The causes and consequences of global change are well-documented, as are mitigation and adaptation strategies. However, human actions continue to fail in building adequate socio-ecological resilience to the accelerating threats of global change. Translational science, which focuses on connecting scientific research to human benefits, is imperative to building resilience to a confluence of global change threats because it brings the implications of theory and empirical research into practice. Translational ecology, an approach to knowledge co-creation that is grounded in equitable, inclusive, empathetic, and just partnerships among administrators, policy makers, scholars, practitioners, and the public, has immense potential to bring about the rapid and expansive social, ecological and political changes necessary to build resilience to global change threats. Here, we articulate a need for greater engagement of ecologists and other professionals in translational initiatives addressing seven major resilience building challenges, and propose a framework that lowers barriers to participation and promotes stronger relationships among stakeholders. We recommend specific actions that ecologists can take based on their situation, as well as evidence and demonstrated need, to foster resilience building through their contributions to communication, policy, education, knowledge creation, leadership, and service as role models. We conclude with an urgent call for expansive engagement of ecologists and other professionals in initiatives that combat misinformation, partner equitably with communities in knowledge creation, cultivate empathy and compassion, bolster public trust in science, and ultimately build decentralized communities of practice that enable rapid and high-impact responses to global change.
The capacity of species to tolerate physical stressors is critical in a world of increasing environmental instability, however, past selective environments should dramatically impact on future stress tolerance, particularly in isolated populations. Through stabilising selection, long-term environmental stasis may reduce physiological tolerance, creating an evolutionary legacy where populations are less fit if environments change. Few empirical studies have investigated this evolutionary legacy of past selection, and of particular interest whether stabilising selection in a benign environment reduces stress tolerance in natural systems. Here we use multiple populations of salt-lake invertebrates (Coxiella striata, Austrochiltonia subtenuis) with either stable or fluctuating environmental histories to investigate the relationship between stabilising selection and environmental stress resistance. Tolerance to both salinity and temperature stress were examined in invertebrate populations from lakes with long-term (decadal) stable environments and compared with populations from lakes with extreme salinity variations. Individuals from stable environments demonstrated significantly lower survival under both increasing salinity and temperature stresses when compared with environmentally unstable populations. Our results support the hypothesis that the evolutionary legacy from stabilising selection in constant environments leads to reduced stress tolerance. This finding demonstrates that under an increasingly variable climate, the evolutionary legacies of populations will be critical for future survival and adaptation.
Stony coral tissue loss disease (SCTLD) was first observed in September 2014 near Virginia Key, Florida. In roughly six years, the disease spread throughout Florida and into the greater Caribbean basin. The high prevalence of SCTLD and high resulting mortality in coral populations, and the large number of susceptible species affected, suggest that this outbreak is one of the most lethal ever recorded. The initial recognition and management response to this catastrophic disease in Florida was slow, which delayed the start of monitoring programs and prevented coordinated research programs by at least two years. The slow management response was a result of several factors that operated concurrently. First, the Port Miami dredging project was ongoing during the coral disease epidemic and dredging rather than SCTLD was blamed by some managers and local environmental groups for the extreme coral losses reported in the project’s compliance monitoring program. Second, this blame was amplified in the media because dredging projects are intuitively assumed to be bad for coral reefs. Third, during this same time State of Florida policy prohibited government employees to acknowledge global warming in their work. This was problematic because ocean warming is a proximal cause of many coral diseases. As a result, the well-known links between warming and coral disease were ignored. A consequence of this policy was that the dredging project provided an easy target to blame for the coral mortality noted in the monitoring program, despite convincing data that suggested otherwise. Specifically, results from the intensive compliance monitoring program, conducted by trained scientific divers, were clear. SCTLD that was killing massive numbers of corals throughout Florida was also killing corals at the dredge site – and in the same proportions and among the same suite of species. While eradication of the disease was never a possibility, early control measures may have slowed its spread or allowed for the rescue of significant numbers of large colonies of iconic species. This coral disease outbreak has similarities to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and there are lessons learned from both that will improve disease response outcomes in the future, to the benefit of coral reefs and human populations.
Throughout the history of life on earth, rare and complex innovations have periodically increased the efficiency with which abiotic free energy and biotic resources are converted to biomass and organismal diversity. Such macroevolutionary expansions have increased the total amount of abiotic free energy utilized by life and shaped the earth’s ecosystems. Meanwhile, Darwin’s theory of natural selection assumes a historical, worldwide state of effective resource limitation, which could not possibly be true if life evolved from one or a few original ancestors. In this paper, I analyze the self-contradiction in Darwin’s theory that comes from viewing the world and universe as effectively resource limited. I then extend evolutionary theory to include a second deterministic evolutionary force, natural reward. Natural reward operates on complex inventions produced by natural selection and is analogous to the reward for innovation in human economic systems. I hypothesize that natural reward, when combined with climate change and extinction, leads to the increased innovativeness, or what I call the advancement, of life with time. I then discuss applications of the theory of natural reward to the evolution of evolvability, the apparent sudden appearance of new forms in the fossil record, and human economic evolution. I conclude that the theory of natural reward holds promise as an explanation for the historical advancement of life on earth.
The Earth’s biodiversity is currently experiencing immense pressure from habitat loss, overexploitation, global climate change, and invasive species, which escalate the global extinction crisis. Comprehensive knowledge of the extent and impact of biodiversity loss is therefore critical for determining species vulnerability and prioritizing conservation goals. An integral part of wildlife conservation research and management is nowadays genetic sampling. Animal DNA has been traditionally obtained invasively, from blood or other tissues, however public concerns over animal welfare require that animals are affected as little as possible during research. One of the ways to minimize the impact on wildlife animal welfare is to use non-invasive genetic sampling. Even though non-invasive genetic sampling techniques have been developed for many animal species, it is not clear how often they are being implemented. Here, I present an overview of recently published articles on genetics in amphibians, birds, carnivores, molluscs and rodents, for which I examined whether they used a lethal, invasive or non-invasive DNA sampling technique. Disappointingly, only 22% of the identified relevant studies implemented the available non-invasive genetic sampling method. I conclude highlighting the need for better implementation of non-invasive DNA collection methods in wildlife research through raising awareness, increasing financial support, and introducing more stringent criteria for obtaining research permits.
