Post‐fire development of faunal habitat depends on plant regeneration traits

The concept that vegetation structure (and faunal habitat) develops predictably with time since fire has been central to understanding the relationship between fire and fauna. However, because plants regenerate after fire in different ways (e.g. resprouting from above‐ground stems vs. underground lignotubers), use of simple categories based on time since fire might not adequately represent post‐fire habitat development in all ecosystems. We tested the hypothesis that the post‐fire development of faunal habitat structure differs between ecosystems, depending on fire regeneration traits of the dominant canopy trees. We measured 12 habitat components at sites in foothill forests (n = 38), heathy woodlands (n = 38) and mallee woodlands (n = 98) in Victoria, Australia, and used generalised additive models to predict changes in each variable with time since fire. A greater percentage of faunal habitat variables responded significantly to time since fire in mallee woodlands, where fires typically are stand‐replacing, than in foothill forests and heathy woodlands, where canopy tree stems generally persist through fire. In the ecosystem with the highest proportion of epicormic resprouters (foothill forests), only ground cover and understorey vegetation responded significantly to time since fire, compared with all but one variable in the ecosystem dominated by basal resprouters (mallee woodlands). These differences between ecosystems in the post‐fire development of key habitat components suggest there may also be fundamental differences in the role of fire in shaping the distribution of fauna. If so, this challenges the way in which many fire‐prone ecosystems currently are categorised and managed, especially the level of dependence on time since fire and other temporal surrogates such as age‐classes and successional states. Where time since fire is a poor surrogate for habitat structural development, additional complexity (e.g. fire severity, topography and prior land‐use history) could better capture processes that determine faunal occurrence in fire‐prone ecosystems.     

Alpine grassland plants grow earlier and faster but biomass remains unchanged over 35 years of climate change

Satellite data indicate significant advancement in alpine spring phenology over decades of climate warming, but corresponding field evidence is scarce. It is also unknown whether this advancement results from an earlier shift of phenological events, or enhancement of plant growth under unchanged phenological pattern. By analyzing a 35‐year dataset of seasonal biomass dynamics of a Tibetan alpine grassland, we show that climate change promoted both earlier phenology and faster growth, without changing annual biomass production. Biomass production increased in spring due to a warming‐induced earlier onset of plant growth, but decreased in autumn due mainly to increased water stress. Plants grew faster but the fast‐growing period shortened during the mid‐growing season. These findings provide the first in situ evidence of long‐term changes in growth patterns in alpine grassland plant communities, and suggest that earlier phenology and faster growth will jointly contribute to plant growth in a warming climate.     

Ecosystem services provided by armadillos

Awareness of the natural ecological processes provided by organisms that benefit human well‐being has significantly progressed towards the goal of making conservation a mainstream value. Identifying different services and the species that provide them is a vital first step for the management and maintenance of these so‐called ecosystem services. Herein, we specifically address the armadillos, which play key functional roles in terrestrial ecosystems, including as ecosystem engineers, predators, and vectors of invertebrates and nutrients, although these roles have often been overlooked. Armadillos can control pests, disperse seeds, and be effective sentinels of potential disease outbreaks or bioindicators of environmental contaminants. They also supply important material (meat, medicines) and non‐material (learning, inspiration) contributions all over the Americas. We identify key gaps in the understanding of ecosystem services provided by armadillos and areas for future research required to clarify their functional role in terrestrial ecosystems and the services they supply. Such information will produce powerful arguments for armadillo conservation.     

Thinking systemically about ecological interventions: what do system archetypes teach us?

To address the need for more holistic approaches to ecological management and restoration, we examine ecosystem interventions through the lens of systems thinking and in reference to systems archetypes, as developed in relation to organizational management in the business world. Systems thinking is a holistic approach to analysis that focuses on how a system's constituent parts interrelate and how systems work over time and within the context of larger systems. Systems archetypes represent patterns of behavior that have been observed repeatedly. These archetypes help relate commonly observed responses to environmental problems with their effect on important feedback processes to better anticipate connections between actions and results. They highlight situations where perceived solutions actually result in worse or unintended consequences, and where changing goals may be either appropriate or inappropriate. The archetypes can be applied to practical examples, and can provide guidance to help make appropriate intervention decisions in similar circumstances. Their use requires stepping back from immediately obvious management decisions and taking a more systemic view of the situation. A catalog of archetypes that describe common patterns of systems behavior may inform management by helping to diagnose system dynamics earlier and identifying interactions among them.     

A practical guide to measuring functional indicators and traits in biocrusts

Biocrusts are multifunctional communities that are increasingly being used to restore degraded or damaged ecosystems. Concurrently, restoration science is shifting away from the use of purely structural metrics, such as relative abundance, to more functional approaches. Although biocrust restoration technology is advancing, there is a lack of readily available information on how to monitor biocrust functioning and set appropriate restoration goals. We therefore compiled a selection of 22 functional indicators that can be used to monitor biocrust functions, such as CO₂ exchange as an indicator of productivity or soil aggregate stability as a proxy for erosion resistance. We describe the functional importance of each indicator and the available protocols with which it may be measured. The majority of indicators can be measured as a functional trait of species by using patches of biocrust or cultures that contain only one species. Practitioners wishing to track the multifunctionality of an entire biocrust community would be advised to choose one indicator from each broad functional group (erosion resistance, nutrient accumulation, productivity, energy balance, hydrology), whereas a targeted approach would be more appropriate for projects with a key function of interest. Because predisturbance data are rarely available for biocrust functions, restoration goals can be based on a closely analogous site, literature values, or an expert elicitation process. Finally, we advocate for the establishment of a global trait database for biocrusts, which would reduce the damage resulting from repeated sampling, and provide a wealth of future research opportunities.     

What is the value of wild animal welfare for restoration ecology?

The restoration community continues to discuss what constitutes good environmental stewardship. One area of tension is the extent to which the well‐being of wild animals should inform restoration efforts. We discuss three ways that the perspective of wild animal welfare can augment restoration ecology: strengthening people's relationship with nature, reinforcing biotic integrity, and reducing mechanistic uncertainty. The animal welfare movement elevates sentient animals as stakeholders and explores how environmental context directly impacts the well‐being of individuals. Viewing wild animals through this lens may encourage people to think and act with empathy and altruism. Second, we incorporate animal welfare into the concept of biotic integrity for ecological and ethical reasons. Restoring ecosystem processes may enhance animal welfare, and vice versa. Alternatively, there may be a trade‐off between these factors, requiring local decision‐makers to prioritize between restoring ecosystem function and promoting individuals' well‐being. We conclude by discussing how welfare can impact population recovery, thereby adding insights about mechanisms underpinning restoration objectives. Ultimately, restoration ecologists and proponents of wild animal welfare could enjoy a productive union.