1. (Vitousek 1994) Our Abundance and Use of Resources Are Changing (World Population Clock, Population Reference Bureau 2010 http://www.prb.org/)

2. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp 2000/highlights.pdf Future Projections

3. Transformation to a Human Dominated World Global Environmental Change –Land Transformation –Atmospheric Gases –Altered Biogeochemical Cycles –Persistent Organic Compounds –Harvesting Natural Populations –Biological Invasions –Altered Selective Regimes

4. Certainty and Uncertainty “While ecologists involved in management or policy often are advised to learn to deal with uncertainty, there are a number of components of global environmental change of which we are certain—certain that they are going on, and certain that they are human-caused.” “…addressing global change will require active collaboration with a wide range of scientists outside our field.., but..it is our responsibility to take the lead in dealing with major components of global environmental change.” (Vitousek 1994)

5. Medicine / Biotechnology Novel Selective Regimes Changed Evolutionary Trajectories (Modified from Vitousek et al. 1996 to include Palumbi 2001)

6. (Vitousek et al. 1997)

7. Changes in Global Biogeochemical Cycles

8. Changes in Carbon and Nitrogen (Vitousek 1994)

9. Effects of Changing Nitrogen Cycle Increased nitrate leaching Emissions of greenhouse gas (N 2 O) Enhanced carbon storage Forest dieback Change balance of plant communities in favor of nitrogen- demanding species which can lead to homogenization of floras and reduced ß diversity Increase net primary productivity and biomass, but decrease ά diversity

10. Changes in Land-use and Land- cover Global changes:1700- 1990 (Meyer and Turner 1992) –Cropland +392 - 466% –Irrigated Cropland +2400% –Closed Forest -15.1% –Forest and woodland-14.9% –Grassland/pasture-1% –Lands drained1.6 x 10 6 km 2 –Urban settlement2.5 x 10 6 km 2 –Rural settlement2.1 x 10 6 km 2 (Lambin et al. 2001)

11. (McKinney 2002 BioScience 52:883-890)

12. Persistence of Change Similarity of Matrix to Natural Habitat High Low High Agriculture Timber Harvest Urbanization High Low Effect of Fragmentation Contrasting Various Land Covers (Marzluff and Ewing 2001)

13. Study Area: Suburban to Wildland Gradients Along I-90 Corridor (Robinson, Newell & Marzluff)

14. Dominant Landscape Definitions Urban – Buildings cover majority of land; includes dense single/multi-family housing on small lots (<.02 ha), commercial & industrial uses Suburban – Moderate to high density, SFH predominates on small to moderately sized lots (0.1 – 1 ha) Rural – Sparse single family settlement on moderate to large lots and towns in matrix of agricultural lands (0.5-20 ha) Exurban – Similar to rural, but settlement is in a matrix of natural vegetation; little or no commercial agriculture present (0.2-20 ha) Wildlands – Unsettled lands that may occasionally include isolated dwellings

15. There were dramatic changes in Dominant Landscape Suburban & exurban lands increased by 756% & 193%, respectively Rural becomes suburban Wildland becomes exurban Average patch size: –Suburban & exurban increases –Rural & wildland decreases –Fragmentation of forests 1974 1998

16. Transition Between Landscapes along Seattle’s Urbanizing Fringe Suburban ExurbanRural Wildland.14.16.80.29.92.22.54.77.07 Total Study Area Is 45,282 ha <5% transition

17. Loss of Wildland due to expansion of Exurban development (green hatching) Loss of Rural lands due to expansion of Suburban development (yellow hatching)

18. A Portion of the Study Area in 1974 and 1998 Rural Suburban

19. Changes in vegetative cover Forested areas have become more fragmented 1974 1998

20. Decline in Interior Forest Area > 200m from settlement decline 60% from 29,721 ha in 1974 to 17,697 ha in 1998 Average size of interior patches dropped 39% from 2701ha to 1040 ha No patches remain within suburban landscape that are >200 from settlement Total edge declined (from 913 Km to 644 Km) because patch size decreased Interior Forest

21. Ecological Effects of Land-cover and Land-use Change Trace gas emissions (CO 2, methane, nitrous oxide) Climate change (by above and direct change in C) Reduced diversity of native species Habitat quality reduced by fragmentation and increased edge Reduced soil quality resulting from erosion Increased fertilizer Changed water quality and flow (Meyer and Turner 1992; Dale 1997)

22. (Donald et al. 2001) Ecological Cost of Intensive Agriculture

23. In Seattle, Land Conversion Reduces Plant Species Diversity

24. Change in Global Climate 0.6°C increase in average global temperature over last 100 years Projected to continue at rapid rate (1.4-5.8°C by 2100) Increase CO 2 is a primary reason for Global Warming Changed nitrogen cycle (increased N 2 O) also plays a role Land use change is less important

25. Effects of Global Warming Largest effects expected in north, where temp changes are greatest –Change in density or distribution (75 – 81% of studies show expected change; 6km/decade north) –Change in timing of events Migration, flowering, egg laying (87% of studies confirm) –Change in composition of community (74 – 91% confirm more northern species) –Change in morphology –Change in gene frequency (Root et al. 2003, Parmesan and Yohe 2003))

26. Most Everyone is Doing it Earlier (Root et al. 2003) Timing of spring events All on average 5 days earlier per decade Breeding of murres 24 days earlier per decade Breeding of fowler’s toad is 6.3 days later

27. Global Warming and Disease (Harvell et al. 2002) Increase disease severity Increase vector distributions Increase abundance and distribution of macroparasites Disrupt some diseases chytrids and iridoviral diseases that affect amphibians Modify seasonal pattern of pathogens

28. Exotics (Czech and Krausman 1997)

29. (Vitousek et al. 1996)

30. Snails and Snakes (Vitousek et al. 1996)

31. Land-use Changes May Facilitate Invasions (Vitousek et al. 1996)

32. Parks are Not Immune Pigs, goats, burros, mountain goats Lake, brook, and rainbow trout White pine blister rust –100 yrs ago from Europe nurserys –Whitebark pines in Glacier, Yellowstone, Grand Teton Loss of important grizzly food Barred owls and spotted owls

33. Consequences of Exotic Invasions Newly introduced species can act as vectors of disease –Asian tiger mosquito Invaders can drain resources –Apple snail ($28-45million in Philippines in 1990) Invaders can alter ecosystem processes –Myrica faya in Hawaii facilitates succession on volcanic soils by fixing nitrogen Reduce Biological diversity –Gypsy moths, chestnut blights, etc. Promote extinction –Importance to ESA listing (Vitousek et al. 1996)

34. Are We Recreating Pangea? (Vitousek et al.1996)

35. Changing the Course of Evolution Accelerate evolutionary change –Fish size related to net mesh –House sparrows diverge to match newly colonized environments –Resistance in diseases and pests House flies were becoming resistant to DDT before Müller got his Nobel for discovering DDT (Palumbi 2001a, b)

36. Land change appears to result from: –“individual and social responses follow from changing economic conditions, mediated by institutional factors. Opportunities and constraints for new land uses are created by markets and policies, increasingly influenced by global factors. Extreme biophysical events occasionally trigger further changes. Various human-environment conditions react to and reshape the impacts of drivers differently, leading to specific pathyways of land-use change.” (Lambin et al. 2001)

37. Continental extinction rates have increased from 10 -7 to 10 -4 species/species/year Nott, et al. 1995. Current Biology 5:14-17 Global Change and Biodiversity

38. (Chapin et al 2000)

39. Does it Matter? Hell Yes –Much is unknown, so save the parts Leopold’s advice for intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts –How many rivets can we pop? Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1983. Extinction: the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. New York: Ballatine Books –Biodiversity is connected to ecosystem function Loreau 2000; Tilman 2000; Chapin et al. 2000.

40. (Chapin et al. 2000)

41. (Sala et al. 2000) Expected Drivers of Changing Biodiversity

42. (Sala et al. 2000) Spatial Extent of Expected Changes

43. Wildlife Conservation in the Modern World Disease Climate cycles Conservation Costs and Benefits What can we do?? –Conservation planning –Economics –Ethics

44. Chronic Wasting Disease Misfolding of brain proteins may lead to brain “sponginess” (Prusiner 1982) Not a virus, a protein that warps other proteins Affects deer and elk in US (Williams et al. 2002) –20 years of affect –6% of deer in affected area, 1% of elk –Greater effect on ranched wildlife Spread to South Korea Same type of disease as mad cow and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Despite story to contrary there is no evidence that people get it by eating game Milus 2002

45. Cold Water

46. Affects on Mule Deer in Desert (Marshal et al. 2002) Relationship helps ecological understanding, but not enough to aid harvest quota management

47. Local Effects on Goshawk Prey (Bloxton et al.)

48. When prey decline, hawks have to move more

49. Lack of prey and increased movement lead to lower reproduction and survivorship

50. Population Changes Become Community Changes Outcomes are set by the interaction between intrinsic density dependence and extrinsic density independent processes like climate (Stenseth et al. 2002)

51. Case Studies Intensive resource use has greatest short-term, private (individual) benefits But this does not account for subsidies or non-marketed, global and local externalities that benefit society Recreation, carbon sequestration, natural resources, biodiversity, flood protection Accounting for all benefits finds a mean loss of 55% of total economic value by conversion (Balmford et al 2002)

52. Estimating Global Costs Of Habitat Loss and Habitat Preservation Annual rate of habitat conversion (1.2%) costs $250 B / yr (Balmford et al. 2002) Perverse Subsidies –German support for coal mining; US petrol costs, Ag subsidies, Fisheries subsidies, –$950-1950 B / yr (Myers 1998; Balmford et al. 2002) –$2,000 /year paid by average American Global Reserve System –30-45 B / yr (current budget is $6.5 B / yr) (Wilson 2002, Balmford et al. 2002) Using “hot spot” priorities could protect 70% of diversity

53. (Myers et al. 2000) 44% of all vascular plants and 35% of vertebrates are confined to 25 hotspots comprising 1.4% of Earth

54. (Cincotta et al. 2000) 20% of Human Population also live in the hotspots

55. What To Do? End Subsidies Diverting 5% would pay the habitat bill Global Treaties Montreal Protocol CFCs Kyoto CO2 Rio Biodiversity International Peace Parks (Korean DMZ) Incentives and compensation Credits, premium pricing for certification Ethics, Morals, Values (1170 plants, 83 fish, endangered birds, 67% of Korean mammals {51 sp}; Kim 1997 ) (Balmford et al 2002, Wilson 2002, Ferraro and Kiss 2002)

56. (Ferraro and Kiss 2002) Direct May be Better People respond to immediate, selfish needs Couple with long-term change in subsidies and longer-term change in morals

57. Leopold’s Land Ethic Conservation is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. That land is a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics. 1937 1995 (Leopold 1948)

58. Science, Ethics, and Nature (Nash 1990 in Agar 2001) The problem for the environment is that the nearly 12 billion feet busy trampling the life out of ecosystems belong to the most uncontroversial deservers of moral value.

59. Medicine / Biotechnology Novel Selective Regimes Changed Evolutionary Trajectories (Modified from Vitousek et al. 1996 to include Palumbi 2001) Economic, Ecological, Social Costs Biocentric Morality