Do novel ecosystems provide habitat value for wildlife? Revisiting the physiognomy vs. floristics debate

Patricia Kennedy, Joseph B. Fontaine, Richard Hobbs, Tracey N. Johnson, Rafeena Boyle, Andrea S. Lueders

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Although novel ecosystems are increasing globally, their utility for biodiversity conservation is poorly understood. Native fauna are predicted to use novel ecosystems when those ecosystems provide structure and resources similar to the native habitat. We modified existing terminology on wildlife functional groups to develop a conceptual model that illustrates fundamental differences in how native wildlife respond to novel ecosystems: novel ecosystem avoiders, novel ecosystem utilizers, and novel ecosystem flourishers. We postulate that species membership in these functional groups is related to the relative importance habitat physiognomy and floristics play in habitat selection cues. An excellent opportunity to test this conceptual model exists with birds in historic and novel ecosystems. A long‐standing, equivocal literature investigating relative contribution of physiognomy vs. floristics to avian abundance and community diversity in native ecosystems exists. Using data from grassland and woodland biomes in western North America (Oregon, USA) and Western Australia, respectively, we evaluated use of habitats by indigenous bird species in relation to physiognomy and floristics. Our two case studies represent two extremes on the novelty spectrum: (1) urban gardens in the metropolitan region of Perth, Western Australia, which are designed ecosystems that vary in the percentage of native plantings; and (2) the Zumwalt Prairie in northeastern Oregon where native grassland plants still dominate the ecosystem but non‐native plants are present and available for use as breeding sites. Using an information‐theoretic perspective, we asked whether habitat use based on occurrence (Perth gardens) or breeding success (Oregon grassland) was best explained by physiognomy, floristics, or both. Using these two case studies, our evidence shows that species or guilds within a community will not respond equally to novelty as predicted. We found strong evidence for only one taxon showing sensitivity to floristics and two to physiognomy. All taxa considered were either grouped as novel ecosystem avoiders or utilizers; no flourishers were identified. These results suggest novel ecosystems providing appropriate physiognomy can provision suitable habitat for some taxa.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere02172
JournalEcosphere
Volume9
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2018

Fingerprint

vegetation structure
floristics
wildlife
ecosystems
ecosystem
habitat
habitats
grassland
grasslands
functional group
garden
Western Australia
gardens
case studies
ecosystem structure
breeding site
terminology
biome
guild
habitat use

Cite this

Kennedy, Patricia ; Fontaine, Joseph B. ; Hobbs, Richard ; Johnson, Tracey N. ; Boyle, Rafeena ; Lueders, Andrea S. / Do novel ecosystems provide habitat value for wildlife? Revisiting the physiognomy vs. floristics debate. In: Ecosphere. 2018 ; Vol. 9, No. 3.
@article{93a9cc7026134954b1d33a7a6f64f76a,
title = "Do novel ecosystems provide habitat value for wildlife? Revisiting the physiognomy vs. floristics debate",
abstract = "Although novel ecosystems are increasing globally, their utility for biodiversity conservation is poorly understood. Native fauna are predicted to use novel ecosystems when those ecosystems provide structure and resources similar to the native habitat. We modified existing terminology on wildlife functional groups to develop a conceptual model that illustrates fundamental differences in how native wildlife respond to novel ecosystems: novel ecosystem avoiders, novel ecosystem utilizers, and novel ecosystem flourishers. We postulate that species membership in these functional groups is related to the relative importance habitat physiognomy and floristics play in habitat selection cues. An excellent opportunity to test this conceptual model exists with birds in historic and novel ecosystems. A long‐standing, equivocal literature investigating relative contribution of physiognomy vs. floristics to avian abundance and community diversity in native ecosystems exists. Using data from grassland and woodland biomes in western North America (Oregon, USA) and Western Australia, respectively, we evaluated use of habitats by indigenous bird species in relation to physiognomy and floristics. Our two case studies represent two extremes on the novelty spectrum: (1) urban gardens in the metropolitan region of Perth, Western Australia, which are designed ecosystems that vary in the percentage of native plantings; and (2) the Zumwalt Prairie in northeastern Oregon where native grassland plants still dominate the ecosystem but non‐native plants are present and available for use as breeding sites. Using an information‐theoretic perspective, we asked whether habitat use based on occurrence (Perth gardens) or breeding success (Oregon grassland) was best explained by physiognomy, floristics, or both. Using these two case studies, our evidence shows that species or guilds within a community will not respond equally to novelty as predicted. We found strong evidence for only one taxon showing sensitivity to floristics and two to physiognomy. All taxa considered were either grouped as novel ecosystem avoiders or utilizers; no flourishers were identified. These results suggest novel ecosystems providing appropriate physiognomy can provision suitable habitat for some taxa.",
author = "Patricia Kennedy and Fontaine, {Joseph B.} and Richard Hobbs and Johnson, {Tracey N.} and Rafeena Boyle and Lueders, {Andrea S.}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1002/ecs2.2172",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "Ecosphere",
issn = "2150-8925",
publisher = "Ecological Society of America",
number = "3",

}

Do novel ecosystems provide habitat value for wildlife? Revisiting the physiognomy vs. floristics debate. / Kennedy, Patricia; Fontaine, Joseph B.; Hobbs, Richard; Johnson, Tracey N.; Boyle, Rafeena; Lueders, Andrea S.

In: Ecosphere, Vol. 9, No. 3, e02172, 03.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do novel ecosystems provide habitat value for wildlife? Revisiting the physiognomy vs. floristics debate

AU - Kennedy, Patricia

AU - Fontaine, Joseph B.

AU - Hobbs, Richard

AU - Johnson, Tracey N.

AU - Boyle, Rafeena

AU - Lueders, Andrea S.

PY - 2018/3

Y1 - 2018/3

N2 - Although novel ecosystems are increasing globally, their utility for biodiversity conservation is poorly understood. Native fauna are predicted to use novel ecosystems when those ecosystems provide structure and resources similar to the native habitat. We modified existing terminology on wildlife functional groups to develop a conceptual model that illustrates fundamental differences in how native wildlife respond to novel ecosystems: novel ecosystem avoiders, novel ecosystem utilizers, and novel ecosystem flourishers. We postulate that species membership in these functional groups is related to the relative importance habitat physiognomy and floristics play in habitat selection cues. An excellent opportunity to test this conceptual model exists with birds in historic and novel ecosystems. A long‐standing, equivocal literature investigating relative contribution of physiognomy vs. floristics to avian abundance and community diversity in native ecosystems exists. Using data from grassland and woodland biomes in western North America (Oregon, USA) and Western Australia, respectively, we evaluated use of habitats by indigenous bird species in relation to physiognomy and floristics. Our two case studies represent two extremes on the novelty spectrum: (1) urban gardens in the metropolitan region of Perth, Western Australia, which are designed ecosystems that vary in the percentage of native plantings; and (2) the Zumwalt Prairie in northeastern Oregon where native grassland plants still dominate the ecosystem but non‐native plants are present and available for use as breeding sites. Using an information‐theoretic perspective, we asked whether habitat use based on occurrence (Perth gardens) or breeding success (Oregon grassland) was best explained by physiognomy, floristics, or both. Using these two case studies, our evidence shows that species or guilds within a community will not respond equally to novelty as predicted. We found strong evidence for only one taxon showing sensitivity to floristics and two to physiognomy. All taxa considered were either grouped as novel ecosystem avoiders or utilizers; no flourishers were identified. These results suggest novel ecosystems providing appropriate physiognomy can provision suitable habitat for some taxa.

AB - Although novel ecosystems are increasing globally, their utility for biodiversity conservation is poorly understood. Native fauna are predicted to use novel ecosystems when those ecosystems provide structure and resources similar to the native habitat. We modified existing terminology on wildlife functional groups to develop a conceptual model that illustrates fundamental differences in how native wildlife respond to novel ecosystems: novel ecosystem avoiders, novel ecosystem utilizers, and novel ecosystem flourishers. We postulate that species membership in these functional groups is related to the relative importance habitat physiognomy and floristics play in habitat selection cues. An excellent opportunity to test this conceptual model exists with birds in historic and novel ecosystems. A long‐standing, equivocal literature investigating relative contribution of physiognomy vs. floristics to avian abundance and community diversity in native ecosystems exists. Using data from grassland and woodland biomes in western North America (Oregon, USA) and Western Australia, respectively, we evaluated use of habitats by indigenous bird species in relation to physiognomy and floristics. Our two case studies represent two extremes on the novelty spectrum: (1) urban gardens in the metropolitan region of Perth, Western Australia, which are designed ecosystems that vary in the percentage of native plantings; and (2) the Zumwalt Prairie in northeastern Oregon where native grassland plants still dominate the ecosystem but non‐native plants are present and available for use as breeding sites. Using an information‐theoretic perspective, we asked whether habitat use based on occurrence (Perth gardens) or breeding success (Oregon grassland) was best explained by physiognomy, floristics, or both. Using these two case studies, our evidence shows that species or guilds within a community will not respond equally to novelty as predicted. We found strong evidence for only one taxon showing sensitivity to floristics and two to physiognomy. All taxa considered were either grouped as novel ecosystem avoiders or utilizers; no flourishers were identified. These results suggest novel ecosystems providing appropriate physiognomy can provision suitable habitat for some taxa.

U2 - 10.1002/ecs2.2172

DO - 10.1002/ecs2.2172

M3 - Article

VL - 9

JO - Ecosphere

JF - Ecosphere

SN - 2150-8925

IS - 3

M1 - e02172

ER -