion of an ecosystem service. Ecology, 84, 1421–1427.

Pickering, K.T. & Owen, L.A., 1994. An Introduction to Global Environmental Issues. Routledge: London, 390pp.

Reitkerk, M., van der Koppel J., 1997. Alternate stable states and threshold effects in semiarid grazing systems. Oikos, 79, 69-76.

Rodriguez Iglesias, R.M., Kothman, M.M., 1997. Structure and causes of vegetation change in state and transition model applications. Jour. Range Manage., 50, 399-408.

Schneider, E. D. and Sagan, D., 2005. Into the cool: energy flow, thermodynamics, and life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sharma, V. and Annila, A., 2007. Natural process - natural selection. Biophys. Chem., 127, 123-128.

Smith, E.L., 1989. Range Condition and Secondary Succession: a Critique. In: W.K. Lauenroth, and W.A. Laycock (eds), Secondary Succession and the Evaluation of Rangeland Condition. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.

Smith, M.D., Knapp, A.K., 2003. Dominant species maintain ecosystem function with non-random species loss. Ecol. Letters, 6, 509-517.

Srivastava, D.S., Vellend, M., 2005. Biodiversity-Ecosystem function research: Is it relevant to conservation. Annu. Rev. Evol. Syst., 36, 267-294.

Stringham, T.K., Frueger, W.C., Shaver, P.L., 2003. State and transition modeling: an ecological process approach. Jour. Range Manage., 56, 106-113.

Tilman, D., 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology, 80, 1455-1474.

Tilman, D., Wedin, D., Knops, J., 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced by bio-diversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature, 379, 718-720.

Tongway, D.J., Hindley, N.L., 2004. Landscape Function Analysis Manual: Procedures for Monitoring and Assessing Landscapes with Special Reference to Mine sites and Rangelands. Version 3.1 on CD Produced by CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, Australia.

Turner, R.K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., Georgiou, S., 2003. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Economics, 46, 493-510.

Walker, B.H., 1992. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Cons. Biol., 6, 18-23.

Walker, L.R., Del Moral, R., 2003. Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Westoby, M., Walker, B., Noy-Meir, I., 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Jour. Range Manage., 42, 265-273.

Whitfield, J. 2007. Survival of the likeliest? Plops Biol., 5, 962-965.

Wurtza, P., Annila, A., 2010. Ecological succession as an energy dispersal process. Bio. Sys., 100, 70-78.

Zedler, J.B., Callaway, J.C., 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: Do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restor. Ecol., 7, 69-73.