http://www.asyura2.com/09/nature4/msg/775.html
| Tweet |
http://www.bloomberg.co.jp/news/123-M582676K50XS01.html
地球は環境変化の転換点に近づいている、生物多様性脅かす
６月６日（ブルームバーグ）：地球は生態学的に見て転換点に近づいており、生物多様性や食料生産、水供給が脅かされているとの研究報告が７日、科学誌ネイチャーに掲載される。科学者らは人間が持続不可能なペースで資源を消費しているためだと指摘する。
米カリフォルニア大学バークリー校のアンソニー・バーノスキー教授（統合生物学）によると、約70億人の人口を支えるため地球の表面の約43％が建物建設か農業に利用されている。この比率は50％に近づいており、元に戻すのは困難で環境が大きく変化する可能性があるという。
バーノスキー教授は５日の電話インタビューで「われわれがどのように世界を変化させているか、それが生物学的にいかなる意味を持つかに注意を払わなければ正常な方向に進路を戻すことができない」と指摘。政策や行動を変えなければ地球環境が困難な状況に陥るとの見通しを示した。「そのような状態が発生した場合、通常、経済問題や戦争、飢饉（ききん）などを含む社会的適応の期間が必要になる」と述べた。
バーノスキー教授によると、人間は一人当たり2.25エーカーの資源を消費しており、世界人口は2045年までに90億人に達すると予想される。25年までには地球上の全ての土地のうち50％が利用される見込みだ。
原題：Earth Approaching Environmental Tipping Point, ScientistsSay（抜粋）
記事に関する記者への問い合わせ先：ﾆｭｰﾖｰｸ Justin Doom jdoom1@bloomberg.net
記事についてのエディターへの問い合わせ先：Reed Landberg landberg@bloomberg.net
更新日時: 2012/06/07 11:09 JST
http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/barnosky/adbpubs.htm
環境：地球の生物圏に迫り来る状態シフト
Anthony D. Barnosky, Elizabeth A. Hadly, Jordi Bascompte, Eric L. Berlow, James H. Brown, Mikael Fortelius, Wayne M. Getz, John Harte, Alan Hastings, Pablo A. Marquet, Neo D. Martinez, Arne Mooers, Peter Roopnarine, Geerat Vermeij, John W. Williams, Rosemary Gillespie, Justin Kitzes, Charles Marshall, Nicholas Matzke, David P. Mindell, Eloy Revilla & Adam B. Smith
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature 486, 52–58 (07 June 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11018
Published online 06 June 2012
Article tools
full text
english version
print
email
download pdf
view interactive pdf
download citation
order reprints
rights and permissions
share/bookmark
局所的生態系は、臨界閾値を超えるような強制力が働いた場合に、ある状態から別の状態へと急激かつ不可逆的にシフトすることが知られている。本総説では、全球的生態系も全体として同じように応答する可能性があり、人類の影響によって地球規模の臨界転移が迫りつつあることを示す証拠を再検討する。地球規模の「転換点」が現実のものになる可能性があることは、全地球的な規模に加えて局所的スケールでも、臨界転移の早期の警告兆候を見つけ出し、またそのような転移を促進するフィードバックを検出することにより、生物学的予測を改善しなければならないことを強調している。また、人類が生物学的変化をどのように強制しているのか、その根本的原因に取り組むことも必要である。
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/fp/nature11018_ja.html?lang=ja
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11018.html
Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere
Anthony D. Barnosky, Elizabeth A. Hadly, Jordi Bascompte, Eric L. Berlow, James H. Brown, Mikael Fortelius, Wayne M. Getz, John Harte, Alan Hastings, Pablo A. Marquet, Neo D. Martinez, Arne Mooers, Peter Roopnarine, Geerat Vermeij, John W. Williams, Rosemary Gillespie, Justin Kitzes, Charles Marshall, Nicholas Matzke, David P. Mindell, Eloy Revilla & Adam B. Smith
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature 486, 52–58 (07 June 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11018
Published online 06 June 2012
Article tools
日本語要約
print
email
download pdf
view interactive pdf
download citation
order reprints
rights and permissions
share/bookmark
Localized ecological systems are known to shift abruptly and irreversibly from one state to another when they are forced across critical thresholds. Here we review evidence that the global ecosystem as a whole can react in the same way and is approaching a planetary-scale critical transition as a result of human influence. The plausibility of a planetary-scale ‘tipping point’ highlights the need to improve biological forecasting by detecting early warning signs of critical transitions on global as well as local scales, and by detecting feedbacks that promote such transitions. It is also necessary to address root causes of how humans are forcing biological changes.
Subject terms:
Environmental science Ecology Palaeontology Earth sciences
Figures at a glance
left
right
Introduction
Introduction Basics Of State Shift Theory Hallmarks Of Global-Scale State Shifts Present Global-Scale Forcings Expecting The Unexpected Towards Improved Biological Forecasting And Monitoring Guiding The Biotic Future References Acknowledgements Author Information
Humans now dominate Earth, changing it in ways that threaten its ability to sustain us and other species1, 2, 3. This realization has led to a growing interest in forecasting biological responses on all scales from local to global4, 5, 6, 7.
However, most biological forecasting now depends on projecting recent trends into the future assuming various environmental pressures5, or on using species distribution models to predict how climatic changes may alter presently observed geographic ranges8, 9. Present work recognizes that relying solely on such approaches will be insufficient to characterize fully the range of likely biological changes in the future, especially because complex interactions, feedbacks and their hard-to-predict effects are not taken into account6, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Particularly important are recent demonstrations that ‘critical transitions’ caused by threshold effects are likely12. Critical transitions lead to state shifts, which abruptly override trends and produce unanticipated biotic effects. Although most previous work on threshold-induced state shifts has been theoretical or concerned with critical transitions in localized ecological systems over short time spans12, 13, 14, planetary-scale critical transitions that operate over centuries or millennia have also been postulated3, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18. Here we summarize evidence that such planetary-scale critical transitions have occurred previously in the biosphere, albeit rarely, and that humans are now forcing another such transition, with the potential to transform Earth rapidly and irreversibly into a state unknown in human experience.
Two conclusions emerge. First, to minimize biological surprises that would adversely impact humanity, it is essential to improve biological forecasting by anticipating critical transitions that can emerge on a planetary scale and understanding how such global forcings cause local changes. Second, as was also concluded in previous work, to prevent a global-scale state shift, or at least to guide it as best we can, it will be necessary to address the root causes of human-driven global change and to improve our management of biodiversity and ecosystem services3, 15, 16, 17, 19.
Basics of state shift theory
Introduction Basics Of State Shift Theory Hallmarks Of Global-Scale State Shifts Present Global-Scale Forcings Expecting The Unexpected Towards Improved Biological Forecasting And Monitoring Guiding The Biotic Future References Acknowledgements Author Information
It is now well documented that biological systems on many scales can shift rapidly from an existing state to a radically different state12. Biological ‘states’ are neither steady nor in equilibrium; rather, they are characterized by a defined range of deviations from a mean condition over a prescribed period of time. The shift from one state to another can be caused by either a ‘threshold’ or ‘sledgehammer’ effect. State shifts resulting from threshold effects can be difficult to anticipate, because the critical threshold is reached as incremental changes accumulate and the threshold value generally is not known in advance. By contrast, a state shift caused by a sledgehammer effect―for example the clearing of a forest using a bulldozer―comes as no surprise. In both cases, the state shift is relatively abrupt and leads to new mean conditions outside the range of fluctuation evident in the previous state.
Threshold-induced state shifts, or critical transitions, can result from ‘fold bifurcations’ and can show hysteresis12. The net effect is that once a critical transition occurs, it is extremely difficult or even impossible for the system to return to its previous state. Critical transitions can also result from more complex bifurcations, which have a different character from fold bifurcations but which also lead to irreversible changes20.
Recent theoretical work suggests that state shifts due to fold bifurcations are probably preceded by general phenomena that can be characterized mathematically: a deceleration in recovery from perturbations (‘critical slowing down’), an increase in variance in the pattern of within-state fluctuations, an increase in autocorrelation between fluctuations, an increase in asymmetry of fluctuations and rapid back-and-forth shifts (‘flickering’) between states12, 14, 18. These phenomena can theoretically be assessed within any temporally and spatially bounded system. Although such assessment is not yet straightforward12, 18, 20, critical transitions and in some cases their warning signs have become evident in diverse biological investigations21, for example in assessing the dynamics of disease outbreaks22, 23, populations14 and lake ecosystems12, 13. Impending state shifts can also sometimes be determined by parameterizing relatively simple models20, 21.
In the context of forecasting biological change, the realization that critical transitions and state shifts can occur on the global scale3, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, as well as on smaller scales, is of great importance. One key question is how to recognize a global-scale state shift. Another is whether global-scale state shifts are the cumulative result of many smaller-scale events that originate in local systems or instead require global-level forcings that emerge on the planetary scale and then percolate downwards to cause changes in local systems. Examining past global-scale state shifts provides useful insights into both of these issues.
Hallmarks of global-scale state shifts
Introduction Basics Of State Shift Theory Hallmarks Of Global-Scale State Shifts Present Global-Scale Forcings Expecting The Unexpected Towards Improved Biological Forecasting And Monitoring Guiding The Biotic Future References Acknowledgements Author Information
Earth’s biosphere has undergone state shifts in the past, over various (usually very long) timescales, and therefore can do so in the future (Box 1). One of the fastest planetary state shifts, and the most recent, was the transition from the last glacial into the present interglacial condition12, 18, which occurred over millennia24. Glacial conditions had prevailed for ~100,000 yr. Then, within ~3,300 yr, punctuated by episodes of abrupt, decadal-scale climatic oscillations, full interglacial conditions were attained. Most of the biotic change―which included extinctions, altered diversity patterns and new community compositions―occurred within a period of 1,600 yr beginning ~12,900 yr ago. The ensuing interglacial state that we live in now has prevailed for the past ~11,000 yr.
Box 1: Past planetary-scale critical transitions and state shifts
Full box
Occurring on longer timescales are events such as at least four of the ‘Big Five’ mass extinctions25, each of which represents a critical transition that spanned several tens of thousands to 2,000,000 yr and changed the course of life’s evolution with respect to what had been normal for the previous tens of millions of years. Planetary state shifts can also substantially increase biodiversity, as occurred for example at the ‘Cambrian explosion’26, but such transitions require tens of millions of years, timescales that are not meaningful for forecasting biological changes that may occur over the next few human generations (Box 1).
Despite their different timescales, past critical transitions occur very quickly relative to their bracketing states: for the examples discussed here, the transitions took less than ~5% of the time the previous state had lasted (Box 1). The biotic hallmark for each state change was, during the critical transition, pronounced change in global, regional and local assemblages of species. Previously dominant species diminished or went extinct, new consumers became important both locally and globally, formerly rare organisms proliferated, food webs were modified, geographic ranges reconfigured and resulted in new biological communities, and evolution was initiated in new directions. For example, at the Cambrian explosion large, mobile predators became part of the food chain for the first time. Following the K/T extinction, mammalian herbivores replaced large archosaur herbivores. And at the last glacial–interglacial transition, megafaunal biomass switched from being dominated by many species to being dominated by Homo sapiens and our domesticated species27.
All of the global-scale state shifts noted above coincided with global-scale forcings that modified the atmosphere, oceans and climate (Box 1). These examples suggest that past global-scale state shifts required global-scale forcings, which in turn initiated lower-level state changes that local controls do not override. Thus, critical aspects of biological forecasting are to understand whether present global forcings are of a magnitude sufficient to trigger a global-scale critical transition, and to ascertain the extent of lower-level state changes that these global forcings have already caused or are likely to cause.
Present global-scale forcings
Introduction Basics Of State Shift Theory Hallmarks Of Global-Scale State Shifts Present Global-Scale Forcings Expecting The Unexpected Towards Improved Biological Forecasting And Monitoring Guiding The Biotic Future References Acknowledgements Author Information
Global-scale forcing mechanisms today are human population growth with attendant resource consumption3, habitat transformation and fragmentation3, energy production and consumption28, 29, and climate change3, 18. All of these far exceed, in both rate and magnitude, the forcings evident at the most recent global-scale state shift, the last glacial–interglacial transition (Box 1), which is a particularly relevant benchmark for comparison given that the two global-scale forcings at that time―climate change and human population growth27, 30―are also primary forcings today. During the last glacial–interglacial transition, however, these were probably separate, yet coincidental, forcings. Today conditions are very different because global-scale forcings including (but not limited to) climate change have emerged as a direct result of human activities.
Human population growth and per-capita consumption rate underlie all of the other present drivers of global change. The growth in the human population now (~77,000,000 people per year) is three orders of magnitude higher than the average yearly growth from ~10,000–400 yr ago (~67,000 people per year), and the human population has nearly quadrupled just in the past century31, 32, 33. The most conservative estimates suggest that the population will grow from its present value, 7,000,000,000, to 9,000,000,000 by 204531 and to 9,500,000,000 by 205031, 33.
As a result of human activities, direct local-scale forcings have accumulated to the extent that indirect, global-scale forcings of biological change have now emerged. Direct forcing includes the conversion of ~43% of Earth’s land to agricultural or urban landscapes, with much of the remaining natural landscapes networked with roads1, 2, 34, 35. This exceeds the physical transformation that occurred at the last global-scale critical transition, when ~30% of Earth’s surface went from being covered by glacial ice to being ice free.
The indirect global-scale forcings that have emerged from human activities include drastic modification of how energy flows through the global ecosystem. An inordinate amount of energy now is routed through one species, Homo sapiens. Humans commandeer ~20–40% of global net primary productivity1, 2, 35 (NPP) and decrease overall NPP through habitat degradation. Increasing NPP regionally through atmospheric and agricultural deposition of nutrients (for example nitrogen and phosphorus) does not make up the shortfall2. Second, through the release of energy formerly stored in fossil fuels, humans have substantially increased the energy ultimately available to power the global ecosystem. That addition does not offset entirely the human appropriation of NPP, because the vast majority of that ‘extra’ energy is used to support humans and their domesticates, the sum of which comprises large-animal biomass that is far beyond that typical of pre-industrial times27. A decrease in this extra energy budget, which is inevitable if alternatives do not compensate for depleted fossil fuels, is likely to impact human health and economies severely28, and also to diminish biodiversity27, the latter because even more NPP would have to be appropriated by humans, leaving less for other species36.
By-products of altering the global energy budget are major modifications to the atmosphere and oceans. Burning fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by more than a third (~35%) with respect to pre-industrial levels, with consequent climatic disruptions that include a higher rate of global warming than occurred at the last global-scale state shift37. Higher CO2 concentrations have also caused the ocean rapidly to become more acidic, evident as a decrease in pH by ~0.05 in the past two decades38. In addition, pollutants from agricultural run-off and urban areas have radically changed how nutrients cycle through large swaths of marine areas16.
Already observable biotic responses include vast ‘dead zones’ in the near-shore marine realm39, as well as the replacement of >40% of Earth’s formerly biodiverse land areas with landscapes that contain only a few species of crop plants, domestic animals and humans3, 40. Worldwide shifts in species ranges, phenology and abundances are concordant with ongoing climate change and habitat transformation41. Novel communities are becoming widespread as introduced, invasive and agricultural species integrate into many ecosystems42. Not all community modification is leading to species reductions; on local and regional scales, plant diversity has been increasing, owing to anthropogenic introductions42, counter to the overall trend of global species loss5, 43. However, it is unknown whether increased diversity in such locales will persist or will eventually decrease as a result of species interactions that play out over time. Recent and projected5, 44 extinction rates of vertebrates far exceed empirically derived background rates25. In addition, many plants, vertebrates and invertebrates have markedly reduced their geographic ranges and abundances to the extent that they are at risk of extinction43. Removal of keystone species worldwide, especially large predators at upper trophic levels, has exacerbated changes caused by less direct impacts, leading to increasingly simplified and less stable ecological networks39, 45, 46.
Looking towards the year 2100, models forecast that pressures on biota will continue to increase. The co-opting of resources and energy use by humans will continue to increase as the global population reaches 9,500,000,000 people (by 2050), and effects will be greatly exacerbated if per capita resource use also increases. Projections for 2100 range from a population low of 6,200,000,000 (requiring a substantial decline in fertility rates) to 10,100,000,000 (requiring continued decline of fertility in countries that still have fertility above replacement level) to 27,000,000,000 (if fertility remains at 2005–2010 levels; this population size is not thought to be supportable; ref. 31). Rapid climate change shows no signs of slowing. Modelling suggests that for ~30% of Earth, the speed at which plant species will have to migrate to keep pace with projected climate change is greater than their dispersal rate when Earth last shifted from a glacial to an interglacial climate47, and that dispersal will be thwarted by highly fragmented landscapes. Climates found at present on 10–48% of the planet are projected to disappear within a century, and climates that contemporary organisms have never experienced are likely to cover 12–39% of Earth48. The mean global temperature by 2070 (or possibly a few decades earlier) will be higher than it has been since the human species evolved.
Expecting the unexpected
Introduction Basics Of State Shift Theory Hallmarks Of Global-Scale State Shifts Present Global-Scale Forcings Expecting The Unexpected Towards Improved Biological Forecasting And Monitoring Guiding The Biotic Future References Acknowledgements Author Information
The magnitudes of both local-scale direct forcing and emergent global-scale forcing are much greater than those that characterized the last global-scale state shift, and are not expected to decline any time soon. Therefore, the plausibility of a future planetary state shift seems high, even though considerable uncertainty remains about whether it is inevitable and, if so, how far in the future it may be. The clear potential for a planetary-scale state shift greatly complicates biotic forecasting efforts, because by their nature state shifts contain surprises. Nevertheless, some general expectations can be gleaned from the natural experiments provided by past global-scale state shifts. On the timescale most relevant to biological forecasting today, biotic effects observed in the shift from the last glacial to the present interglacial (Box 1) included many extinctions30, 49, 50, 51; drastic changes in species distributions, abundances and diversity; and the emergence of novel communities49, 50, 52, 53, 54. New patterns of gene flow triggered new evolutionary trajectories55, 56, 57, 58, but the time since then has not been long enough for evolution to compensate for extinctions.
At a minimum, these kinds of effects would be expected from a global-scale state shift forced by present drivers, not only in human-dominated regions but also in remote regions not now heavily occupied by humans (Fig. 1); indeed, such changes are already under way (see above5, 25, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44). Given that it takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years for evolution to build diversity back up to pre-crash levels after major extinction episodes25, increased rates of extinction are of particular concern, especially because global and regional diversity today is generally lower than it was 20,000 yr ago as a result of the last planetary state shift37, 50, 51, 54, 59. This large-scale loss of diversity is not overridden by historical increases in plant species richness in many locales, owing to human-transported species homogenizing the world’s biota42. Possible too are substantial losses of ecosystem services required to sustain the human population60. Still unknown is the extent to which human-caused increases in certain ecosystem services―such as growing food―balances the loss of ‘natural’ ecosystem services, many of which already are trending in dangerous directions as a result of overuse, pollutants and climate change3, 16. Examples include the collapse of cod and other fisheries45, 61, 62; loss of millions of square kilometres of conifer forests due to climate-induced bark-beetle outbreaks;63 loss of carbon sequestration by forest clearing60; and regional losses of agricultural productivity from desertification or detrimental land-use practices1, 35. Although the ultimate effects of changing biodiversity and species compositions are still unknown, if critical thresholds of diminishing returns in ecosystem services were reached over large areas and at the same time global demands increased (as will happen if the population increases by 2,000,000,000 within about three decades), widespread social unrest, economic instability and loss of human life could result64.
Figure 1: Drivers of a potential planetary-scale critical transition.
a, Humans locally transform and fragment landscapes. b, Adjacent areas still harbouring natural landscapes undergo indirect changes. c, Anthropogenic local state shifts accumulate to transform a high percentage of Earth’s surface drastically; brown colouring indicates the approximately 40% of terrestrial ecosystems that have now been transformed to agricultural landscapes, as explained in ref. 34. d, Global-scale forcings emerge from accumulated local human impacts, for example dead zones in the oceans from run-off of agricultural pollutants. e, Changes in atmospheric and ocean chemistry from the release of greenhouse gases as fossil fuels are burned. f–h, Global-scale forcings emerge to cause ecological changes even in areas that are far from human population concentrations. f, Beetle-killed conifer forests (brown trees) triggered by seasonal changes in temperature observed over the past five decades. g, Reservoirs of biodiversity, such as tropical rainforests, are projected to lose many species as global climate change causes local changes in temperature and precipitation, exacerbating other threats already causing abnormally high extinction rates. In the case of amphibians, this threat is the human-facilitated spread of chytrid fungus. h, Glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro, which remained large throughout the past 11,000 yr, are now melting quickly, a global trend that in many parts of the world threatens the water supplies of major population centres. As increasing human populations directly transform more and more of Earth’s surface, such changes driven by emergent global-scale forcings increase drastically, in turn causing state shifts in ecosystems that are not directly used by people. Photo credits: E.A.H. and A.D.B. (a–c, e–h); NASA (d).
Full size image (123 KB)
Download PowerPoint slide (590K)
Figures index
Next
Towards improved biological forecasting and monitoring
Introduction Basics Of State Shift Theory Hallmarks Of Global-Scale State Shifts Present Global-Scale Forcings Expecting The Unexpected Towards Improved Biological Forecasting And Monitoring Guiding The Biotic Future References Acknowledgements Author Information
In view of potential impacts on humanity, a key need in biological forecasting is the development of ways to anticipate a global critical transition, ideally in time to do something about it65. It is possible to imagine qualitative aspects of a planetary state shift given present human impacts (Fig. 1), but criteria that would indicate exactly how close we might be to a planetary-scale critical transition remain elusive. Three approaches should prove helpful in defining useful benchmarks and tracking progression towards them.
Tracking global-scale changes
The first approach acknowledges the fact that local-scale state changes―whether they result from sledgehammer or threshold effects―trigger critical transitions over regions larger than the directly affected area, as has been shown both empirically and theoretically66, 67, 68, 69, 70. On the landscape scale, tipping points in undisturbed patches are empirically evident when 50–90% of the surrounding patches are disturbed. Simulations indicate that critical transitions become much more likely when the probability of connection of any two nodes in a network (ecological or otherwise) drops below ~59% (refs 66, 67, 68, 69, 70). More generally, dense human populations, roads and infrastructure, and land transformation are known to cause ecological changes outside the areas that have actually undergone sledgehammer state changes68. Translating these principles to the planetary scale would imply that once a sufficient proportion of Earth’s ecosystems have undergone transformation, the remainder can change rapidly (Fig. 2), especially because emergent, larger-scale forcings (for instance changes in atmospheric and ocean chemistry, nutrient and energy cycling, pollution and so on) multiply and interact to exacerbate local forcings21 (Fig. 1). It is still unknown, however, what percentage of Earth’s ecosystems actually have to be transformed to new states by the direct action of humans for rapid state changes to be triggered in remaining ‘natural’ systems. That percentage may be knowable only in retrospect, but, judging from landscape-scale observations and simulations66, 67, 68, 69, 70, it can reasonably be expected to be as low as 50% (ref. 68), or even lower if the interaction effects of many local ecosystem transformations cause sufficiently large global-scale forcings to emerge.
Figure 2: Quantifying land use as one method of anticipating a planetary state shift.
The trajectory of the green line represents a fold bifurcation with hysteresis12. At each time point, light green represents the fraction of Earth’s land that probably has dynamics within the limits characteristic of the past 11,000 yr. Dark green indicates the fraction of terrestrial ecosystems that have unarguably undergone drastic state changes; these are minimum values because they count only agricultural and urban lands. The percentages of such transformed lands in 2011 come from refs 1, 34, 35, and when divided by 7,000,000,000 (the present global human population) yield a value of approximately 2.27 acres (0.92 ha) of transformed land for each person. That value was used to estimate the amount of transformed land that probably existed in the years 1800, 1900 and 1950, and which would exist in 2025 and 2045 assuming conservative population growth and that resource use does not become any more efficient. Population estimates are from refs 31–33. An estimate of 0.68 transformed acres (0.28 ha) per capita (approximately that for India today) was used for the year 1700, assuming a lesser effect on the global landscape before the industrial revolution. Question marks emphasize that at present we still do not know how much land would have to be directly transformed by humans before a planetary state shift was imminent, but landscape-scale studies and theory suggest that the critical threshold may lie between 50 and 90% (although it could be even lower owing to synergies between emergent global forcings). See the main text for further explanation. Billion, 109.
Full size image (80 KB)
Download PowerPoint slide (482K)
Previous
Figures index
In that context, continued efforts to track global-scale changes by remote sensing and other techniques will be essential in assessing how close we are to tipping the balance towards an Earth where most ecosystems are directly altered by people. This is relatively straightforward for land and it has already been demonstrated that at least 43% of Earth’s terrestrial ecosystems have undergone wholesale transformation1, 2, 34, 40, on average equating to ~2.27 transformed acres (0.92 ha) per capita for the present human population. Assuming that this average rate of land transformation per capita does not change, 50% of Earth’s land will have undergone state shifts when the global population reaches 8,200,000,000, which is estimated to occur by the year 202531. Under the same land-use assumption and according to only slightly less conservative population growth models, 70% of Earth’s land could be shifted to human use (if the population reaches 11,500,000,000) by 206031.
Assessing the percentage change to new states in marine systems, and the direct human footprint on the oceans, is much more challenging, but available data suggest widespread effects38, 39. More precise quantification of ecosystem state shifts in the oceans is an important task, to the extent that ocean ecosystems cover most of the planet.
Tracking local-scale changes caused by global forcings
The second approach is the direct monitoring of biological change in local study systems caused by external forcing. Such monitoring will be vital, particularly where the human footprint is thought to be small. Observing unusual changes in such areas, as has occurred recently in Yellowstone Park, USA, which has been protected since 187271, and in many remote watersheds72, would indicate that larger-scale forcings38, 73 are influencing local ecological processes.
A key problem has been how to recognize ‘unusual’ change, because biological systems are dynamic and shifting baselines have given rise to many different definitions of ‘normal’, each of which can be specified as unusual within a given temporal context. However, identifying signals of a global-scale state shift in any local system demands a temporal context that includes at least a few centuries or millennia, to encompass the range of ecological variation that would be considered normal over the entire ~11,000-yr duration of the present interglacial period. Identifying unusual biotic changes on that scale has recently become possible through several different approaches, which are united by their focus on integrating spatial and temporal information (Box 2). Breakthroughs include characterizing ecosystems using taxon-independent metrics that can be tracked with palaeontological data through pre-anthropogenic times and then compared with present conditions and monitored into the future; recognizing macro-ecological patterns that indicate disturbed systems; combining phylochronologic and phylogeographic information to trace population dynamics over several millennia; and assessing the structure and stability of ecological networks using theoretical and empirical methods. Because all of these approaches benefit from time series data, long-term monitoring efforts and existing palaeontological and natural history museum collections will become particularly valuable74.
Box 2: Integrating spatio-temporal data on large scales to detect planetary state shifts
Full box
Synergy and feedbacks
Thresholds leading to critical transitions are often crossed when forcings are magnified by the synergistic interaction of seemingly independent processes or through feedback loops3, 16. Given that several global-scale forcings are at work today, understanding how they may combine to magnify biological change is a key challenge3, 15, 16, 17. For example, rapid climate change combined with highly fragmented species ranges can be expected to magnify the potential for ecosystem collapse, and wholesale landscape changes may in turn influence the biology of oceans.
Feedback loops also occur among seemingly discrete systems that operate at different levels of the biological hierarchy6, 8, 37 (genotype, phenotype, populations, species distributions, species interactions and so on). The net effect is that a biological forcing applied on one scale can cause a critical transition to occur on another scale. Examples include inadvertent, anthropogenic selection for younger maturation of individual cod as a result of heavy fishing pressure61; population crashes due to decreased genetic diversity75; mismatch in the phenology of flowering and pollination resulting from interaction of genetic factors, temperature, photoperiod and/or precipitation76; and cascades of ecological changes triggered by the removal of top predators62. In most cases, these ‘scale-jumping’ effects, and the mechanisms that drive them, have become apparent only in hindsight, but even so they take on critical importance in revealing interaction effects that can now be incorporated into the next generation of biological forecasts.
Finally, because the global-scale ecosystem comprises many smaller-scale, spatially bounded complex systems (for instance the community within a given physiographic region), each of which overlaps and interacts with others, state shifts of the small-scale components can propagate to cause a state shift of the entire system21. Our understanding of complexity at this level can be increased by tracking changes within many different ecosystems in a parallel fashion, from landscape-scale studies of state-shifts12, 21 and from theoretical work that is under way20. Potential interactions between overlapping complex systems, however, are proving difficult to characterize mathematically, especially when the systems under study are not well known and are heterogeneous20. Nevertheless, one possibility emerging from such work is that long-term transient behaviours, where sudden changes in dynamics can occur after periods of relative stasis even in the absence of outside forces, may be pervasive at the ecosystem level20, somewhat analogously to delayed metapopulation collapse as a result of extinction debt77. This potential ‘lag-time’ effect makes it all the more critical rapidly to address, where possible, global-scale forcings that can push the entire biosphere towards a critical transition.
Guiding the biotic future
Introduction Basics Of State Shift Theory Hallmarks Of Global-Scale State Shifts Present Global-Scale Forcings Expecting The Unexpected Towards Improved Biological Forecasting And Monitoring Guiding The Biotic Future References Acknowledgements Author Information
Humans have already changed the biosphere substantially, so much so that some argue for recognizing the time in which we live as a new geologic epoch, the Anthropocene3, 16, 78. Comparison of the present extent of planetary change with that characterizing past global-scale state shifts, and the enormous global forcings we continue to exert, suggests that another global-scale state shift is highly plausible within decades to centuries, if it has not already been initiated.
As a result, the biological resources we take for granted at present may be subject to rapid and unpredictable transformations within a few human generations. Anticipating biological surprises on global as well as local scales, therefore, has become especially crucial to guiding the future of the global ecosystem and human societies. Guidance will require not only scientific work that foretells, and ideally helps to avoid65, negative effects of critical transitions, but also society’s willingness to incorporate expectations of biological instability64 into strategies for maintaining human well-being.
Diminishing the range of biological surprises resulting from bottom-up (local-to-global) and top-down (global-to-local) forcings, postponing their effects and, in the optimal case, averting a planetary-scale critical transition demands global cooperation to stem current global-scale anthropogenic forcings3, 15, 16, 17, 19. This will require reducing world population growth31 and per-capita resource use; rapidly increasing the proportion of the world’s energy budget that is supplied by sources other than fossil fuels while also becoming more efficient in using fossil fuels when they provide the only option79; increasing the efficiency of existing means of food production and distribution instead of converting new areas34 or relying on wild species39 to feed people; and enhancing efforts to manage as reservoirs of biodiversity and ecosystem services, both in the terrestrial80 and marine realms39, the parts of Earth’s surface that are not already dominated by humans. These are admittedly huge tasks, but are vital if the goal of science and society is to steer the biosphere towards conditions we desire, rather than those that are thrust upon us unwittingly.
References
この記事を読んだ人はこんな記事も読んでいます（表示まで20秒程度時間がかかります。）
▲このページのＴＯＰへ ★阿修羅♪ > 環境・エネルギー・天文板4掲示板
スパムメールの中から見つけ出すためにメールのタイトルには必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。すべてのページの引用、転載、リンクを許可します。確認メールは不要です。引用元リンクを表示してください。